-
After Dr Vincent Tabak was arrested, there were many questions people had be speculating about hoping for the answers to come out at trial... I being one of them..
One of the major issues I had with the trial and what also started me to really question Dr Vincent Tabak guilt was the distain the defence Counsel had for their own client.. It concerned me greatly..
How can they influence a jury as to the guilt of their own client rather than show mitigating circumstances as to why it was a Manslaughter plea Or Object at the many discrepencies that the prosecutions case posed.
There are many examples of the lack of Defending the Defence council did (IMO) below are some of the comments...
1: his conduct after Yeates died when he hid the body was “frankly disgusting” and had caused untold anguish and agony to her family.
2: “I’m not going to ask you to like Vincent Tabak. There’s probably nothing to like.”
3: And Miss Morson seems to agree, having failed to make a single appearance at court.
4: He had told “lie after lie to the police.
5: “did everything he could to cover his tracks”.
6: He added that he would not try to justify Tabak’s actions after her death, saying his client was “living a lie” by attending dinner parties and attempting to carry on his life as normal.
7: “I’m not going to ask you to have any sympathy for him. He deserves none.
8: “I’m not going to ask you to excuse his conduct. There can be no excuse.
9: “If I was to set out to win a popularity contest I would lose.
10: He told the court: “Of course, afterwards his behaviour is utterly disgraceful. It’s not going to be justified by me
With comments like these who needs enemies???? (IMO)
1810
-
William Clegg QC has a long history of defending difficult clients, some of whom were presumably bad characters with plenty of previous, and even men accused of war crimes. The remarks on your long list might well have been used by him before, and would have been appropriate to defend, e.g., a Balkan guerrilla who had been present at the massacre of women and children. But to put these same remarks to a jury confronted with the placid Vincent Tabak, who had never been inside a police station before, never had a parking ticket, and was normally cheerful and in robust good health, is a curiosity, to put it mildly.
That is only the beginning of the strange Mr Clegg's defence.
The Prosecutor had a strong case for claiming that Joanna Yeates was murdered (rather than killed accidentally) - even though the evidence that it was Vincent Tabak (rather than another person) who killed her was much weaker - and was not actually tested in court:
(1) Strangling someone accidentally is improbable, unless the victim has a health issue, or the strangler and/or the victim is seriously under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs
(2) Joanna's body sustained 43 injuries, at least some of them incurred prior to death
(3) Her boyfriend testified to "strange movements" indicating a sustained struggle in the flat.
Mr. Clegg certainly knew about points 1 and 2 beforehand, though it is possible that point 3 was not known to the defence until they heard it in court. Nevertheless, his team made no attempt whatsoever to mitigate the damaging influence of these items of evidence on the jury.
(1) Joanna was known to have health issues, as she suffered from really bad headaches, and had been off work the day before she was at the Bristol Ram pub. Mr. Clegg should have ensured that the court heard evidence of her health. He should have cross-examined the pathologist to establish the actual alcohol content of Joanna's blood, as the percentage that the jury heard was hearsay.
(2) Mr. Clegg should have challenged the location at which witnesses in court alleged the body was found, so as to show that at least some of the bruises and grazes were attributable, not to the attack by her assailant, but by the circumstances that handicapped recovery of the body and required fire engines and a crane.
(3) Counsel should have cross-examined Greg Reardon to challenge his claim that he had tidied up the flat so that there were no "strange movements" for Joanna's parents to fall over when they arrived.
Having unaccountably decided to allow his client to admit having entered Joanna's flat at all, letting Vincent Tabak deny categorically that there was any struggle was a giveaway. Since she couldn't tell her side of the story, they didn't HAVE to pretend that Joanna was sparkling one minute, and screaming the next. There was absolutely no need to introduce flirting and kissing, as this could only lead to disaster. It is not my job to speculate, but he could have claimed instead to have inadvertently provoked a tipsy, temperamental Joanna into a rage, for example by declaring that Chris Bates was bound to win the final of "The Apprentice", or that he hated cats, or that she had the sound on her TV turned up so loud that it interfered with the classical music he had been listening to.
-
Defence Counsel, Mr William Clegg, QC’s opening speech:
‘If Jo Yeates had stayed for just one more drink she would be alive today. If Vincent
Tabak had gone to Asda as he had planned that same time, he would not be in the dock
today.
She turned on the oven to bake.
She phoned several male friends and told how she was bored.
She texted Samuel Ashcroft:
“Where are you this fine eve?”
His reply was “Home- sorry”.
She then texted Peter: “Where are you?”
Peter replied “On my way to a wedding. Where are you?”
She replied: “At home- on my todd”.
She texted a third male friend
She has said she was bored and she was looking for company.
It was the Christmas period and many people were at parties.
In the next flat was Vincent Tabak.
They never really knew each other, save for a nod.
Vincent Tabak was also alone- and bored.
He decided to go to Asda – not for anything special but to fill in time.
He left his flat; was walking towards his car and went past her kitchen window.
The kitchen blind was broken and so stayed up all the time, as Greg Reardon had
confirmed.
Vincent was walking towards his car when he passed Joanna’s kitchen window. She saw
him, there was a nod of acknowledgement and she beckoned him to come in. She had
opened the door and invited him in.
He took off his coat.
He hung it on her coat rack.
She offered him a drink and he declined as he was driving.
She said her boyfriend was away and she was alone and he said that his girlfriend was
away and he was alone.
Vincent Tabak misread her friendliness toward him and made a move towards her as if he
was about to kiss him on her lips.
He put one hand in the middle of her back as if he was about to kiss her, and she screamed
fiercely.
He put his hand over her mouth and said sorry and when he moved his hand away she
screamed again.
He put his hand to her mouth and throat and she went limp. She was dead.
He had never touched her before other than to shake hands as he went into her flat.
That moment was all it took and she was dead.
Nothing was timed.
He thinks that maybe he was in the flat for 10 minutes before she screamed.
The incident when he put her hand on his throat was far less than a minute.
Defence expert Dr Carey will give evidence on Friday 21 December 2010 on this matter.
Prosecution pathologist expert witness, Dr Delaney, said on 18 October that it may well
have been 10 seconds.
Those arriving at the party at Number 53 said they heard screams.
It is for the jury to decide whether a scream from inside Flat 1 could be heard from
outside 53 Canynge Road.
The jury will have to decide whether anybody could have heard.
But one thing is that three witnesses heard screams spread out over some ten minutes.
This cannot be.
The couple arriving outside number 53, a short time after they were filmed on CCTV at
number 83.
But the weather conditions were icy. How long did it take them to get there?
Warren Sweet said he did not arrive at Number 53’s party until 8.50pm on Friday 17
December 2010.
When he arrived at No. 53, Warren Sweet said he heard a scream. That cannot be the
same scream that the couple heard.
The reaction of all four people who heard screams was initially put down to students out
celebrating as term had finished that day.
You may think that the whole of those screams is totally unconnected.
You just couldn’t hear anybody from that distance.
This does mean that one really hasn’t got a real clue as to when Tabak went into
Joanna’s flat except that it was between the time he went to Asda and the time he texted
his girlfriend, say, between 9.00 pm and 11.00 pm.
Were you to conclude that the couple heard Joanna’s screams and not the scream that Mr
Sweet heard; if the Laymans and Sweet‘s evidence were to be dismissed, it would tie in
with the scientific evidence.
One thing is certain. Joanna Yeates was killed between 21.00 and 21.30 pm on Friday 17
December 2010.
It was not something he planned.
It was, in the words of Dr Delaney, expert prosecution pathologist witness, that death had
occurred in less than half a minute; less than 20 seconds, less than 10 seconds even.
A very important piece of evidence is that what Tabak wrote in his statement is nearly the
same and corroborated the undisputed pathologist expert witnesses.But his conduct
afterwards was frankly disgusting.
He took her body and disposed of it.
He caused anguish to her family.
His defence will not be heard to excuse this behaviour.
He was obviously concerned with the incident, trying to track everything.
It was only a matter of time before the police came to arrest him.
Again he told lie after lie and you will hear no excuse from me about that. It shows a very
calculating person trying to wriggle out of her death but it does not help in thinking of
what happened at the flat….
He went to his flat and left Joanna’s flat door on the latch.
He returned.
He turned off the oven that she had turned on.
He took the Tesco pizza that was in the kitchen.
He carried the body from her flat to his flat.
He then put her body in the bag that he used to cover his bike.
He then went to get his car, placed the body in the boot of his car, went to Asda, a trip he
formerly planned, and drove aimlessly around whilst deciding what to do.
He tried to put the body over the wall.
It was too heavy and so he left it by the roadside.
When he got back home, he put the pizza, the cycle cover and the sock into a corporate
dustbin.
And then, despite the awful secret that he was carrying, he tried to carry on as before:
going to parties, living with his girlfriend, etc, instead of going to the police.
There will be no excuse from me for that. He will be called to give evidence on Thursday
20 October
He is not being tried for his behaviour after Joanna died. He is not being tried for
dumping the body. What he is being tried for is whether he killed Joanna Yeates,
intending to kill or cause really serious harm to her, or whether, he panicked and did it
without thinking of the consequences.
Most of what the prosecution has stated does not go this fact: it goes to what happened
afterwards.’
From : http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf Sally Ramage
I find inconsistencies within this opening speech!!!!!
-
Defence Counsel, Mr William Clegg, QC’s opening speech:
Nothing was timed.
Well I will agree with him on that score.... NOTHING was timed!!!
(1): Trip to Asda
(2): trip to Longwood Lane
(3): The difficulties moving a dead weight around a flat then outside round the building into another flat etc etc.....
(4): The ability to dispose of a body without being seen..
(5): The exact time Joanna Yeates arrived home....
The defence contradicts themselves on many occasions.... With the opening statement saying Joanna Yeates died between 9:00pm and 9:30pm, they don't realise they go on to say later when Dr Vincent Tabak is on the witness stand that he was at home till 9:29pm....
One thing is certain. Joanna Yeates was killed between 21.00 and 21.30 pm on Friday 17
December 2010.
Well... it couldn't have been your client if you have him in his flat till 9:29pm!!!!!
Defence Counsel: Can you look at item where you sent message to Tanja ‘missing you’
Can you remember if you sent it before you decided to go to Asda.
Recapping- you come off the Internet at 7.37pm (our entry 47) & remain in your flat until
9.29pm (our entry 88).
Which gives him exactly 1 minute to commit this crime......
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
From The Mirror :Dated 11th October 211
"I remember at some point before he was arrested but after Joanna was known to be missing that Tanja and I were staying at her parents' house in Cambridge for Christmas," Tabak's statement said.
"The police had phoned us at least twice while we were there. Tanja and I discussed the business of being asked to help move his car in the icy drive on Saturday December 18.
"Tanja felt maybe we should tell the police but I thought it might wrongly incriminate him and that it probably wasn't important."
With Dr Vincent Tabak refering to Tanja Morson,you would think that was even more reason for her to have been a witness, so she could confirm or deny his statement.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murder-trial-vincent-275169
-
Another question.....
If they had Greg Reardon on the stand as a witness, why didn't they have Mr and Mrs Yeates on the stand,... they witnessed the same as Greg... They arrived at the flat being void of their daughter...
I say this because her father found her earring I think underneath the clothes on the floor.. (wish I could find the article... or maybe I've heard him say it on video...)
So, why was just Greg a witness?????????
-
Another question.....
If they had Greg Reardon on the stand as a witness, why didn't they have Mr and Mrs Yeates on the stand,... they witnessed the same as Greg... They arrived at the flat being void of their daughter...
I say this because her father found her earring I think underneath the clothes on the floor.. (wish I could find the article... or maybe I've heard him say it on video...)
So, why was just Greg a witness?????????
Most sources report that Greg told the court that it was he who found the earrings.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/boyfriends-panic-over-missing-joanna-yeates-2371910.html
"Mr Reardon said that he found a pair of his girlfriend's earrings in the bedroom. One was in the bed and the other earring was on the floor under some clothes. Mr Reardon said that he only found one of the fasteners and that usually when she removed her earrings she left them on the bedside table."
It would have been more than "helpful" if Joanna's parents too had gone into the witness box, especially to tell the court what they saw in the flat that convinced them within 30 minutes of their arrival that Joanna had been abducted. At the time of the first TV appeal, they appeared to have an open mind, so both Greg and the police may have persuaded them that she might have left of her own volition. Rebecca Scott was called by the prosecution to testify that Jo and Greg were "the real deal".
-
Most sources report that Greg told the court that it was he who found the earrings.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/boyfriends-panic-over-missing-joanna-yeates-2371910.html
"Mr Reardon said that he found a pair of his girlfriend's earrings in the bedroom. One was in the bed and the other earring was on the floor under some clothes. Mr Reardon said that he only found one of the fasteners and that usually when she removed her earrings she left them on the bedside table."
It would have been more than "helpful" if Joanna's parents too had gone into the witness box, especially to tell the court what they saw in the flat that convinced them within 30 minutes of their arrival that Joanna had been abducted. At the time of the first TV appeal, they appeared to have an open mind, so both Greg and the police may have persuaded them that she might have left of her own volition. Rebecca Scott was called by the prosecution to testify that Jo and Greg were "the real deal".
Have you got any of Rebecca Scotts testimony... I'd be really interested to find out about that phone call she had with Joanna Yeates that originally lasted for 15 minutes, yet it couldn't have done as she was seen in Tesco at 8:36pm and Rebecca Scott says she rang at 8:30pm and of course Joanna Yeates is not talking to anyone as she buys her Pizza!!
-
Have you got any of Rebecca Scotts testimony... I'd be really interested to find out about that phone call she had with Joanna Yeates that originally lasted for 15 minutes, yet it couldn't have done as she was seen in Tesco at 8:36pm and Rebecca Scott says she rang at 8:30pm and of course Joanna Yeates is not talking to anyone as she buys her Pizza!!
It was at 8.30 p.m. on 17th December 2010, Rebecca Scott said, when Joanna called her and said how she would like to see her in Swansea, where her best friend was studying for a Ph.D. Rebecca Scott said that the winter snow had left buses and trains cancelled, and she was staying in that night. She told the court: “We had a laugh and a joke about the previous time we had seen each other. She wasn’t drunk at all. She was just Jo. She was perfectly normal.”
Some reports of Rebecca’s testimony give the timing of the call as 8.13 p.m., but this may be due to her tendency to slur her words and the close resemblance between the sound of “thirty” and “thirteen”.
-
It was at 8.30 p.m. on 17th December 2010, Rebecca Scott said, when Joanna called her and said how she would like to see her in Swansea, where her best friend was studying for a Ph.D. Rebecca Scott said that the winter snow had left buses and trains cancelled, and she was staying in that night. She told the court: “We had a laugh and a joke about the previous time we had seen each other. She wasn’t drunk at all. She was just Jo. She was perfectly normal.”
Some reports of Rebecca’s testimony give the timing of the call as 8.13 p.m., but this may be due to her tendency to slur her words and the close resemblance between the sound of “thirty” and “thirteen”.
Surely she would have signed a witness statement which states the exact time of this phone call!!!
Still would make a 15 minutes phone call impossible as she was seen going from shop to shop Not speaking on the telephone... she did look at a text whilst in Bargain Booze, and went back to get another bottle of cider as her mother said on a video!!
-
Surely she would have signed a witness statement which states the exact time of this phone call!!!
Still would make a 15 minutes phone call impossible as she was seen going from shop to shop Not speaking on the telephone... she did look at a text whilst in Bargain Booze, and went back to get another bottle of cider as her mother said on a video!!
I agree. Rebecca Scott gave a video interview to the press at the time, and even answered questions:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/video/2011/jan/12/joanna-yeates-final-phone-call-video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w24ccKZqsH4
-
Regarding the earrings, the ones that were found in the flat were not the ones Jo had been wearing that day. I read that when she was found, her ear studs were still in place------trouble is, I don't remember where I read it!
-
Regarding the earrings, the ones that were found in the flat were not the ones Jo had been wearing that day. I read that when she was found, her ear studs were still in place------trouble is, I don't remember where I read it!
I'll find it mrswah... I am positive it was the ear-ring she was wearing that day... and I'm sure it was her father who found the one under her clothing... I believe it was the back of her earring that was still attached to her ear!!
-
I'll find it mrswah... I am positive it was the ear-ring she was wearing that day... and I'm sure it was her father who found the one under her clothing... I believe it was the back of her earring that was still attached to her ear!!
The attack may have started in the hallway, which was found in a chaotic state. It could have continued in the bedroom: one of the earrings Yeates is thought to have been wearing was discovered beneath the duvet. T
Still need to find the quote or video of her dad saying he found her other earr-ing underneath clothes on the floor...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/28/joanna-yeates-case-vincent-tabak
-
I was thinking about the sentencing of Dr Vincent Tabak and how quickly the Judge passed sentence, there was NO medical reports made as mitigating circumstances.. No leniency for a plea of guilty.. I don't remember any victim impact statements..
How did the Judge come to his decision based on what??? Surely Dr Vincent Tabaks behaviour whilst in custody was without fault..
Why didn't the judge defer sentencing whilst all the reports came in????
Where were the background reports???
Verdicts and sentencing
After listening to all the evidence in a case the District Judge or a jury, in a Crown Court, will decide on whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. If the defendant is found guilty, the judge in the case will decide on the appropriate sentence.
If a defendant is found not guilty, by the magistrate, jury or judge, they will be 'acquitted' and free to go.
If the defendant pleads guilty or is found guilty by the judge or jury, they are convicted and the judge will pass sentence.
If you are a victim or witness in the case and have left the court before the trial has ended and would like to know the outcome of the case, you can contact the person who asked you to come to court. They will be able to give you the information on the sentence. Their contact details should be on any correspondence they send to you.
Sentencing considerations and options
Sentencing may be carried out on the day of the trial or it may be adjourned to get reports, or it may be deferred (put back to a future date) to see how the defendant behaves. If it is deferred, the defendant will have to come back to court at a later date to receive their sentence.
It is the judge alone who decides on the sentence. They are guided by a number of considerations:
the maximum sentence they can give, which is usually set by Parliament for the offence
whether the defendant pleaded guilty or not - if the defendant pleaded guilty, the judge can reduce (discount) the sentence, the biggest discount will usually be given for those who plead guilty at the earliest opportunity
the level of sentences in similar cases in the past - this is called ‘case law’
the powers of the court - a Crown Court can issue much higher penalties than a magistrates’ court
any ‘pleas in mitigation’ or circumstances set out in background reports
any Victim Impact Report, which is prepared by an expert, for example a psychologist
any Victim Impact Statement made by the victim of the crime
The judge can give either a custodial or non-custodial sentence
https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/verdicts-and-sentencing
-
Have you got any of Rebecca Scotts testimony... I'd be really interested to find out about that phone call she had with Joanna Yeates that originally lasted for 15 minutes, yet it couldn't have done as she was seen in Tesco at 8:36pm and Rebecca Scott says she rang at 8:30pm and of course Joanna Yeates is not talking to anyone as she buys her Pizza!!
Whyever not? I see people in the supermarket all the time speaking on their mobile phone as they shop.
Some minor edits have been carried out on this thread according to forum rules.
-
OMG.... Have I had a eureka moment???????
I don't know I could be mistaken, but lets see......
3.3. The court clerk told the jury that Vincent Tabak was charged with the ‘murder of
Joanna Yeates between 16 and 19 December last year’. He informed the jury that the
defendant had pleaded ‘not guilty’ to murder and that it was the jury's job to say whether
he was guilty or not, of murder.
I think I have been missing this all along....... it was a Murder Trial, plain and simple if what I am reading here is correct....
The Manslaughter plea didn't count as far as I am reading into this... He was being tried for MURDER!!!!! where does it say if he's found not guilty that it would be Manslaughter?????
I think maybe it an assumpsion... I could be wrong, but if he was found not guilty would the Manslaughter plea still stand??????
Did the Jury have the option to find him guilty of Manslaughter?????
Was that ever a possibility??? If they had found him NOT Guilty ... then what????? what would have happened then???
We have all assumed ,if I am correct that he would have been found guilty of manslaughter... am I on the right track here??? or have I got it wrong???
So if he was found NOT GUILTY.. could he then change his Manslaughter Plea ???? And knowing what evidence was available be able to have a proper defence??? Or would the judge sentence him on the Manslaughter Plea???
Is that it...... They only had to find him GUILTY of MURDER??????? They had NO Other Choice?????
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
Is that it.... he's been charged with MURDER!!!!
What did he sign???? A statement of what was supposed to be what happened on the 17th December 2010???
When he went to court in September what did he actually sign???????? A statement to events????
The Plea is codswallop!!! Think about it..... everyone knew he made the plea... So we are told that he only has to be found guilty or not of Murder, and without repeating myself ,which of course I'm gonna do... The court case "TRIAL" was a murder trial!!!
Plain....Simple as that.... So when the Jury retired they had to find him guilty of "Murder" OR "NOT GUILTY og "Murder"
That is why you have a jury undecided.... He's apparently admitted to Manslaughter so they know he is guilty of something...
But was it there choice to find him guilty of Manslaughter..... I don't think do..... The Charge was "MURDER"...
So if a jury going to a jury room have only 2 choices Guilty or Not guilty... what do they do if they find him NOT Guilty, when they believe he has killed her, because of the statement and him sitting on the stand!!!
They are going for the guilty... if there isn't an option to find for Manslaughter,...
Does anyone know what the choices the Jury had?????
EDIT:..... The Plea is the Prosecutions Evidence that it was Dr Vincent Tabak... the Plea alone is what buried him, they had NO evidence apart from this Plea, thats what I feel uncomfortable with, something is extremely Unsound here!!! (IMO)
-
OMG.... Have I had a eureka moment???????
...
That is brilliant, Pythagoras! It does mean that, when delivering their verdict, the foreman of the jury could in principle have told the judge that they believed they hadn't heard all the evidence, and that they were sceptical about the testimony given by the defendant. However, I sympathise with the youthful jury in deliberating as they did - they were entitled to trust the judge, who, yawning, had failed to live up to their reasonable expectations.
-
That is brilliant, Pythagoras! It does mean that, when delivering their verdict, the foreman of the jury could in principle have told the judge that they believed they hadn't heard all the evidence, and that they were sceptical about the testimony given by the defendant. However, I sympathise with the youthful jury in deliberating as they did - they were entitled to trust the judge, who, yawning, had failed to live up to their reasonable expectations.
What choices did the jury have.... a simple question... they may have been able to ask questions, but as far as the trial was concerned, where the choices simply to do with the charge of "Murder"???
(1): Guilty of Murder
(2): Not Guilty of Murder
I go for clarity, when reminded recently about a case of Joint enterprise, when one of the defendants was clearly guilty and the other defendant was clearly innocent... The judge directed the jury to find them BOTH GUILTY or Both INNOCENT....
The Jury went for Guilty!!! unfair but true....
So... what and how did the Judge direct the jury in this case?????
-
Whyever not? I see people in the supermarket all the time speaking on their mobile phone as they shop.
Some minor edits have been carried out on this thread according to forum rules.
I am too busy posting on internet forums to go into supermarkets myself, but I have people to do that for me. However, I have heard that it is common for people to multi-task in this way. Be that as it may, none of the CCTV captured of Joanna herself shows her using her mobile phone at all. The court was evidently shown some CCTV footage that was not made public, since one of the news media reported that she was seen texting while she was in Bargain Booze. This struck me as curious, since none of the timings reported for the texts she sent corresponds with the time she was in Bargain Booze. These timings, of course, were not confirmed by a witness under oath, so they should be treated as hearsay.
-
...
So... what and how did the Judge direct the jury in this case?????
"It is your task to decide if you are sure that when he strangled Joanna he intended to kill her or at the very least cause her really serious harm," said the judge. "If you are sure your verdict will be guilty. If you are not sure your verdict must be not guilty."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/26/joanna-yeates-vincent-tabak-jury
-
"It is your task to decide if you are sure that when he strangled Joanna he intended to kill her or at the very least cause her really serious harm," said the judge. "If you are sure your verdict will be guilty. If you are not sure your verdict must be not guilty."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/26/joanna-yeates-vincent-tabak-jury
So they only had 2 choices........ EUREKA!!!!!
-
Question?????
Is the Plea ever mentioned at the Murder Trial ?????
This is extremely important..... Does the fact that at The Old Bailey.. Dr Vincent Tabak entered a Plea ever get mentioned in The murder trial??????
I don't believe it does!!!!! Someone enlighten me please
This is from The Plea Topic....
I'll ask why the defence even bothered putting Dr Vincent Tabak on the witness stand?????
If they only has 2 choices... Guilty or Not Guilty of Murder... why on earth did the defence council put their client on the witness stand???????
This is really worrying.... The prosecutions case was weak!!! they had nothing....
So I'll ask again and again....WHY did the defence put Dr Vincent Tabak on the witness stand???????
The only evidence that he apparently committed this crime is his EXTREMELY WEAK STATEMENT... where was the proof to back this statement up???
They could have quite simply made the prosecution prove that he even did this crime.... he could have withdrawn his plea at anytime.... He didn't NEED to take the STAND!!!!
The Defence buried him in more ways than one (IMO)....
-
"It is your task to decide if you are sure that when he strangled Joanna he intended to kill her or at the very least cause her really serious harm," said the judge. "If you are sure your verdict will be guilty. If you are not sure your verdict must be not guilty."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/26/joanna-yeates-vincent-tabak-jury
The judge told the jury that the task of deciding on a verdict was a heavy responsibility. Manslaughter was a serious offence but murder a "much graver one".
But it doesn't state that their choice was Manslaughter... that has just been accepted as given, he's letting them know which is a more serious offence, not that they have the option as far as I can tell.... But adds weight in peoples mind that Manslaughter had been mentioned at The Old Bailey...
If Manslaughter is NOT an Option for the Jury... why does the Judge even mention it??????
He explained that for the panel to convict Tabak of murder it must be sure that he had intended to kill Yeates or cause her really serious bodily injury.
So... Murder or Not????
Tabak, 33, has admitted the manslaughter of his neighbour but denies her murder.
This is a statement by the newspaper and not the judge..... Keeping in the publics mind that he committed this crime...
Still the Jury have on 2 choices....
He explained that for the panel to convict Tabak of murder it must be sure that he had intended to kill Yeates or cause her really serious bodily injury.
It doesn't say anything about Manslaughter!!!! we just presume!!!!
Field spelled out how crucial parts of Tabak's story had only emerged when his defence began in court. He reminded the panel that the prosecution alleged he had "tailored" or "invented" his case.
Yes I agree with the Prosecution..... the whole tale on the stand was invented!!!! because it didn't happen (IMO)
So If he hadn't taken the stand... would he have been found guilty of MURDER??????? I don't believe so....
What on earth was this trial.... It gets weirder the more you look at it....
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/26/joanna-yeates-vincent-tabak-jury
-
My retired-lawyer husband tells me that someone in VT's position, who had pleaded guilty to manslaughter, but charged with murder, would normally be convicted of manslaughter if not found guilty of murder.
The only exception would be, if the prosecution really messed up, and the judge decided there was no case to answer, or if the judge didn't believe the confession, or if he thought the defendant needed a psychiatric assessment, very rare, but possible, apparently.
Oh, those mobile phone addicts in supermarkets------don't they get on your nerves!!!!
-
I am too busy posting on internet forums to go into supermarkets myself, but I have people to do that for me. However, I have heard that it is common for people to multi-task in this way. Be that as it may, none of the CCTV captured of Joanna herself shows her using her mobile phone at all. The court was evidently shown some CCTV footage that was not made public, since one of the news media reported that she was seen texting while she was in Bargain Booze. This struck me as curious, since none of the timings reported for the texts she sent corresponds with the time she was in Bargain Booze. These timings, of course, were not confirmed by a witness under oath, so they should be treated as hearsay.
Yep, I agree with you here, Leonora!!!
Lucky old you, having someone to go to the supermarket for you. I am insanely jealous!!!!
-
I am too busy posting on internet forums to go into supermarkets myself, but I have people to do that for me. However, I have heard that it is common for people to multi-task in this way. Be that as it may, none of the CCTV captured of Joanna herself shows her using her mobile phone at all. The court was evidently shown some CCTV footage that was not made public, since one of the news media reported that she was seen texting while she was in Bargain Booze. This struck me as curious, since none of the timings reported for the texts she sent corresponds with the time she was in Bargain Booze. These timings, of course, were not confirmed by a witness under oath, so they should be treated as hearsay.
I can't find the video of her mother... but her mother says something along the lines of:... Joanna Buys 1 bottle of cider, looks at her phone and goes back to buy another bottle of cider, because it made Jo's mum smile when her mum says that...
These CCTV's need a proper look at!!
As for working out text timings... She phoned several male friends and told how she was bored.
She texted Samuel Ashcroft:
“Where are you this fine eve?”
His reply was “Home- sorry”.
She then texted Peter: “Where are you?”
Peter replied “On my way to a wedding. Where are you?”
She replied: “At home- on my todd”.
She texted a third male friend.
What time did she reply... At Home on my Tod'??????
Interestingly NOT divulged!!!!!!!
-
The first man friend she contacted on her way was BDP architect Samuel Huscroft, who had planned to go to the Bristol Ram pub with the others, but who went home instead, as he was not feeling well. She texted him: “Where are you this fine evening?” He texted back but claims that he did not receive a reply.
She also contacted a former colleague, Peter Lindsell. At 8.12 p.m. she texted him: “Peter, where art thou?! Jx”. He replied immediately that he was about to board a train at Bristol’s “Ye Olde Temple Meads” Station to Reading, where he was attending a wedding that weekend.
At 8.24 p.m. she texted Peter Lindsell again: “On my tod, just thinking about how much fun your birthday was.” He thought this was an odd comment, because she was referring to his BBQ in April 2009, and could not think why she would make that comment. He replied at 8.25 p.m., offering to meet up with Joanna and Greg for a drink – either before Christmas or after. “I took it from her text that she was at a loose end, which is why I suggested the drink, because I had not seen Greg or Jo for such a long time,” he said. “After that text, I didn’t hear any more from Jo, but didn't think that was unusual.”
-
The first man friend she contacted on her way was BDP architect Samuel Huscroft, who had planned to go to the Bristol Ram pub with the others, but who went home instead, as he was not feeling well. She texted him: “Where are you this fine evening?” He texted back but claims that he did not receive a reply.
She also contacted a former colleague, Peter Lindsell. At 8.12 p.m. she texted him: “Peter, where art thou?! Jx”. He replied immediately that he was about to board a train at Bristol’s “Ye Olde Temple Meads” Station to Reading, where he was attending a wedding that weekend.
At 8.24 p.m. she texted Peter Lindsell again: “On my tod, just thinking about how much fun your birthday was.” He thought this was an odd comment, because she was referring to his BBQ in April 2009, and could not think why she would make that comment. He replied at 8.25 p.m., offering to meet up with Joanna and Greg for a drink – either before Christmas or after. “I took it from her text that she was at a loose end, which is why I suggested the drink, because I had not seen Greg or Jo for such a long time,” he said. “After that text, I didn’t hear any more from Jo, but didn't think that was unusual.”
I understand what you say leonora...
but I'm taking the texts from the Sally Ramage papers and believe what she writes must be accurate...
And Joanna Yeates Reply is that she is "At home.. on my Tod"...
Thats why I questioned it... and what time she arrived home...
would you link were you got your info from please..
-
I understand what you say leonora...
but I'm taking the texts from the Sally Ramage papers and believe what she writes must be accurate...
And Joanna Yeates Reply is that she is "At home.. on my Tod"...
Thats why I questioned it... and what time she arrived home...
would you link were you got your info from please..
The text I posted was my own compilation from several different sources. The following link is typical:
http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/joanna-yeates-dreading-spending-weekend/story-13546661-detail/story.html
No other source suggested that Joanna could have been at home by 8.24 p.m., so I think that on this point Sally Ramage was mistaken. I suspect that "at home" refers to Samuel Huscroft.
-
The text I posted was my own compilation from several different sources. The following link is typical:
http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/joanna-yeates-dreading-spending-weekend/story-13546661-detail/story.html
No other source suggested that Joanna could have been at home by 8.24 p.m., so I think that on this point Sally Ramage was mistaken. I suspect that "at home" refers to Samuel Huscroft.
No it's her reply to peter.....
She phoned several male friends and told how she was bored.
She texted Samuel Ashcroft:
“Where are you this fine eve?”
His reply was “Home- sorry”.
She then texted Peter: “Where are you?”
Peter replied “On my way to a wedding. Where are you?”
She replied: “At home- on my todd”.
She texted a third male friend.
Samuel Ashcroft was "At Home".... but her reply it to Peter who is going to a wedding and is at the station in Bristol.. So that is why I am questioning it.....
What time did she send Peter a reply.....????
Again I believe no one takes notice.... because they already KNOW that Samuel Ashcroft had mentioned the words "At Home"...
So it being mentioned again.. I think it just gets over looked... But it was Joanna Yeates reply to PETER!!
The third male friend is kept quite... don't know the timings of that and what was said!!
-
The text I posted was my own compilation from several different sources. The following link is typical:
http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/joanna-yeates-dreading-spending-weekend/story-13546661-detail/story.html
No other source suggested that Joanna could have been at home by 8.24 p.m., so I think that on this point Sally Ramage was mistaken. I suspect that "at home" refers to Samuel Huscroft.
I always got the impression that Joanna texted these friends on the way home, rather than at home.
-
No it's her reply to peter.....
Samuel Ashcroft was "At Home".... but her reply it to Peter who is going to a wedding and is at the station in Bristol.. So that is why I am questioning it.....
What time did she send Peter a reply.....????
Again I believe no one takes notice.... because they already KNOW that Samuel Ashcroft had mentioned the words "At Home"...
So it being mentioned again.. I think it just gets over looked... But it was Joanna Yeates reply to PETER!!
The third male friend is kept quite... don't know the timings of that and what was said!!
Jurors also heard a statement from Matthew Wood, who was a school friend of Miss Yeates' older brother Chris. Mr Wood, a project manager, said he lived in Bristol and had been asked by Chris Yeates to show his sister around the city after she moved there in 2008.
He said over the next two years they met up socially a dozen times to go for a drink. Mr Wood said it was rare for him and Miss Yeates to contact each other by text message as they usually communicated by Facebook. However, at 8.26pm he received a text from her, which said: "Matt, are you out tonight?"
Mr Wood said that he was at his staff Christmas party and did not see the message until 9.22pm but immediately replied and said: "At office party. Not sure what I'm doing later." He said he never got a reply.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/joanna-yeates-murder-trial-victim-274748
-
I always got the impression that Joanna texted these friends on the way home, rather than at home.
That's what I always assumed mrswah... That was until I read the Sally Ramage papers...
-
Jurors also heard a statement from Matthew Wood, who was a school friend of Miss Yeates' older brother Chris. Mr Wood, a project manager, said he lived in Bristol and had been asked by Chris Yeates to show his sister around the city after she moved there in 2008.
He said over the next two years they met up socially a dozen times to go for a drink. Mr Wood said it was rare for him and Miss Yeates to contact each other by text message as they usually communicated by Facebook. However, at 8.26pm he received a text from her, which said: "Matt, are you out tonight?"
Mr Wood said that he was at his staff Christmas party and did not see the message until 9.22pm but immediately replied and said: "At office party. Not sure what I'm doing later." He said he never got a reply.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/joanna-yeates-murder-trial-victim-274748
I wonder what made her text him, if they only ever connected via facebook.... Are we positive this was a TEXT and not a facebook text message.. on a chat??????
Doesn't that beg a question...as she didn't normally Text him??????
-
That's what I always assumed mrswah... That was until I read the Sally Ramage papers...
Well, I did find another mistake in Sally's account---can't recall what it was now. Will look it up!
-
I remember now : Sally mentioned that Vincent and Tanja had complained about Chris Jefferies allegedly spying at his tenants. I don't think it was V and T who complained: I think it was previous tenants.
-
I always got the impression that Joanna texted these friends on the way home, rather than at home.
That was because the police wanted us to believe that "home" was where she was headed. It is possible that she did indeed enter her flat 9 minutes after leaving Tesco, having passed Fr. Henwood on the way - but her last-minute purchase of the pizza in Tesco (instead of Waitrose) - even though there was already another frozen pizza sitting in the freezer in her flat - suggests that her unidentified text to an unidentified person m/f while she was in Bargain Booze - resulted in an agreement to share a pizza at that other person's flat, presumably close to Clifton Village. She would have been famished by this time. So I think we should keep an open mind about whether she was on her way "home".
-
My retired-lawyer husband tells me that someone in VT's position, who had pleaded guilty to manslaughter, but charged with murder, would normally be convicted of manslaughter if not found guilty of murder.
The only exception would be, if the prosecution really messed up, and the judge decided there was no case to answer, or if the judge didn't believe the confession, or if he thought the defendant needed a psychiatric assessment, very rare, but possible, apparently.
Oh, those mobile phone addicts in supermarkets------don't they get on your nerves!!!!
That's correct, if the jury could not agree on the murder charge they could ask the Judge if they could return a guilty verdict on a lesser charge.
-
I had to add this... Just posted on twitter minutes ago...
There are many expert witnesses who actually waste the court's time in that they do not contribute much in their short statement and most times are never cross-examined. The Bristol Crown Court case of R v Vincent Tabak [2011] is one example of a case in which experts on both sides said a few sentences (effectively, that a person could be strangled in 20 seconds) and nothing else, followed by no cross-examination whatsoever. In this same case defence barrister failed dismally (in my own humble opinion) to cross-examine another expert witness for the prosecution- a police computer expert- not one single word of cross-examination- not even to check qualifications. With regard to fraud cases that achieve a trial when a fraud is allegedly discovered and the alleged perpetrator(s) are charged with offences, accountants very well know that for a fraud investigator auditor to have detected a certain fraud, he or she must have designed or used a computer programme to detect that specific type of fraud and only that one type of fraud. Such computer programmes are so specific to a particular type of fraud that the fraud investigator seeking to detect say, 'multiple payee fraud' is unlikely to detect another type of fraud, say 'duplicate payee fraud' even though the latter fraud may be present in the transaction selected for examination. So often, fraud investigators make a lot of noise about their investigation (often using the media, etc) in the hope of scaring off fraud perpetrators or those with such intentions, much like terrorism investigations.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-expert-witnesses-part-response-recent-linkedin-sally-ramage
-
The whole quote below is only there so the information doesn't disappear... I have used part of it in my post...
28/10/2011
Conviction and sentencing of Vincent Tabak for the murder of Joanna Yeates
Ann Reddrop, Head of the Crown Prosecution Service South West Complex Casework Unit said:
“Vincent Tabak was a cunning, dishonest and manipulative man who knew exactly what he was doing when he killed Joanna Yeates. Today he has been convicted by a jury in Bristol of her murder last year, despite claiming he meant her no harm.
“He was cunning and dishonest towards his girlfriend with whom he maintained a “normal” relationship - even going so far as to text her shortly after Joanna was dead to say he was bored.
“He manipulated the police by virtue of his own in-depth research on the Internet to keep one step ahead of the investigation before his arrest, looking up extradition and medical details of decomposition.
“He made very selective admissions surrounding the circumstances of Joanna’s death which sought to cast her in an unfavourable light and he kept this up even when he was giving evidence to the jury. Tabak thought his cleverness and deceit would prevent him being convicted of a brutal murder. He was wrong.
“Joanna went missing on 17 December 2010 after meeting friends for drinks. For several days the police mounted a missing person enquiry but with the discovery of her body on Christmas Day it became a murder investigation. The police team undertook a painstaking enquiry into this murder and Vincent Tabak became the focus of their attention following the finding of his DNA on Joanna’s body
“Late in December 2010 the police asked for assistance and guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service. That assistance has come from the South West Complex Casework Unit based here in Bristol. I reviewed the evidence, advised that Vincent Tabak should be charged with Joanna’s murder and began preparing the case for trial.
“In May 2011, Tabak admitted the manslaughter of Joanna, but that was only part of the story. The Crown’s case is and always has been that it was a deliberate act on his part and that is why we refused to accept his plea to manslaughter and he has faced trial for murder over the past four weeks.
“Joanna’s family has been here in Bristol during the trial and have listened to much of the evidence. Our thoughts are with them today as Tabak begins a life sentence for killing their daughter.”
I overlook things constantly.... I re-read and then it pops out;...
“Late in December 2010 the police asked for assistance and guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service. That assistance has come from the South West Complex Casework Unit based here in Bristol. I reviewed the evidence, advised that Vincent Tabak should be charged with Joanna’s murder and began preparing the case for trial.
What evidence against Dr Vincent Tabak was the CPS lady assisting the Police with in late December 2010????
What evidence could she have possibiiy reviewed????
How in late December 2010 Can the CPS be looking at Dr Vincent Tabak in connection to the murder of Joanna Yeates ?????
By admitting this then that in turn PROVES that the HOLLAND interview was that of a suspect and not an interview as a witness....
If they had gone over to Holland with what appear to be the sole purpose of Interviewing Dr Vincent Tabak as a SUSPECT... why did they not interview him Under Caution!!!!
They have colluded in (IMO) to make a case against Dr Vincent Tabak in late December 2010..
Lets not forget :
Now as I'm re watching the video " Killers: Vincent Tabak"... The lady from the CPS says this: at 28:03 mins
The Police having had his DNA sample obtained voluntarily in Holland and checked against... erm.. findings on Jo's body.. discovered that it was his DNA was on her body...and that was one of the key factors, that lead to the planned arrest of him later in January..
What were the other key factors?????
So in the whole of January the CPS were preparing the case against Dr Vincent Tabak when they had NO evidence against the Dutchman in the first place.......
Don't forget.. the supposed Sobbing Girl had not materialized at this point!
What on earth does that say?
The evidence in December that the Police had against Dr Vincent Tabak was "ZERO".... (And I never believed they had any in the first place )why would the police go to the CPS with evidence against Dr Vincent Tabak in December???
Thats says two things for starters..
(1):.. they came straight back from holland on the 31st December 2010 and LCG Forensics got a test sample of his matched immediatley against the Sample of Joanna Yeates ... for them to have anything whatsoever to bring to the CPS..
But they keep telling untruths about the timing of them having a profile from samples on Joanna Yeates body...
Between 48 hours and weeks... (So I believe Lyndsey Lennen's version, it took 48 Hours)
(2): If we accept number (1): and they turned it all around got a DNA sample from Dr Vincent Tabak processed in the same day as 31st December 2010, that in itself is not enough evidence for the CPS to build a case against Dr Vincent Tabak.
I would love to see the records of the Date of the match on the 31st December 2010,
It was a partial DNA sample on Joanna Yeates... transfer was always possible.. cross contamination was another possibility , which ant Defence lawyer worth there salt could have easily of discredited...
Which makes that evidence useless....
What did the CPS do???? They are admitting they started their case against Dr Vincent Tabak in late December 2010.. But how is that even possible???????
EDIT.....
Looking at (2) again.. how would the CPS have seen the police on the 31st December 2010 ??
Firstly they need to go over to Holland... get a 6 hour interview in progress.. finish interview, get a plane back to Bristol.. PHYSICALLY take the sample to LGC Forensics.... Get the results... then got to the CPS lady all on the same day.....Not Possible (IMO) What time did the lady of the CPS work till on NEW YEARS EVE???
Was this test rushed???? Was ever precaution taken to ensure all protocols were followed...
It just sounds like it was before that date.......
http://blog.cps.gov.uk/2011/10/conviction-and-sentencing-of-vincent-tabak-for-the-murder-of-joanna-yeates.html
-
Just had a little thought..... Other key factors
Did the police originally take the image of Dr Vincent Tabak driving on "Park Street" to the CPS????
The media made much about Dr Vincent Tabak driving around bristol with the body of Joanna Yeates in the boot of the car....
The image of Dr Vincent Tabak of him on park street is dated the 18th December 2010... The reason for him being on Park Street at this time was because he had gotten lost whilst going to pick Tanja up from her works party..
He rang Tanja for directions... So there would be a call log....
Did they suddenly realise that about Park Street and thats why the Asda trips becomes relevant???
Oddly enough the CCTV on the Asda video doesn't have a timestamp..... I wonder why that is???
-
Other key factors
Late December.....
(1): No DNA Evidence
(2): No evidence of him going to Asda
(3): No Sobbing Girl
(4): No Coat fibres
(5): No Searches made on his laptop
(6): No witness statement saying about what he may or may not have said at a party
(7): No CCTV Footage of him going across Clifton Suspension Bridge
(8); No searching his work computers
(9): No computer porn
(10); No Timelines from his mobile phone
(11): No emails to and from Tanja
(12): No CCTV footage of him following Joanna Yeates
(13):No Forensic's connecting Dr Vincent Tabak to Joanna Yeates
(14); No search of his car
(15):No Maps of Longwood Lane
(16):No person with negative comments about Dr Vincent Tabak
(17): No finger prints
(18): No witness seeing him commit this crime
(19):No evidence that he went into Joanna Yeates Flat
(20):NO MOTIVE
So what were the Other key factors that the CPS were reviewing in regards to charging Dr Vincent Tabak?
Because I can't see any!!!!!
Nearly forgot..... No Chaplain confession Rubbish And No Plea
So what did the CPS want to charge Dr Vincent Tabak with????
Being an upright citizen ??
-
Why didn't the Defence challenge the initial charges... and what evidence did they initailly have to arrest and charge Dr Vincent Tabak, as the DNA alone would not have been surficiant ...
In any case in which material evidence against a person consists of a DNA or fingerprint or other forensic analysis, confirmation of the match report, accompanied by other supporting evidence in the case, or positive fingerprint identification will suffice for the purposes of making a charging decision and for the magistrates’ court initial hearing.
They had No finger prints to prove identity....
https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/directors_guidance/dpp_guidance_5_annex_a.html
The Evidential Stage
4.4 Prosecutors must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against each suspect on each charge. They must consider what the defence case may be, and how it is likely to affect the prospects of conviction. A case which does not pass the evidential stage must not proceed, no matter how serious or sensitive it may be.
What evidence did they have against Dr Vincent Tabak when they planned the arrest and prosecution of Dr Vincent Tabak in Dec/Jan...
4.5 The finding that there is a realistic prospect of conviction is based on the prosecutor's objective assessment of the evidence, including the impact of any defence, and any other information that the suspect has put forward or on which he or she might rely. It means that an objective, impartial and reasonable jury or bench of magistrates or judge hearing a case alone, properly directed and acting in accordance with the law, is more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge alleged. This is a different test from the one that the criminal courts themselves must apply. A court may only convict if it is sure that the defendant is guilty.
What realistic prospect of a conviction did the CPS have in January 2011??
Can the evidence be used in court?
Prosecutors should consider whether there is any question over the admissibility of certain evidence. In doing so, prosecutors should assess:
the likelihood of that evidence being held as inadmissible by the court; and
the importance of that evidence in relation to the evidence as a whole.
Is the evidence reliable?
Prosecutors should consider whether there are any reasons to question the reliability of the evidence, including its accuracy or integrity.
Well they were more than aware that the Porn was not admissible... The searches too should have been challenged
Is the evidence credible?
Prosecutors should consider whether there are any reasons to doubt the credibility of the evidence.
Oh Yes... plenty of doubts with this evidence.....
Why knowing that the case against Dr Vincent Tabak was lack luster to say the least did the CPS insist on persuing the case against Dr Vincent Tabak.. when in reality they had no evidence against him????
https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/code_for_crown_prosecutors/codetest.html
-
I mentioned earlier, that Dr Vincent Tabak was seen on Park Street.....
There is only one image of the car that they have said belongs to Dr Vincent Tabak on Park Street....
I was looking to see if I could see the number plate... Wing mirrors etc..And I saw something else......I have circled it....
In the red circle of the picture of the car appear what looks like is a Head??? I'm sure I can see a head a face..... It's just right of the arrow next to the car door.... The image actually goes over part of the driver side window...
It's a strange anomaly ?
Is this video image over layed or something? Are two images merged?
The funny thing is now I have seen it I can see it in all pics of the car on Park Street
-
I was looking again at the post above... The time has been blurred out on the CCTV footage of The Car on Park Street...
I'll do a comparison of a traffic cam in Bristol... It shows the time and date...
Why have they blurred the Time of the image of the car on Park Street CCTV ??
We seems to have plenty of Times blurred out on CCTV when it has Dr Vincent Tabak in them..... why?????
There must be loads more CCTV of Dr Vincent Tabak driving around Bristol on Saturday 18th December...
Why do we only see one????
Another point I could be wrong, but I'll mention it anyway....
You can see a vague outline of the driver in the car on Park Street... Which puzzles me somewhat...
I don't understand how you would... If Dr Vincent Tabak is over six foot tall then he would not need to be so close to the steering wheel and probably wouldn't be visible in the car....
-
...
In the red circle of the picture of the car appear what looks like is a Head??? I'm sure I can see a head a face..... It's just right of the arrow next to the car door.... The image actually goes over part of the driver side window...
It's a strange anomaly ?
Is this video image over layed or something? Are two images merged?
The funny thing is now I have seen it I can see it in all pics of the car on Park Street
Isn't it the driver's wing mirror sticking out? I can't take seriously any of these claims about CCTV clips of Renault Meganes. The CCTV clips of Joanna and Vincent, on the other hand, would be good fun - even her mother couldn't resist a chuckle at the one in Waitrose - if it weren't so serious. But as you have pointed out, their integrity is questionable. In my opinion, Joanna's movements captured on CCTV were elegant, and her body language self-assured, whereas the good-looking actress in the reconstruction looked as if she had never used a supermarket self-service checkout before.
-
Isn't it the driver's wing mirror sticking out? I can't take seriously any of these claims about CCTV clips of Renault Meganes. The CCTV clips of Joanna and Vincent, on the other hand, would be good fun - even her mother couldn't resist a chuckle at the one in Waitrose - if it weren't so serious. But as you have pointed out, their integrity is questionable. In my opinion, Joanna's movements captured on CCTV were elegant, and her body language self-assured, whereas the good-looking actress in the reconstruction looked as if she had never used a supermarket self-service checkout before.
Partly the reason for posting that image with the circle is to show how everyone sees things differently, and how they interpret situations differently...
Either visually or verbally....
Brings me back to the question, why would .. Andrew Mott and Martin faithful both say that they were trying to stop a body from thawing out???
What was the significance of the body thawing for 2 police officers to mention this???
-
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jan/17/csi-oxford-lgc-forensics
oanna Yeates
It started as a missing person inquiry on December 18, 2010, says Lindsey Lennen, a body fluids and DNA specialist (who, like many forensic scientists, says the work is "all I ever wanted to do"). The team started by examining items from Joanna's home, looking for foreign DNA. Then on Christmas Day, Yeates was found dead, on a country road.
A colleague went down to supervise the removal of her clothing and preserve any body fluids: "The body was frozen, so that was quite tricky." Under the media glare, the work was flat-out: clothing, swabs, suspect's clothing, all analysed and turned round in 48 hours.
"Eventually, we found something," Lennen says. "On swabs and tapes from her breasts, and tapes from three areas of her jeans. There were DNA components that matched one of the suspects, Vincent Tabak." But there wasn't enough, of enough quality, to evaluate – perhaps because of the high salt levels where the body was found, following heavy snowfall.
So the team deployed an LGC technique known as DNA SenCE, which purifies, concentrates and enhances otherwise unusable DNA: "We couldn't say whether the DNA was from saliva, or semen, or even touch. But we could say that the probability of it not being a match with Tabak was less than one in a billion."
With the killer's confession, Lennen's DNA evidence was not further tested. "It happens, in court," she says. "You get called biased, in the police's pay. You have to tell the truth, not stretch what you have. If you don't know which of two alternatives is more likely, you must say so."
I knew I'd read it somewhere....
A colleague went down to supervise the removal of her clothing and preserve any body fluids: "The body was frozen, so that was quite tricky." Under the media glare, the work was flat-out: clothing, swabs, suspect's clothing, all analysed and turned round in 48 hours.
Which colleague went down WHERE.. to supervise the removal of the clothes???
To me this sounds like it is at the scene.... Dr Delaney does NOT need assistance from LGC Forensics in how to remove clothing....
Wouldn't a mortuary technician remove and bag the clothing ???
This puzzles me...
But it will bring me around to Andrew Mott and Martin Faithful..
Which means the picture from the Mortuary must be when she has no clothing on...
Are there any pictures from the Mortuary of Joanna Yeates clothed???
When Dr Delaney describes her flowered print pink top... When did he see this ????
There were apparent blood stains on her flower patterned pink top but no signs of injuries to her genitalia, Dr Delaney said.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/killer-weeps-over-images-of-joanna-yeates-body-2370602.html
What a weird response.... Apparent blood stains... Did he ever see the clothing???? Or just pictures of the clothing???
Then Andrew Mott:.....
Quote
Andrew Mott, a forensic officer who reached the scene after police arrived shortly after 9am, told how he tried to prevent Miss Yeates's body thawing out.
Tabak's QC, William Clegg, questioned why photographs were not taken of a broom being used to arrange straps underneath the body so her body could be taken away.
"I can't comment on why that was the case," Mr Mott said.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-34413947
Then we have Martin Faithful :
Quote
Mr Faithfull told the court how the forensic team had made efforts to prevent Miss Yeates frozen body from thawing out, in order to avoid losing any potentially significant evidence.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8826662/Joanna-Yeates-trial-snow-covered-body-found-by-dog-walker.html
So the Forensic Team must be what Lyndsey Lennen says... They were at the scene....
(1): How Can you remove clothing from a frozen body????
(2): How can you take DNA samples from a frozen body
(3): Why are they even touching the body before Dr Delaney has seen it???
(4): What efforts Did the Forensic team do to stop a body from thawing out???
(5):Why would they want to stop a body from thawing out????
(6): What significant evidence would they loose???
It dawned on me why????? The real reason they needed to mention that Joanna Yeates body was thawing out..
It was so they could collect their DNA SAMPLES ! at the scene!!
How else did they collect them??? And the clothes...
I would have thought that the best conditions for collecting DNA would be when the body had Thawed and the clothes and the body had dried... But I'm No expert...
They now they cannot take samples from a FROZEN BODY!!!! So we need the explanation about her Thawing Out...(IMO)
2 officer, cohobrating the same state of the body... Thawing!!! Yet neither of these officer were Trained in Forensics as far as I am aware...
Lydnsey Lennen says that it was all turned around in 48 hours... I cannot see how ... That would only be possible if Joanna Yeates body wasn't frozen... Dr Delaney had to wait to do the examination because of the bodies frozen state...
So how did Lyndsey lennen And Co.... Remove the clothing from a body that was Frozen in The foetal position at a crime scene????
A colleague went down to supervise the removal of her clothing and preserve any body fluids: "The body was frozen, so that was quite tricky."
Why didn't the defence cross examine these witness's more throughly ????
-
To mediate between the competing claims for poor Joanna's body made by the different forensic professionals, Andrew Mott was called in as the Forensics Co-ordinator. He had to stop the body from thawing out, so as to preserve its immediate environment from contamination until Karl Harrison could examine it. As Lyndsay Lennen says, the body was frozen to start with, but for her to get the clothes off so as to analyse the DNA on the clothes and skin, its temperature had to be above freezing. To do his worst with his little scalpel, Dr. Delaney also needed the body to thaw out. However he also needed to observe and document the clothes themselves before Lyndsay Lennen. Andrew Mott had a legitimate role as referee.
As I posted before, Dr Delaney could not even get near the body until the fire engines had finished doing whatever they came to do. The best he could do until then was to glimpse it.
-
The clothing would have had to have been dried out before any samples had been taken.... when did this happen??
To be able to mark on the Jeans (circle) where the sample were taken from.. ie behind her Jeans knee....
What light source if any was used upon theses dried Jeans / clothing of Joanna Yeates to determine whether there was any other biological material upon the clothing...
They must have been looking for semen samples to determine if Joanna Yeates had been sexually assaulted, where there any stains on Joanna yeates clothing?
Did she spill her beer on herself... easily happens... did any food or drink land on Joanna yeates clothing????
There are so many questions the Defence SHOULD have asked !!!! (IMO)
-
I still query how frozen Joanna Yeates body was....
She was found on the 25th December 2010 and here autopsy was complete by 27th December 2010
The body would need to thaw at the right temperature so that all of the body was in the same decomposing state..
Would all of the Internal organs have thawed enough at this point???
For Dr Delaney to do a full autopsy??
Or was Joanna Yeates Not as frozen as we have been lead to believe???
If the body wasn't frozen completely then wouldn't that suggest she hadn't lain in Longwood Lane for all of the time stated...
And maybe died later than was first considered ....
-
With the killer’s confession, Lennen’s DNA evidence was not further tested. “It happens, in court,” she says. “You get called biased, in the police’s pay. You have to tell the truth, not stretch what you have. If you don't know which of two alternatives is more likely, you must say so.”
-
15.6. Intention to kill
Intention is generally defined in terms of foresight of particular consequences and a desire
to act or fail to act so that those consequences occur. It is distinguished from recklessness
because, on a subjective basis, there is foresight but no desire to produce the
consequences. But the perennial problem has always been the extent to which the court
can impute sufficient desire to convert recklessness into intention. The original rule was
objective. In DPP v Smith 59the test was that a person was taken to foresee and intend the
natural and probable consequences of his or her acts
Looking at this without any legal knowledge...
(IMO) How could Dr Vincent Tabak foresee the consequences of his action.... If the basis of foresight to fully understand the consequences of your action, then a medical knowledge would be needed and understanding the Medical Knowledge of how long a strangulation hold would result in death...? There was no medical evidence produced to back up Dr Vincent Tabak's supposed knowledge of venous obstruction as described by one of the medical experts.
For Dr Vincent Tabak to understand that holding someone by the throat for up to 20 seconds would result in the death or serious injury of a person, he would have had to have researched such knowledge or have it imparted to him by another medical expert....
There was No evidence from the prosecution to prove that Dr Vincent Tabak was clearly knowledgable in this medical field...
And no search history to obtain such knowledge being produced at the trial....
I personally and probably many more of you were quite surprised at the little time it took to cause death... I had no idea... It seemed far too short a time for the result.... (IMO) having no medical knowledge or training I assumed that all the Crime programs I had viewed , imitated, reconstructed actual crimes... And I always saw, strangulation as a slow painful Personal attack that last minutes and not seconds.....
If... as it was intimated, that Dr Vincent Tabak strangulation of Joanna Yeates was sexual, then surely the evidence to support that theory of it being a sexual assault should have been presented at court...
There was NO SOLID EVIDENCE to support this.... No witness's took the stand to support the idea that Dr Vincent Tabak practiced Strangulation sex... Or was sexually satisfied with the action of Strangling females and gained pleasure in seeing their pain...
The original rule was
objective. In DPP v Smith 59the test was that a person was taken to foresee and intend the
natural and probable consequences of his or her acts
Could someone without this expert medical knowledge foresee that their actions would result in death... If we take it back to The Strangulation Porn that Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed t have viewed, which the information of this supposed evidence was NOT brought to trial... Would they know that reinacting such acts would result in death...
Do Strangulation Porn movies come with a disclaimer of "Do Not Try This At Home.".. I very much doubt it.... And if these movies and a few interaction with Prostitutes, (whom also didn't appear at trial).. constitute Medical Knowledge, then surely all who appear in such films would either have PHD's in said medical profession or would be willing to perform in what ultimateley would be a Snuff movie..
There was No evidence before or after the trial that proved Dr Vincent Tabak watched snuff movies... The titles which were revealed by the media was a series called "Sex And Submission".. which is a legal TV program..
In saying all that... how could the evidence available at trial prove The Prosecutions arguement that a Sexual Encounter, with the purpose to obtain sexual gratification by strangulation had taken place???
Given that s.8 Criminal Justice Act
1967 now entitles a jury to draw reasonable inferences from all the evidence, Justice
Wien in R v Belfon 60said that:
‘Foresight and recklessness are evidence from which intent may be inferred but they
cannot be equated...with intent.’
As for the jury, how could they come to their conclusion that Dr Vincent Tabak with his lack of Medical knowledge intentionally tried to cause harm or injury to Joanna Yeates....
How did they evidence presented show intent????? (IMO) it didn't....
Which then brings us to the judge.... how did he manage to sentence Dr Vincent Tabak on evidence that didn't exist???
If the Prosecution didn't provide witness's.. professional or otherwise ..to prove that Dr Vincent Tabak had sought a Sexual Encounter culminating in strangulation porn... then how did he manage to give him a 20 year minimum tariff ??
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
Playing devils advocate.....
Thinking on the lines of strangulation porn and the porn industry, would someone who died as a result of such an action be charged with Murder??
Or would it be involuntary manslaughter???
If no evidence to prove Dr Vincent Tabak intentionally strangled Joanna Yeates and as the prosecution asserted it was sexually motivated why did they pursue the Murder charge?
With them divulging to the media after the trial that they had intended to use the Pornographic Material and prostitutes... But this would prejudice the jury...
It would only prejudice a jury if the defence didn't state that viewing porn wasn't illegal... there were many points the defence could have argued the porn... If indeed the prosecution intended to use it or it even existed..
Why then did they insist on it being a murder charge?? Why after the Old Bailey Appearance when they had No story as to how events had unfolded did the Prosecution pursue the Murder Charge.. when it could have easily been construed as a manslaughter case? What convinced The Prosecution In May that they had the evidence to convict Dr Vincent Tabak of murder??
The Prosecution had No tangible witness's to support there case of Murder.... especially after with holding the 1300 page document..It was inferred that the searches equalled intent...
In reality you could argue consenting adults (not saying she was) as a defence..
The proof would then have to be put back in the Prosecutions court on proving that they weren't consenting adults..
If you have a man with a pristine record who hadn't as much as a parking ticket to his name, why then could the defence not argue consenting? with the prosecution behind closed doors...
The Prosecution were NEVER going to use any Pornography material whatsoever... if the act of Strangulation sex is not an illegal activity then the consequences of partaking in such activities that resulted in death would be on the part of the actors negligence..
Would that in turn not make the charge a lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter.....
The porn was used later to convince a public (IMO) that Dr Vincent Tabak was a monster and not the Placid Dutchman that DCI Phil Jones described..
-
I can't remember off hand what VT was alleged to have looked up on his computer, but did he look up strangulation?
As far as I remember, I don't believe he did.
Had he committed the crime, I would certainly have expected him to.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg397725#msg397725
Continuing from my other post......
Another thing I don't understand.... When The Prosecution and Defence appeared at the Old Bailey.. (IMO) The Defence must have argued behind closed doors about the Charge that the prosecution where going for....Murder Charge and Nothing less.... So why advise his Client to pled guilty to Manslaughter, handing A Conviction on the Prosecutions plate....
The ball would be in the Prosecutions court to prove murder!!!!
When did the Defence negotiate a charge with the prosecution?? If nothing was negotiate.. then Why The Manslaughter Plea???? you would only negotiate with the prosecution if it was beneficial...
So how was A Manslaughter plea beneficial to Dr Vincent tabak????
It was only beneficial to The Prosecution (IMO)...
And allow a Jury to make the decision.... They were arguing whether it was Murder or NOT anyway... Wouldn't it be more prevalent for the Defence to leave it with the Jury knowing that the Prosecution were pursuing The Murder Charge..
And with the jury almost certain to have known about the plea, then that information would only prejudice them into finding him guilty... But without the plea, they may have come to a Manslaughter conclusion!!!!
-
I overlook things constantly.... I re-read and then it pops out;...
What evidence against Dr Vincent Tabak was the CPS lady assisting the Police with in late December 2010????
What evidence could she have possibiiy reviewed????
How in late December 2010 Can the CPS be looking at Dr Vincent Tabak in connection to the murder of Joanna Yeates ?????
By admitting this then that in turn PROVES that the HOLLAND interview was that of a suspect and not an interview as a witness....
If they had gone over to Holland with what appear to be the sole purpose of Interviewing Dr Vincent Tabak as a SUSPECT... why did they not interview him Under Caution!!!!
“Late in December 2010 the police asked for assistance and guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service. That assistance has come from the South West Complex Casework Unit based here in Bristol. I reviewed the evidence, advised that Vincent Tabak should be charged with Joanna’s murder and began preparing the case for trial."
I think you are taking the above quote too literally. Certainly the police were asked for assistance in late December 2010 but the review and decision to arrest Tabak came later.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg397725#msg397725
Continuing from my other post......
Another thing I don't understand.... When The Prosecution and Defence appeared at the Old Bailey.. (IMO) The Defence must have argued behind closed doors about the Charge that the prosecution where going for....Murder Charge and Nothing less.... So why advise his Client to pled guilty to Manslaughter, handing A Conviction on the Prosecutions plate....
The ball would be in the Prosecutions court to prove murder!!!!
When did the Defence negotiate a charge with the prosecution?? If nothing was negotiate.. then Why The Manslaughter Plea???? you would only negotiate with the prosecution if it was beneficial...
So how was A Manslaughter plea beneficial to Dr Vincent tabak????
It was only beneficial to The Prosecution (IMO)...
And allow a Jury to make the decision.... They were arguing whether it was Murder or NOT anyway... Wouldn't it be more prevalent for the Defence to leave it with the Jury knowing that the Prosecution were pursuing The Murder Charge..
And with the jury almost certain to have known about the plea, then that information would only prejudice them into finding him guilty... But without the plea, they may have come to a Manslaughter conclusion!!!!
It is a defendant's decision whether to plead guilty to manslaughter or murder, not his counsel.
-
I think you are taking the above quote too literally. Certainly the police were asked for assistance in late December 2010 but the review and decision to arrest Tabak came later.
You cannot escape the startling implications of Ann Reddrop's statement about her own role, John. Her first public appearance in the case was at Vincent Tabak's hearing before the magistrate's bench, three days after he had been charged. Without her statement outside Bristol Crown Court after the trial, we would have taken it for granted that the CPS did not get involved until the police had a strong enough case to put before the CPS. The police would have claimed that they had this after they had arrested their suspect and examined his car and his black coat for the forensic evidence that they would claim had been found.
Yet here is Ann Reddrop stating categorically - not "alleging" - that the police had approached her for advice approximately four weeks earlier - namely, about the time when Christopher Jefferies was being doorstepped and arrested. If, like most people, you believe that the arrest of the landlord was an act of bumbling desparation on the police's part, then you may interpret her statement to mean that the crestfallen detectives had begged the wise Ann Reddrop to advise them how to avoid any further débâcles. If, on the other hand, you concede that there is much more than meets the eye in Christopher Jefferies's involuntary role in the case, then she is telling us that she, Ann Reddrop, is the mastermind who pulled the unseen strings.
-
You cannot escape the startling implications of Ann Reddrop's statement about her own role, John. Her first public appearance in the case was at Vincent Tabak's hearing before the magistrate's bench, three days after he had been charged. Without her statement outside Bristol Crown Court after the trial, we would have taken it for granted that the CPS did not get involved until the police had a strong enough case to put before the CPS. The police would have claimed that they had this after they had arrested their suspect and examined his car and his black coat for the forensic evidence that they would claim had been found.
Yet here is Ann Reddrop stating categorically - not "alleging" - that the police had approached her for advice approximately four weeks earlier - namely, about the time when Christopher Jefferies was being doorstepped and arrested. If, like most people, you believe that the arrest of the landlord was an act of bumbling desparation on the police's part, then you may interpret her statement to mean that the crestfallen detectives had begged the wise Ann Reddrop to advise them how to avoid any further débâcles. If, on the other hand, you concede that there is much more than meets the eye in Christopher Jefferies's involuntary role in the case, then she is telling us that she, Ann Reddrop, is the mastermind who pulled the unseen strings.
I recall the Chris Jeffries debacle extremely well and remember thinking at the time that he was the subject of a media witch hunt because of the way he looked and acted. In the end they had to apologise to him although I still believe the BBC and Sky News got off light.
Jefferies won damages from eight newspapers over stories about him after his arrest. The publishers of the Mirror and the Sun were fined for contempt of court over their coverage.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/16/joanna-yeates-police-apologise-christopher-jefferies
-
It is a defendant's decision whether to plead guilty to manslaughter or murder, not his counsel.
On the advise of their Council.... Dr Vincent Tabak had followed the advice of his council up until this point by saying No comment on the advise of his council to virtually every police interview that had taken place ...... instead opting to provide the police with written statements explaining his movement for that fateful weekend!!!!...
Which begs the question why he suddenly thought... I understand English Law and I will not follow the advise of my council and will Plead guilty to manslaughter instead!!!
I won't opt for a trial.. but I'll put my hands up and make the prosecutions case so much easier for them...
I'm not as green as I am cabbage looking and I am sure that you are not!!! Why would you????
On commenting directly to your post John... a defendant follows his councils advice... especially as a foreign national having NO understanding of the law of the land which you are in!!!!
-
I think you are taking the above quote too literally. Certainly the police were asked for assistance in late December 2010 but the review and decision to arrest Tabak came later.
You cannot ask for assistance on a possible suspect when there was NO evidence to link said suspect in any shape or from to the murder of Joanna Yeates...
I will repeat... You CANNOT go to Holland to interview Dr Vincent Tabak for 6 hours as a witness... on the 31st December 2010... when you have already made a decision that he is a suspect and NOT CAUTION HIM!!!
The minute they suspected he was a suspect.. which The Police lady said in interviews, that he brought questions to their investigation... Things just didn't add up... He was too interested in Forensics..... they should have cautioned him..(IMO) and the law of the land in the UK...
But they hid under the guise of Danish law... and used danish law in which to interigate him... which as I have posted many times... allows for a suspect to be questioned for 6 Hours or you either charge or realse... but they couldn't do that as they had no power in Holland..
Yet The CPS clearly states that the police came in late December 2010 to ask for advice..in relation to Dr Vincent Tabak being a suspect..
Which in turn,... means they went to Holland with the sole purpose of interviewing Dr Vincent Tabak as a suspect...
Which the Poliice lady told an Untruth about at the trial... and in videoed interviews on the crime watch program that was screened in November 2011 after they had convicted Dr Vincent Tabak!!!
I would love to see what they were going to screen on I think was the 24th January 2011 as a Crimewatch appeal!!!
-
You cannot ask for assistance on a possible suspect when there was NO evidence to link said suspect in any shape or from to the murder of Joanna Yeates...
I will repeat... You CANNOT go to Holland to interview Dr Vincent Tabak for 6 hours as a witness... on the 31st December 2010... when you have already made a decision that he is a suspect and NOT CAUTION HIM!!!
The minute they suspected he was a suspect.. which The Police lady said in interviews, that he brought questions to their investigation... Things just didn't add up... He was too interested in Forensics..... they should have cautioned him..(IMO) and the law of the land in the UK...
But they hid under the guise of Danish law... and used danish law in which to interigate him... which as I have posted many times... allows for a suspect to be questioned for 6 Hours or you either charge or realse... but they couldn't do that as they had no power in Holland..
Yet The CPS clearly states that the police came in late December 2010 to ask for advice..in relation to Dr Vincent Tabak being a suspect..
Which in turn,... means they went to Holland with the sole purpose of interviewing Dr Vincent Tabak as a suspect...
Which the Poliice lady told an Untruth about at the trial... and in videoed interviews on the crime watch program that was screened in November 2011 after they had convicted Dr Vincent Tabak!!!
I would love to see what they were going to screen on I think was the 24th January 2011 as a Crimewatch appeal!!!
Vincent Tabak volunteered to be interviewed as a witness in Holland so it is irrelevant whether the police viewed him as one or as a suspect. In the UK the correct procedure when interviewing a witness who during the course of the interview becomes a suspect is to caution the person before proceeding. However, in the case of VT, the interviewing officers became suspicious of him but they had insufficient forensic evidence to take it any further. As they were outside their jurisdiction the best they could have hoped for was Tabak's cooperation.
-
On the advise of their Council.... Dr Vincent Tabak had followed the advice of his council up until this point by saying No comment on the advise of his council to virtually every police interview that had taken place ...... instead opting to provide the police with written statements explaining his movement for that fateful weekend!!!!...
Which begs the question why he suddenly thought... I understand English Law and I will not follow the advise of my council and will Plead guilty to manslaughter instead!!!
I won't opt for a trial.. but I'll put my hands up and make the prosecutions case so much easier for them...
I'm not as green as I am cabbage looking and I am sure that you are not!!! Why would you????
On commenting directly to your post John... a defendant follows his councils advice... especially as a foreign national having NO understanding of the law of the land which you are in!!!!
Actually, a defendant can make his or her own mind up after taking advice from counsel. Only Tabak knew the truth of what had occurred and ultimately only he could make the decision as to what to plead to. He decided to put his hands up to manslaughter in the hope of getting a reduced sentence for his crime. It failed and now he will spend at least another 14 years in prison before being eligible for parole.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg397725#msg397725
Continuing from my other post......
Another thing I don't understand.... When The Prosecution and Defence appeared at the Old Bailey.. (IMO) The Defence must have argued behind closed doors about the Charge that the prosecution where going for....Murder Charge and Nothing less.... So why advise his Client to pled guilty to Manslaughter, handing A Conviction on the Prosecutions plate....
The ball would be in the Prosecutions court to prove murder!!!!
When did the Defence negotiate a charge with the prosecution?? If nothing was negotiate.. then Why The Manslaughter Plea???? you would only negotiate with the prosecution if it was beneficial...
So how was A Manslaughter plea beneficial to Dr Vincent tabak????
It was only beneficial to The Prosecution (IMO)...
And allow a Jury to make the decision.... They were arguing whether it was Murder or NOT anyway... Wouldn't it be more prevalent for the Defence to leave it with the Jury knowing that the Prosecution were pursuing The Murder Charge..
And with the jury almost certain to have known about the plea, then that information would only prejudice them into finding him guilty... But without the plea, they may have come to a Manslaughter conclusion!!!!
When did the Defence negotiate a charge with the prosecution?? If nothing was negotiated.. then Why The Manslaughter Plea???? you would only negotiate with the prosecution if it was beneficial...
So how was A Manslaughter plea beneficial to Dr Vincent tabak????
Why indeed! How indeed! No matter how this is twisted and turned, it does not make any sense at all. Could the secret agreement that you are inferring, between the defence and the Crown, possibly have been legal, let alone transparent?
-
From the outset, we cannot determine what pressure Dr Vincent Tabak was under whilst incarcerated, and what lead to him making the plea at The Old Bailey..
Prison by definition is not a holiday home... It's there as a punishment, and I am sure that remand prisoners do not get special treatment..
Prisons themselves use dirty tricks.. everyone who is of the opinion that people don't confess to something they haven't done are very much mistaken...
You then (IMO) have to be of the mindset that the prison enviroment is just peachy and all prisoners are treated fairly... you have to believe that every prison officer is honest to the eight degree and took on the role as master of the key, because he/she wants to protect the inmate and help them repent and re shape them into upstanding citizen's...
When in reality there some officers displaying some of the same traits as the people who are incarcerated... They will remove any bit of hope that the prisoner may have .. A small bit of light in their tunnel to take away the numbness of isolation, and wait for the next time that light may appear..
Depriving prisoner of their basic rights and using whatever reason seems legit to explain this or not bothering to explain... because unless you look for the horrors that prison life brings, you would never understand how it affects the mind psychologically... Just dangle the carrot and at the last possible moment remove it... And you remove the hope that goes with it...
Just today I found a tweet that shows the cruelty that is bestowed upon prisoners... Isn't incarceration enough without cruel punishments that psychologically damages people who are in prison who's mental health may not be sound to start with...
Loosing one's liberty was supposed to be punishment in itself and reforms were supposed to help prisoners adjust to the outside world on their release... But prisons themselves appear to teach hatred (IMO) by displaying cruelties to prisoners who have very little to hold on too....
called HMP Whitemoor & officer tells me prisoners locked in cells from 5pm to 9am over 4 days of Easter so can't call families
With liberties like the above being removed and hopes dashed, to me shows just how easy it would be to wear a person down to such a point they just want it all to go away, without really understanding the consequences of their actions...
You have to be of a strong mind to start with, if you are put in this enviroment and if you are not, then any pressure could make you say anything...
Dr Vincent Tabak had lost his father and Tanja had helped him through his PHD... she was his rock... he wasn't allowed to see her or any family for around 25 days .. and if he was fragile in that respect, it would be easy to add pressure one drip at a time....
It's a disgrace that there was never a psychological evaluation of Dr Vincent Tabak presented in court, which with him being placed on Suicide watch should in itself have raised huge questions...
And I'll say again a confession is only as good as the evidence to back it up.... And the evidence was poor.. The partial DNA sample which if the want us to believe Dr Vincent Tabak used the small gate could quite easily be transfer..
Who's to say Bernard the cat never jumped into the boot of Tanja Morsons car... transferring a spot of blood... Or samples were contaminated by LCG who had a poor track record on such things...there are always explantion when the evidence isn't strong.. And A good defence team could cast doubt...
Instead of passing the Prosecution another nail to be rammed into their clients coffin (IMO)...
-
What financial help would Dr Vincent Tabak be able to gain, to prove the case against him was flawed???
I am not sure but I don't think he's entitled to legal aid, so how would he and his family fight his conviction???
-
The 65-year-old was detained last Thursday on suspicion of the murder and held until Saturday night, when he was released.
Didn't they arrest Dr Vincent Tabak on the THURSDAY also.... must be a little Police trick to add pressure and make it difficult for contact with family... legal council etc.. Which by charging him gave them extra days in which to interrogate him before he appeared at the magistrates court... what day was Dr Vincent Tabak supplied with a Duty Solicitor???
The difference with the two arrests was that CJ had his OWN lawyer on hand to come to his rescue and have him released on the Saturday, where as Dr Vincent Tabak didn't...
If Dr Vincent Tabak was the Calculating ,Manipulative, decitful person the CPS had stated, then why wasn't this clever man prepared??
Why hadn't he engaged the services of a Solicitor in anticipation of his arrest??
Why did he have a duty solicitor in the police station instead of his own Solicitor..??.. everyone was watching the news... if he had indeed engaged such services , his own council would have popped up at the station, just Like CJ's did.. and had him released in the same fashion....
So, he wasn't Calculated was he!!... and the polices tactic seem to be exactly the same... maybe the arrest of CJ needs more attention and what information was released at the time about him...
Remember the media made statements that CJ had a paedophile as a friend whom he had purchased the flat from...(using as example)
This tells me that the paedophile angle had always been an avenue that they were investigating(or using)(IMO)... So why did we all of a sudden have Dr Vincent Tabak suddenly have an interest in Child Porn!!!
The story seems to have been set in the begining (IMO) the similarities between CJ and Dr Vincent Tabak's arrest needs closer inspection, all is obviously not what it appears to be!!!!!
Remember when I did the searches and used CJ... I 'm believing I was on the right track with that post..
(And no.. I didn't say it was CJ and I'm not saying that now)......
One thing to remember is the Police had an angle because of the PIZZA... Why would they make such a Big deal about a missing Pizza????
I'll tell you for why... Pizza and Beer are two of the things that are used to entice young children by paedophiles.. That and watching PORN...
Sound familiar does it???? The very subject that was mentioned after Dr Vincent Tabak's trial......
So maybe that was why they thought Multiple Killers... they could have been looking for a paedophile ring!!!!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8240260/Joanna-Yeates-murder-architect-told-friends-she-would-be-alone.html
-
Didn't they arrest Dr Vincent Tabak on the THURSDAY also.... must be a little Police trick to add pressure and make it difficult for contact with family... legal council etc.. Which by charging him gave them extra days in which to interrogate him before he appeared at the magistrates court... what day was Dr Vincent Tabak supplied with a Duty Solicitor???
The difference with the two arrests was that CJ had his OWN lawyer on hand to come to his rescue and have him released on the Saturday, where as Dr Vincent Tabak didn't...
I agree with you that the choice of Thursday for the both of the two arrests was a police trick. We know that Vincent Tabak's arrest was planned well in advance, but this shows that the arrest of Christopher Jefferies was no spur-of-the-moment move as most people believe. It shows that neither Colin Port nor Ann Reddrop grabbed the phone the moment they saw the angry landlord on TV with the words, "That is our man!"
However, Christopher Jefferies did not have his lawyer ready on hand. According to both himself and "The Lost Honour..." he exercised his right to telephone a former pupil, whom he must have known well, and it was the pupil who got hold of Stokoe Partnership, London. They too had probably seen Mr Jefferies on TV. As far as we know, it was Paul Okebu whom they sent to represent the landlord, and presumably it took him a little time to get to Bristol. Meanwhile, of course, his client would be going through the usual indignities that the police reserve for suspected murderers, including an intimate medical examination and dressing up in unsuitable clothes.
-
If Dr Vincent Tabak was the Calculating ,Manipulative, decitful person the CPS had stated, then why wasn't this clever man prepared??
I do get hot under the collar about Ann Reddrop's characterisation of Vincent Tabak, as it so obviously conflicted with the facts of the case. As you say, a killer who "kept one step ahead of the police" would have made sure he had his own lawyer available, such as Sarah Maddock, a good friend of Tanja's. He had five weeks in which to get the boot of the car steam-cleaned, either in Cambridge or Holland so as not to arouse suspicion. He had five weeks to "accidentally" drop the supposedly incriminating laptop and get it repaired with a new hard disc. He could have left his black coat in a paper bag outside a charity shop and then told Tanja that he had inadvertantly left it on a train.
All of his actions, in fact, suggest a person with nothing on his conscience except perhaps not having tried hard enough to win the Binladen contract in Mecca.
-
However, Christopher Jefferies did not have his lawyer ready on hand. According to both himself and "The Lost Honour..." he exercised his right to telephone a former pupil, whom he must have known well, and it was the pupil who got hold of Stokoe Partnership, London.
Leonora... I wasn't suggesting that CJ had a Lawyer prepared... I meant that with his arrest in the media anyone whom had connections to CJ could spring into action and help him, friends Colleagues etc.. They would have been outraged by his arrest and made sure he was released on Bail A.S.A.P
So... who did Dr Vincent Tabak manage to call??? It would be Tanja (IMO) she was his rock... And what could she do in relation to this??
So how many people were really just Dr Vincent Tabak's friends??? Or were they friends of a couple??? Tanja being the person they mainly knew!
-
I'm still looking at this Pizza and Paedophile Angle....
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg398194#msg398194
The Police used the media to say various statements that I presume were aimed at certain suspects they were investigation...
Former pupils and neighbours (many of whom, on closer inspection, barely knew him) lined up to say that he is ‘eccentric’. Apparently, he was nicknamed Wizard because of his hair.
I believe they used CJ's arrest to let someone Know they were looking at them...
So I wondered if there had been A Police Operation named "WIZARD"..
Then I found this:...
OPERATION WIZARD
An investigation into a family counterfeiting DVD's and CD's on a massive scale.
So in context to the "Wizard" Comment... was that a reference to making Child porn DVD's ???
What double meaning is hidden in the media reports that were made at the time...?????
http://www.titanrocu.org.uk/36/section.aspx/22
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1343782/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Odd-truth-Christopher-Jefferies-great-teachers.html#ixzz4ebkRTSot
-
Why Code Names are important!!! And what they mean to the Police!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/operation-what-how-the-police-come-up-with-their-bizarre-codenames-2257475.html
-
Believe it or not, DCI Phil Jones never said anything in court, although he did read out his own statement to the press outside the court after the trial. I suspect that he and Vincent Tabak were never even in the same room together except at the pre-trial hearing at Bristol Crown Court on 20 September 2011. Several other people mentioned the pizza Joanna is said to have bought, but none of them was under oath.
Although the judge warned the jury sternly to base their verdict on the evidence alone, he made no attempt to warn them that a lot of what they would hear was NOT evidence, and hardly any of the images they would see on the screens was evidence. According to one eminent judge who wrote a book about "The Nature of Evidence", padding out trials with inessential information is standard prosecution practice.
This case bugs me too, but the biggest bug is that nobody is concerned about the fact that nobody ever even considered whether CJ or VT had any reason to kill Joanna. CJ was believed to be The Killer for a very short time, mainly because of his blue hair and conspicuous bad temper. VT is now considered to be The Killer because he said he did it. Nobody except you and I are bugged by the fact that the police knew very well that both of these suspects were of very good character. Although the police publicly flew all sorts of kites that suggested they were interested in the usual suspects - namely, (1) people who knew Joanna well enough to have fallen out with her, and (2) known sex offenders living within XX miles of Bristol - the police made sure that we knew that Joanna had no enemies nor knew anyone who could possibly have wished her harm. They also brushed aside any evidence that this might not have been the case. This is seriously disconcerting.
-
I wouldn't believe what VT stated re the pizza, either.
It has occurred to me that, even if the police had found the pizza in one of the local bins, how would they have known it was the one Joanna bought? I doubt whether she was the only local person who bought a Tesco finest pizza that week, and I expect any fingerprints would have been destroyed/contaminated by then.
if it had not been Joanna in the video clips, I am sure her parents or friends would have said so, so I think we can safely conclude that it was!
-
I wouldn't believe what VT stated re the pizza, either.
It has occurred to me that, even if the police had found the pizza in one of the local bins, how would they have known it was the one Joanna bought? I doubt whether she was the only local person who bought a Tesco finest pizza that week, and I expect any fingerprints would have been destroyed/contaminated by then.
if it had not been Joanna in the video clips, I am sure her parents or friends would have said so, so I think we can safely conclude that it was!
Why would the police expect to find the pizza in its package in one of the local bins mrswah? Nobody except Vincent Tabak would dispose of an unopened uneaten pizza, and at the time of DCI Gareth Bevan's appeal for the pizza, the general public had heard of neither VT nor their landlord. Surely the intention behind a massive pizza hunt was to find the packaging, which, if they were lucky, would lead them to the neighbourhood where she had eaten the pizza? Even if they found several packages of that type, a serious police force would have been able to eliminate the ones unconnected with Joanna, by e.g. examination of the sell-by dates and by those finger prints that were recoverable.
But was the pizza appeal serious at all, or was it just a smokescreen? If it was serious, then it was an obvious conclusion for the police that the hungry Joanna had gone somewhere else to eat the pizza, before going home to get abducted, and that the person with whom she ate it didn't want to tell the police, either because they were the killer, or for some entirely innocent reason.
Mr Yeates declared that the police know more than they were telling us, and this still bugs me. What did they know? We now know, officially, that neither the landlord, nor VT, nor Ann Reddrop, were even a gleam in their eye at that early stage. So what was the real purpose of the pizza appeal?
-
I think the police wanted us all to think that Joanna had died shortly after getting home, before she had a chance to eat the pizza. Perhaps that is what they genuinely believed at first. Perhaps they continued to believe it: who knows. They needed it to be a Friday evening crime as time went on, as this was when neither CJ nor VT had alibis. The Friday night " maybe" screams coming from up the road must have been very convenient as they put their case together, much more than the "Help Me" heard by a neighbour at mid morning on Saturday. I would suggest that the Saturday scream was far more likely to be significant than those of the Friday night revellers, but it is perfectly possible that none of the screams had anything to do with Joanna.
It is also perfectly possible that Joanna ate the pizza at someone else's house, or she bought it for someone else as an errand, and delivered it on her way home.
I am assuming that the police carried out a thorough check of her freezer !!
-
...
if it had not been Joanna in the video clips, I am sure her parents or friends would have said so, so I think we can safely conclude that it was!
Did Mrs Yeates or any other person testify under oath that the distinctive young woman with the green fleece or lining WAS Joanna Yeates? No of course they didn't. Why have a trial at all if you take it for granted that only the defendant is going to lie? Why have a formal identification of the body if "anyone" could see it had to be the missing landscape architect? It was the extent of deceit and manipulation in this case that prompted you to start this forum in the first place.
It has only recently struck me that the court did hear evidence from Mr & Mrs Yeates, via the 2nd statement of the police officer who went to 44 Canynge Road twice after Greg Reardon's 999 call. There must have been something unexpected about this, but the news media made absolutely nothing of it, so we don't know what Joanna's parents said to the police at the time.
-
Also, Leonora, I would think that the police always know more than they tell the public-----in all crime investigations. There are very good reasons why they would not tell the public (or even Joanna's parents) everything. This isn't sinister in any way---it is good policing.
-
I think the police wanted us all to think that Joanna had died shortly after getting home, before she had a chance to eat the pizza. Perhaps that is what they genuinely believed at first. Perhaps they continued to believe it: who knows. They needed it to be a Friday evening crime as time went on, as this was when neither CJ nor VT had alibis. The Friday night " maybe" screams coming from up the road must have been very convenient as they put their case together, much more than the "Help Me" heard by a neighbour at mid morning on Saturday. I would suggest that the Saturday scream was far more likely to be significant than those of the Friday night revellers, but it is perfectly possible that none of the screams had anything to do with Joanna.
It is also perfectly possible that Joanna ate the pizza at someone else's house, or she bought it for someone else as an errand, and delivered it on her way home.
I am assuming that the police carried out a thorough check of her freezer !!
Mrswah you are being uncharacteristically ingenuous. At the time of the pizza appeal, the police did not OFFICIALLY know that she was DEAD. They CERTAINLY had no OFFICIAL reason at that time to embark on a campaign of brainwashing the public into believing that she went straight home rather than via someone else's home. The screams were not mentioned until after the body had been found and the landlord arrested.
You seem to be saying that you believe that the police were already determined on a campaign of brainwashing at the time when her parents were saying "She was abducted".
Why would a VERY HUNGRY Joanna buy a pizza for someone else? That doesn't make sense either.
I believe that the police did indeed know far more about what really happened very early on, but you are welcome to disagree with my conspiratorial tone. However, the pizza emphatically belongs to the very early phase of the case. If the pizza appeal was what it seemed, then the logical conclusion was that she ate it somewhere else on the way home.
-
Yes, she probably did eat it somewhere else---that is the most likely explanation, although there is no reason why a very hungry person might not run an errand for a neighbour or friend if they were passing by the relevant shop. In the early days, the police certainly spent a lot of their time following up this pizza------ it always seemed, to me, rather a waste of time, particularly as (if I remember correctly) they did most of their searching after the bins had been collected.
Either inefficiency, or the pizza was "deflecting attention away from" (I am beginning to love that phrase!) something else???
-
Why Did the Defence advise Dr Vincent Tabak to make a guilty plea in MAY.. when they wouldn't have had the case files for too long and hadn't researched their own thoroughly investigations into the case??
When did Clegg take over???
-
Why Did the Defence advise Dr Vincent Tabak to make a guilty plea in MAY.. when they wouldn't have had the case files for too long and hadn't researched their own thoroughly investigations into the case??
When did Clegg take over???
If you had read the translation that I have posted of Vincent Tabak's diary, then you would know that he was already thinking about pleading guilty in February 2011. That is what he told the so-called prison chaplain, Peter Brotherton, who testified to this under oath. Just for the record: I do not believe this witness perjured himself - but neither did he state that VT had confessed to the killing, contrary to what everyone was told.
Clegg took over some time between February and May 2011. The instructing solicitor Ian Kelcey was also new.
VT's first defence team, Albion Chambers, instructed by Crossman & Co of Radstock, told the magistrate that their client would be applying for bail. If it is true, as has been stated by John, that bail would never be granted to a foreigner charged with such a serious offence, then it would have been amazingly incompetent of these lawyers not to have noticed that their client was a foreigner nor to have anticipated this problem. I am not sure that I really believe they were incompetent.
At any event, the barrister Paul Cook did an about-turn the very next day by telling judge Colman Treacy that his client would not be applying for bail. It seems obvious to me that it was not Vincent Tabak who changed his mind about bail, but that something caused the lawyers to change their minds. It seems obvious to me that he might feel he was in the hands of what Aerial Hunter so bluntly called a "two-bit drongo solicitor" - and would turn to the prison chaplain for advice on how to get a more competent lawyer.
Presumably it was also "drongo" who first put into VT's head the idea of pleading guilty of manslaughter. I really don't know why she did this. A possibility that has emerged during discussions on this forum is the revelation that VT had known Joanna very well, including in the biblical sense, contrary to what he had told his duty solicitor. That would alter everything.
-
If VT and Joanna had known each other very well, I am amazed that none of the newspapers sniffed this out. Somebody else must have known.
He pled guilty to manslaughter. If he knew Joanna, it is more likely that he had a motive to kill her than if he hadn't known her. So, why didn't he say so in court, instead of making up that ridiculous story? He was going down anyway, so why not tell the court that he knew her?
I'm inclined to think that he didn't know her-------but I could be wrong.
-
If VT and Joanna had known each other very well, I am amazed that none of the newspapers sniffed this out. Somebody else must have known.
He pled guilty to manslaughter. If he knew Joanna, it is more likely that he had a motive to kill her than if he hadn't known her. So, why didn't he say so in court, instead of making up that ridiculous story? He was going down anyway, so why not tell the court that he knew her?
I'm inclined to think that he didn't know her-------but I could be wrong.
This was a COMPLEX case, mrswah. That is why Nine's 100 questions have grown to 299 and still counting. VT made up that ridiculous story to console the prosecutor (who was so disappointed at not being elected Labour MP for Basingstoke in 1997), and thereby to prevent you and me from getting taken seriously by the sort of people who read internet forums. IF you "think" VT didn't know Joanna, how else do you explain his QC Paul Cook's grovelling to the judge at his first appearance in the Crown Court: "Your honour, my client has decided not to apply for bail after all"? - and his subsequent replacement by his own head of chambers, Michael Fitton QC? - who was in turn eventually replaced by William Clegg QC, the barrister known for making prosecutors from Belfast to Belgrade tremble, yet who told the jurors trying VT, "There is probably nothing to like about my client"?
Yes, you could indeed be WRONG, mrswah - so you owe it to your loyal followers either to produce an alternative explanation of Paul Cook QC's extraordinary own-goal, or to get thyself over to the nearest nunnery.
-
I think I'd prefer the nunnery, Leonora!
So, do YOU think Vincent knew Joanna "very well"???
-
Nigel Lickley-----Labour candidate for Basingstoke in 1997---who would have thought it?
He was beaten by Andrew Hunter------who is a Bamber supporter (have you read the Bamber threads, Leonora???)
Oh dear!!!!!!!
-
I think I'd prefer the nunnery, Leonora!
So, do YOU think Vincent knew Joanna "very well"???
It's not what I "think" that counts, but what Crossman & Co and Paul Cook QC thought at the time. First this:
While he was in custody, Vincent Tabak and his duty solicitor prepared and submitted to the police a number of written and signed statements. The first statement, given to police the same day as he was arrested, 20th January 2011, explained his movements on the night Joanna Yeates died... In this statement, Vincent Tabak also insisted that he did not know Joanna Yeates and that he had never spoken to her nor her boyfriend. “Until her picture was shown prominently in the press I would not have recognised her,” he told police. (The Mirror, 18 October 2011)
Then they read this:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/324139/weeping-girl-tipped-off-jo-police/
Tabak knew landscape architect Jo and they worked together on joint schemes
for their respective firms, according to a former colleague of his at
consultant engineers Buro Happold. They said: “They would have met in her
office or on location.” (The Sun, 21 or 22 January 2011)
Why was this former colleague not named nor called to testify at the trial? Why was Colin Port not cross-examined by Lord Leveson about this blatant abuse of the news media to pervert the course of justice? Is it because he was interested only in the lost honour of landlords, but not in justice for skilled non-British EU nationals living and working in the UK? Is it any wonder they changed their minds about applying for bail?
-
If VT and Joanna had known each other very well, I am amazed that none of the newspapers sniffed this out. Somebody else must have known.
He pled guilty to manslaughter. If he knew Joanna, it is more likely that he had a motive to kill her than if he hadn't known her. So, why didn't he say so in court, instead of making up that ridiculous story? He was going down anyway, so why not tell the court that he knew her?
I'm inclined to think that he didn't know her-------but I could be wrong.
The plea is pointless..... It's only use is to guarantee a conviction... Why would you plead guilty to manslaughter???
You would only do that if you felt that was the end of it and you get say... a 10 year sentence serve half... back home..
It wasn't the end of it... The Defense MUST HAVE KNOWN that the Prosecution were determined to go for a Murder Conviction....
Again doesn't make sense him making the plea.... There was no advantage...
I believe it would have been thrown out if he hadn't made the plea!! They had NO Evidence... they had NOTHING..
So why did CLEGG get his client to make a plea?????
EDIT:.......
From a different Case... Horrendous case... but it's about the point that I am making....
But the prosecution wouldn't accept a manslaughter plea, so we pleaded not guilty.
Yes thats what I would expect!!!! If they're NOT accepting a Manslaughter Plea... you go NOT GUILTY!!!!
Why would Dr Vincent Tabak plead Guilty to Manslaughter??????
It was going to trial anyway.... The Jury would then have had 3 Options:
(1): Guilty of Murder
(2): Not Guilty
(3): Guilty of Manslaughter
Me thinks, more fishy is happening.... (IMO)
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/jun/27/lawyers-defended-toughest-cases-charles-manson-jon-venables-ted-bundy-charles-ng
-
I feel shouty.....
If we remember the Prosecution did not Reveal the 1300 Page Document until the 7th October 2011 ...
So.... what did they supposedly have in May??????? A Big Fat Nothing!!!!!... How could they...
The Defence was not aware of the timelines...
The Defence was Not aware of the search History...
The Defence was Not aware of everyones movements...
The Defence was Not aware of The type of searches...
The Defence was not aware of all the emails sent to and fro
The Defence was NOT aware that the Dutch Language needed translating....
The Defence was Not aware of The Porn
The Defence Was Not aware of the Prostitues....
Because realistically this should have been the case.... Without the 1300 Page Document The Defence.... shouldn't have been aware of anything!!!
They didn't have anyone Independently scrutinizing The Laptops etc... They would have NO idea what was on them!!!!
So when we go to The Old Bailey... How could The DEFENCE advise Dr Vincent Tabak to PLEAD GUILTY TO MANSLAUGHTER.... when they apparently were NOT..... Aware of all this information!!!!
And in this case SHOULD have advised there client to PLEAD NOT GUILTY!!!!
There would be NO search saying he Looked up LONGWOOD LANE....
There would be NO Search saying he looked up "Sexual Conduct"... (definiton)
There would be NO search saying he looked up Body Decomposition
There would be NO search saying he looked up Extradition
There would be NO search saying he looked up "DOODSLAG"
There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘Extradition of Dutchman’
There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘Avon and Somerset police home page’
There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘Murder of Melanie Hall’
There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘Joanna Yeates’
There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘Salt supplies in the Netherlands’
There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘Maximum sentence Manslaughter’
There would be NO search saying he looked up 'Penalty for manslaughter’
There would be NO search saying he looked up 'Forensic science and trace evidence’
There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘What happens forensic?’
There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘CCTV Canynge Road’
There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘murder in English law’
There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘ how fast does body decompose’
There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘what takes place from hour to hour after death’
There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘what happens to human body after death’
There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘% of grey cars in UK’
There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘Renault Megan cars in UK’
There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘Suspension bridge police footage’
There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘maps to Longwood lane’
There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘domestic rubbish’
There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘household collections- Bristol City Council’
There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘forensic’
There would be NO search saying he looked up 'missing sock'
There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘Detention of a suspect’
There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘letter and label sent to a public house’
There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘CPS’ ...‘Sentencing’
OMG...... The Defence should not have known this (IMO).. Until 7th October 2011
So how on earth did he get Dr Vincent Tabak to make his Guilty to Manslaughter Plea at The Old Bailey!!!!
The SEARCHES were the crux of the case...
The 1300 Page document had the searches... not only that... It had EVERY TIME LINE of the searches.. texts emails between the people at Flat 1 and Flat 2....
How could The DEFENCE COUNCIL know what the Prosecution HAD!!!
How could The DEFENCE COUNCIL Know He searched Clifton Bridge!!
How Could The DEFENCE Council Know he checked Longwood Lane..... If this information was only available in the 1300 Page Document that the reccieved on the 7th October 2011..
In May 2011... None of this evidence EXISTED!!!!!!!!
So why didn't he believe his client in MAY... that he hadn't comited this Crime...
Why didn't he believe his CLIENTS Version of events.....
Up until May.. Dr Vincent Tabak had Insisted that he was Innocent.... In May... Nothing had changed ,.... how could it.... if the DEFENCE were NOT AWARE OF THE 1300 PAGE DOCUMENT!!!!
No evidence existed apart from 1300 page Document and the "PLEA"......
Why didn't CLEGG defend his Client.... why this Circus!!!!
Two questions here..... he either didn't Know and set Dr Vincent Tabak's for a fall (IMO).. Or
He Knew.... which throughs up allsorts...
It wasn't a case of asking the Judge for time to read the 1300 page Document... (IMO) he already had!
The Defence should only have been aware of Dr Vincent Tabak's Timeline given by Dr Vincent Tabak to him!!!!!!!
-
This is extremeley worrying...
He had to Know what was in that Document (IMO)... To come up with the pathetic story that took place...(IMO)
If Dr Vincet Tabak had looked up:
At Line 340 of the prosecution chart
Tabak Googled on 26 Dec 2010
‘Yeates’
At 3.00 pm he search the Telegraph Newspaper online
At 3:43 pm he searched online global newspapers
At 3.45 pm he searched the words
‘Suspension bridge police footage’
He would only do this if HE went over Clifton Suspension Bridge!!! (IMO)
So why the change of route towards the The Airport???
Why would Dr Vincent Tabak change the ROUTE he was supposed to have taken????
He had nothing to lose by keeping to his route over Clifton Suspension Bridge....
Except we already KNOW that the Police had interviewed that Witness who went over The Bridge and it obviously wasn't Dr Vincent Tabak!!!!
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
Lets put it this way......
If the defence had scrutinized the laptops.... they would have been able to counter what The Prosecution had claimed...
They would have been able to say about the lack of "Dutch" in The Prosecutions findings...
So (IMO).. they didn't look at these laptops, they can't have...
And if they didn't look at the laptops... Didn't get The 1300 page Document till 7th October 2011
How could they possibily know what would be so called EVIDENCE against their client???
They had Dr Vincent Tabak in his own flat till 9:29 pm on Friday 17th December 2010
They had him at Adsa around 10:00pm
There was NO proof in what evidence The Defence had in May... that Dr Vincent Tabak was aimlessly driving around with Joanna Yeates in the boot of his car...
There was NOTHING to prove that Dr Vincent tabak went to Longwood Lane..
There was nothing to prove that Dr Vincent Tabak used a Bicycle bag/cover
There was Nothing to prove that Dr Vincent Tabak disposed of the Pizza....
Up until MAY.... there was No Evidence at all !!!!
-
When he was arrested, a duty solicitor was present while Vincent Tabak was questioned at Trinity Road police station, Bristol. We know from cross-examination of one of the detectives during the trial that she was female. We know from details of the legal aid claims made on his behalf, published as a result of an FoI request, that she was a member of the team of Crossmans Solicitors of Radstock:
http://www.crossmans-solicitors.com/the-team/4575854784
Which member of the team she was has never been made public, and it is possible that she is no longer with Crossman & Co. The current female members who do criminal defence are: Guen Browne, Marjorie Jackson and Susan Garnett.
After VT was charged, Crossmans would have instructed Albion Chambers, of which Paul Cook QC is a member.
-
The plea is pointless..... It's only use is to guarantee a conviction... Why would you plead guilty to manslaughter???
You would only do that if you felt that was the end of it and you get say... a 10 year sentence serve half... back home..
It wasn't the end of it... The Defense MUST HAVE KNOWN that the Prosecution were determined to go for a Murder Conviction....
Again doesn't make sense him making the plea.... There was no advantage...
I believe it would have been thrown out if he hadn't made the plea!! They had NO Evidence... they had NOTHING..
So why did CLEGG get his client to make a plea?????
EDIT:.......
Why would Dr Vincent Tabak plead Guilty to Manslaughter??????
It was going to trial anyway.... The Jury would then have had 3 Options:
(1): Guilty of Murder
(2): Not Guilty
(3): Guilty of Manslaughter
Me thinks, more fishy is happening.... (IMO) ...
Why did Clegg get his client to make a plea?
He didn't.
We know that his client PUT OFF signing his enhanced statement a couple of days AFTER Clegg had promised to deliver it to the Prosecution. This was more than FOUR months after the plea hearing, yet he could hardly bring himself to go through with it.
You are very thorough, Nine, but despite all the holes you have exposed in this criminal case, you still won't confront what you regard as the unthinkable: That VT's manslaughter plea HAS to have been contrived in some way or another. It wasn't VT who made it.
Let me put it to you another way. The whole vast edifice of the criminal justice system is as it is because it is not just criminals who will steal, kill and lie, but also lawyers, police and prison officers, and witnesses, who will cheat if they expect to get away with it. Habeas corpus was devised to try to ensure that the accused could confront his accusers. This means, not just that there is someone standing in the dock, but that the someone has the identity of the accused. Anyone could say "I am Vincent Tabak", unless steps are taken to prove identity.
Astonishingly, no one who knew him seems to have been present at any of the hearings, including the trial. Not Tanja, not his boss, not his landlord, not his family. Oh yes, I know that the press photographed a couple they thought were his brother and sister outside the court at the time of the trial, but that isn't the same as someone who knew the defendant confirming his identity in the presence of the judge.
-
Why did Clegg get his client to make a plea?
He didn't.
We know that his client PUT OFF signing his enhanced statement a couple of days AFTER Clegg had promised to deliver it to the Prosecution. This was more than FOUR months after the plea hearing, yet he could hardly bring himself to go through with it.
You are very thorough, Nine, but despite all the holes you have exposed in this criminal case, you still won't confront what you regard as the unthinkable: That VT's manslaughter plea HAS to have been contrived in some way or another. It wasn't VT who made it.
Let me put it to you another way. The whole vast edifice of the criminal justice system is as it is because it is not just criminals who will steal, kill and lie, but also lawyers, police and prison officers, and witnesses, who will cheat if they expect to get away with it. Habeas corpus was devised to try to ensure that the accused could confront his accusers. This means, not just that there is someone standing in the dock, but that the someone has the identity of the accused. Anyone could say "I am Vincent Tabak", unless steps are taken to prove identity.
Astonishingly, no one who knew him seems to have been present at any of the hearings, including the trial. Not Tanja, not his boss, not his landlord, not his family. Oh yes, I know that the press photographed a couple they thought were his brother and sister outside the court at the time of the trial, but that isn't the same as someone who knew the defendant confirming his identity in the presence of the judge.
If you look at it head on without Long Latin and the Old Bailey... The POINT is.....
Nobody on earth would make a Plea to anything unless, The Prosecution would accept it... There was NO way they would do that...so it easier to plead NOT GUILTY and put the Onus of Proof on the Prosecution...
Yes... so many things about this case don't add up... And I believe in Dr Vincent Tabak Innocence as you know.. I don't know the why's and wherefore's ....
I just believe it was Impossible for him to do what they said he did... And someone is walking around free who shouldn't be...
What ever the reason for this murder .. what ever scenario's are possible.. who ever you may be able to accuse.. it's virtually impossible without the evidence to back it up...
Timeline... CCTV's with timestamps on them... transcript from the trial... video appearances of those involved on many levels... These expose the lies.... (IMO)
You maybe have more proof than I'm aware of... but unless I see this I cannot make a judgement upon it....
-
Say the defence has the laptop contents... why are n't they preparing a case to counter????
When the Prosecution said that Dr Vincent Tabak had looked up Longwood lane on a Map..... It sounds good .. But how could he look u somewhere he didn't know about?
Defence Counsel: Did you know Longwood Lane at all?
Tabak: No.
Why didn't The Defence have within it's papers that "Longwood Lane" would come up in a street map when he was attending a party going nearby that direction???
This next question by the Defence I like :..Defence Counsel: Was it a quiet area, did you think? What did you decide to do?
Tabak: I did something horrendous. I decided to leave her there.
Why When his Client had already said that he didn't KNOW LONGWOOD LANE.... Would he expect his client to Know whether it was a QUIET AREA or not!!!!!!
If he'd replied Yes.. Then he'd of lied straight after his answer of NO...
So why are the Defence subtly cross examining their own Client??? (IMO)
No only do they manage to cross examine their own client but they use questioning techniques that don't give too much room for maneuver..
Defence Counsel: What did you do then?
Tabak: I tried to hide the body. I tried to put the body over the fence.
Dr Tabak say fence!! But his Councel steers him straight back to the WALL....
Defence Counsel: Did the body come into contact with the wall?
Tabak: Yes. But she was too heavy
We need the wall mentioned because of the Blood upon it... ..
Dr Vincent Tabak doesn't even correct himself, saying when I said fence before I meant wall or visor versa .....
It just question... Small answer... Nothing to endear him in any way to the Jury...
Defence Counsel: Why were you researching about rubbish?
Tabak: I read that police were sifting through rubbish and I was afraid they would find the
pizza.
Out of 1300 pages of Timelines Clegg picks up on this one?
You would have thought that there were more pressing searches to bring up!!!!
Where's Clegg's Timeline of the Rubbish search??? Because he didn't have the document!!!
Didn't Tabak go on the Stand before the Prosecution made their case???
How would Clegg know about The Rubbish Search???
Afraid they would find the Pizza....
What about the Bicycle Bag that her body was supposed to be Transported in... That would be far more incriminating...
Oh yes and the missing sock!!
-
I believe Dr Vincent Tabak must have been aquainted to the location of Bristol Airport... as a seasoned traveller for his business dealings..
I keep going back over the transcript....
Defence Counsel: As we can see you sent many messages You never make typing errors.
Why did you type the word “crisis”?
Tabak: That’s how I felt. I was in complete shock. Didn’t know what to do.
Defence Counsel: In our Timeline 108 to 111- a journey that would take you home. Is that
where you went? As the timeline suggests?
Tabak: Yes.
Defence Counsel: In our Timeline 113, when your car is seen at Clifton Down- after a
period of 20 minutes or so. How did you feel?
Tabak: In a state of despair; panic; unbelief at what had happened.
The Defence follow a pattern of putting each event in order... they do not sway from the order of which action occured..
Which is why the above quote is really confusing....
Defence Counsel: In our Timeline 108 to 111- a journey that would take you home. Is that
where you went? As the timeline suggests?
As it appears... Dr Vincent Tabak travels home after he has been to ASDA... as one of the very few Timelines the Defence appears to say confirms...
Dr Vincent Tabak replies "Yes".....
So... he's been to Asda in Bedminster apparently with a body in the boot of the car.... he then return home... next ..In our Timeline 113, when your car is seen at Clifton Down- after a
period of 20 minutes or so. How did you feel?
Firstly ...what happened at Timeline 112 ????? A phone call.... a text ??????
So he is in Clifton Downs for at least 20 mins... the Defence must have something to prove this... or they should...
He now needs to leave "Clifton Downs" to as they say aimlessly drive towards the Airport ... which (IMO) he know where it is... to end up in "Longwood Lane"...
Which road would he have taken???
I have had BEDMINSTER and ASDA planted in my head.... Local Jurors would know you would take the A38 towards the airport..
Defence Counsel: When you left where did you drive then?
Tabak: I drove away from home; I drove in the direction of the airport; and ended up in
Longwood lane
But it from home and not Asda that he travels to wards the Airport..... So why drive back towards home if he needs to dispose of a body??? Why not keep driving towards the Airport from ASDA?
Why not have his state of shock in ASDA Carpark???? what shows him sitting for 20 minutes in Clifton Downs?????
This is another thing that bugs me..... Is he stuck in traffic??? Hang on a minute... Is it him waiting to go over Clifton suspension Bridge to pay the Toll?????
How bad was the traffic that night... Christmas week leading up to everyones out and about partys etc.. late night shopping... Icy conditions....
Is the image they have of Dr Vincent Tabak queuing.... him waiting in line to use Clifton Suspension Bridge??? How else would they Know he sat for 20 minutes ..... And What date was this on????? the 18th December 2010 ?? any other day ????
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
If you look at it head on without Long Latin and the Old Bailey... The POINT is.....
Nobody on earth would make a Plea to anything unless, The Prosecution would accept it... There was NO way they would do that...so it easier to plead NOT GUILTY and put the Onus of Proof on the Prosecution...
Yes... so many things about this case don't add up... And I believe in Dr Vincent Tabak Innocence as you know.. I don't know the why's and wherefore's ....
I just believe it was Impossible for him to do what they said he did... And someone is walking around free who shouldn't be...
What ever the reason for this murder .. what ever scenario's are possible.. who ever you may be able to accuse.. it's virtually impossible without the evidence to back it up...
Timeline... CCTV's with timestamps on them... transcript from the trial... video appearances of those involved on many levels... These expose the lies.... (IMO)
You maybe have more proof than I'm aware of... but unless I see this I cannot make a judgement upon it....It's important for YOU to believe in one or other plausible explanation for why that plea was entered, because you yourself have spelt it out in letters a mile high - nobody on earth would have made that plea UNLESS...! You see so clearly the entire problem, which obviously bugs you, you lie tossing and turning at night for worrying about it, simply because you won't confront the most straightforward, obvious explanation - despite at least a dozen items of circumstantial evidence.
Yes, it's only a THEORY - but so is the General Theory of Relativity, the Quantum Theory and the Uncertainty Principle. The last seems especially appropriate to the time and place of Joanna's death, the clothes she was and was not wearing, the contents of her digestive system, and the identity and motive of her assailant.
For that matter, I need hardly remind you that it is also only a THEORY that no evidence of any kind places VT in Joanna's flat, nor her in his flat. The absence of this evidence was not even mentioned in the trial, yet it is one of the most important arguments we have for believing in his innocence. Our argument is based on our rational belief that a rational prosecution would not have held back any evidence that supported their case. You can't prove that either, but if you can accept that, then accepting that the plea was faked ought to be easy for you.
Incidentally, I believe that there is some kind of rule awarding a defendant a substantial and automatic reduction in sentence as a reward for pleading guilty straightaway. It would hardly justify a guilty plea in Vincent Tabak's case, however, as we know that the evidence against him was far too weak to secure a conviction, which the CPS must have known, thereby implicating themselves in an illegal conspiracy.
-
leonora... where did I read that Dr Vincent Tabak had injuries on him???
-
leonora... where did I read that Dr Vincent Tabak had injuries on him???
As soon as Vincent Tabak arrived at the police station on 20th January 2011, Nurse Ruth Booth-Pearson asked him for his consent to make a medical examination. He appeared upset but did not cry. He “consented” to his medical examination. He told her that he was normally physically well but had been taking herbal sleeping pills. He told the nurse he was normally “happy” and had no previous mental health problems. The nurse found a 6 cm x 1 cm scar with a scab on his left arm and a bruised toe nail. She photographed these injuries.
I cannot find any account of this using Google any more.
In answer to your question about how it was "proved" to be a sex crime, this is what the judge said when passing sentence:
“The sentence for murder is the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment and that is the sentence I must pass on you. There are no mitigating features in this case, only aggravating factors. These are:
“There is a sexual element to the killing of Joanna Yeates. On your own evidence and after an acquaintanceship lasting just a few minutes you moved to kiss Joanna, and I’m quite sure you did not intend to stop there and wanted to go much further. It was because of her screams that your sexual purpose was frustrated.”
...
-
As soon as Vincent Tabak arrived at the police station on 20th January 2011, Nurse Ruth Booth-Pearson asked him for his consent to make a medical examination. He appeared upset but did not cry. He “consented” to his medical examination. He told her that he was normally physically well but had been taking herbal sleeping pills. He told the nurse he was normally “happy” and had no previous mental health problems. The nurse found a 6 cm x 1 cm scar with a scab on his left arm and a bruised toe nail. She photographed these injuries.
I cannot find any account of this using Google any more.
In answer to your question about how it was "proved" to be a sex crime, this is what the judge said when passing sentence:
“The sentence for murder is the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment and that is the sentence I must pass on you. There are no mitigating features in this case, only aggravating factors. These are:
“There is a sexual element to the killing of Joanna Yeates. On your own evidence and after an acquaintanceship lasting just a few minutes you moved to kiss Joanna, and I’m quite sure you did not intend to stop there and wanted to go much further. It was because of her screams that your sexual purpose was frustrated.”
Well... why was not more made of this apparent injury??? That's quite large!!
I'll add this to the hundred questions ... but how could the Judge in his own words Know what a defendant intended to do???
When was it qualified that Joanna Yeates actually screamed..... Did the judge believe Dr Vincent Tabak's version of events???
How did the judge have foresight??
How could the judge read Dr Vincent Tabak's mind??
How is intention proof of anything?? Why accept that Dr Vincent Tabak said Joanna Yeates screamed .. when he called him a lying deceitful man???
I cannot see how the aggrevating factors came into play??
"Concealment ??? Left out in the open is not concealment!!
"Planning or premeditation..... It was a spur of the moment thing... a chance encounter.. (apparently) (IMO)
"Mental or physical suffering Inflicted on the victim before death.... How do you quantify that?? You would need to know so much more about how Joanna Yeates dealt with situations to know the amount of "Mental" and Physical suffering... The evidences apparently says 20 seconds... That is a short time by anyones book...
(Please don't take offence anyone by my approach.. I'm being direct for a purpose...)
Abuse of position of trust... "didn't apply... didn't know her ... wasn't in such a position...
Use of duress.. or threats against another person to facilitate the commission of this crime... Didn't apply...
The Fact that the victim was performing a public service or duty... again doesn't apply..
The fact that the victim was of vulnerable age or disability... again doesn't apply...
So tell me what the aggravating factors are... because they are NOT there!!
She wasn't held captive for any length of time... this was apparently.. a spur of the moment attack that according to the evidence happened in a short space of time... so how can any of the aggravating factors apply????
-
...
I'll add this to the hundred questions ... but how could the Judge in his own words Know what a defendant intended to do???
...
The judge was not claiming to know what the defendant intended to do. He based it on the prosecutor's aggressive cross-examination of VT on this point. This doesn't excuse the judge, but it does explain his words:
Mr. Lickley: “How do you make a pass at someone which is not sexual? Were you trying to kiss Joanna on the lips?”
Vincent Tabak: “Yes, but it was not sexual. It was just a kiss. I wanted to kiss her”.
Mr. Lickley: “– Because you would find it enjoyable?”
Vincent Tabak: “Yes”.
Mr. Lickley: “What sort of kiss did you have in mind?”
Vincent Tabak: “A kiss on the lips”.
Mr. Lickley: “You wanted to kiss her on the mouth – a woman you have known for a few minutes – you didn't even know her name! You think of kissing her on the mouth? That’s sexual, isn’t it?”
Vincent Tabak: “I don’t think that it was sexual”.
Mr. Lickley: “Were you sexually aroused when you held Joanna’s throat?”
Vincent Tabak: “Definitely not.”
-
If VT and Joanna had known each other very well, I am amazed that none of the newspapers sniffed this out. Somebody else must have known...
One newspaper DID report that they knew each other, as I have pointed out. In this case, the newspapers have sniffed out a lot of facts that turned out to be false, or, like this one, were never heard of again - yet their record on sniffing out really important facts, such as the reason why so many fire & rescue vehicles & officers were needed to recover the body, but not revealed to the jury, has been so bad that I am convinced that even Judge Rinder and Netflix are part of a very large conspiracy.
I am always loathe to provide ammunition for those who believe Vincent Tabak guilty as charged, especially as they seem to be so devoid of commonsense and imagination. Be that as it may, I have read of cases in which criminals forced their victims to sex by the threat of violence. One such victim was strangled, and the pathologist believed at first that she had not been raped, leading police to suspect someone close to her. Only after unidentified semen was found on her jumper did they close the case until the same DNA turned up in another case.
This means that Joanna could have been raped by a stranger, who took her sock as a trophy. I don't believe it myself. However, those who believe VT guilty ought to confront the possibility that he did go on to rape her, and that it suited the lawyers not to let the jury know this. This would have been the logical thing for him to do if he had been a sociopath who could not take rejection and liked to combine strangulation with intercourse, as Mr Lickley seems to believe.
The pathologist omitted to testify to a number of obvious facts, such as blood alcohol content. He told the court nothing about whether he even looked for evidence of consensual sex.
If VT and Jo did know each other, as that solitary newspaper allegation claimed, then that opens up the possiblity that they had been lovers, and that they may also have had sex, either consensual or not, that evening while their partners were both absent. This scenario could account for the curious about-turn of Paul Cook QC regarding the bail application, though it doesn't in any way account for the subsequent behaviour of William Clegg QC.
-
Defence Counsel: Our Timeline 113 – your car was seen on the road and so you must
have reached your flat around 10 minutes past midnight.
I dislike the vagueness of the Defences questions.... Which road is the defence refering too?? Is it Canygne Road??
Is it any road between.. Bedminster and Canygne Road.. Or any road between Longwood lane and Canygne road??
What captured Dr Vincent Tabak on this road? If it's a CCTV image where's the date and time stamped image of Dr Vincent Tabak on the road..
If it's a person... why did they not appear in court??
What Time and day is Timeline 113...???
How can Clegg determine the length of time it took Dr Vincent Tabak to reach home, if they was NO evidence presented or demonstration to prove this time??
Is Clegg just hazarding a guess at this time... Why doesn't Clegg state where Dr Vincent Tabak's car is....
By Clegg stating Dr Vincent Tabak reaches his home around midnight... Is that Time accurate???
What time is around Midnight??? Exact times are extremely important...
Here he does the same ... He must know the exact times ..
This does mean that one really hasn’t got a real clue as to when Tabak went into
Joanna’s flat except that it was between the time he went to Asda and the time he texted
his girlfriend, say, between 9.00 pm and 11.00 pm.
He know when Tanja was sent a text from Dr Vincent Tabak,... why the hazarding a guess...
Here's another point that needs correction...
Defence Counsel: When did the couple move in to Flat 1?
Tabak: 25 October 2010
How did Dr Vincent Tabak know when Joanna Yeates and Greg Reardon moved into Flat 1???
What event made them moving into Flat 1 make that date so memorable??
If the facebook comments by Greg giving away his Ski equipment are dated 16th Oct 2010 and whom ever wants these items ....collect from Canygne Road.. Had they moved into Canygne Road by this time?? Had Dr Vincent Tabak noticed his neighbours before the 25th December 2010
If he had never seen his neighbours before the tragedy in December 2010.. How could he know who had moved into Flat 1 on the 25th October 2010???
-
I had an interesting discusion today... I found out something about the PERSPEX Fronted Cell..... It's not the normal conversation you would have with anyone,... it was a passing comment...
I remember Jixy saying... About the PERSPEX fronted cell... and i accepted like everybody else did, the FACT.. that Dr Vincent Tabak was put in a PERSPEX fronted cell.. was because he was on suicide watch...
We all..... Including me... accepted that as a genuine reason for the way in which he was incarcerated....
Question... What are PERSPEX Fronted Cells used for?????
Is it the Norm to put Suicide Prisoners in These type of cells and I believe the answer is NO....
Think about that ... How many PERSPEX cells would prisons have to have installed to WATCH.... LOKK AFTER Prisoners on suicide watch????? Well a damn sight more than they actually have...!!!!
An Aquaintance of mine who I hadn't seen in a long time.. described a situation she found herself in... upon arrest.. and subsequently being held for 17 hours plus... Why was SHE put in a PERSPEX fronted cell......???
Massive question....Simple Answer....
They put her in this PERSPEX prisone cell... NOT because she was suicidal....... BUT.......... Because she suffered from Panic Attacks and Agrophobia... and needed the visual to stop her from feeling Trapped!!!!!
There fore as I have stated before... Dr Vincent Tabak Most likely suffered from an anxiety based illness. and couldn't cope with being in a cell where he didn't fell claustophobic.....
And as these anxiety type disorder run in family it would only go to support the fact that he suffered the same disorder as his mother....
It has be stated that Dr Vincent Tabak's mother suffers from Agrophobia... So why not her son Vincent ??? Who according to NO MEDICAL EVIDENCE to support him at trial had no problems with life what so ever.... Nonsense...
Yes... you may come back at me for the PERSPEX CELL... but i challenge you to prove the reason legally that Dr Vincent Tabak was detained behind a PERSPEX Fronted cell in the first place!!!!!!!
If it wasn't for the simple answer that he wa Agrophobic like his own mother!!
-
...
Question.. In Dr Vincent Tabak's testimoney to the court... does he ever say thta he spoke to "Brotherton"??
...
Mr. Clegg's last question on VT's first day in the witness box: “You met Brotherton and told him what you did. Did you want to kill Joanna?”
Vincent Tabak: “No, definitely not.”
-
Mr. Clegg's last question on VT's first day in the witness box: “You met Brotherton and told him what you did. Did you want to kill Joanna?”
Vincent Tabak: “No, definitely not.”
So is Dr Vincent Tabak denying he even met "Brotherton"??? Because the reply could be in that context!!
Everyone assumes he's denying killing Joanna Yeates... But Thinking about it now... he could quite easily be denying ever met with "Brotherton!!! (IMO)....
-
So is Dr Vincent Tabak denying he even met "Brotherton"??? Because the reply could be in that context!!
Everyone assumes he's denying killing Joanna Yeates... But Thinking about it now... he could quite easily be denying ever met with "Brotherton!!! (IMO)....
No of course it is not Brotherton he is "denying"! It is the question, "Did you WANT to kill Joanna?" that he is denying. That is Clegg's reason for ending the day's cross-examination with this question.
It would be sensational if he had denied meeting Brotherton, and the prosecution would certainly have pounced on that.
It is the barristers and the judge who should be brought before their own professional bodies. Mr Lickley told the jury that VT confessed to Brotherton that he had killed Joanna. However, Brotherton never used the word "confession" except to say that "it was NOT a RELIGIOUS confession". He was a careful witness ensuring that no one could ever charge him with perjury, as he emphasised that "it was NOT a confession". But everyone pounces on the word "religious". Brotherton NEVER testified that VT told him he had killed Joanna. It was Clegg who put that idea into the jury's head by posing it as a question that the witness did not need to deny.
Unlike jurors, judges are trained to detect and control this kind of trickery on the part of barristers. The jury trusted the judge, yet he remained silent.
Brotherton's supposed "betrayal" of VT's confidence caused so much comment in the press (none of whom understood what was going on) that the authorities published a warning to prisoners that the chaplaincies could not guarantee confidentiality.
Your research into this issue is excellent, but the conspirators could also have used another prisoner as "listener". This has been done in many other cases, but none of these would have made such an impact in court as Brotherton did.
-
There are loads of things that should have been produced in court....
Like the Coat Stand, that we can see clearly in the crime scene photo's... that apparently Dr Vincent Tabak hung his coat upon...
Did they forget to take it to Forensics???
Did they think the killer came round in a onsie... Common sense must say that it's possibly been touched by an intruder.. But we have it there for all to see in the hallway of Flat 1...
The kettle is missing.. and appliances from the kitchen are missing... did they think the killer wanted to pop the kettle on...
I still have a problem with Greg being able to take away his possessions... and the only photograph that are available of Flat 1 are when Greg's possesions have been removed....
That's not right... how would that give a true representaion of how Flat 1 should look like...
They painted the idea that Flat 1 was a time capsule.... That would imply that nothing had been touched since Joanna Yeates disappearance...
The Flat to me looks staged... How can you have such a tidy Flat when a Murder was supposed to have taken place there... Greg says how messy it was ....So why is it so TIDY???
Didn't the Jury even question this.... what were they told upon entrance to the flat... we don't know... because they seem to have completely put out of their heads that a VIOLENT STRUGGLE took place in that Flat...?
How did that come into play when deciding on Dr Vincent Tabak's fate...
Did they had to visualize what took place there ??? They had to imagine how furniture was knocked over ??
Which brings me back to the console... where is it in the photographs.. mrswah said consoles are tables as well.. so I would imagine that it should be in the hall... "BROKEN"!!
Where are the photographs of this broken Console?? Were the jury shown photographs of the flat before the clean up... when it had all of Greg's possesions in situ???
Or.. did they just see it when they went on their visit???
When you compare the crime scenes of Joanna Yeates and Becky Watts, they are vastly different... They didn't remove everything out of Becky Watts home...
The photo's of Joanna Yeates flat are definetley staged ... she didn't move into a flat with NO Carpets.... So they had to move all the furniture to take the carpets up....
Did they take photographs so they could put everything back in its place ??? where are these photographs??? What did Joanna Yeates Flat TRULY look like!!!
-
We don't know, Nine.
I remember, when Jo first went missing, there were conflicting reports about the state of the flat, some saying it was too tidy, some saying the opposite.
Greg said (in court) that he found a mess, and that he had tidied up before realising that something untoward might have happened to Jo.
Jo's parents commented on the state of the flat, but it was never clear exactly what they meant. I assume that they feared Jo had been abducted because they found her keys, purse, phone, etc in the flat, and knew that she would not have gone out without these items.
As for the bathroom being thoroughly examined by the forensic team, I suppose there were no suspects at that time, and that forensic teams always examine bathrooms thoroughly. Certainly, VT's story did not give any indication that anything had happened in the bathroom.
-
We don't know, Nine.
I remember, when Jo first went missing, there were conflicting reports about the state of the flat, some saying it was too tidy, some saying the opposite.
Greg said (in court) that he found a mess, and that he had tidied up before realising that something untoward might have happened to Jo.
Jo's parents commented on the state of the flat, but it was never clear exactly what they meant. I assume that they feared Jo had been abducted because they found her keys, purse, phone, etc in the flat, and knew that she would not have gone out without these items.
As for the bathroom being thoroughly examined by the forensic team, I suppose there were no suspects at that time, and that forensic teams always examine bathrooms thoroughly. Certainly, VT's story did not give any indication that anything had happened in the bathroom.
I can't find the post at the mo... But in one of the video's Jo's mum appears in she says about the washing up still being in the sink upon their arrival....
I wanted to know who cleaned that up... once they had contacted the Police and thought she had been abducted, you are not really gonna start doing the dishes... so why do we see a clean sink in the time capsule of the Flat???
-
A... Assume Nothing
B... Believe No one
C.. Challenge everything../ check everything
A..B..C..
A basic for all to follow.. Police. Defence ,Prosecution Forensics alike.... Why didn't they implement this
The assumptions that were made in this case are tenfold..
Who did they believe??
Who was challenged ??
What was checked??
What was Assumed??
Challenged virtually nothing... The Defence Challenged Virtually No one.. And everyone believed a story, that was not Checked....
Dr Vincent Tabak's Black Coat... Looks like a wool fibre type coat.. The Defence want us to believe that there was no fibre transfer from Joanna Yeates onto Dr Vincent Tabak's coat... It gets put upon the coatstand when he arrives at the flat..
Has anyone really challenged this ??? When do perfect strangers entering another residence take their coat of and hang it up???
They don't... the Offical line is they do not know each other.... only people who have meet and feel comfortable in a social situation would take their coat of and hang it upon the coat stand...
Why would it be one of the first things that he would do??
Maybe once feeling a little more comfortable you would take your coat off, but I would imagine that he would put it across his arm..
We have no fibre transfer from Joanna Yeates on anything belonging to Dr Vincent Tabak... There should be some.. why didn't the defence challenge this before trial... why didn't the defence question everything..
Was The DNA Profiles tested against everyone who came into contact with Joanna Yeates ... The answer is NO!! why??
Was Tanja Morson's statements brought to court as she lived with Dr Vincent Tabak... No.. Why??
Was The Landlords statements brought to trial.... NO!! Why?? Could have challenged him!!
Did everyone involved in this case follow the simple A.. B... C...?? What other A.. B... C... should they have followed ??
-
What are the principles?
The SRA sets out the following principles:
(1):uphold the rule of law and the proper administration of justice
(2):act with integrity
(3):not allow your independence to be compromised
(4):act in the best interests of each client
(5):provide a proper standard of service to your clients
(6):behave in a way that maintains the trust the public places in you and in the provision of legal services
(7):comply with your legal and regulatory obligations and deal with your regulators and ombudsman in an open, timely and co-operative manner
(8):run your business or carry out your role in the business effectively and in accordance with proper governance and sound financial and risk management principles
(9):run your business or carry out your role in the business in a way that encourages equality of opportunity and respect for diversity
(10):protect client money and assets
Well there's rich picking ........ Does lambasting your Client to a jury constitute any of the Principles of Law??
Does offering a Base Metal Service constitute the Principles of Law??
I have lost trust in the Defences ability to show a Fair and open approach to their own client, does that Constitute that Principles of Law??
In Fact it was the Defences statements of hatred they had for their client that pricked my ears about this case.... I couldn't understand this??
Could I put my hand on heart and say that this case was conducted with the "Principles Of Law"... (IMO) NO!!
https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/support-services/advice/articles/the-ten-principles/
-
...
As for the bathroom being thoroughly examined by the forensic team, I suppose there were no suspects at that time, and that forensic teams always examine bathrooms thoroughly. Certainly, VT's story did not give any indication that anything had happened in the bathroom.
Of course there were suspects at the time! Officially, VT became a suspect on 31 December 2010. At that time, CJ was already a suspect, and had become one not later than 28 December 2010, when he was seen on TV for the first time.
Although we have been told that Lindsay Lennen took away the bedding for forensic analysis while Joanna was still a missing person, the heavy gang didn't move in until January, when dangerous chemicals were brought in. Ask yourself why the jury wasn't even TOLD about the forensic examination of the flat - let alone being told the evidence that you know very well would have had to exist if an inexperienced murderer had been loose in there. It seems obvious to me that the heavy gang were there to OBLITERATE forensic evidence that a later investigation could have used to incriminate someone other than Vincent Tabak. If you disagree with that conclusion, why not produce some arguments to refute it?
That is probably the explanation for the black stains in the bathroom too.
The flat ceased to be a crime scene after Operation Braid was shut down in April 2011, and there was no reason why Greg Reardon should not have had his possessions restored to him by then. The reason for taking the jury to see the flat was, obviously, to allow them to feel important and feel a tingle in their spines, and brainwash them into believing that the crime really did take place there - especially as it most probably took place elsewhere.
-
I didn't know Operation Braid was shut down in April 2011. (How do you know this, Leonora?) What would have happened had VT not pleaded guilty, and had been found not guilty at the trial ? Surely, the police don't close a case until they have found the perpetrator??
I don't understand what the jury visit to the flats was intended to achieve, except to bring it home to the jury members that an ordinary young woman, leading an ordinary life, was unfortunate enough to be murdered by the beast next door, after experiencing an ordinary day------and it could happen to any of us. I remember that the jurors in the Rosemary West trial visited her home too---but at least they knew for certain that a number of young women's bodies had been buried in that home. It has never been proved that Joanna died in her flat---or in VT's.
-
I didn't know Operation Braid was shut down in April 2011. (How do you know this, Leonora?) What would have happened had VT not pleaded guilty, and had been found not guilty at the trial ? Surely, the police don't close a case until they have found the perpetrator??
I don't understand what the jury visit to the flats was intended to achieve, except to bring it home to the jury members that an ordinary young woman, leading an ordinary life, was unfortunate enough to be murdered by the beast next door, after experiencing an ordinary day------and it could happen to any of us. I remember that the jurors in the Rosemary West trial visited her home too---but at least they knew for certain that a number of young women's bodies had been buried in that home. It has never been proved that Joanna died in her flat---or in VT's.
The Crown was to serve its case papers to the defence by 1st April 2011, so Operation Braid must have been completed by then. The inquest was held on 28th March 2011. The very interesting details (attached) of the expenditure on the case up to 31 March 2011 was published as a result of someone's FoI request.
The only beasts living next-door to me, mrswah, are of the friendly four-legged variety like your "avatar", so I don't expect the same fate to overtake me!
-
Operation Braid-Murder of Joanna Yeates Expenditure
Operation Braid - Spend to 31/03/11
Description Spend to 31/03/11
Overtime Costs............ £ 231,352.00
Agency Staff Costs ......... £ 4,164.00
Accommodation & Subsistence ... £ 2,345.00
Travel/fuel/hire cars etc..... £ 7,505.00
Equipment Purchases...... £ 10,639.00
Contribution from other Forces .. £ 6,662.00
Purchase of Storage Crates... £ 5,484.00
Telephony Costs............ £ 3,216.00
Interpreters Fees and other costs £ 3,468.00
Printing and Advertising Costs...... £ 440.00
Total of Overtime & Expenses.. £ 275,275.00
Forensic Costs..... £ 83,379.00
Salaries..... £ 856,000.00
TOTAL £ 1,214,654.00
(1): Overtime Costs... Expected.. long hours put into case
(2): Agency Staff Costs ... I wonder what agency staff they used and if any should have been called as witness's??
(3): Accommodation & Subsistence.. I'm presuming this is for the family.. unless part of this was used when they
went to Holland??
(4): Travel/fuel/hire cars etc.... Yes this would include flight to Holland..
(5): Equipment Purchases... I wonder what equipment was purchased ??
(6): Contribution from other Forces .... Now this one I at first puzzled over, because I don't know what other forces
were involved.. I just thought it was Avon and Somerset Police... But Then I wondered if they were referring to
the DUTCH POLICE??
Or is it the Fire Service they are referring too??
(7): Purchase of Storage Crates.... That's a lot of money on storage crates... what on earth have they got stored in
them??? None of it came to trial!!!
(8): Telephony Costs......
(9): Interpreters Fees and other costs....
Now an Interpreter was hardly used.. where is the breakdown of this??
The Police may have had an interpreter in the begining.. But They never used one to translate the Dutch text or
they would have appeared in court!!!
Or did they need an Interpreter when they were in Holland?? Did they
use an interpreter when they INTERVIEWED Dr Vincent Tabak in Holland??????
If so... where are all the translations... thats a lot of money for interpreters... especially when the Defence have to pay for their own!!!!!
(10): Printing and Advertising Costs...
(11): Forensic Costs = £ 83,379.00.... I would love a breakdown of these cost... Especially LGC's costs or are these
LGC's cost??
-
It all sounds very expensive, but in terms of murder investigations, I have no idea whether it is!
-
Tabak: I was hoping she was alive but clearly she wasn’t.
Defence Counsel: Accepting that she was dead, what did you do?
Tabak: After a couple of minutes I lifted the body and carried it over to my flat.
Defence Counsel: Your hand being on what part of her body?
Tabak: One arm was underneath her knees.
Defence Counsel: Were you able to carry her to your flat?
Tabak: No she was too heavy. I tried again.
Defence Counsel: Where did you take her body?
Tabak: To my flat.
Defence Counsel: Did you leave Joanna’s door shut or open?
Tabak: Open.
Defence Counsel: What did you do next?
Tabak: I decided to put her body in my bicycle cover.
Defence Counsel: Was it your bicycle cover or Tanja’s?
Tabak: No- it was mine.
Defence Counsel: How easy was it to put the body in the bicycle cover?
Tabak: Very difficult but eventually I did it.
Defence Counsel: Why did you put her body in the bicycle cover?
Tabak: I didn’t want anyone to find out and I put the body in my car.
Defence Counsel: Was Joanna’s door still open?
Tabak: Yes.
Then...... So after struggling with the body and it being his first murder... he has the presence of mind to do this next :..
Defence Counsel: After you put the body in the boot of your car, what did you do next?
Tabak: I went back to Joanna’s flat and switched off the TV and the oven; I took away the
sock and the pizza.
Defence Counsel: Why did you take the pizza and sock?
Tabak: I was not thinking straight.
Defence Counsel: Where did you take the pizza and sock?
Tabak: In my car.
Defence Counsel: You decided to take the body away. How were you going to do that?
Tabak: In the car.
Defence Counsel: Where was the car?
Tabak: On the street.
From the trial.....
Is the Defence happy in accepting that their Client apparently... left the door on the latch with NO mind or WORRY that someone may turn up to the flat and wonder what was going on?????
He returns to the flat twice... Would he really!
He was supposed to be in his Flat for an hour with Joanna Yeates body... you think that
(A): He'd of cleaned up in that time
(B): He of made sure he had both socks!!
It's only the Defence that tells us that Joanna Yeates told Dr Vincent Tabak that Greg was away.... How did he know???
Someone.... anyone... friends/family could have turned up at Joanna Yeates Flat at anytime, seeing as it was the week leading up to Christmas....
Did none of the neighbours drop off Christmas Cards??? Did anyone drop of Christmas cards ... ??
Why would he return to the flat at all, when it was always feasible someone could have turned up???
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
I was wondering what happened to all of the possesions that were removed from Joanna Yeates Flat and Dr Vincent Tabak's flat....
Did the Bulk Destruction Policy come into play....?? What happened to the Car and household goods that were tested???
Bulk destruction policy
It is not possible to define bulk for the purpose of this policy. Prosecutors should consider the issue of bulk on an individual case basis, and in liaison with the NCA / HMRC / police colleagues.
Bulk goods (for example, drugs, excise goods, alcohol etc) and associated packaging can be destroyed post charge. Prosecutors should make a decision as to the destruction of bulk goods following agreement from the defence or upon receipt of the defence statement.
The prosecutor must be satisfied that the case officer has:
Provided evidence, by way of witness statement, as to the quantity and nature of the bulk goods;
Provided photographs of the bulk goods and / or a video of the bulk goods in situ;
Confirmed that there are no issues as to continuity;
Confirmed that the decision about the selection of a representative sample has been recorded in a policy book / day book;
Provided an assurance that a representative sample has been retained by the case officer; and
Confirmed that the bulk goods will not be destroyed until they receive written consent from the prosecutor.
It is important that the defence are notified, at the earliest opportunity, of the prosecution's intention to destroy the goods. The prosecutor should either (a) write to the defence; or (b) raise the issue at the PTPH / PCMH so that the issue can be made the subject of directions:
notifying them of the prosecutions intention to destroy the goods;
giving them 7 days to provide any written reasons to object; and
making it clear that in the event no response is received, the prosecution will move to destruction of the bulk goods.
Prosecutors should be alert to the possibility of the defendant changing his / her defence team after the prosecution has sent the letter about intention to destroy the goods. In such circumstances, the defendant may claim that the earlier defence team has not acted appropriately with regard to the letter. The claim may weaken the prosecution case, so prosecutors must be prepared to overcome this argument. A full and clear audit of decisions and correspondence will be essential in order to rebut any potential challenges.
Do photographs exist of these bulk goods... Have these bulk goods been retained??
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/exhibits/
-
I was wondering what happened to all of the possesions that were removed from Joanna Yeates Flat and Dr Vincent Tabak's flat....
Did the Bulk Destruction Policy come into play....?? What happened to the Car and household goods that were tested???
Do photographs exist of these bulk goods... Have these bulk goods been retained??
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/exhibits/
No "bulk goods" were reported to have been impounded in this case. "Bulk goods" would be goods such as a crates of duty-free wine, cases of cigarettes, ivory, coral, or of course illegal drugs in quantities considered more than for personal use. The nearest things we get to "bulk goods" in this case are the adult and child pornographic materials, which of course could be replicated indefinitely, if they really existed.
Just because Tanja Morson's car and Vincent Tabak's mountain bike were too bulky to get inside a large hold-all doesn't mean that they were covered by the regulation that you quote. I expect Vincent's family were allowed to collect his mountain bike eventually, just as Amanda Knox's family were allowed to collect her climbing boots after she had been convicted.
-
No "bulk goods" were reported to have been impounded in this case. "Bulk goods" would be goods such as a crates of duty-free wine, cases of cigarettes, ivory, coral, or of course illegal drugs in quantities considered more than for personal use. The nearest things we get to "bulk goods" in this case are the adult and child pornographic materials, which of course could be replicated indefinitely, if they really existed.
Just because Tanja Morson's car and Vincent Tabak's mountain bike were too bulky to get inside a large hold-all doesn't mean that they were covered by the regulation that you quote. I expect Vincent's family were allowed to collect his mountain bike eventually, just as Amanda Knox's family were allowed to collect her climbing boots after she had been convicted.
Well they spent £5,484 on Storage Crates according to the Expenditure..
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg401172#msg401172
-
Where were the Exhibits in this Case?? What was produced at trial??
(1): Joanna Yeates Coat
(2): Joanna Yeates House keys
(3): Joanna Yeates Phone
(4): Joanna Yeates Sock
(5): Joanna Yeates Rucksack
(6):Joanna Yeates Black Bag
(7): Joanna Yeates Purse
(8): Bargain Booze Reciept
(9): The Bottles of Cider
(10): Tanja Morson's Car
(11): Dr Vincent Tabak's Black coat
Where any of these items brought to the court or in the case of the car visited by the jury??
These would have added value and impact for the Prosecution... So did anyone see them??
If NOT why NOT??
-
Alibi
In the absence of forensic evidence or a description, some TIE subjects can be eliminated through alibi enquiries. Alibi enquiries establish that a subject was not available to commit the offence because the person was in another location during the time that it was committed.
The degree of reliance that can be placed on alibi elimination depends on the credibility of the person providing the alibi. The HOLMES2 elimination criteria distinguish between alibi witnesses who are independent of the nominal, those who are associated with them in some way and those who are in an intimate relationship with them. Clearly, the value of alibi enquiries depends, to a large extent, on knowing with some certainty the location of the crime and the times during which it occurred. If it is not possible to set reasonably tight locations and alibi times, it is likely that many TIE subjects will remain not eliminated.
How did the Police exclude any alibi Dr Vincent Tabak may have had in the intial arrest??
Clearly, the value of alibi enquiries depends, to a large extent, on knowing with some certainty the location of the crime and the times during which it occurred.
They had no clear idea of when where or how Joanna Yeates had died when they Arrested Dr Vincent Tabak and with the Time Stamp being Void on the Asda CCTV it makes it difficult to know at what time he visited ASDA??
We know he went into Asda Twice.... where these two seperate visits at very different times ??
Not eliminated
Someone who cannot be eliminated using codes 1–5 must be recorded as not eliminated. This does not mean that they are a suspect in the case. Where the elimination criteria are broad, it is likely that fewer TIE subjects will be eliminated than where the criteria are more narrowly defined.
Why didn't they just release Dr Vincent Tabak on bail when they had NO Hard Evidence to retain him...
Investigation
Working with suspects
The identification of suspects, the trace/interview/eliminate (TIE) strategy and the arrest strategy are explored in this module. In terms of the arrest strategy, considerations around timings, background checks, searches, planning, pre-arrest briefings and post-arrest issues are included.
Even if they had suspected Dr Vincent Tabak... they do not appear to have taken much notice the working with subject stratergy (IMO)...
Arrest strategy
An investigator must decide whether the suspect can or should be arrested. The decision to deprive an individual of their freedom should not be taken lightly, and advice should be sought from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) if needed. Once a suspect has been identified, a strategy development approach can be adopted to gather material that will either implicate them in the offence or eliminate them. Every individual who falls within the suspect category must be treated in the same way. If there are specific reasons for not following the same procedure, these should be recorded in the crime report or policy file.
So this is the point Anne Redrrop decided that the evidence they had presented to her warranted planning his arrest... The only problem was all they had was a partial DNA sample... So what did they actually arrest Dr Vincent Tabak with???
https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/investigations/working-with-suspects/#arrest-strategy
-
Just spotted a little something..... When The Defence is talking about the Prison Chaplain.... he is fully aware (IMO)... that he is NOT a prison Chaplain in the true sense of the word:..
Defence Counsel: You met Brotherton and told him what you did? Did you want to kill
Joanna?
Tabak: No definitely not.
He refers to the Chapalin as Brotherton and NOT Brother Brotherton... he doesn't give him a title... Not even Mr Brotherton...
Well Mr Defence person... what did you know about "Brotherton"...
-
Bad Character Evidence....... Part One...
We have sort of covered this, but I just keep looking at how they actually managed to introduce "Bad Character Evidence" under a cloak...
Bad character
Further information
Bad character of the defendant(s) and non-defendant(s)
Previously, evidence of bad character fell within the category of inadmissible evidence however, this has been changed by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA).
The Act provides for the admissibility of previous convictions in support of the propensity to commit like offences and/or to be untruthful. Common law rules in the main are abolished.
Bad character evidence is evidence of, or a disposition towards, misconduct rather than evidence relating to the facts in issue. Misconduct includes the commission of an offence or other ‘reprehensible behaviour’.
Initially I always believed that the exclusion of the Porn was the only "Bad Character Evidence" that they could use against Dr Vincent Tabak.... But I now believe they manipulated the "Evidence" in such a way, that they did allow the unsuspecting Jury to hear this "Bad Character Evidence" as it was drip feed throughtout the " Defences statements in court... I believe it is the DEFENCE themselves who Produce The "Bad Character Evidence" and as I have said many times before bury their client...
Why would a Defence team... push through on their own volition, Evidence deemed as "Bad Character Evidence"???
I have no experience in these matters ... But surely that is not a legal move!!
Examples of what was said by the Defence, which could be percieved by the Jury as "Bad Character" (IMO) The below quotes are from The Sally Ramage Papers
s.But his conduct
afterwards was frankly disgusting.
The Defence are Telling The Jury that their client is of "Bad Character".
He caused anguish to her family.
His defence will not be heard to excuse this behaviour.
Only a person without Morals would have no compassion for the family..
He was obviously concerned with the incident, trying to track everything.
Allowing the Jury to believe that Dr Vincent Tabak was conniving ,deceitful and manipulating
Again he told lie after lie and you will hear no excuse from me about that.
There was Nothing to prove that Dr Vincent Tabak told lie after lie..
It shows a very
calculating person trying to wriggle out of her death
Again... stating that his OWN client is a"Calculating person"...
I will do this in parts as it will be way too long....
-
" Bad Character Evidence" Part Two.......
The below quotes come from the papers at the time of the trial.....
his conduct after Yeates died when he hid the body was “frankly disgusting” and had caused untold anguish and agony to her family.
Covered this one..
: “I’m not going to ask you to like Vincent Tabak. There’s probably nothing to like.”
The Defence push the boundaries of decency here... They cast aspersions on Dr Vincent Tabak's over all Character, without any "Evidence" provided by the "DEFENCE" themselves to prove the contrary
And Miss Morson seems to agree, having failed to make a single appearance at court.
By bringing into court that his longtime girlfriend had failed to appear at the trial, it suggest, that Dr Vincent tabak is such a dispicable person, they one and only person in this country who knew him well enough had, as it appeared "Failed him"... But infact.. Tanja Morson was kept away from the trial and sent away on holiday by her family...
He had told “lie after lie to the police.
This that Defence are refering too, is the infamous CJ interview where he talks about CJ's car.....
did everything he could to cover his tracks”.
That again is an UNTRUE..... If Dr Vincent Tabak did everyting in his power to cover his tracks he would have disposed of his "Laptop" in a River in Holland"...
But the Jury are being influenced by the Defence as to The "Bad Character" of their OWN Client...
He added that he would not try to justify Tabak’s actions after her death, saying his client was “living a lie” by attending dinner parties and attempting to carry on his life as normal.
Another example from the Defence as to Dr Vincent Tabak's carefree nature and uncaring approach...
“I’m not going to ask you to have any sympathy for him. He deserves none.
WOW... This one is EXTREMELY harsh.... The Defence had completely dropped there client in the fire.... "Nothing to like".... That statement in itself should be enough for the Jury to think that this man is Guilty of everything... Everything from this trial to anything your imagination can come up with...
He makes this HUGE "Statement "... Yet "No"... "Good Character Evidence".. was brought to court in Defence of Dr Vincent Tabak... and The "Good Character Evidence should be brought to trial by The Defence...
If it is the Defence who are actually bringing The Bad Character Evidence to trial about their own Client.... Is that not an abuse of power.... Is that "Not an abuse of the Principles of Law??...
“I’m not going to ask you to excuse his conduct. There can be no excuse.
“If I was to set out to win a popularity contest I would lose.
He told the court: “Of course, afterwards his behaviour is utterly disgraceful. It’s not going to be justified by me
but it does not help in thinking of what happened at the flat….
This Particular quote is quite worring.. not saying the others aren't , But this quote allows The Jury to conjour in their minds what they may think occured to Joanna Yeates , and what perverse things he may have done after being alone with her dead body...
There is absolutley NO Evidence as to What happened to Joanna Yeates apart from what Dr Vincent Tabak said on the witness stand...
Ever time the Defence utter words of distain for their client, it was another underhanded attempt to cast doubt on Dr Vincent Tabak "Good Character"... There was nothing in Dr Vincent Tabak's history to suggest that he was a man of "Bad Character"... The CPS could find nothing to support a claim of any Offence that Dr Vincent Tabak had previously...
-
"Bad Character Evidence Part Three...
In light of the Evidence that it was indeed it was "The Defence" who Introduced "The Bad Character Evidence" against their own client and in turn Dr Vincent Tabak had No chance to have "Good Character Evidence" Brought to trial... Isn't this
Evidence Evidence in itself that an "UNFAIR Trial had taken place.....
* When a Defendant such as Dr Vincent Tabak is being "Prosecuted" by both the "Prosecution and "The Defence" at
Dr Vincent Tabak's trial for the "Murder of "Joanna Yeates".. how in "Law" can this be permitted??
* How in "Law" is the boundaries of fairness being played out"
* How in "Law" did this "Dutchman" stand a chance to recieve a "Fair trial" ?
* Why has there "Not " been a retrial???
If it was a possibility for me to make this my online "Application" to "Request" a retrial for Dr Vincent Tabak on the "Evidence I have shown how the trial was in "law" "Unfair"... Then please accept my writtings as such... because someone out there must be reading this who Knows "Law"... and can see that........Dr Vincent Tabak.. The Placid Dutchman Did not recieve "A Fair trial " in this country of ours and as such I believe that "All the "Evidence".. should be brought to the Forefront and be scrutinised .... This "Evidence I believe.. Will not only show that Dr Vincent Tabak didn't recieve a fair trial in this country.... But it is my belief, it will also show that "Dr Vincent Tabak is actually Innocent of the Crime of which he has been found "Guilty of....
I would like "Ever Point that has been made brought to someones attention from:
* All The Time Stamps On All CCTV Footage that Avon and Somerset Police had in their Possesion
* The Illegal use of "Dutch Law" to interview Dr Vincent Tabak for 6 hours
* That fact that DC Karen Thomas did not caution Dr Vincent Tabak as a "Suspect" when it appears a Twin Track
Investigation was taking place and that was her intention to gather "Evidence" against Dr Vincent Tabak as she
suspected him of being involved with Joanna Yeates disappearance..
* The "Evidence that they supposidly had to Arrest Dr Vincent Tabak in the first place
* The Crying Girl Phone Call
* The Phone Call made from Holland
* The Taped Police Interviews of Dr Vincent Tabak
* The Phone records of Dr Vincent Tabak
* The 1300 page Document
* Good Character Evidence of Dr Vincent tabak
* The Role of The Fire Service nad the testomony of these personal
* DCI Phil Jones on the witness stand
* CJ's Second witness statement
* CJ on the witness stand
* Tanja Morson on the witness stand
* Timings of events that happened
* The Evidence that Anne Reddrop had to Plan Dr Vincent Tabak's arrest
* An explanation as to what was under the Two Forensic tents if Joanna Yeates wasn't
* The Asda CCTV Footage of Dr Vincent Tabak in the car park and the times of his Two visits
* The playing of the original "Crime Watch" program.. that was scheduled to air days after Dr vincent Tabak's arrest
* Mr Brotherton explaining his Job and Role in Dr Vincent Tabak's conviction
* Tanja Nickson's qualifications and explanation as to the "Computer Evidence"
* Scott Fulton, Head of E-services for Avon and Somerset Police , who was running an advisory role as a second job
and wasn't part of the Police force... What other Input did he have in this trial ?? Did he help Tanja Nickson with
her presentation???
I'll continue on next post...
-
"Bad Character Evidence " Part Four....
* Colin Port and his role an Knowledge of Information that was with held from the Defence... With his admission at
the Leveson enquiry that there was CCTV footage at "Caffe Nero" of a woman and child behind Joanna Yeates and
this was the clearest know Footage by the pubic, as we have just found out.... Of Joanna Yeates last Known
movements.
* Witness's who could prove that Dr Vincent Tabak was of "Good character"
* The other Tenants of 44 Canygne Road explaining the disruption that they were under during the Police
Investigation and did any of them leave the building and stay else where...
* The DNA Evidence put under the microscope...
* Did they put Joanna Yeates DNA into "The National Data Base and have a return of No Matches??
* The CCTV in "Colour" showing what Joanna Yeates was wearing on the night of the 17th December 2010
* A comparison Given to the clothes that Joanna yeates was found in... In particular "The Flower patterned Top"
described by Dr Delaney and what appears by the court artist to be "Blue Jeans on Joanna Yeates, instead of The
Black ones she was wearing on the night of the 17 Th December 2010...
* A demonstration showing how difficult it is to move a dead body on ones own
* The full Toxicology results of Joanna Yeates
* The discrepencies in other witness accounts cross examined
* The Hundred Questions I originally had that have now swelled to over "750" Questions...
* The Dutch Translation of any of Dr Vincent Tabak's writings...
I could go on.... I believe whole heartedly that this case not only has been completely "Unfair" and contravened many of our laws... (IMO) But also an "Inquiry" on the level of "The Leveson Inquiry"... should be undertaken and all those responsible for Dr Vincent Tabak's current situation should be brought to BOOK!!!! (IMO)
-
... I believe it is the DEFENCE themselves who Produce The "Bad Character Evidence" and as I have said many times before bury their client...
Mr. Clegg asked the pathologist Nat Cary whether asphyxiation could form part of a sexually motivated attack.
Dr. Cary replied, “There are some people, probably a pretty small number in the population, who become sexually aroused by asphyxiating someone,” he told the jury. “It is fair to say there are some people who become sexually aroused by being asphyxiated.”
-
Mr. Clegg asked the pathologist Nat Cary whether asphyxiation could form part of a sexually motivated attack.
Dr. Cary replied, “There are some people, probably a pretty small number in the population, who become sexually aroused by asphyxiating someone,” he told the jury. “It is fair to say there are some people who become sexually aroused by being asphyxiated.”
Another reason to add to my list Leonora.... of "The Defences Bad Character" of their own client... To keep suggesting that Dr Vincent Tabak was the sort of person NO Evidence had proved he was !!!!
-
Looking at more of the tweets .... It was The Lawyers... who decided how much detail was in Dr Vincent Tabak's statements...
Attached Tweets ....
Dr Cary Says Joanna Yeates face was virtually uninjured .....
Dr Cary States The redness on her nose was caused when her body froze and her skin was damaged...
Now we have got the PROBLEM... Of where "The Blood Came From"... because I always thought her nose was damaged in the struggle!!! Which makes it difficult for it to be in Dr Vincent Tabk's Car Boot!!!
How did Dr Cary find a fracture of Joanna Yeates Voice box.. which was not found in the First Post Mortem examination??
Dr Cary says its difficult to redress a dead body.... Is this question posed because Joanna Yeates had different clothes on....
http://live-news.sky.com/Event/Live_Updates_Tabak_Cross-Examination?Page=2
-
Please may I have a copy of the 200 page Transcript, of recorded Police Interviews following Dr Vincent Tabak's arrest .. That DC Richard Barnston, described at the trial...
Dc Paul Derrick.. denied there was tension between him and the duty solicitor.... (He's a new name for me to add....)
OMG... as I'm reading these tweets it's all screaming out at me..... Very cleverly worded .. is all I will say... Think I'll go back to Lyndsey Lennen and the "Forensics Topic after this post....
Now The defences Cross examination of Tanja Nickson is extremely brief according to the tweet...
http://live-news.sky.com/Event/Live_Updates_Vincent_Tabak_Trial3?Page=1
-
Part one....... i know I write long posts .. So I have split it into three....
I was Just looking at The News clips and I found one with Paul Vermij (Tabak family spokesman) , it got me thinking....
Video's are brilliant... they often put things into perspective, were the written word is often missed....
Vincent arrived with his girlfriend,er...on the 28th of December and they spend a few days together.. ermmm.... Celebrating Christmas and and New Years Eve and they left back for the UK on January the 2nd
Watching Paul it really got me visualising this little break to Holland to see his family... They had only arrived on the 28th December, I hadn't really thought about it properly...
Lets get this into some kind of order:
20th December early hours in The Morning... Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja are woken up to be asked by the Police if they have seen their neighbour...
I do remember Joanna Mother saying that Tanja seemed concerned... Because she had also been round before the Police ...
22nd December 2010 according to the trial transcript.. Dr Vincent Tabak's House was visited by The Police... Some say it was the 23rd December... At this point they carried out what is discribed as a routine search of the flat...
Then on the 31st December the Police interview him in Holland at Schiphol airport for six hours.
Well that's the quick version.... But putting yourself In Dr Vincent Tabaks position, just turns the whole thing around..
He is first awoken by Joanna Yeates family and then the Police on the 20th December 2010 in the early hours.... Most people don't take into account that Joanna Yeates Family had already been around and knocked on the door of flat 2....
So it is already registering that something quite serious is happening...
We all think this is Sunday... but the missing persons call didn't happen until the Monday... So he is not long back from America.. Tired and has been knocked up out of bed twice in the early hours of Monday morning ... he then has to get ready for a full days work....
I'm not surprised this event was in the for front of his mind.... Now we know that Joanna place of work had informed everyone ..How I don't know?.. could the same info have been sent to Buro Happold.... That isn't as far fetched as it sounds.... I have posted about an "World Architect News" online publication that featured "The Murder of Joanna Yeates.... Anyway..... Everyone is talking about this event... and when he returns home.. There is Police activity around the building..
This must be sinking In.. Dr Vincent Tabak and his girlfriend Tanja have moved to a respectable part of the city.. an affluent part of the city.. where you would imagine, it was safe... And this News and Police activity would be a little un-nerving for anyone, let alone a Dutch national In a foreign land....
After the initial flurry of Police.. The activity doesn't stop... not only do the pair need to continue with their working lives but there home lives are now blighted by the media interest....
http://www.gettyimages.ca/detail/video/vincent-tabak-makes-first-court-appearance-netherlands-news-footage/655331800
-
Part Two......
On the 23rd December the Police come around again to Dr Vincent Tabak's flat... And this time conducted a search of the premises.....
To me... this action is the important action..... This is an abuse of power in my opinion..... They have a Dutch National with no real idea of English law... A neighbour missing and he wouldn't put up any resistance to this...
Ordinarily... when there is A Missing Person... The police "Do Not" search the surrounding properties... they don't just assume that one of the neighbour in the local community has a body hidden in the house...
They would just make house to house Inquiries... and that would be it.... On this day after the Polices Intrusion into their home Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja travel to her Parents home in Cambridge.... The pair are probably hoping for some peace...
But No..... DC Karen Thomas who I believe is "The Murder Investigation" Team Member from the Twin Track Investigation... doesn't let it lie... She phones Dr Vincent Tabak on the 24th December 2010 to ask him more questions...... This I believe is NOT normal Police Procedure..(IMO)... The poor Man is trying to get away from the attention that is surrounding his building and has gone away for a few days for Christmas.... "Why" Is DC Karen Thomas ringing him???
We must bare in mind.. That DC Karen Thomas stated that it was his behaviour in Holland that prompted her suspicions... So again..."Why" did DC Karen Thomas ring Dr Vincent Tabak whilst he was away in Cambridge ?? There really is NO rhyme or reason for this....
He has been spoken to twice and had a search of his home by the time she decides to ring him on the 24th December 2010... So why is she harrassing him when he's at Tanja's parents home....
With these constant questions ,searches and people whom they are staying with asking questions... I am Not surprised that this was always on Dr Vincent Tabak's mind... he could get away from it.....
They then travel to Holland and are there on the 28th December 2010... Of Course Dr Vincent Tabak is going to tell his family what has been Happening In England right next door to where he lives... We need to remember that Dr Vincent Tabak has lead a very quite life... pootling about, he is quite unremarkable in the sense that he never draws attention to himself... But now.... He his girlfriend and the building are at the centre of one of Englands Biggest Media Profiled Cases....
So it's not surprising he knows a lot about it.... Now I'm coming to why I started to write this ... And it is of course the "Infamous Interview in Holland"....
Ok... I know the Official version is that Dr Vincent Tabak tried to implicate CJ.... which i do not believe for one moment..... But I really want to understand how any why.. they persuaded Dr Vincent Tabak to come to that Interview In the first place.....
As we would assume Dr Vincent Tabak knows Dutch Law... And I am of the belief that they "Police Team who went to Holland, not only used Dutch Law when they Interviewed him.... But I believe that when he spoke on the phone, he was made aware of the situation.... And it is extremely feasible that they explained about this Interview over the phone....
DC Karen Thomas has implied that Dr Vincent Tabak's sister was like a mother hen fussing over him.... And whilst we have the image of a Placid Dutchman in our minds we can sort of see where she is coming from.... I always thought she was there looking out for him.... But there has to be more than that....
Dr Vincent Tabak's sister has accompanied him because not only does Dr Vincent Tabak know that this is an Official Police Interview, So does his sister... and she is probably making sure that they stay within the boundaries of Dutch Law....(IMO)
I had to really think about this...... If Dr Vincent Tabak is trying to get away from all of "The Media Attention" and is on his well earned break for The Christmas period.... WHY ON EARTH WOULD HE AGREE TO GIVE A WITNESS STATEMENT... In Holland when he is relaxing and wanting to spend time with his family....???
-
Part Three.....
He's only been in Holland a few days... And DC Karen Thomas who up until this point has NOT left Dr Vincent Tabak alone... Is Flying out on her mission to Interview him as a "Witness"..... Now in anyone's book that information that Dr Vincent Tabak may or may not have had ,could wait for the couples return to England...
But DC Karen Thomas again, won't let it lie.... she flys to Holland and Interviews Dr Vincent Tabak for 6 hours...
I know I've explained before that in Dutch Law.. You can Interview a suspect for 6 hours.. then you either charge or release them...
Now it was never DC Karen Thomas's intention to charge Dr Vincent Tabak with anything whilst he was in Holland... But she used 'The Full Application of Dutch Law" to intimidate Dr Vincent Tabak (IMO)....
Her note book must have been close to bursting by the time this Interview was complete... she had gone totally prepared to undermine and un nerve Dr Vincent Tabak... (IMO)... Her intension was already fixed .. her knowledge that "DutchLaw' allows a 6 hour Interview must have been fixed in her mind... Or did she just conveniently stop at around 6 hours.... I don't believe THAT for one second....
She had to be prepared, there are no two ways about it.... She wouldn't want to contravene "Dutch Law"... especially as Dr Vincent Tabak's sister was present.... So would have checked what the Dutch Procedure would be on Interviewing a suspect ....... I can Confidently say Suspect...... because no matter how DC Karen Thomas wants to dress this appauling treatment of Dr Vincent Tabak up... She had to Know That "Dutch Law" allows for 6 hours...(IMO)
The answer to this stares us in the Face.... If she had gone to Holland with the "Sole" Intension of Interviewing Dr Vincent Tabak as "A Witness"... then the Interview could and should have carried on for longer.... They could have popped to the bar to make them all feel more comfortable.... But it wasn't like that.... This was a Serious Interview... And Dr Vincent Tabak was defineatly a "SUSPECT" (IMO)... And his sister was their purely to protect his interests....
This action alone I believe is Illegal (IMO)... we then come to the excuse of why they take Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA swab.....
This reason is across between two answers that Dc Karen Thomas and DCI Phil Jones do NOT exactly agree upon... When we see DC Karen Thomas talk about when she comes to the end of the "Process".... as she like to call it.. Because of Dr Vincent Tabak's apprant over interest in "Forensics" and his story NOT being quite right... This is why DC Karen Thomas says she asked for a DNA sample.....
Now when we look at DCI Phil Jones reason for why they took Dr Vincent Tabk's DNA.... he at first talk about Dr Vincent Tabak's ....again apparent over interest of "Forensics... But then adds that they took his DNA Following the policy we had taken with all our witness's....
Now I believe that statement made on video by DCI Phil Jones is wrong.... And by both of them giving different reason's for obtaining Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA... How can we be completeley sure that he did indeed give this sample Voluntarily??? Ann Redrrop herself on video states that Dr Vincent Tabak was reluctant to give this DNA sample.... What reason did DC Karen Thomas give Dr Vincent Tabak for obtaining his DNA???
He has to be under the impression that the Interview is legit... It's done within the boundaries of "Dutch Law"... But chuck a bit of English Law into the mix and anything could have been said to Dr Vincent Tabak to get him to give what "they" describe as a "Voluntary" sample... (IMO)
We do not now what is contained within the notes of a 6 hour Interview that DC Karen Thomas and her Colleague took.... So we do not know the type of questions and what questions she and her Colleague asked Dr Vincent Tabak.... And without there content being revealed in court, we only have their "word" that Dr Vincent tabak was over Interested in "Forensic's " and that his story had changed!.. Personally I do NOT believe them (IMO).. I believe they have proven that they as "The Law' cannot keep their simple story straight.. which can be seen in various video's ... So why should i believe.... Again in DC Karen Thomas words.. "Their Version of Events"!! (IMO)..
I don't... I don't believe a word of it.... The used the law to hound Dr Vincent Tabak... And they also used the fact that he was a Forgien National to confuse him into cooperating with the English Police Force ,..(IMO)..
So why didn't the Defence look into the legal status of this Interview?? Did "The Base Metal Service', not stretch to finding out just a few basics of "Dutch Law"?? Or were the Defence to concerned "That Their Base Metal Service" Had not much room for manuover ..(IMO)...
Which ever way you look at it.... Dr Vincent Tabak DID NOT have FAIR treatment from the outset...... (IMO) From being questioned not only by "The Missing Persons" enquiry team to being question agin by "The Murder Enquiry" team.. in this Twin Track Investigation.... Is it any wonder that Dr Vincent Tabak had trouble sleeping?? As he had no concept of English Law and would NOT be aware of what a "Twin Track Investigation" was.....(IMO)
Or maybe that was how they got around harassing him.... They could have told him that was how Investigations were conducted,... And every time someone called or search his home... it was from either "The Missing Person" team or "The Murder " team...(IMO) Maybe that's why Dr Vincent Tabak was being so helpful... because he was dealing with TWO Investigations at the same time....
And in my opinion.... it was them that Manipulated The Dutchman and not the other way around...... (IMO)!!
-
It is highly likely that VT didn't know what a "twin track investigation " was, since I am British, and I didn't know either!
It is also highly likely that he didn't know the ins and outs of English law----why should he have done?
I would imagine that he was told that it was "normal procedure" to give a DNA sample, so he did. I wonder if Tanja was asked to give one too---does anyone know? And, perhaps it really is "normal procedure"---I have no idea! The whole business of going all the way to Holland to interview him, when he was returning home a couple of days later, is a bit over the top, however! Very over the top, in fact. And, goodness knows why the police kept phoning him while he was in Cambridge.
-
This Case is about..... Smoke.... Mirrors..... And Leverage..... In my humble Opinion.... And there are some of you out there who know EXACTLY what I mean.....
My Mammoth 17 hour stint yesterday... and 15 hour stint today... Finally put things into perspective.... For some aspect of this case at least....( Not Forgetting 8 months of Typing for as many hours a day....) lol ?{)(**
&%+((£
And now I believe I can Prove that... The Placid Dutchman Is Innocent.... which I have always believed ....
-
Maybe I have been unfair with The Defence in the light of what I believe I have uncovered..
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8051.msg408563#msg408563\
Maybe it was the Defences best effort with Little Time to tackle this case fully and with The reluctance of the prosecution to hand over 1300 pages of Document... That The only way "CLEGG" could actually help Dr Vincent Tabak... Was to discredit his own client..
Making as many moves as he could so someone would say that procedure hadn't been followed in this case... And then an appeal would be forth coming....
He also needs the trial to take it's course because ....he needs them all to perjure themselves so he can actually back up the fact that Ann Redrrop actually misused her powers and the like of DC Karen Thomas happily told the world about Dr Vincent Tabak's weird behaviour in Holland!!! (IMO)..
And the only person not covered in flies is DCI Phil Jones..... who never took the witness stand in court ,... But Happily stood next to Ann Redrrop as she Publicly claimed she had been Investigating Dr Vincent Tabak since ... late December 2010.. And he watched her commit Judicial Suicide in front of A Nation (IMO).... Maybe someone needs to look at DCI Phil Jones Motives for pursuing Dr Vincent Tabak whilst never taking the fall for it going wrong in court... (IMO)
What could DCI Phil Jones possible have to hide... ??? I wonder if he does a spot of putting?? Or would that be too rude to ask?? (IMO)..
Yes... it's true... Clegg doesn't loose cases like this.....as leonora pointed out... Maybe this case isn't lost after all.... 8)--))
Maybe they Defence are still pulling strings behind the scenes as we all write on here ..... I really hope so... And whilst your at it... check out the timings and do a demonstration on how hard it is to carry a body around please .... 8)--))
-
It struck me as odd that a QC with the experience of Clegg could be such a prat. Maybe there is rather more to what you are suggesting here.
-
Maybe I have been unfair with The Defence in the light of what I believe I have uncovered..
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8051.msg408563#msg408563\
Maybe it was the Defences best effort with Little Time to tackle this case fully and with The reluctance of the prosecution to hand over 1300 pages of Document... That The only way "CLEGG" could actually help Dr Vincent Tabak... Was to discredit his own client..
Making as many moves as he could so someone would say that procedure hadn't been followed in this case... And then an appeal would be forth coming....
He also needs the trial to take it's course because ....he needs them all to perjure themselves so he can actually back up the fact that Ann Redrrop actually misused her powers and the like of DC Karen Thomas happily told the world about Dr Vincent Tabak's weird behaviour in Holland!!! (IMO)..
And the only person not covered in flies is DCI Phil Jones..... who never took the witness stand in court ,... But Happily stood next to Ann Redrrop as she Publicly claimed she had been Investigating Dr Vincent Tabak since ... late December 2010.. And he watched her commit Judicial Suicide in front of A Nation (IMO).... Maybe someone needs to look at DCI Phil Jones Motives for pursuing Dr Vincent Tabak whilst never taking the fall for it going wrong in court... (IMO)
What could DCI Phil Jones possible have to hide... ??? I wonder if he does a spot of putting?? Or would that be too rude to ask?? (IMO)..
Yes... it's true... Clegg doesn't loose cases like this.....as leonora pointed out... Maybe this case isn't lost after all.... 8)--))
Maybe they Defence are still pulling strings behind the scenes as we all write on here ..... I really hope so... And whilst your at it... check out the timings and do a demonstration on how hard it is to carry a body around please .... 8)--))
I like this very much. Just one small gripe - I don't believe ANY of the witnesses actually perjured herself/himself - except VT himself of course. It was all too carefully planned for that.
By "perjury", I mean telling porkies. Of course, a witness also swears to tell "the whole truth", and NONE of them did that! Not even the Home Office Pathologist, who failed to mention why he could not get near the body for 6 hours - until it had been recovered from wherever it was by the fire & rescue service. I assume that does not count as perjury.
Rebecca Scott told the court, "I knew when Joanna bought a kitten that Greg was the real deal". Her phrasing allows for the unspoken possibility that the couple could have started to drift apart subsequently. There was much speculation about this at the time of Joanna's disappearance and death. This is no reflection on the character of either of the two young people.
Barristers are immune to prosecution for telling untruths in court, but normally you expect them to pounce on each other, and you expect the judge to pounce on either of them. This did not happen in this unusual trial.
-
Just to clarify-----perjury is lying in court, but declining to tell the court everything you know, and deliberately leaving bits out, does not count as perjury. Is this what you are saying, Leonora? Just asking out of my own ignorance !!!
-
Just to clarify-----perjury is lying in court, but declining to tell the court everything you know, and deliberately leaving bits out, does not count as perjury. Is this what you are saying, Leonora? Just asking out of my own ignorance !!!
Do you know exactly what DC Karen Thomas said in court??...
-
Do you know exactly what DC Karen Thomas said in court??...
Detective Constable Karen Thomas from Avon & Somerset Constabulary, a member of the police's major crime investigation team, testified on the sixth day of the trial, 17th October 2011.
DC Karen Thomas telephoned Vincent Tabak on Christmas Eve 2010 while he and his girlfriend were staying with her parents at Sawston near Cambridge. The DC questioned him about his movements on the night of Joanna Yeates’s disappearance. He told her he had been in his flat all evening, before driving in the early hours of the morning to pick up his girlfriend after she left her employer’s works party. He added that he had not known Joanna Yeates personally. During a subsequent interview, the DC’s suspicions were to be aroused by the fact that he would change his story to include an evening trip to Asda in Bedminster.
Detective Constable Karen Thomas testified that she and a colleague had travelled to the Netherlands on New year’s Eve 2010 to question Vincent Tabak, after he and his girlfriend had seen on TV that their landlord had been detained for questioning. The contact was initiated by Vincent Tabak’s girlfriend, who telephoned to Avon & Somerset Constabulary about the curious case of the landlord’s car in the night. They had noticed that the landlord had moved his car during the night when Joanna disappeared, so that it was facing the opposite direction the following morning. The Detective Constable told the court that it was this telephoned attempt to incriminate his landlord that had first aroused the police’s suspicions of Vincent Tabak.
She told the court that both Tanja Morson and Vincent Tabak’s sister Eileen “fussed” over the defendant and expressed concern that he might be tired, “more than you would expect in the case of a grown man. I would describe the sister as a bit of a mother hen”, she added.
The Detective Constable told the Court how overly-interested Vincent Tabak had been in hearing more about why the police had removed Joanna Yeates’s front door, in full view of the TV cameras. She told him, “Removing the front door of a murder victim’s apartment is standard procedure”.
The Detective Constable told the court that she took Vincent Tabak’s fingerprints and a swab of his saliva during the interview.
During the 6 hour interview at Schipol Airport, Vincent Tabak gave the Detective Constable an account of his movements during the evening of the murder that occupied 18 pages of her notebook.
Vincent Tabak told her that he had been to the Asda supermarket in Bedminster. Her suspicions were aroused by the fact that Bedminster is on the opposite side of the River Avon to 44 Canynge Road, but on the same side of the river as Longwood Lane. Vincent Tabak told the Detective Constable that he had purchased beer, crisps and rock salt in Asda, but she did not ask him for the receipt.
-
Just to clarify-----perjury is lying in court, but declining to tell the court everything you know, and deliberately leaving bits out, does not count as perjury. Is this what you are saying, Leonora? Just asking out of my own ignorance !!!
We can all agree that telling a barefaced lie in court while under oath is perjury. However, it is not perjury if the lie is immaterial to the case, and it may not be perjury if the witness honestly believed it to be true.
Deliberately leaving bits out that are material to the case violates the oath, but as most of the Prosecution's witnesses did this without being prosecuted, it presumably doesn't count as "perjury". In a REAL trial, Counsel for the Defence would have begun his cross-examination of Peter Brotherton by asking him, "Would you tell the court your occupation?" He would also have cross-examined Lyndsey Farmery and begun with the same question.
I am sorry that my account of DC Karen Thomas's testimony is composed almost entirely of indirect speech. I can remember more detailed reports in the press but they seem to have been removed from the internet. However, I remain convinced that she avoided telling any lies. Her sin was the sin of omission. In a REAL trial, the judge himself would certainly have asked her, "Having spent all that money to fly to Holland, what did you and the defendant talk about for the rest of the six hours?"
-
Detective Constable Karen Thomas from Avon & Somerset Constabulary, a member of the police's major crime investigation team, testified on the sixth day of the trial, 17th October 2011.
DC Karen Thomas telephoned Vincent Tabak on Christmas Eve 2010 while he and his girlfriend were staying with her parents at Sawston near Cambridge. The DC questioned him about his movements on the night of Joanna Yeates’s disappearance. He told her he had been in his flat all evening, before driving in the early hours of the morning to pick up his girlfriend after she left her employer’s works party. He added that he had not known Joanna Yeates personally. During a subsequent interview, the DC’s suspicions were to be aroused by the fact that he would change his story to include an evening trip to Asda in Bedminster.
Detective Constable Karen Thomas testified that she and a colleague had travelled to the Netherlands on New year’s Eve 2010 to question Vincent Tabak, after he and his girlfriend had seen on TV that their landlord had been detained for questioning. The contact was initiated by Vincent Tabak’s girlfriend, who telephoned to Avon & Somerset Constabulary about the curious case of the landlord’s car in the night. They had noticed that the landlord had moved his car during the night when Joanna disappeared, so that it was facing the opposite direction the following morning. The Detective Constable told the court that it was this telephoned attempt to incriminate his landlord that had first aroused the police’s suspicions of Vincent Tabak.
She told the court that both Tanja Morson and Vincent Tabak’s sister Eileen “fussed” over the defendant and expressed concern that he might be tired, “more than you would expect in the case of a grown man. I would describe the sister as a bit of a mother hen”, she added.
The Detective Constable told the Court how overly-interested Vincent Tabak had been in hearing more about why the police had removed Joanna Yeates’s front door, in full view of the TV cameras. She told him, “Removing the front door of a murder victim’s apartment is standard procedure”.
The Detective Constable told the court that she took Vincent Tabak’s fingerprints and a swab of his saliva during the interview.
During the 6 hour interview at Schipol Airport, Vincent Tabak gave the Detective Constable an account of his movements during the evening of the murder that occupied 18 pages of her notebook.
Vincent Tabak told her that he had been to the Asda supermarket in Bedminster. Her suspicions were aroused by the fact that Bedminster is on the opposite side of the River Avon to 44 Canynge Road, but on the same side of the river as Longwood Lane. Vincent Tabak told the Detective Constable that he had purchased beer, crisps and rock salt in Asda, but she did not ask him for the receipt.
Well if her admission in court is that it was the telephone call that aroused her suspicions ... Again i will ask.... why was Dr Vincent Tabak Not Cautioned.. when they arrived in Holland to take his statement???Cautioned... as a matter of procedure... Does that therefore mean any material gathered at said Interview would be Inadmissible in court?? Has all the evidence from Dr vincent Tabak been obtained "Illegally"???
If Dr Vincent Tabak was NOT Cautioned... And bothe DC Karen Thomas And DCI Phil Jones have both given differing reason as to why Their suspicions were raised... also differing reasons as to why his DNA was obtained.... The the addition of "Finger Prints" also being obtained in "Holland"... would only be taken if someone was being charged with a crime ...(IMO)..... Yet they would probably say that this was for Elimination purposes...(IMO)... Yet why go armed with DNA swabs and The ability to take Dr Vincent Tabak's finger prints ... if you only went to Holland to ask a question about a car moving position as the story goes???
And when we come to Dr vincent tabak's sister...DC Karen Thomas then goes on to imply that his sister is a "Mother Hen"... Which is a really bad stereotypical description of any female who maybe trying to question the procedure of said "Interview"...(IMO).. And also would therefore discredit any future concerns that his family may have in relation to this trial...... (IMO)..
-
I'd just like to add this description of what :Mutual legal assistance requests... entail... and maybe highlight, how it was used to obtain an "Illegal" statement of Dr Vincent Tabak and evidence samples......(IMO)..
Mutual legal assistance (MLA) is a method of cooperation between states for obtaining assistance in the investigation or prosecution of criminal offences. MLA is generally used for obtaining material that cannot be obtained on a police cooperation basis, particularly enquiries that require coercive means. Requests are made by a formal international Letter of Request (LOR). In civil law jurisdictions these are also referred to as ‘Commission Rogatoire’. This assistance is usually requested by courts or prosecutors and is also referred to as ‘judicial cooperation’.
I like to scrutinize as much of this as possible:
(MLA) is a method of cooperation between states for obtaining assistance in the investigation or prosecution of criminal offences.
Dutch Authorisation to gain access by legal means to Dr Vincent tabak... (IMO)...
MLA is generally used for obtaining material that cannot be obtained on a police cooperation basis, particularly enquiries that require coercive means.
This One does exactly what it says on the Tin....(IMO)
* COERCIVE... Using force to persuade people to do things that they are unwilling to do:
So was Dr Vincent Tabak "Reluctant" to give his DNA as Ann Redropp had claimed on one TV Documentary about Dr Vincent Tabak and The Joanna Yeates Case??
What else was Dr Vincent Tabak reluctant to do?? Maybe have a 6 hour Interview with DC Karen Thomas and Partner whilst he was trying to enjoy his time in Holland with his own family.....
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/mutual-legal-assistance-mla-requests
-
Has it never been proved that VT bought crisps, beer and rock salt in ASDA then? Surely, if he was under suspicion of having killed someone and having the body of that person in the boot of his car, I would have thought the police would have been very interested in proving exactly what he bought at ASDA.
-
Has it never been proved that VT bought crisps, beer and rock salt in ASDA then? Surely, if he was under suspicion of having killed someone and having the body of that person in the boot of his car, I would have thought the police would have been very interested in proving exactly what he bought at ASDA.
I have attached images of him leaving ASDA's ...Or should I say images of someone leaving ASDA's... You need to keep freeze framing the video I have linked below... To see what I mean... This video show what is supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabak's 2 visits to ASDA.. which were supposed to be within minutes of each other... one his first vistit he is wearing all "Black".. and on his second visit... he is wearing a "RED" top... I also believe the picture in the "RED" top of a man who is supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabak.. walking down the "Aisles"... appears to have developed stubble.....
So when you see this gentleman from behind as he leaves on two occasions... he appears greyer on the first time he leaves than on the second time he leaves with shopping.....
This reminded me when I have been shopping with my husband... And over many a year he has been chased up and around an Aisle.. when someone has mistaken him for John Barnes.... The latest mis-identification they believe him to be is "Will I Am"... which amuses me... And I find it hard to contain my laughter at this ....
But on a more serious NOTE... "The man in ASDA may look like Dr Vincent Tabak... But Is It Dr Vincent Tabak????
The Man leaving ASDA with shopping... has a carrier bag..plus a longer item tucked under his arm... I am presuming they are saying that this item is the "Rock Salt"....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8818883/Jo-Yeates-trial-Vincent-Tabak-caught-on-CCTV-during-Asda-visit.html
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I believe some barristers do both prosecution and defence work----could be wrong (or rather, my hubby, the retired lawyer could be wrong)!!!
I would love to know why VT's lawyers changed so many times. Is it because he was on legal aid? Is it a matter of which lawyer is free at the right time? Or is it more "complex" than that?????
-
The fact That Dr Vincent Tabak appeared at "The Old Bailey".. has baffled me.. I cannot understand why this would be the case...
I was looking at "The Old Baileys" website to see if I could find an explanation as to "WHY" Dr Vincent Tabak's case would even be heard there and I got even more puzzling answers..
The major problem here is the court that Dr Vincent Tabak appeared in via video link....
Court 2..... Now this is a special court and in No Way should Dr Vincent Tabak appeared here whether in person or via video link...
Court Two is the high-security court, and terrorist trials and the like often take place here.
What was it about Dr Vincent Tabak that he appeared in COURT 2 at "The Old Bailey"??? he was hardly a threat as he was seen via video link... so why COURT2 ??
Back to a simple murder case... which for all intense and purposes it was .... So why COURT 2..??
The 'Shock and Horror " at his guilty plea should be the last of peoples concerns... more to the point is why "Court 2"??
Was this to seal in the minds of other Authorities that Dr Vincent Tabak was indeed involved in something So Heinous... So Appalling.... That "The Head Of the Complex Case Unit" was also involved and if Dr Vincent Tabak was not a man of unsavioury character , he would not have found himself in COURT 2...
Is this the reason that "The Dutch Authorities never asked questions... did they think he was involved in "Terrorism"? Did Ann Reddrop have people believe that Dr Vincent Tabak was an extremely 'DANGEROUS MAN"!!
Court 2 is shrouded in "Mystery" and I find it difficult to see cases that have been heard there...... So why The Special Treatment of Dr Vincent Tabak.. so as to have him appear in the most special court in the land ???
Miss Yeates’s parents, David and Teresa, were in Court 2 of the Old Bailey to witness Tabak – who was appearing by videolink from Long Lartin prison where he is on remand – admit to killing their 25-year-old daughter.
Maybe there was pressure from "The Dutch Authorities".. wanting to know about Dr Vincent Tabak... and by sending him to "COURT 2" and explaining "WHO" and what type of criminal ends up in "COURT 2" "The Dutch Authorities "were satisfied with the explanation...(IMO)..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8496027/Dutch-engineer-Vincent-Tabak-admits-I-did-kill-Jo-Yeates.html
https://old-bailey.com/visiting-the-old-bailey/
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Why did 'The Master Defender"... let Dr Vincent Tabak down so badly????
When his reputation only in an Interview a year before had gone to extraordinary lengths to "Defend"
Quote taken from PDF I have attached ...
One of the most fascinating periods in
Clegg’s career was when he defended two
men – Anthony Sawoniuk and Szymon
Serannowicz – accused of murdering Jews,
under the orders of the Nazis, in World War
Two. The cases were brought under the War
Crimes Act of 1991 and, in the case of
Sawoniuk, Clegg requested that the court
should decamp from the Old Bailey to
Damachava, Belorussia, scene of the alleged
crime.
“I told the court Sawoniuk couldn’t have
a fair trial unless the jury were able to look
and see for themselves the actual
environment. In addition we had to take
evidence by video from witnesses who were
too ill or too old to travel to England.
“It was quite a surreal experience. I
remember quite literally walking through
knee-high snow to a cottage in pitch dark,
hammering on the door and going in with
cameras and taking evidence from this old
woman who was sitting in front of a fire
with a cat on her lap, about things that had
happened 60 years before.”
Sawoniuk, a retired British Rail ticket
inspector, was found guilty of the murder
of 18 Jews in his homeland and given two
life sentences: he is the first and only
person in the UK to be convicted under the
1991 act. The case of Serannowicz collapsed
after Clegg successfully argued he was
mentally unfit to plead.
"WHY" wasn't The witness statements for the "Prosecution" "Video Taped" to play in Court"!!!! Instead of too many written "WITNESS" Statements that were read out to "The Jury"?????
I wonder if this was in Court 2 of "The Old Bailey??
Sawoniuk, Clegg requested that the court
should decamp from the Old Bailey to
Damachava, Belorussia, scene of the alleged
crime.
Funny that Clegg was against the 'Trial being held in Winchester because it would be difficult for 'The Jury "to travel"!!!
Prosecutors asked for his trial to be held at Winchester over fears local publicity could affect proceedings.
The bid was opposed by Tabak’s barrister William Clegg QC and rejected by Judge Mr Justice Field.
And:..
Prosecutors had wanted the case to be transferred to Winchester but this was rejected by the judge.
Jurors are due to visit Miss Yeates's flat during the trial and hearing the case at Winchester could have caused travel difficulties. Tabak would also have faced a longer journey to court each day from his prison. The judge remanded him in custody pending his next appearance in court in July.
Did you ask Dr Vincent Tabak if he minded Travelling???
"WHY" not Go "Above and Beyond" for Dr Vincent Tabak "???
"WHY" just fold his hand???
"WHY" "Disrespect His Client" and call him all the names under The Sun??
Why Didn't Clegg.. Put on the performance of a life time to show that Dr Vincent Tabak could not have had the time to KILL Joanna Yeates.. "The CCTV " evidence could help to prove this...
"WHY" didn't Clegg call any medical professional.. That had assessed Dr Vincent Tabak "Mental Health" to the stand...
"WHY" didn't Clegg have any "Good Character Witness's for Dr Vincent Tabak"....
WHY" Didn't Clegg Object when "The Yeates family appeared at The Hearing at The Old Bailey in May 2011... as he may have needed to call them as witness's later on in the trial in "October 2011"..
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-neighbour-vincent-tabak-126826
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/i-killed-joanna-yeates-vincent-tabak-pleads-guilty-to-manslaughter-6398430.html
-
Just to add to the above post from the same PDF....
Clegg works in a profession often
perceived as pompous. He’s quite the
opposite – and if you ever got into serious
trouble, you’d value his calm, down-to-earth
character and supremely logical, reasoned
approach as you faced the jury.
Now if i hadn't read this in Black and White I May have been mistaken them for.. "Interviewing" a completely different person..
Other Than William Clegg QC..
I do not remember him ever showing his "Calm Down to Earth Character" At Dr Vincent Tabak's Trial... When Dr Vincent Tabak was "Clearly" in "Serious Trouble"... As He Sat Sobbing In The Dock!!
As for his "Supremely Logical Reasoned Approach as Dr Vincent Tabak faced a "jury" I cannot remember this either...
Or did I mistake... These "Unkind Words" as a "Source" of Support for his Client...
1: His conduct after Yeates died when he hid the body was “frankly disgusting” and had caused untold anguish and agony to her family.
2: “I’m not going to ask you to like Vincent Tabak. There’s probably nothing to like.”
3: And Miss Morson seems to agree, having failed to make a single appearance at court.
4: He had told “lie after lie to the police.
5: “Did everything he could to cover his tracks”.
6: He added that he would not try to justify Tabak’s actions after her death, saying his client was “living a lie” by
attending dinner parties and attempting to carry on his life as normal.
7: “I’m not going to ask you to have any sympathy for him. He deserves none.
8: “I’m not going to ask you to excuse his conduct. There can be no excuse.
9: “If I was to set out to win a popularity contest I would lose.
10: He told the court: “Of course, afterwards his behaviour is utterly disgraceful. It’s not going to be justified by me
"Ten Statements" That he so "Lovingly" used to help with his "Supremely Logical Reasoned Approach
-
...Did you ask Dr Vincent Tabak if he minded Travelling???
...
He did actually! At the "defence hearing" on 7th September 2011 (at which VT wasn't seen at all, even by video-link), "Mr Clegg also asked whether it would be possible to house his client at Bristol Prison for the trial, rather than putting him through a four-hour daily round trip back and forth from Long Lartin jail, in Worcestershire, where he is currently in custody". The response he got to this application was not reported.
-
He did actually! At the "defence hearing" on 7th September 2011 (at which VT wasn't seen at all, even by video-link), "Mr Clegg also asked whether it would be possible to house his client at Bristol Prison for the trial, rather than putting him through a four-hour daily round trip back and forth from Long Lartin jail, in Worcestershire, where he is currently in custody". The response he got to this application was not reported.
I can't find anything on this leonora... have you a link or something?
-
I can't find anything on this leonora... have you a link or something?
I can't find the link either, but I do remember either hearing about this on the news, or reading about it in the newspaper at the time.
-
After discovering in "The Independant Newspaper .... that Joanna Yeates had her T-Shirt... pulled over her head when she was found ...
Post-mortem examination pictures showed her lying on her right side with her jeans still intact but her pink top pulled up over her head, exposing her navel and her grey bra.
Her right arm was bent around her head while her left was resting straight across her body.
A picture of her right foot with the sock removed was also shown.
I question the "Prepared Statement" that Dr Vincent Tabak signed in September 2011....
"The Prosecution had kept plenty of Evidence to themselves (IMO)... The 1300 page Document being just one...
So why would they let "The Defence" know that Joanna Yeates was found with her T-Shirt over her head ???
I don't believe they would ,...(IMO).... And this is why (IMO)... Dr Vincent Tabak or The Defence don't ever mention in court that...Joanna Yeates T-Shirt was pulled up over her head ... They Know her Bra and stomach are exposed ... And come to an explanation for this occuring... By saying Dr Vincent Tabak was trying to put Joanna Yeates over the wall... but i don't believe that would end up with her head being covered by her T-Shirt....(IMO..
I honestly can't see that the Prosecution letting those images be seen by the defence... As their delayed inclusion of the 1300 page Document goes to support this .... (IMO)..
So... What is the Explanation NOW???
If it hadn't been for Dr Delaney describing how Joanna Yeates body was and her clothing position on her being found... we all might still think her T_Shirt was pulled up to expose her Bra...
And this is what "The Prosecution" have always wanted everyone to think (IMO).... because when you start talking covering a person face... You are more than likely "Talking about someone who knew Joanna Yeates"... And didn't want her looking back at them anymore ...... (IMO)...!!!!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/killer-weeps-over-images-of-joanna-yeates-body-2370602.html
-
I can't find anything on this leonora... have you a link or something?
This hearing on 7th September 2011 was reported ONLY in the Bath Chronicle. This is odd, as it marked the occasion when the Defence announced that the accused would supply an "enhanced statement" describing when Joanna was killed. how much force was used, and how her body came to end up in Longwood Lane. The link was:
http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/Court-hear-Bath-engineer-killed-neighbour/story-13290060-detail/story.html
but, like so many other detailed reports of the case, it is no longer accessible. Sinister, eh?
-
This hearing on 7th September 2011 was reported ONLY in the Bath Chronicle. This is odd, as it marked the occasion when the Defence announced that the accused would supply an "enhanced statement" describing when Joanna was killed. how much force was used, and how her body came to end up in Longwood Lane. The link was:
http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/Court-hear-Bath-engineer-killed-neighbour/story-13290060-detail/story.html
but, like so many other detailed reports of the case, it is no longer accessible. Sinister, eh?
That's appalling.... I screenshot many articles now because they remove them.... I'd say ...."WHY" do they remove them... But I think the answer is obvious.....
If they have nothing to hide... It all should be all there still... (IMO)...
-
Note to posters:
I will allow some leeway but spurious remarks or comments which are irrelevant to the topic under discussion will be removed.
-
This is what Tabak’s defence counsel said in his address to the court:
The kitchen blind was broken and so stayed up all the time, as Greg Reardon had
confirmed.
Ok this puzzles me..... When is the opening address... Is that just before Dr Vincent Tabak takes the witness stand or his speech to the court on the 10th/11th October 2011 ??
I do believe it's just before Dr Vincent Tabak takes the witness stand... But..... Maybe not...
Did Greg say in his witness testimony on the stand ... "That The Kitchen Blind"...was broken ????
Two problems with that......
And please don't remove my post I am not pointing any fingers....
Either it is William Clegg who introduces this vitla piece of information to the Jury first... Or it is Greg....
Now if it is William Clegg who introduces this information to the Jury first.... How can he state as Greg Confirmed ??? If Greg hadn't already been on the witness stand???
And if Greg mentions the blind being broken.... How could he know the importance that the blind would play if he wasn't aware of what Dr Vincent Tabak witness statement would contain.....
Did William Clegg directly ask Greg Reardon in Court if the kitchen blind in Flat 1 was broken when Greg Reardon took the witness stand ??????
It's an important question... (IMO)...
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
Ok this puzzles me..... When is the opening address... Is that just before Dr Vincent Tabak takes the witness stand or his speech to the court on the 10th/11th October 2011 ??
I do believe it's just before Dr Vincent Tabak takes the witness stand... But..... Maybe not...
Did Greg say in his witness testimony on the stand ... "That The Kitchen Blind"...was broken ????
Two problems with that......
And please don't remove my post I am not pointing any fingers....
Either it is William Clegg who introduces this vitla piece of information to the Jury first... Or it is Greg....
Now if it is William Clegg who introduces this information to the Jury first.... How can he state as Greg Confirmed ??? If Greg hadn't already been on the witness stand???
And if Greg mentions the blind being broken.... How could he know the importance that the blind would play if he wasn't aware of what Dr Vincent Tabak witness statement would contain.....
Did William Clegg directly ask Greg Reardon in Court if the kitchen blind in Flat 1 was broken when Greg Reardon took the witness stand ??????
It's an important question... (IMO)...
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
Mr Clegg's made his opening speech at lunch-time on 19th October 2011 - the day before Vincent Tabak went into the witness box for the first time. Mr Clegg's reference to the broken blind was made in this speech. Greg Readon had testified two days earlier, on 17th October 2011. In his testimony he claimed that he saw both Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson walk past his window when they returned home. This implies that the blind could not be closed. As a key prosecution witness, he could have been coached in what to mention, provided it were true, and what not to mention, if it were potentially prejudicial to the prosecution's case.
Where the couple had been on the Sunday evening has never been reported.
Mr Clegg did not cross-examine Greg Reardon at all.
-
Additional to the above post of mine... : .. Sorry to repeat a little ... But you will understand stand why by reading the post ...
The kitchen blind was broken and so stayed up all the time, as Greg Reardon had
confirmed.
It's biting is that statement.... It's nipping away at me.... It has got my goat!!!!!
It's ridiculous... Really we all need to think about that statement of 'The Defence".....(IMO)...
Dr Vincent Tabak has signed a statement in September as to what took place apparently on the evening of the 17th December 2010.....
If....and this is so "MASSIVELY" Important.... "The Defences" arguement for Dr Vincent Tabak managing to get contact with Joanna Yeates by waving at her throught the kitchen window.... Then "WHY" did "The Defence" need to clarify that the blind was broken... or even mention the blind ?????
Lets do logic.....
(A): Did The Defence Visit Flat 1 at Canygne Road before the trial......
Answer I doubt that very much.....
(B): Did the defence see pictures of a "BROKEN KiTCHEN BLIND" ???
Well if it's the picture of the blind that I have attached... there is NO evidence That this BLIND IS BROKEN.....
So.... Why would CLEGG even need to suggest to Greg Reardon that this Kitchen Blind was Broken and not merely left pulled up ?????
The Prosecution cannot 'Apparently"... Know the significance of this BLIND.... So CLEGG has to Bring this information to the courts attention.....
If the photographs and video that we know from the Juries visit show that the blind is "PULLED UP"... Then the idea that it was broken shouldn't come into play...... The Blind is Innocuous.. The relevance of whether or not it was broken... really is pointless in a way....
If Joanna Yeates has just arrived home and the kitchen blind has been raised for instance... Maybe it was something she did every morning because of the lack of light at the side of the house...
If she was killed straight away as it has been suggested... she may not have gotten around to pulling the blind down....
But... they make a fuss over whether or NOT this BLIND is BROKEN.....
Again.... CLEGG... didn't need to ask if the blind was broken... It's raised....This is what evidence he would have seen and this is what evidence he should be happy with.....(IMO).... No need for "Clarification as to whether or not this "BLIND WAS BROKEN"...... So it's utterly Ridiculous that he uses the fact that GREG confirmed that this BLIND WAS BROKEN....
Who Mentioned the "BROKEN BLIND FIRST" and WHY Would you???
I can probaly tell you for why... I do remember a photograph from ages ago and I cant find it now... But I was sure that the blind hadn't been pulled up properly... And was dangling lower on one side... But we couldn't possibly have such a photo if Joanna Yeates Flat was a Time Capsule and hadn't been touched or entered until the Jury visit....
So did Clegg also see this photo of the Uneven kitchen BLIND???? Because quite honestly he had no GOOD Reason (IMO)... To Clarify that the KITCHEN BLIND WAS BROKEN If it bwas raied up high enough for Dr Vincent Tabak to see Joanna Yeates in her Kitchen.... (IMO)!!!!!!
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
Ok... I have sort of covered this before... Also.. I have posted before and it's been removed... And that is probaly because I mentioned people by name...
Well No names mentioned as such... But... An extremely Important piece of information all the same ...
I'm referring to "The Old Bailey" hearing..... the very same "Old Bailey" hearing that was held in court 2... A special court room for trials of such importance that it is a high Security Court Room.... A Court Room where Terrorist and such cases are normally heard and NOT A Simple Murder Trial....
This is my CRUX.... 'The "GUILTY" Plea to Manslaughter!!!!
I'll now jump straight to the trial on October 2011...
When any person appears at trial ...(IMO).... They stand accused...
"The Fundamental part of any body appearing before a "JURY"... Is.... The Defendant Is INNOCENT until Proven GUILTY.... NOT GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN EVEN GUILTIER if that is even a concept....
Dr Vincent Tabak should legally (IMO)... never have entered such a plea... and I do not understand how it ever happened!!!!
'The only reason any defendant enters a "Plea" is either... When they are at trial... or The Prosecution is happy with "The Plea " the defendant is entering and the Judge decides the sentence.... leaving "NO" reason to have a JURY!!!!!
But No.... NOT in this case.... "We Have a Defendant" who is Guilty Until Proven GUILTIER..... Which in law I don't know where that stands ....
You see in America they have deals as to take the death penalty off the table.... But we don't have "The death Penalty"... So Dr Vincent Tabak doesn't need to make a "PLEA" at all.... The only reason to make the PLEA would be so that the Judge would decide sentence.... And not arrive at your own trial as a Guilty Man Trying Not To Look GUILTY!!!
That concept is out of "WHACK"... (IMO)....
-
There are few passages in the English law reports better known than that in the speech of Viscount Sankey, the Lord Chancellor, in the House of Lords appeal case of Woolmington v. The Director of Public Prosecutions, when he said:
“Throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt … . If at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given either by the prosecution or the prisoner ... the prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to anacquittal. No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained.” ([1935] AC 462, at pp.481-482).
Article 6 Right to a fair trial
There must be a hearing before an independent and impartial court or tribunal established by law (including unbiased jurors).
Well The Jury are already bias (IMO)... They have a "GUILTY PLEA" sat in their laps... !!!!
There must be equality of arms between the parties, so, for example, the defence has the same right to examine witnesses against them as the prosecution has and both parties have the right to legal representation etc.
No equality of arms (IMO)...When the defendant has pled "Guilty" To Manslaughter!!!!
Right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty
Article 6(2) concerns the right of every person charged with a criminal offence to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law.
Provisions which require defendants to prove elements of their defence (reverse onus provisions) may breach this right, particularly if a legal burden of proof is placed on the defendant (requiring them to prove that the case against them is not true).
Not "GUILTY" Until Proven even "GUILTIER"!!!
Minimum rights in criminal trials
Article 6(3) also guarantees the following minimum rights that apply in criminal trials:
* the right for an accused to be promptly informed of the accusation against him or her – this must be in a language which he or she understands and the charge must be detailed and adequately precise
* the right to have enough time and facilities to prepare a defence
* the right to legal representation, including the right to either defend oneself in person or through legal assistance chosen by the accused, for legal aid to be provided if a person cannot afford legal representation, and when the interests of justice require it
* the right to examine witnesses against an accused and for an accused to present witnesses for their defence – this right does not prevent vulnerable witnesses from giving evidence in alternative ways, either anonymously or via video-link etc., as long as the entirety of the evidence against the accused is not presented anonymously
the right for an accused to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he or she cannot understand the language used in court
Lets go back to that quote...
the right to have enough time and facilities to prepare a defence
With so many defence Lawyers in a Matter of months and everything apparently being Tickerty Boo by May 2011... As for The Judge to be able to set a trial date of October 2011..
When in REALITY... Did Dr Vincent Tabak have time to prepare a "PROPER" Defence!!!
the right to examine witnesses against an accused and for an accused to present witnesses for their defence – this right does not prevent vulnerable witnesses from giving evidence in alternative ways, either anonymously or via video-link etc., as long as the entirety of the evidence against the accused is not presented anonymously
the right for an accused to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he or she cannot understand the language used in court
Did every person who saw Dr Vincent Tabak on the night he was out drinking champagne and apparently being bored appear in court??? Or were some of the statements just witness statements read out in court????
Nowhere... In anything I have read so far does it say that a defendant goes to court as A Guilty Man!!!!.... To me it's unpresidented... But I'm no Lawyer...
https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act/article-6-right-fair-trial
https://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/features/Reasonable-Doubt
-
Ok..... http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg414338#msg414338
This won't leave me tonight.... I'm sending my husband bonkers again... But he did make a valid point before I came back to post...
The Only Other possible reason he could see that a defendant may "Plead" 'Guilty" To A Charge was if they were facing other chargers relating to the case....
Well as I said to my husband... Dr Vincent Tabak wasn't facing any other charges in relation to 'The Murder Of Joanna Yeates".... So..... Again and not to bore you all...
How Can You Appear At Your Own Trial "Guilty" Of The Charge..... Before a Jury finds you Guilty..... !!! WHEN THE PRESUMTION OF INNOCENCE IS THE FIRST PART OF ANY DEFENCE!!!!!!
AGAIN... How Can You Appear at your own trial as 'Guilty" Before being Proved "GUILTIER"??????
EDIT.... I'm like.... argggggggggggg
-
Ok this puzzles me..... When is the opening address... Is that just before Dr Vincent Tabak takes the witness stand or his speech to the court on the 10th/11th October 2011 ??
I do believe it's just before Dr Vincent Tabak takes the witness stand... But..... Maybe not... think it's just a statement....
Did Greg say in his witness testimony on the stand ... "That The Kitchen Blind"...was broken ????
Two problems with that......
And please don't remove my post I am not pointing any fingers....
Either it is William Clegg who introduces this vitla piece of information to the Jury first... Or it is Greg....
Now if it is William Clegg who introduces this information to the Jury first.... How can he state as Greg Confirmed ??? If Greg hadn't already been on the witness stand???
And if Greg mentions the blind being broken.... How could he know the importance that the blind would play if he wasn't aware of what Dr Vincent Tabak witness statement would contain.....
Did William Clegg directly ask Greg Reardon in Court if the kitchen blind in Flat 1 was broken when Greg Reardon took the witness stand ??????
It's an important question... (IMO)...
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
I have come back to this because, I believe Dr Vincent Tabak was on The witness Stand before Greg Reardon.... So did "William Clegg" Address the court about 'The Broken Blind before" Greg Reardon took the stand ???
From The Sally Ramage Papers .... Which is from "Cleggs Address to the court"... Which I believe he made on 10th October 2010...
He believes it was the one
that had been from behind her back and held it there for about 20 seconds. He applied no
more than moderate force on a scale of one to three - light, moderate and severe. He did
not intend death or serious injury.
Then from The Guardian....
Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates by grabbing her around the throat after she began screaming but had not meant to seriously harm her, a murder trial jury heard on Monday.
Tabak claims he held a hand around the landscape architect's throat for about 20 seconds using no more than "moderate force".
Makes me think his address with the claims of Greg Telling the Court that the Blind was broken could have easily been said before Greg Took the witness stand ....
This next statement I find odd... Is this statement been read to the jury just beofre Greg Reardon takes the stand???
According to Tabak, Yeates had begun to scream after he put an arm around her back. He put a hand over her mouth and the screaming stopped.
Tabak said he removed his hand and 25-year-old Yeates began to scream again. In a defence statement read to the jury at Bristol crown court, Tabak claims he then put his hand around her neck.
Would the defence statement be read out so early on in the trial ??
Then the article goes on to say....
Tabak, a 33-year-old Dutch engineer, later sat in the dock with his head in his hands as Yeates's boyfriend, Greg Reardon, described his last moments with his girlfriend before he left to spend a weekend away and his rising concern when he came home to discover her missing.
Which Gives the impression that Dr Vincent Tabak's statement was read just before Greg Reardon took the stand and "William Clegg" made his address to the court....
When Greg Reardon take the stand he initially is only sat down for 5 mins when they call a break for lunch... if I remember correctly... So It's conceivable that William Clegg Addressed the court with his information ... and then read out Dr Vincent Tabak's witness statement..... which seems to be wrong.... (IMO)... shouldn't the prosecution present their case first and the "The Defence comes in with their rebuttal..??
Why does "Clegg" feel the need to implant in the Juries mind the version of events written in Dr Vincent Tabak's statement before Greg Reardon takes the stand ????
Think this needs further investigation....
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/17/vincent-tabak-held-jo-yeates-throat
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
I'm trying to find the listing at "The Old Bailey" for Dr Vincent Tabak.... Looking at the Law Pages for cases that have been heard there, I cannot seem to find it.... Would his case be listed at "The Old Bailey" for his plea hearing???
I would have thought it should have been..... But it isn't there .... Anyone any idea??? You need to scroll down to the date... There is one restriction there... But when I clicked on it ... The case was of a 17 year old boy...
http://www.thelawpages.com/legal-directory/Central-Criminal-Court-(Old-Bailey)-14-2.pgs
I have attached an images of names and dates of appearances... and Dr Vincent Tabak doesn't appear... Why would that be ???
The other attachment is the search I did ...
-
Again trying to find as much Information with regards Dr Vincent Tabak's apperance at The Old Bailey.... came across webslueths forum and the members who followed this case....
They were expecting the case to be heard at Bristol Crown Court and noticed the change....
Clio said:
05-04-2011 11:17 AM
Courtserve listing for the Old Bailey for tomorrow (5th May) states
Court 2 - sitting at 10:00 am
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE FIELD
For Mention (Defendant to Attend)
U20110387 Vincent TABAK
Via PVL - Bristol Crown Court Case - T20117031
Wonder why it says "For Mention" rather than "Plea and Case Management"...
http://www.courtserve2.net/courtlist...T110505.01.htm
So we have Two listings..... "Court Serve" list "The Old Bailey" hearing as "For Mention"....
Yet "Bristol Crown court" Court Serve"... list the hearing at "Court Serve" says it for a 'Plea and Management Case hearing.....
Clio said:
05-04-2011 11:32 AM
Aha - Courtserve listing for Bristol Crown Court refers to it being the Plea and Case Management hearing.
Court 1 - sitting at 10:00 AM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE FIELD
SITTING AT THE CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURTS
Plea and Case Management
T20117031 TABAK Vincent
VIA VIDEO LINK FROM HMP LONG LARTIN
http://www.courtserve2.net/courtlist...T110505.01.htm
OMG... what does this mean????
So Basically... The hearing at "The Old Bailey".. should have been a "For Mention" Which from this PDF i'll quote...
If notification is received saying that the PCMH will not be effective, the case should
remain listed on the allocated date but the Case Management Judge should direct
whether it should be listed for PCMH or for mention and to fix. At the hearing a new
PCMH and trial date should be set with liberty to apply.
What made them change from "For Mention"....
Then we get this ....
If no resolution or compromise can be reached through the above process, the case
should be listed for mention in consultation with the case management or trial
Judge. Hearings should if appropriate and practicable be listed for the
instructed/trial advocates’ availability in accordance with Part 3.8(2)(d) of the
Criminal Procedure Rules.
(g) The Court should provide blank pro forma orders to the advocates before mention
hearings. The Judge should then direct counsel to draft any agreed order for his
approval and should not release the advocates until such an order has been lodged
with, and approved, by the court.
How did they manage to list the same case as at one court "For Mention" being The Old Bailey court 2..... And at Bristol Crown Court as "the Plea and Case Management hearing."
As far as I can tell.... this hearing should have been "For Mention" at The Old Bailey" and not the Plea and Case Management hearing.
Is it legally possible to change what 'The Hearing" was for in less than a day?? Or have "TWO DIFFERENT COURT LISTINGS AT TWO DIFFERENT COURTS FOR TWO DIFFERENT HEARINGS FOR THE SAME CASE???..... That can't be right!!!!! (IMO)..
They have gone from having to argue points... Dr Vincent Tabak making a "Plea" !!
Shouldn't the next step have been a Plea and case Management hearing on another date and not Dr Vincent Tabak entering a "Guilty Plea" ??
This is really weird..... They had case management hearing after "May" if I remember correctly.... So how did Dr Vincent Tabak manage to enter a "Guilty Plea" at A "For Mentions" hearing before a "Case Management Hearing" took place?????
Also on the original "Old Bailey" Court Serve.... It says that the Defendant will Attend..... How did they change that ??????
http://barcouncil.org.uk/media/49148/best_practice_guide_to_listing.pdf
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?129675-UK-Joanna-Yeates-25-Clifton-Bristol-17-Dec-2010-13/page21
EDIT..... They didn't change the hearing status in less than a day... they listed "TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF HEARINGS AT TWO COURTS".... If you look at the time that Clio posted the TWO COURT DATEs...
At: 05-04-2011 11:32 AM... (May)
And: 05-04-2011 11:17 AM ... (again it's May)
So that's 15 Minutes apart..... So Again I'll ask...... How can you possibly list Two different Types of hearings for the same case on the same day????
Am I missing something here ????
-
We are all aware that Ann Reddropp "The Head of The Complex Crime Unit"... Sought to follow this case through to the bitter end....
I never understood why she would be involved as Dr Vincent Tabak's Case was basically A Simple Murder Trial....
. Complex cases that are likely to go to the Crown Court and last more than four weeks should be managed in accordance with the Protocol for the control and management of heavy fraud and other complex criminal cases link to external website4, which sets out best practice and gives guidance to investigators, prosecutors, defendants and judges.
19. Legal Adviser's Office (LAO) or a solicitor agent will manage cases that fall within the Protocol, the key points of which are as follows:
* Interviews with suspects and witnesses should be managed effectively to ensure that they are relevant, well structured and of a length which can be properly presented to the court at trial. Interviewees should be provided in advance with relevant information, such as documents you intend to refer to during the interview. A well structured interview will prevent time being lost in court;
* Disclosure of material to the defendant should be made in an effective and time efficient manner. Only those documents that meet the test for disclosure (i.e. that assist the defence or undermine the prosecution) should be disclosed; the defence should not be swamped with all the documents the prosecution holds in relation to the case. Evidence schedules should also be prepared as early on as possible. The judge will engage in active case management to ensure that the process of disclosure does not cause the case to overrun;
*Prosecuting lawyers should be involved in the investigation as soon as it appears that a complex or lengthy trial is likely. The criteria for referring cases to LAO for independent legal oversight should be considered at the outset of the investigation and kept under consideration throughout;
*Any case that may last more than eight weeks should be referred by the prosecuting lawyer to his/her supervisor to ensure that it is run as smoothly and efficiently as possible. If the case is likely to last more than six months, it must be referred to the Head of Litigation in LAO; and
*Once the charges (informations) have been laid, the appointed judge is required to take a pro-active role in managing the case. HSE may be required to justify the length of the case and demonstrate that it could not be conducted in a more time-efficient manner.
Well already they managed to time the case so it would last just 4 Weeks.... So does it mean that these rules don't apply????
Advance sentence indications
20. In cases before the Crown Court, the defence can request an indication from the judge of the likely maximum sentence that would be imposed should the defendant decide to plead guilty (often referred to as a ‘Goodyear indication’) 5. The request can be made at any stage of the proceedings, including at trial, although it is most likely to be made at the plea and case management hearing (see above).
So if Dr Vincent Tabak was going to "Plead Guilty" he should have been given a "GoodYear"???
An indication can only be sought by the defence and should not normally be given until the basis of the guilty plea has been agreed with the prosecution (for example, by way of an agreed Friskies schedule with aggravating, mitigating and other factors relevant to sentence) or where the judge has concluded that s/he can deal with the case without the need for a Newton hearing6 – see The sentencing hearing.)
So... I'll say yet Again..... Why without ANY PROVISIONS.... Did Dr Vincent Tabak Plead Guilty To Manslaughter ??
Why without consulting with The Prosecution does The Defence Offer "A Guilty Plea To Manslaughter"????
Goodyear (as above), paragraph 70(a). “An indication should not be sought while there is any uncertainty between the prosecution and the defence about an acceptable plea or pleas to the indictment, or any factual basis relating to the plea. Any agreed basis should be reduced into writing before an indication is sought. Where there is a dispute about a particular fact which counsel for the defendant believes to be effectively immaterial to the sentencing decision, the difference should be recorded, so that the judge can make up his own mind.” (paragraph 66).
So if a "Goodyear could NOT be sought by The Defence because obviously The Prosecution were "Always" going for "A Murder Charge" as Ann Reddrop says... Then again.... why did Dr Vincent Tabak make "A Plea " at The Old Bailey handing The Prosecution the case in their lap????
So we NOW have... A "For Mention" hearing where "A Goodyear" wasn't offered yet The Defendant... Dr Vincent Tabak pleads "GUILTY"...... I'm not quite as green as I am cabbage looking.... But surely that cannot be right!!!!!
http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/court/crown-court.htm#complex
-
For Mention (Defendant to Attend)
U20110387 Vincent TABAK
Via PVL - Bristol Crown Court Case - T20117031
So I believe that U20110387 Vincent Tabak .... Is Dr Vincent Tabak's case Number at The Old Bailey....
Anyone out there know how to chase that up ????
-
What does Via PVL... mean ???
-
Additional to the above post of mine... : .. Sorry to repeat a little ... But you will understand stand why by reading the post ...
It's biting is that statement.... It's nipping away at me.... It has got my goat!!!!!
It's ridiculous... Really we all need to think about that statement of 'The Defence".....(IMO)...
Dr Vincent Tabak has signed a statement in September as to what took place apparently on the evening of the 17th December 2010.....
If....and this is so "MASSIVELY" Important.... "The Defences" arguement for Dr Vincent Tabak managing to get contact with Joanna Yeates by waving at her throught the kitchen window.... Then "WHY" did "The Defence" need to clarify that the blind was broken... or even mention the blind ?????
Lets do logic.....
(A): Did The Defence Visit Flat 1 at Canygne Road before the trial......
Answer I doubt that very much.....
(B): Did the defence see pictures of a "BROKEN KiTCHEN BLIND" ???
Well if it's the picture of the blind that I have attached... there is NO evidence That this BLIND IS BROKEN.....
So.... Why would CLEGG even need to suggest to Greg Reardon that this Kitchen Blind was Broken and not merely left pulled up ?????
The Prosecution cannot 'Apparently"... Know the significance of this BLIND.... So CLEGG has to Bring this information to the courts attention.....
If the photographs and video that we know from the Juries visit show that the blind is "PULLED UP"... Then the idea that it was broken shouldn't come into play...... The Blind is Innocuous.. The relevance of whether or not it was broken... really is pointless in a way....
If Joanna Yeates has just arrived home and the kitchen blind has been raised for instance... Maybe it was something she did every morning because of the lack of light at the side of the house...
If she was killed straight away as it has been suggested... she may not have gotten around to pulling the blind down....
But... they make a fuss over whether or NOT this BLIND is BROKEN.....
Again.... CLEGG... didn't need to ask if the blind was broken... It's raised....This is what evidence he would have seen and this is what evidence he should be happy with.....(IMO).... No need for "Clarification as to whether or not this "BLIND WAS BROKEN"...... So it's utterly Ridiculous that he uses the fact that GREG confirmed that this BLIND WAS BROKEN....
Who Mentioned the "BROKEN BLIND FIRST" and WHY Would you???
I can probaly tell you for why... I do remember a photograph from ages ago and I cant find it now... But I was sure that the blind hadn't been pulled up properly... And was dangling lower on one side... But we couldn't possibly have such a photo if Joanna Yeates Flat was a Time Capsule and hadn't been touched or entered until the Jury visit....
So did Clegg also see this photo of the Uneven kitchen BLIND???? Because quite honestly he had no GOOD Reason (IMO)... To Clarify that the KITCHEN BLIND WAS BROKEN If it bwas raied up high enough for Dr Vincent Tabak to see Joanna Yeates in her Kitchen.... (IMO)!!!!!!
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
If Clegg was building a picture for the jury the fac that the blind MUST have been in the up position because of its condition does make it relevant. Clegg had to explain how Tabak and Yeates came into contact, and the simple coincidence of Tabak passing the window when Yeates was in view is more than enough for him, seeing as he opening gambit seems to hang Tabak out to dry.
-
What does Via PVL... mean ???
Prison Video Link
-
Part 1.....
Clio said:
05-04-2011 11:17 AM
Courtserve listing for the Old Bailey for tomorrow (5th May) states
Court 2 - sitting at 10:00 am
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE FIELD
For Mention (Defendant to Attend)
U20110387 Vincent TABAK
Via PVL - Bristol Crown Court Case - T20117031
Wonder why it says "For Mention" rather than "Plea and Case Management"...
http://www.courtserve2.net/courtlist...T110505.01.htm
I really wasn't sure what For Mention was... But an Article in 'The Independent" say:
The defence shall apply to the court for the case to be listed for mention if they are unable to obtain instructions from the defendant. If the defendant fails to attend court, the judge will wish to consider whether a warrant of arrest should be issued.
So..... what happened between the two listings.... ??
So if they were unable to obtain instructions from Dr Vincent Tabak.... How on earth did we jump to a "Plea and Management Case Hearing... in 15 minutes ???
I'm trying to understand 'The Courts role... to send this case for "A Plea and Case Management Hearing."...
They listed it as two things
(A): For Mention
(B): Plea and Case Management Hearing
Which I stay with (B)... If it was a "Plea and Case Management Hearing" and Obviously... we have Dr Vincent Tabak out of the "BLUE" pleading "Guilty" To Manslaughter.... Then The Defence and Prosecution alike should have been aware of this.... (IMO)... That why I was surprised 'A GoodYear" wasn't applied....
But also if when they appeared at "The Old Bailey" They all were under the impression that Dr Vincent Tabak was going to plea...
When a case is to be sent for PTPH to the Crown Court the
Magistrates should expect the parties to provide information on any
relevant communications between them in accordance with the duty
of engagement (CrimPR 3.3).
Where guilty pleas are indicated the Magistrates should consider
ordering a PSR. Separate guidance on this has been published.
Where not-guilty pleas are indicated the magistrates should explore
with the parties:
Whether the defendant is prepared to plead to other
offences?
In brief terms what are the issues in the case, what evidence
and issues are agreed and what is likely to be disputed?
What information, or other material, is required by either of
the parties to facilitate an effective PTPH?
So A Guilty Plea... must have been Indicated.... So was A "Pre- Sentence Report" ever ordered ???? Or were they all aware that 'The Plea" was a was 'A POINTLESS EXERCISE" for Dr Vincent Tabak ???? As "The Head Of The Complex Crime Unit Insisted That It Was A Murder Charge"???
The venue had changed... It was supposed to be at "Bristol Crown Court"... So they all must have been aware... (IMO)...
So with Dr Vincent Tabak's Plea... The Judge:
At the PDH, arraignments will normally take place. If the defendant pleads guilty, the judge should wherever possible proceed to sentencing.
What stopped that ???? This is why I do not understand Dr Vincent Tabak entering 'A Plea"... It seems ludicrous (IMO)...
Not only did "The Prosecution" not accept this "Plea."... "A Trial Date was set"....
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/law-report-new-rules-on-crown-court-pre-trial-hearings-1601692.html
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/october-2015/cm007-eng.pdf
-
Part 2.....
Now this is were it gets Interesting to me.....
Readiness for trial or appeal
3.10.—(1) This rule applies to a party’s preparation for trial or appeal, and in this rule and rule
3.11 ‘trial’ includes any hearing at which evidence will be introduced.
(2) In fulfilling the duty under rule 3.3, each party must―
(a) comply with directions given by the court;
(b) take every reasonable step to make sure that party’s witnesses will attend when they are
needed;
(c) make appropriate arrangements to present any written or other material; and
(d) promptly inform the court and the other parties of anything that may―
(i) affect the date or duration of the trial or appeal, or
(ii) significantly affect the progress of the case in any other way.
(3) The court may require a party to give a certificate of readiness.
It says it all..... in "Hushed Tones"....
Dr Vincent Tabak as we are aware never had any 'Good Character" witness's... In actual fact.... Dr Vincent Tabak really had "NO" witness's at all.... which if you think about "A Plea and Case Management Hearing"... that was all signed sealed and delivered by 5th May 2011... Then what had 'The defence " done for their client ????
By The time they are all at "The Old Bailey"... every witness, every statement, every piece of "Evidence"... should be in place....
How was that possible????
Because if we remember it was supposed to be a "For Mention" hearing.... Which wouldn't need every witness, every statement and every piece of evidence in place...
William Clegg had not that long before taken over the case.... So... what did he have time to check????
"Brotherton's" rubbish about a confession... did "NOT" come into this hearing.... There was No evidence of "This Supposed Confession"...
So we literally have an extremely short space of time for the preparation of this case... and the Interviewing of witness's...
(IMO).. The Defence never Intended to call... CJ.... They never Intended to call Tanja Morson.... They never Intended to call anyone who could give a "Good Character" witness statement for Dr Vincent Tabak.... (IMO)...
Come to think of it.... CJ is never mentioned by name anywhere as far as I can tell..... So I do not believe that The Defence ever had a statement from CJ.... Or The Prosecution for that matter.... The only statements that CJ ever made (IMO)... were the Police Interviews ....
Which makes sense now as to "WHY" he's always referred to as "The Landlord"... I hadn't thought of it before... At first I thought it was because Dr Vincent Tabak was possibly referring to The Land Lord of The Pub... But on thinking about it now... It must be because they didn't have a statement from CJ...
And don't you think they should ???
Back to The Old Bailey..... If there are NO statements from anyone... how did they come to a "Plea" ?? when in reality it should have been a 'For Mention" hearing.... Where "A Defendant" may not have given instructions... Dr Vincent Tabak was not saying very much up until this point.... he seemed to have little or no trust of the Justice System" (IMO)... (And who can blame him)... So this Placid Dutchman has said virtually "Nothing" .. nothing to indicate possible witness's who could give "Good Character" "witness statements ".. Nothing that would show anything untoward... Nothing that would indicate that he had killed his next door neighbour... Yet he appears at The Old Bailey and goes.... "Yep... I did it".... really ???
Do people really believe that a man who has said nothing to indicate his guilt... A man who has done nothing to indicate his guilt... (Dumping his laptop).. A Man who did not abscond back to his native Holland... Where procedures would have put a holt on setting any date for trial as the hoops they would need to jump through could take quite some time .... This Placid Dutchman... who freely returned to England would suddenly out of "Nowhere" Pleas 'Guilty To Manslaughter" ???
What had "The Prosecution and "The Defence " discussed to get to the point that they were all ready for trial ?????
And a discussion must have taken place.... (IMO)... which means again ..."WHY" would Dr Vincent Tabak plead "Guilty " To Manslaughter" if the judge wasn't going to go straight to sentence ??? If the very same Judge was "NOT" going to give any reduction to his final sentence for making such a "PLEA"....
It makes NO SENSE!!! (IMO)..
Which means... by The 5th May 2011.... Every single witness and piece of evidence was ready for trial... which means.. that Dr Vincent Tabak's Plea was known well in advance... And I can't accept that....
I cannot accept that an Intelligent man would make a plea to his "Guilt" without any provisions in place.... I cannot accept that 'William Clegg" QC.... rolled over and allowed his client to go with such a plan... William Clegg.. A distinguished Professional who would fight tooth and nail for a defendant charged with war crimes... Yet simply says ... "Ok he did"... (IMO)... let move on to trial......
What is this case saying???? Why all The Untruths??? Why All The deception??? Why The Circus???
Do the general public really understand what went on in This Case ??? Because it seem highly irregular to me....
I think Dr Vincent Tabak should get a Retrial... I believe certain individual's need investigating in relation to this case.... (IMO)...
Think I need to come back to these witness statements..... "Good Character" statements in particular...
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/crim-proc-rules-2014-part-03.pdf
-
Part 3.....
I'm going back to "The Good Character" witness statements........
Question.... did anyone make A Good Character Witness statement ever ????? Personally I do NOT believe that ever happened.... Which is important....
A list of people I can think whom could have been called as 'Good Character Witness's ...
(A) Tanja Morson
(B): Tanja Morson's Mother would called the Dutchman 'The Lovely Vincent"
(C): Gunter Morson"
(D): Tanja Morson's Father
(E): Cora Tabak
(F): Marcel Tabak
(G): Erik Blokhuis ( Dr Vincent Tabak's Friend In Holland)...
(H): Any professional from The University in Holland
(I): Anyone from Buro Happold
(J): Any of The residents from the flats at 44 Canygne Road
(K): Of Course CJ....
(L): Mr Massoeurs (A Neighbour of Dr Vincent Tabak's from Holland
(M): Any Neighbours he knew from his Bath address
Basically there should be statements in Dr Vincent Tabak's case file from all of these people (IMO)... If The Defence ever bothered to interview them to be possible "Good Character" witness's...
If by the time they have reached "The Old Bailey" in May 2011... And this is when "The Porn" was first mentioned as to Dr Vincent Tabak's 'Bad Character" I can't really see either..... The hearing I believe was 30 minutes... Which with all the relevant information that needed to be in place... " The Porn" may not have had chance to be aired!! (IMO)..
And therefore if The Defence have their Good Character Statements... That in turn means that 'The Prosecution" have all their "Bad Character" statements also... ???
(A): The Prostitutes that Dr Vincent Tabak apparently solicited in this country..
(B): The Prostitues That Dr Vincent Tabak solicited in America
(C): Female colleagues he may have made advances upon previously
(D): Female friends or acquaintances he may have made advances upon previously....
All of these statements should be with The Prosecutions case files ...(IMO)... If The Bad Character evidence was ever real and true.... (IMO)... That's why I still don't believe that their was ever any Porn... (IMO)... I personally believe "The Porn" was a ruse... As to not have to produce "Good Character" witness statements for Dr Vincent Tabak....(IMO)..
Where were all the "Good Character" References?? Are they in "The Case Files of The Defence ???? Even if they were not used they still should be there (IMO)... because it is not until what appears last minute that Dr Vincent Tabak, pleads "Guilty to Manslaughter"...
This case has brought me to tears many times.... And I am not forgetting The Poor Yeates Family in this... I sit here frustrated at what appears to have happened in this case.... And what on the surface Initialy to some appeared to be a legit case... becomes more and more of a travesty, the more I look at it... And the Placid Dutchman... lost in an English Legal System he never had any chance of Comprehending... Especially once "The Head Of The Complex Crime Unit, put herself at The Helm of this Investigation and Prosecution of "A Placid Dutchman" being charged with what essentially is.... "A Simple Murder Case".....
Have they all gone beyond their remit??? Have they Not followed procedure???
As far as I can tell I would say so... though as you can tell I am no legal expert... But common sense and logic tells us... Too many untruths were told.... Too many individuals of Importance used their role to bury The Dutchman... (IMO)... Too Many Individuals could not keep "THEIR" story straight... and too many indiviuals showed up our legal system for what it is capable of.... which (IMO)... Is the appaling treatment of A Dutch National whom had great hopes and dreams in this "Free" Country of ours... Who's life was ready to take off in his personal and professional aspects... who could have enjoyed all the freedom's we all take for granted...
Yet... Someone,.. wanted Dr Vincent Tabak to pay for Joanna Yeates death... And the real question you should all be asking yourselves is:
"WHY".... why go to such great lengths to convict "A Placid Dutchman" of a Crime he denied most vigorously for so long... To appear at The Old Bailey and suddenly change his Plea... When his appearance should have been for A "For Mention" hearing....
What possible motive did "The Head of The Complex Crime Unit have in her pursuit of this "Placid Dutchman"???
What possible motive did William Clegg have "Not" to Defend his client to the best of his "Ability"??? (IMO)..
What possible Motive is there for us all having "The Wool Pulled Over Our Eyes" ?? because In My Opinion... It well and truly has been..... And that's a shocking state of Affairs...
EDIT.... If William Clegg went to "The Old Bailey" without any "Good Character References" does that suggest that Dr Vincent Tabak was "Under Duress" to make "A Plea" ?? when The "Plea" was of "NO" actual benefit to him WHATSOEVER????
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-15259135
-
Which court Room did Dr Vincent Tabak attend at The Old Bailey when The Court Serve Listings give TWO different Court Rooms ?????
Clio said:
05-04-2011 11:17 AM
Courtserve listing for the Old Bailey for tomorrow (5th May) states
Court 2 - sitting at 10:00 am
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE FIELD
For Mention (Defendant to Attend)
U20110387 Vincent TABAK
Clio said:
05-04-2011 11:32 AM
Aha - Courtserve listing for Bristol Crown Court refers to it being the Plea and Case Management hearing.
Court 1 - sitting at 10:00 AM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE FIELD
So is it
(A):"Court Room 1"
(B) "Court Room 2
or
(C): Neither as I didn't mage to find a listing for Dr Vincent Tabak on The Archive of Cases heard at The Old
Bailey...
That also makes an interesting possibility.... Where is it listed that Case Number:.... U20110387 Dr Vincent Tabak's appearance at The Old Bailey... other than on the original "Court Serve" website....
Someone needs to seriously check That Number... And what it refers to because I cannot find any reference anywhere other that the web slueths websites in relation to Dr Vincent Tabak's Old Bailey Case Number .... Oh yes... and which court was he at???
How is it possible to be listed not only for TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF HEARINGS.... But at TWO DIFFERENT COURT ROOMS??????
Question.... If Dr Vincent Tabak was was always due to appear via "Video Link"... which court Room was set up for this Video link???
Did any of the media attend "The Hearing"???? can anyone anywhere tell us With absoulute certainty... which court Room did Dr Vincent Tabak appeared in at The Old Bailey...
I have just had another thought.... If Dr Vincent Tabak was only supposed to appear at The Old Bailey "For Mention"... Then his family would have been explained too why their would have been no possible need for them to attend this hearing.... Nothing much would change.... I presume that they would have been directed as to where to obtain the information to the hearing at "The Old Bailey"...
Where the Tabak family deliberately wrongly informed that this case was to be a "For Mention Case"... thus their attendance would not be needed as it was via video link and nothing at this point untoward would happen to Dr Vincent Tabak ????
The only benefit I can see for having TWO different hearings listed... Is to DUPE The Tabak Family (IMO)... because I honestly cannot see any advantage other than that for Two listings to have been listed on Court Serve for Dr Vincent Tabak's appearance at The Old Bailey.....(IMO)....
CAN ANY OF YOU ??????
Edit...... I was Just thinking that it was slightly odd that the "Plea And Management Case Hearing does not list the Defendants Case Number.....
So Offically did Dr Vincent Tabak have A plea and Management Case hearing or just "A For Mention".. Hearing ????
Or..... Is the Plea and Case Management hearing under a different case number again????
-
Again back to the TWO listings....
Is it unpresidented to Have Two different Listings... of TWO Different Types of Hearings... At Two Different Court Rooms for ONE Case?????
No-one can possibly make such a grave mistake in Listings ???? They have to be deliberately listed that way (IMO)....
So who gave the information for the "Listings"??????? In an attempt to "Mislead".... (IMO)...
What can be done about this information???
-
Maybe the two listings were for the two different cases VT had to answer to. First murder and the second porn, remember the judge at the beginning of VT's trial said that the porn could not be used in the murder case because it would bias the jury against VT.
Could you also tell me how Joanna saw VT through the kitchen window if in fact she did, when the light was on inside and very dark outside. This point has always puzzled me.
-
Maybe the two listings were for the two different cases VT had to answer to. First murder and the second porn, remember the judge at the beginning of VT's trial said that the porn could not be used in the murder case because it would bias the jury against VT.
Could you also tell me how Joanna saw VT through the kitchen window if in fact she did, when the light was on inside and very dark outside. This point has always puzzled me.
Hi Nina.... I don't believe that was the case .... Both listings have the time as 10:00am in the morning..... No-one can possibly attend "TWO COURT ROOMS" at the same time... whether via video link or not.... The Judge .. Prosecution and Defence have also got to be in Two places at the same time.... and unless they have a "Full Set Of "DOPPLEGANGERS" in The wings.... that isn't happening anytime soon....
And normally all of the case would be heard in ONE Court Room and Not TWO different Court Rooms....
So..........NO... No... And "NO" Again..... There was something well and truly dodgy about "The Old Bailey Hearing.... (IMO)... Just like I believe something Well and Truly Dodgy about This Whole Case...(IMO)...
If The "For Mention" is what the Hearing is about... Then William Clegg hasn't got the Instruction For his Client and all of the pretty maids are NOT in a Row..... They need ALL.. of the information there to even go for "A plea Management hearing " that would result in a Plea being made... If I'm understanding this correctly...
If the "For Mention" Hearing was taking place... then at that hearing they would set a date For "The Plea and Management Hearing'.... Not roll them into ONE!!!!... These hearings take time to organise as I am sure you are aware....
"
So.... How can they have TWO different listings for One Case ....At One Court being The Old Bailey"... in Two Court Rooms being 1 and 2 .... on the same day????
That must be a virtual impossibility.... Or as I will keep saying something "UNTOWARD" Happened...... (IMO)...
Come on.... please someone with Criminal Law Expertise please explain how this is possible... and where if anywhere I am possibly going wrong....
Nina... can I ask you something..... Doesn't this Case strike you as ODD...??????
-
Just Looking at The Judge.... On Wiki... It doesn't Mention The Joanna Yeates Case in his listing....
Then I found these two images of him... and they look different to me...
Are the images even the same man ?????
I can't tell.... The next to last screenshot is an image of three pics together ... do they look like the same man ????
https://www.judicial.ky/judicial-administration/justices-of-appeal
http://www.oeclaw.co.uk/barristers/profile/the-hon-sir-richard-field
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Field_(judge)
https://caymannewsservice.com/2015/01/four-more-appeal-judges-to-tackle-high-court-backlog/
http://www.topfoto.co.uk/imageflows/preview/t=topfoto&f=0313989
EDIT.... Why would Judge Field... wear Glasses for his Photograph in his Gowns ... which suggests he wears them permanently....and The Drawn court images of The Trial of Dr Vincent Tabak... Yet any other pictures of him show him without glasses... ??? Slightly strange....(IMO)..
-
Yes there are a few things that strike me as odd, but speaking as one that knows nothing about the legal system, I don't think any particular court case would follow a precise format, each case would be different and both sides are going to go where both the evidence and the words of the person on trial take them. Does that make sense?
Also just because you don't believe that the two listing were for the two different charges doesn't make it so. Say that one was just for a plea of guilty, that surely would not take long. They, IMO might be listed at the same time one is just a guilty/not guilty plea the other manslaughter and all the legal waffle that must go with that, before the trial starts.
I would like an answer about the lighting in the kitchen and how Joanna managed to see VT and therefore let him in. That is one other thing that strikes me as odd.
You see in my mind, although there may be odd things re: the trial, I keep coming back to the point that VT admitted he murdered Joanna and he has had 7years to shout his innocence since then and he hasn't. Also when he gained entry to her flat he knew (IMO) that Greg R would not be disturbing him by coming home.
-
Yes there are a few things that strike me as odd, but speaking as one that knows nothing about the legal system, I don't think any particular court case would follow a precise format, each case would be different and both sides are going to go where both the evidence and the words of the person on trial take them. Does that make sense?
Also just because you don't believe that the two listing were for the two different charges doesn't make it so. Say that one was just for a plea of guilty, that surely would not take long. They, IMO might be listed at the same time one is just a guilty/not guilty plea the other manslaughter and all the legal waffle that must go with that, before the trial starts.
I would like an answer about the lighting in the kitchen and how Joanna managed to see VT and therefore let him in. That is one other thing that strikes me as odd.
You see in my mind, although there may be odd things re: the trial, I keep coming back to the point that VT admitted he murdered Joanna and he has had 7years to shout his innocence since then and he hasn't. Also when he gained entry to her flat he knew (IMO) that Greg R would not be disturbing him by coming home.
The Point you make about The Lighting in the kitchen, is a Good Point Nina....
As science would help prove If The Light is ON in The Kitchen and it is dark outside... Joanna Yeates could not possibly tell who walked past her Kitchen window....
Yet I do not know where it says that the "Outside Light " was on..... Except I would say.. But for the images of 44 canygne Road... where the "OUTSIDE LIGHT IS ON"... even though it is DAYTIME....
Makes it look like it's Not been touched since Joanna Yeates was last there !!!! But is it true???? Was The outside light on or off????
Greg mentions The hallway light being on.... But Not the outside light as far as I know .!!!!
Ok... Even More Interesting... Is the Light appears to have been turned on at some point.....
(A): Image 1 has the lights on!!!
(B): Image 2 has the lights off...... !!!!
So Someone obviously turned them ON!!!! Was this the second time The Forensic went in or after Dr Vincent Tabak's arrest..... Because again... If it is a time capsule..... The lights should either have been "ON" permanantly...or... "OFF" permanently.... NOT BOTH!!!!!!
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
You see in my mind, although there may be odd things re: the trial, I keep coming back to the point that VT admitted he murdered Joanna and he has had 7years to shout his innocence since then and he hasn't. Also when he gained entry to her flat he knew (IMO) that Greg R would not be disturbing him by coming home.
And you are probably not alone in that Nina.... But prisoners learn to keep their heads down... (IMO)... It has been shown that this is the case.... And as with the "ChildPorn" Charges.... A Case was left on file..... Maybe that is "The Leverage " they need to keep Dr Vincent Tabak silent along with his family.... They don't want to rock the boat.... As British Justice has already demonstrated it's power to them all..... (IMO)...
He plead "Guilty" to Manslaughter" apparently.... But I just don't know ANYMORE to be honest... They said he did.... They said he was appearing in court 1 and COurt 2 of The Old Bailey aT THE SAME TIME AND THE SAME DAY.... BUT THAT COULDN'T POSSIBLY BE TRUE EITHER..... COULD IT!!! (IMO)....
-
. Also when he gained entry to her flat he knew (IMO) that Greg R would not be disturbing him by coming home.
Now how could he possibly know that ????? Who told him????
We have had stories that it was CJ.... we heard from The Defence That it was Joanna Yeates who told him.... But no-one was in court to verify how Dr Vincent Tabak could possibly come about that "VITAL" piece of Information....
So how on God's Green Earth Did They prove how Dr Vincent Tabak Knew That Greg Reardon would be away that weekend... Giving him a supposed opportunity to Kill his next door neighbour .. whom he had never spoken too before??
-
Practice Summary
Richard Field is an arbitrator accepting appointments in a wide range of commercial arbitrations, both domestic and international. He was called to the Bar in 1977 and appointed QC in 1987. He was a High Court judge sitting in the Commercial Court from 2002 to September 2014. In the years 2008 – 2012 he was a Presiding Judge on the Western Circuit and was appointed Judge In Charge of the Commercial Court in January 2014.
This Is For Judge Richard Field....... "A High Court Judge" Sitting in The Commercial Court from 2002 to 2014!!!!
Followed by.... Ya gonna Love this ......
The Work
The Commercial Court deals with complex cases arising out of business disputes, both national and international.
Super-Court-Commercial-Court-Work
A Commercial Court “Super Court”
There is particular emphasis on:
insurance and reinsurance
banking and financial markets
commodities
shipping
arbitration
The work of the Commercial Court is governed by Part 58 of the Civil Procedure Rules
The Admiralty and Commercial Courts Guide sets out detailed information on how litigation is conducted in the Admiralty and
The guide is regularly updated to reflect rule changes and suggestions for improvement from users. The 2011 edition has been updated five times, in October 2011, March 2012, March 2013, April 2014 and March 2016. Read the summary of changes.
Suggestions for changes to the guide from users are welcomed and can be emailed to the Commercial Court listing office at comct.listing@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Did you see that...... There we go again.......
The Commercial Court deals with complex cases arising out of business disputes, both national and international.
THE MAGIC WORDS........... "COMPLEX CASE"!!!!!!!!!!!! OMG......
What has Dr Vincent Tabak's "(Sorry to say it this way..but).... "Simple Murder Case".... Got anything to do with...
(A): The Head Of the Complex Crime Unit
(B): A Judge who basically deal with Complex Crime of a business nature both NATIONAL AND
INTERNATIONAL..?????
For the love of God someone tell me .... please .... What is going on??????
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/you-and-the-judiciary/going-to-court/high-court/queens-bench-division/courts-of-the-queens-bench-division/commercial-court/about-us/
http://www.oeclaw.co.uk/barristers/profile/the-hon-sir-richard-field
-
There is a good chance IMO that VT overheard part of a conversation due to the fact that both bedroom windows were next to each other. Heard through an open window? I would have thought there were a few ways in that flat to overhear the odd thing. A while ago you put up a picture of no.44 where each door and window was labelled, any chance of you putting it up again? You see I don't think that there was a security light on the back of the house, just outside the front door as most of us have.
Why are you talking about daylight security lights when my question was about the kitchen light being on and Joanna being able to see VT outside in the dark? I'm in the middle of cooking sunday lunch, sorry, gotta go and see to my roasties. Will be back though.
-
There is a good chance IMO that VT overheard part of a conversation due to the fact that both bedroom windows were next to each other. Heard through an open window? I would have thought there were a few ways in that flat to overhear the odd thing. A while ago you put up a picture of no.44 where each door and window was labelled, any chance of you putting it up again? You see I don't think that there was a security light on the back of the house, just outside the front door as most of us have.
Why are you talking about daylight security lights when my question was about the kitchen light being on and Joanna being able to see VT outside in the dark? I'm in the middle of cooking sunday lunch, sorry, gotta go and see to my roasties. Will be back though.
I cannot see how Dr Vincent Tabak over heard anything.... Firstly I do Not believe he would have finished work when Greg Left for Sheffield around 5:00pm I believe it says at Trial... So who would he have over heard it from??? It's apparently blumming cold outside... So No neighbours are hanging around for 1 and 3 quarter hours waiting for Dr Vincent tabak to return , so on the off chance he might overhear a conversation....
You would need the outside light on so that Joanna Yeates could see who walked past her flat.... otherwise she wouldn't be able to see anyone in the dark especially with her kitchen light being on.... And her kitchen light MUST have been on if we believe the Crime Watch depiction on her in her Kitchen !!!!!
-
No I don't mean on that particular day, no doubt it would have been mentioned in the week leading up to Greg R leaving. After all Joanna asked him to text her when he reached Sheffield because of the bad weather conditions. Now that presumably would have been part of a conversation.
-
Why wasn't Dr Vincent Tabak seen by a "Recorder" Rather than A High Court Judge who deals with "Complex Crimes"??? For what is essentially "A Simple Murder Case "??????
Recorders
Recorders are fee-paid, part-time judges. For many it is the first step on the judicial ladder to appointment to the circuit bench. Recorders’ jurisdiction is broadly similar to that of a circuit judge, but they generally handle less complex or serious matters coming before the court.
It is a post open to any fully qualified solicitor or barrister with at least ten years’ practice before the Crown or county courts. They are required to sit for between 15 and 30 days every year with at least one ten-day continuous period. The appointment is for an initial five-year period, extendible for further successive five year terms up to the retirement age of 65.
Now I might have found something else that has distracted me.... Namely what Does a High Court Judge
High Court judges are sometimes known as “red judges” because of their colourful robes, but their dress codes are actually more complex than that.
Red robes are usually worn only by judges dealing with criminal cases.
High Court judges presiding over civil cases wear the civil robe introduced on 1 October 2008, with red tabs at the neck of the gown and no wig.
Judges hearing Family Division cases in Chambers do not wear court dress.
High Court judges sitting in the criminal division of the Court of Appeal wear a black silk gown and a short wig.
On Red Letter Days, which include the sovereign’s birthday and certain saints’ days, all High Court judges wear a scarlet robe.
But ...
Circuit Judges
Circuit JudgeBands worn over a violet robe and a short wig.
When hearing criminal cases, circuit judges wear a red tippet (sash) over the left shoulder.
When dealing with civil business, circuit judges dress as in criminal cases, but with a lilac tippet and without a wig or bands, wing collar or collarette.
On some occasions – when dealing with certain types of High Court business, or when sitting at the Central Criminal Court (Old Bailey) in London – circuit judges wear a short wig and black silk gown over a court coat and/or waistcoat.
Now I thought Justice Field was A Circuit Judge????
And when Justice Field appeared at the Old Bailey he wore his Red Robes as depicted by the Court appointed Artist....
Shouldn't he have been in BLACK????? At The Old Bailey????? (Image 1)
And violet Robes at Bristol Crown Court.. (Image 2) ???
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/who-are-the-judiciary/court-dress/examples/
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-justice-system/jurisdictions/criminal-jurisdiction/
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
OK a couple of questions for you Nine.
1. Why have you still not given me your opinion on the lighting?
2. Why are you and some other posters making VT out to be a liar? Whatever he has said it seems like you go all out to prove the opposite. To a certain extent I do believe the man, but always remember this is a story with only one person telling it.
-
OK a couple of questions for you Nine.
1. Why have you still not given me your opinion on the lighting?
2. Why are you and some other posters making VT out to be a liar? Whatever he has said it seems like you go all out to prove the opposite. To a certain extent I do believe the man, but always remember this is a story with only one person telling it.
I do not believe that the outside light was on... Therefore Joanna Yeates could not see anyone out side....
I believe that Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent... Unless someone can prove to me otherwise... And not the Circus they called a trial....
As for only one person telling it.... Yes... words did come out of the mouth of Dr Vincent Tabak...... Question being..... who told him to say those words ????
You may see it that some posters are making Dr Vincent Tabak out to be a liar... but that is not quite accurate... I personally believe He kept to a story he was coached to say.... (IMO)... And once 'The Plea had been entered... His Goose was proverbally Cooked!!!!
-
(http://images.slideplayer.com/22/6357883/slides/slide_9.jpg)
What was that again??????
"NO JURY UNLESS THE DEFENDANT PLEADS NOT GUILTY?????? Not Unless the defendant Pleas Partial GUILT!!!
-
Well I'm obviously not going to get an answer about the lighting. Reminder: I was asking about the kitchen light (interior) being on and how Joanna could have seen VT on the outside of the building.
I believe VT is guilty, in his own words, until anyone can show me anything different.
Yes the words did come out of VT's own mouth, remember this is Bristol and not Guantanamo Bay. He won't have been tortured and been brainwashed to plead guilty when innocent. I think that no-one would disagree with the statement that the Joanna Yeates case was not Avon & Somerset's finest hour, but I don't really think that they would stoop to any of the things that have been posted on this thread.
-
Ok... Back to photographs of Judge Richard Alan Field.. Born 1947
http://www.topfoto.co.uk/imageflows2/?s=Richard+alan+field+
(http://img01.us.imageflows.com/imageflows/imagethumbs3/t=topfoto&f=0360935&z=170)
(http://img01.us.imageflows.com/imageflows/imagethumbs3/t=topfoto&f=0313991&z=170)
(http://www.oeclaw.co.uk/images/uploads/people/_Profile-Medium/RichardField.jpg)
The First Photo is apparently 87.... So he's always worn Glasses.... must have had eye surgery since 2011
I've added an extra Image from the post below...
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Doesn't it count that he pleaded guilty to manslaughter and not guilty to murder?
-
Wouldn't that require a jury?
The 'photos you have put up all look like the same man to me.
-
Doesn't it count that he pleaded guilty to manslaughter and not guilty to murder?
Of Course... But Then shouldn't the Judge have passed sentence.... Shouldn't Dr Vincent Tabak have been offered something for "A Plea"... and not blindly make The prosecution Case Easier !!!
-
Wouldn't that require a jury?
The 'photos you have put up all look like the same man to me.
That's fine... I can't see him in this photo though.. `is he the dude with the glasses with the book????? He's supposed to be there ....
(http://cache.emirates247.com/polopoly_fs/1.578189.1452216307!/image/image.jpg)
-
Think I'm getting lost with all this legal mumbo jumbo ........ but I was answering you're post re: poster which says: No jury unless defendant pleads 'not guilty'.
VT pled not guilty to murder so he got a jury - right?
The jury found him guilty.
-
3rd left I think.
-
Look at the ears.
-
Could be.... (Still wearing glasses)... But my simple question really is... why have two different types of hearings listed at the same court at the same time on the same date in different court rooms ???
Especially when court room time is carefully managed ????
-
Think I'm getting lost with all this legal mumbo jumbo ........ but I was answering you're post re: poster which says: No jury unless defendant pleads 'not guilty'.
VT pled not guilty to murder so he got a jury - right?
The jury found him guilty.
Agreed... To an extent.... But Why "Plea" "Guilty To Manslaughter"...when he has NO Guarantee of The Prosecution accepting his Plea... Or The Judge passing sentence... Or even a reduction on his sentence.... Make NO Sense Whatsoever !!!!
-
Surely Nine there are NO guarantees when you are on trial. Your defence can tell you what they think will happen, but no guarantees, right down to the jury.
You're right it doesn't make any sense at all. VT destroyed two lives on that day Joanna Yeates and his own.
-
You've lost me a bit on this one Nine. VT had to plea to something didn't he and the prosecution didn't accept his manslaughter plea. Again no guarantees Nine.
Don't you have to have the trial before the judge can pass sentence?
Reduction in his sentence .... why? This man has killed someone whether by manslaughter or murder, why on earth give him a reduction?
-
Surely Nine there are NO guarantees when you are on trial. Your defence can tell you what they think will happen, but no guarantees, right down to the jury.
You're right it doesn't make any sense at all. VT destroyed two lives on that day Joanna Yeates and his own.
Ok Nina... Firstly thank you for posting today... ?{)(**
But I would say that you are working firstly.... may I say... On the premise that The Guilty Plea means he is Guilty....
Can I ask you... To imagine that the Guilty Plea just didn't happen... And show me how on earth Dr Vincent Tabak had time to commit this crime... when he was at his home till 9:29pm on Friday 2010... ???
Show me how The Prosecution had Proven Dr Vincent Tabak's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt....
Help me understand... Why so many witness's were absent from this trial....Help me understand "HOW" So many witness's for The Prosecution just gave written statements ??? Help me understand why the venue for his... "For Mention Hearing" Or whatever they decided to tell untruths about this Plea.. Management... Whatever the heck they want to call it "hearing.".. At Two different Court Rooms on the Same Day at a Venue that was suddenly changed too.... And was listed twice on the Court Scene website.... For what reason???
Help me understand ...Why 'A Placid Dutchman... who was content with his lot in life as all outwardly appearances would suggest... That he would risk complete ruin and imprisonment ... To try his chances with his next door neighbour whom he had never meet... A Placid Dutchman who had spent 10 years gaining his PHD to become a People Flow Specialist....
A Placid Dutchman.... WHERE...... No supporting evidence of any such devience was presented to the Court/Jury to prove he had various tendencies.... Never mind the Porn!!!! Where NO females whom had had contact with Dr Vincent Tabak queuing up saying what a Deviant he was and how they were accosted by him were presented to the court/jury....... All those female work colleagues...acquaintances... All of them who were afraid of Dr Vincent Tabak... All lined up in a row for the prosecution to tell their stories of horror..... Where were they??????
Where was any Psychological Evaluation of this Placid Dutchman... Proving His tendencies... proving as some have said that he was A Serial Killer In the making!!!!
Everyone knows this case from what they have read in the papers... and a trial that was simply a formality... Let everyone try and look at this case in a different light... By taking away.. "The Plea"... And actually looking at the evidence the prosecution didn't have... And what supposed Defence Dr Vincent Tabak received... Because in my opinion.... The Defence was a School Play at best.... And The prosecution were playing a game of Smoke and Mirrors... Whilst this DUTCH NATIONAL didn't have a clue at to what happens with the "British Judical System" as his Defence Lawyer was The only person who could provide him with any explanation....
And really Nina.... Do you think that William Clegg Helped Dr Vincent Tabak???? The very same William Clegg who said these Unkind words about their client... Who was A Foreigner in A Foreign Land ??
1: His conduct after Yeates died when he hid the body was “frankly disgusting” and had caused untold anguish and agony to her family.
2: “I’m not going to ask you to like Vincent Tabak. There’s probably nothing to like.”
3: And Miss Morson seems to agree, having failed to make a single appearance at court.
4: He had told “lie after lie to the police.
5: “Did everything he could to cover his tracks”.
6: He added that he would not try to justify Tabak’s actions after her death, saying his client was “living a lie” by
attending dinner parties and attempting to carry on his life as normal.
7: “I’m not going to ask you to have any sympathy for him. He deserves none.
8: “I’m not going to ask you to excuse his conduct. There can be no excuse.
9: “If I was to set out to win a popularity contest I would lose.
10: He told the court: “Of course, afterwards his behaviour is utterly disgraceful. It’s not going to be justified by me
"Ten Statements" That he so "Lovingly" used to help with his "Supremely Logical Reasoned Approach
To support a vulnerable Dutch National In his Hour of need!!!!
-
You've lost me a bit on this one Nine. VT had to plea to something didn't he and the prosecution didn't accept his manslaughter plea. Again no guarantees Nine.
Don't you have to have the trial before the judge can pass sentence?
Reduction in his sentence .... why? This man has killed someone whether by manslaughter or murder, why on earth give him a reduction?
Why did Dr Vincent Tabak need to "Plea " at All ??? ... He didn't ....
-
Nina... I've been called A loony and all sorts... For believing in Dr Vincent Tabak's Innocence.... And maybe some people believe that I am...
But you cannot undo things that i have discovered that are wrong about this case...
* Searches he couldn't make because he wasn't at home
* A Cat that is "TOO" old to be Bernard.. In a photo of Joanna Yeates holding him..
* The number recorded on Dr Vincent Tabak's shirt when he's running with Tanja being a different Number to the
official recorded race number he was ...
* The Head of The Complex Crime Unit at The Helm of a Simple Murder Trial...
* A supposed Prison Chaplain... who for all intense and purposes is a "Prison Officer...
* A Fire Brigade.. service attending for 4 days... (thanks mrswah)
* The Dutch Language completely Missing from Dr Vincent Tabak's searches
I could go on... But we have "The One Hundred Questions" thread for that... which now is more than 1000 questions I have about this case.... Not to mention the other 1000 questions I am not at liberty to post about!!!!
-
Again Nine surely VT had to plea to something everyone who is being tried has put in a guilty or not guilty plea, unless I'm missing something.
-
Again Nine surely VT had to plea to something everyone who is being tried has put in a guilty or not guilty plea, unless I'm missing something.
An extremely interesting point Nina.... And something I had not considered, because I had just assumed that everybody who attends court enters a plea... I had never really considered the fact that someone may still be silent and not enter a plea whatsoever...
So what happens when a defendant doesn't enter a plea ??
Normally apparently... The Judge will enter a 'Not Guilty Plea" on their behalf... But I cannot find anywhere online where the judge enters a "Guilty" plea.... That doesn't mean that it can't happen... (i Believe).. So.... did the words "Guilty ever actually come out of the mouth of Dr Vincent Tabak ???
OMG... Just had a thought.... I presume Court 2 is a closed court .... It's a very special court remember... A court Room that the likes of Dr Vincent Tabak should not have attended .... For what really is a "Simple Murder Case !!
Ok... lets go with that.... Dr Vincent tabak has up until he attends The Old Bailey at Court Room 2 professed his Innocence... Then when we get To The Old Bailey Court Room 2... With such surprise to everyone following this case.... Out of the blue he pleads "Guilty To Manslaughter..... "WHY".... with No deal in place... (which I'll come back too)...
Like all of tis case "THAT" makes no sense .... (IMO)....
So "WHO" actually entered Dr Vincent Tabak's "Guilty To Manslaughter Plea "????? leonora has always gone with it must have been an imposter who made the plea.... A theory that I have never been in support of... (No disrespect leonora)... But with not ever thinking about whether or not Dr Vincent Tabak actually spoke the words himself... "Guilty To Manslaughter"... until you asked Nina... I am now considering the alternative....
So... highly unlikely to be an imposter.... But legally possible for someone else to actually enter the plea for him.... I do not believe that reporetrs were actually in Court Room 2 at the time of Dr Vincent tabak's appearance, with it being a "High" Security Court Room"...
So in Answer to your question... It is possible that Dr Vincent Tabak didn't enter a "Guilty" plea.... I like to look at "How"... How this was possible... But firstly we need to remind ourselves of what has taken place thus far....
* You have "The Head Of The Complex Case Unit at The Helm"... Following and Prosecuting this simple "Murder"
trial to the bitter end...
* A Change Of Venue for this Particular case.. A Hearing at The Old Bailey
* Two different types of hearing listed in the Crime Serve website
* A For Mention Hearing at Court room 2
* A Plea and management Case Hearing at Court room 1... (Check pg 12 on this thread)
* A Foreign National with NO Interpreter
* The use of Court Room 2 at The Old Bailey... A court Room where Terrorism and such cases are heard... An
extremely secure court room indeed...
* A Defence Team... Burying Their Client
* A Prosecution Team with NO Evidence
* No Defence witness's
* No Good Character Witness's
* Too many written statements , read out in court..
* A prison Officer assuming The role of Chaplain
* Searches That were never in Dutch
* Searches that didn't belong to Dr Vincent Tabak..
* 3 Different prisons he was incarcerated in within 48 hours....
* A Prisoner No One Can Locate.....
* The Complex Crime Units Use of "LOR"'s (Letter of Request From a Foreign Nation) To be able to Interview Dr
Vincent tabak in Holland
* And A Placid Dutchman.. Sobbing in Court... Never admitting his "GUILT"...(IMO)..
This case has been strange enough... So Yes Nina.. It is possible for him to "Not To Plead"..... And for someone else to enter his plea.... It May be unusual... But it's NOT IMPOSSIBLE.... And that also would answer leonora's question or should I say theory of an imposter taking Dr Vincent Tabak's place...
So with the irregularities in This Case all ready... And The Highly secure court room that this hearing took place at... I wouldn't be surprised if someone did enter Dr Vincent Tabak's plea for him....
I'll quote from one of my posts...
The defence shall apply to the court for the case to be listed for mention if they are unable to obtain instructions from the defendant. If the defendant fails to attend court, the judge will wish to consider whether a warrant of arrest should be issued.
Here the defence basically have "NO" Instruction from the Defendant.. that would be why it one of the listing at The Old Bailey was listed as 'For Mention"..
But The other listing on the same day at the same time is a 'Plea and management Case hearing"... where obviously some "PERSON"... managed to get the case listed twice... which allowed for the "PLEA" to be entered ....
So if they... who ever "they "May be .... Can list a Case as
(A): For Mention
(B): Plea and Management Case Hearing
At The same time on the same day at two different court Rooms at "The Old Bailey".... Then Nina.... How hard is it to imagine that the very same people actually entered Dr Vincent Tabak's plea for him... Seeing as This Placid Dutchman had kept quite ALL This Time.... And I presume that there is NO Video Evidence of Dr Vincent Tabak entering his plea....
This case is extremely unusual.... In every aspect... from start to finish.... And really Nina... I think a different question really needs to be asked now.... As I have always believed that Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent of this Crime....And obviously someone else is 'GUILTY"/// Then the real question is.... "Why go to such great lengths to put this PLACID DUTCHMAN away for life for a crime he did not commit... And the only logical conclusion I can come up with is that 'The Real Killer' Is being protected... Which means the questions you need to ask yourselves is "WHO" and WHY ???
Why did "The Placid Dutchman" become collateral damage to save someone else's skin???? As this extremely weird case seems to suggest...
I would like to see an INQUIRY Into Dr Vincent Tabak's incarceration, Trial and Conviction... I would like to cry tears of joy rather than frustration for a "Foreign National" who had hope and dreams when he came to this country of ours.... A Foreign Nation people have gone to extraordinary lengths to convict with "NO" evidence.... A Foreign National that everyone in our country was happy to see banged up... A Foreign National I have spent a long time trying to prove his Innocence... A Foreign National that is Impossible to Locate via "The Prisoner Relocation Service... A Foreign National who has been Silent for too many Years ... A Foreign National who hasn't got a voice...
And mostly to show this "Placid Foreign National" that people in our country still believe in truth and justice and fairness... And even if he is NOT allowed to speak for himself.... I and other people like me, will do our best to bring to everyones attention, the appauling treatment of this 'Placid Foreign National".. Who had everything going for him... Not only that... The Yeates family deserve to know the truth, and really, I don't envy the person who needs to explain to them, what was done...
So yes Nina... you question is perfect... but I must admit at first I nearly dismissed it, thinking you were pulling my leg...
-
I would just like to add to my above post...
Could The New head of The Complex Case Unit take a look at This case.... It seems to come under your 21 criteria set out on the Government website... 21 Criteria, (IMO)....
That needs a Case to be
* COMPLEX...
* Muti faceted
* Multi person
* Multi Crimes
* Multi Laws broken or to put it actually In The Government words and Criteria...
* Substantial and complex fraud
* Large scale human trafficking
* Serious drug related offences involving substantial importation, manufacture or supply, particularly with an
international dimension
* Major targeted local criminals in organised or international crime
* Serial sexual assault where there has been a protracted investigation
*Large scale child abuse, abduction or paedophile abuse cases involving multi generational abuse of several victims
* Major large scale public disorder offences of a political, racial or religious nature, or which cause particular local
concern
* Complex / serious cases involving professional misconduct
* Hate related murders
* Mercy killings / aiding and abetting suicide
* High profile / multi victim / multi defendant murders
* Serious / complex Animal rights extremism cases especially across several police force areas
* Complex restraint and confiscation of assetsRape offences involving unusual violence or repeated attacks
*Cases involving complicated public interest immunity (PII) issues
* Complicated betting / lotteries cases
* Sensitive, serious or complex cases of major media interest e.g. allegations involving individuals or organisations
with a high public profile
* Cases requiring consideration of gross negligence manslaughter and any case involving a fatality in which the
investigation is being conducted in accordance with the Deaths at Work protocol (but note that cases of corporate
manslaughter are currently dealt with in the Special Crime Division in HQ)
* Outgoing European Arrest Warrant cases i.e. where the Area is seeking the return of a suspect from abroad
* Mutual Legal Assistance by vetting proposed letters of request (LORs)
* Cases where consideration is being given to issues of immunity and restricted use agreements under Serious
Organised Crime Act (SOCA) 05 (but not in relation to approving a letter of agreement with a co-operating
defendant)
*All cases involving the negotiation of jurisdiction with the USA
Home » About us » Complex Casework Unit
South West Complex Casework Unit
The CPS set up Complex Casework Units (CCUs) in 2008 to help us deal more effectively with major cases, working closely with the police and other law enforcement agencies to disrupt and prosecute organised crime. A national template was created for the new units and there is now a CCU in 14 out of the 15 CPS Areas with separate arrangements for London.
The national template sets out the mandatory security arrangements for CCUs, with a heightened level of security and vetting; this protects all staff, not just those working in the CCU.
The South West CCU works with the police in Avon and Somerset, Devon and Cornwall and Gloucestershire. It was set up in Bristol in April 2007 and follows the national template in its casework remit.
Cases come into the CCU by a variety of routes. Police dealing with serious and organised crime refer cases directly to the CCU at an early stage, often at the very inception of an investigation when target criminals are identified. Sometimes these investigations lead to prosecutions which can be handled most appropriately back in the originating office; others remain with the CCU throughout.
Other cases are identified by individual CPS lawyers working in other teams who then refer them to the CCU.
Crown Prosecution Service
CPS South West
Temple Quay House, Bristol: 0117 930 2800
Longbrook House, Exeter: 01392 356700
Penhaligon House, Truro: 01872 243000
Visit the Contact page for addresses.
Site MapCrown Copyright and DisclaimerTop of pageWeb design agency Ecru
Just take your time and read our thread.... And do what you do best.... "Prosecute" The Multi People" whom have been complicate in this Crime.. (IMO)... And help free 'The Placid Dutchman".. And "Prosecute them Under
* Complex / serious cases involving professional misconduct
Then I'll be a happy bunny... because for all intense and purposes I believe that is what should happen.... And not forgetting... The immediate release of Dr Vincent Tabak... from where ever they have held him for so many years...
And I'll add one more thing.... 'When it was said that "THE TRUTH MAY NEVER BE KNOWN"... I disagree... And I say...
It's about time that the truth of this Case was KNOWN... Known so everyone in our Country can feel proud of our Justice System... Knowing what great lengths were gone too... To prove 'A Placid Dutchman's Innocence" When he couldn't speak for himself!!!
http://www.cps.gov.uk/southwest/who_we_are/complex_casework_unit/
-
Hi Nine, can I start by asking you not to post VT as a PLACID Dutchman, he wasn't very placid was he if he killed Joanna. Can I also say that I would never call you a looney ...... you just happen to hold a different view of VT to me and therefore we should be able to debate this without getting personal. Neither would I pull your leg (would have liked to on the odd occasion but didn't lol !!
As I have said I know/knew little to nothing about the legal system but have now done a lot of reading and now know more than I want to. It seems that in England we have two pleas guilty or not guilty, if the person remains silent the judge will enter a plea of not guilty and presumably its then up to both sides to prove their case, guilty or innocent. A judge is bound by law to enter not guilty so I don't think you'll find a judge giving a guilty one online.
You obviously read the CCU write up on the Tabak case, very stark I thought. Also it seemed a lot longer than the other few I read, which to me proves that some cases likie Madeleine McCann and Joanna Yeates seem to grab the media/public more than other cases. This is why VT was moved from Horfield prison Bristol.
-
Hi Nine, can I start by asking you not to post VT as a PLACID Dutchman, he wasn't very placid was he if he killed Joanna. Can I also say that I would never call you a looney ...... you just happen to hold a different view of VT to me and therefore we should be able to debate this without getting personal. Neither would I pull your leg (would have liked to on the odd occasion but didn't lol !!
As I have said I know/knew little to nothing about the legal system but have now done a lot of reading and now know more than I want to. It seems that in England we have two pleas guilty or not guilty, if the person remains silent the judge will enter a plea of not guilty and presumably its then up to both sides to prove their case, guilty or innocent. A judge is bound by law to enter not guilty so I don't think you'll find a judge giving a guilty one online.
You obviously read the CCU write up on the Tabak case, very stark I thought. Also it seemed a lot longer than the other few I read, which to me proves that some cases likie Madeleine McCann and Joanna Yeates seem to grab the media/public more than other cases. This is why VT was moved from Horfield prison Bristol.
Hi Nina... I must insist that I call him a Placid Dutchman.... As this description and title was entered by no-one other than DCI Phil Jones.. Who in a video recorded interview... described Dr Vincent Tabak as : (If I remember the exact words)... "A Very Placid Individual to deal with"....
Also I believe he didn't kill Joanna Yeates... So we differ on opinion.... And therefore I will continue to describe Dr Vincent Tabak as "The Placid Dutchman"...
Which CCU article are you refering too Nina ... There have been articles I have read that disappear....
Whether or not we know what took place inside court room 2 of The Old Bailey.... I do not believe that it was Dr Vincent Tabak whom spoke the words "Guilty".... Especially if what has been discovered about this case is anything to go by....
So I will sit on my perch..... Praying and hoping that some day soon... Someone out there is actually looking at this case with real clout... And I will see the day that Dr Vincent Tabak is proven to be Innocent of The Crime he has been Incarcerated for.... And know that Justice in this Country.... really does exist.....
Edit..... I think the interview where DCI Phil Jones Calls Dr Vincent Tabak.. A Placid Individual... Is The Judge Rinder Program... If memory serves me right....
-
Nine Agains point about the true perpetrator being protected is something that we are going to focus on for a while. It is highly likely that we have identified the individual and the conditions leading to his protected status, from our point of view he couldn't be better placed to avoid prosecution.
AH
-
Okay Nine you go on calling a killer a placid person, the sort I assume you wouldn't mind having as a next door neighbour.
Nine can you please tell me how to add a link and to put one of your posts up before I reply. I just haven't had time and I'm pretty naff when it comes to computers but you seem to be able to do it all so please help me! I also think that your research into this is amazing you've obviously spent hours checking things.
AH sorry no disrespect, but I can't believe in the route you're taking. In one post you told me that Bristol had a 'rogue killer', now I'm sure that the good folk of Bristol would have noticed if people went missing or more bodies than is usual for this size city were found littering the Downs and the like. So no conspiracy or rouge killer theories for me.
-
Also how is the witness thing supposed to work. I mean if you are on trial for murder and your plea is guilty, can you produce `good character witnesses'?
If so how does it work? This is the first time I've murdered anyone....... so I'm a basically good person?
I am not being funny or trying to wind you up Nine, I would really like to know without having to trawl the internet again.
-
Okay Nine you go on calling a killer a placid person, the sort I assume you wouldn't mind having as a next door neighbour.
Nine can you please tell me how to add a link and to put one of your posts up before I reply. I just haven't had time and I'm pretty naff when it comes to computers but you seem to be able to do it all so please help me! I also think that your research into this is amazing you've obviously spent hours checking things.
AH sorry no disrespect, but I can't believe in the route you're taking. In one post you told me that Bristol had a 'rogue killer', now I'm sure that the good folk of Bristol would have noticed if people went missing or more bodies than is usual for this size city were found littering the Downs and the like. So no conspiracy or rouge killer theories for me.
to quote my posts just click quote on the right hand side of the post... otherwise if you want to add a quote you will need to write.. the word quote with [] either side of the word... and to close the quote... you will need to write quote quote [/] at either side of the word...
Sometimes Nina I don't know if people are simply taking the proverbial P***
Yes you may have noticed my posting style... You may or may not like it... It's a deliberate style... I do not profess to be legally minded or know anything in particular... I am merely here to try to find out what I can to prove Dr Vincent Tabak Innocent... as I have always believed him to be... I battle through the legal jargon not always understanding... but I have no-one to verify if I am right or wrong... but it opens the floodgates to questions... And if other people have more questions than I have already posed.... Then that can only be good for Dr Vincent Tabak...
And if someone who is legally qualified can explain why Dr Vincent Tabak appeared at Court Room 2... also at the same time Court Room 1 on two different hearings at the same time and date.... Then that may go a little way into understanding the Justice system... But I cannot see in the life of me that.. The way they got Dr Vincent tabak to the Old Bailey and the methods they used is actually legal.....
This time I would like a legal person to stand up and be counted... Instead of what may make me look to be the Loony you didn't call me ....
It's highly frustrating Nina trying to work backwards on a case when you have no expertise in the field and no expert to help iron out anywhere you may go wrong.... But this case is Plain and Simply Wrong....
which ever way you look at it.... And if like many have said before... the real problem is that Dr Vincent tabak made a Plea to his Guilt for manslaughter.... Something which is virtually Impossible to undo.... Then I believe that somewhere in Court Room 2 something untoward took place.... Somewhere ina special court room for terrorists and such cases should only appear... And not the likes of Dr Vincent Tabak.... The Placid Dutchman...Somewhere between his appearance that he was supposed to have made at Bristol Crown Court and his Videoed appearance at The Old Bailey in Court Room 2 ... Something happened.... And I am NOT talking about Dr Vincent Tabak's supposed Guilty Plea To Manslaughter"....
The hours I have spent on this case are more like years... But it wasn't until around 8/9 months ago that I made a concerted effort to bring back to the internet some of what had been removed and hopefully with the passing of time add new information to what was already known....
You have helped Nina... I thought originally you believed that Dr Vincent Tabak was Innocent... But maybe I was mistaken..... Takes me right back to Jixy... when I thought the same about her....
But whether or not you believe in Dr Vincent Tabak's Innocent.. I can do little about... But I can get you and many other people to question everything that doesn't add up in this case....
Nina... take a look at the hundred question's thread.... It has expanded a little... try answering those questions please.. It may take you a little while .... ?{)(**
-
Also how is the witness thing supposed to work. I mean if you are on trial for murder and your plea is guilty, can you produce `good character witnesses'?
If so how does it work? This is the first time I've murdered anyone....... so I'm a basically good person?
I am not being funny or trying to wind you up Nine, I would really like to know without having to trawl the internet again.
I am not the font of all knowledge.... But apparently "The Prosecution believed that WIKI... Is a good way in which to expand your Knowledge and is a trusted source, the likes of which Dr Vincent Tabak... who is far more intellegent than myself a simple middle aged woman who hates injustice...... Used as reference to ask..(Apparently) The Dutch Wiki... What % of grey cars were in the UK??
When of Course the Dutch wiki isn't going to give a flying fig as to What % of Grey Cars are in the UK... So why would he bother asking it such a ludicrous question?
Or the other question ... "Manslaughter"... Now don't put into google what the Dutch word for Manslaughter is... Because... google doing it's job for the English audience will actually give you the word "Doodslag"...
What you need is.... "The Dutch Wiki... and put the word 'Doodslag" in the search... Then you will get the translation of Doodslag... which will be listed as "Euthanasia"... Do you see the subtle difference.... %£&)**#
Well Apparently "Tanja Nickson"... didn't..... Did you Tanja Love !!!!!
-
Firstly thanks for the help Nine, well appreciated.
I expect a lot of people may be taking the proverbial, because didn't you say at the beginning that about 10 people uk wide believed VT was innocent? I am not one, as I have said just because you believe in VT's innocence and I don't well so what? We can still talk about it all without getting personal or nasty, after all we don't know one another do we.
You see there are parts of VT's story that I do believe, the utter panic he felt when he realised she was actually dead. I can basically feel the fear he must have felt, weird because I've never been close to that sort of situation.
That I believe, but unfortunately there is a lot of the story that only has one author, Joanna being dead and not having a voice and so IMO we will never have the truth.
We were not there on the night, we will never know what went through VT's mind and all the rest of what happened in the flat we can only go on facts which unfortunately are all on the internet and we know how reliable that is.
-
Firstly thanks for the help Nine, well appreciated.
I expect a lot of people may be taking the proverbial, because didn't you say at the beginning that about 10 people uk wide believed VT was innocent? I am not one, as I have said just because you believe in VT's innocence and I don't well so what? We can still talk about it all without getting personal or nasty, after all we don't know one another do we.
You see there are parts of VT's story that I do believe, the utter panic he felt when he realised she was actually dead. I can basically feel the fear he must have felt, weird because I've never been close to that sort of situation.
That I believe, but unfortunately there is a lot of the story that only has one author, Joanna being dead and not having a voice and so IMO we will never have the truth.
We were not there on the night, we will never know what went through VT's mind and all the rest of what happened in the flat we can only go on facts which unfortunately are all on the internet and we know how reliable that is.
What about the parts of Dr Vincent Tabak's story that he was at home until 9:29pm... which the defence pointed out at trial... Or that he went to get the car and put it on the drive for 20 mins in readiness of picking Tanja up or his warming it up for his journey to ASDA..... Or that there was never any CCTV footage showing Dr Vincent Tabak's Journey to ASDA in Bedminster... which maybe he took the B4051 which would take him 23 minutes to get there as he was bored and wanting to waste time until his girlfriend arrived home from her Christmas party.... covering and giving him an alibi until he appears in ASDA at approx 10:13pm on Friday 17th December 2010.... Giving him no opportunity to even have pleasantries with his next door neighbour he didn't know from Adam.... Never mind behaving completely out of character and killing her...
I do not believe for one moment that he did kill her.... And the more trickery I find out that was used to convict This Placid Dutchman.... The more I and the 10 other people I do not know will keep on writing about it... Just like I do not know you Nina....
But at least you have read my arguments even if you do not agree with them....
-
Your posting style is yours and yours alone, don't believe I've ever commented on it. Mine is as if we were face to face. I'm posting as I think and talk.
You are the font of knowledge re: VT. (IMO)
I'm not going dutch until I have seen my dutch friend probably next Saturday, or until you and I have known each other longer!
Apart from the grey car % I can imagine that he could make the rest of the searches. As I said we were not in VT's head that day/night, thank god.
-
Hey lighten up a bit Nine.
So what about the parts of VT's story that he was home at 9.29, I mean could you say 'I was home this morning at 9.29 am', that is just not feasible. We would say around 9.20-25'ish something along those lines IMO
Car running for 20 mins to warm up, feasible IMO.
Back in 2010 there was funnily enough not any CCTV that could capture VT's journey from Canynge Rd to ASDA and from ASDA to L/Lane, funny that eh? It may of course have changed by now, Bristol being one of the most populated cities with CCTV and it still didn't manage to capture a shot of VT, apart from Park St if that car was his.
I also wouldn't take the times from A to B from Google maps as so, and an 'ish to every time.
-
Your posting style is yours and yours alone, don't believe I've ever commented on it. Mine is as if we were face to face. I'm posting as I think and talk.
You are the font of knowledge re: VT. (IMO)
I'm not going dutch until I have seen my dutch friend probably next Saturday, or until you and I have known each other longer!
Apart from the grey car % I can imagine that he could make the rest of the searches. As I said we were not in VT's head that day/night, thank god.
You did make me laugh.... Good luck with your Dutch friend..... 8)--))
Well I suppose re Dr Vincent Tabak is a complement... But I'm sure there are other who know as much if not more than me....
And as far as the rest of the searches.... They could and I have applied them to CJ.... Because i do not believe the searches either personally....
Put Dr Vincent Tabak out of your mind for one moment.... And look at the searches that were done in what they say in relation to this case... And go back to 30th December 2010... When the world and his sheep dog were ready to string CJ up by the proverbials... And just as a little exercise... Put CJ's name in place of Dr Vincent Tabak name for the searches.... And you will find they actually fit him better with what they were saying about him at the time....
But I have apologised to CJ for my use of his name or should I say initials in this way.... Which again i will do...
Because between the 30th December 2010 and the 3rd January 2011... There are "NO" searches made... extremley odd for a Dutchman intent on following every aspect of this case .... But for CJ who was in custody on the 30th December 2010 and then released at the begining of January 2011... You could also see how they would fit him quite nicely....
Melanine Hall... 1996... Dr Vincent Tabak was 18 years old living in Holland...
So I believe to make the searches fit Dr Vincent Tabak... they through in a little bit of Dutch.... To make it appear the searches were his... But of course they had too little Dutch in his searches and emails to friends in Holland... And No Translator in court to independantly verify the translation of the Dutch language .....
So NO... I do not believe that the searches were Dr Vincent Tabak's or CJ's... Or anyone else for that matter.... but that is just My Opinion....
If these searches were truly Dr Vincent Tabak's... lets get the Laptops independently analysed .... Oh No I forgot...
It's Tanja Love again... and not Dr Vincent Tabaks' girlfriend... Wee Tanja couldn't retrieve all of the data on Dr Vincent Tabak's laptop's... could you Tanja Love.... So didn't you explain to the nice ladies and gentlemen sat as the Jury.. That your slideshow showed some of Dr Vincent Tabak's Internet searches ...But some of the searches could NOT be retrieved......
Now what button did you press there Tanja my love????? "Delete" ???? Or did you just get the blue screen of death .... It's a perfectly good question... I'd like a perfectly good answer please.... In fact you could pop around for a coffee and show me how you did it... I'd be so interested in seeing your technique....
Don't you just hate it when the blue screen of death appears when your in the middle of something... A bit like an itch that won't got away.... And I am not going away either.... So around around around we go... And hopefully this time I will see soon Dr Vincent Tabak's name all over the papers.... But this time it's because they will release him...
-
Glad I made you laugh, little humour can go a long way.
Okay so you don't believe that the searches were done by VT or CJ (who by the way I know, not as a friend but as one that says hello in the street and has a quick natter) Why bring Tanja into the mix? I realise why, she had use of the laptop but you are surely not suggesting that she had anything to do with Joanna's murder?
M Hall, don't know why you keep bringing this murder into a 2010 murder. Neither VT nor CJ had anything to do with this murder.
-
I've been reading some of Sally R's comments on this trial. Firstly she doesn't come across as a professional lawyer, member of ...... to me. It really is like reading something you or I would have written.
She also had VT at the bottom of Constitution Hill (will have to look up the page). Don't know what day, just that he was on his bike and there was snow. Constitution Hill was used as the hill start in car tests many decades ago when I took mine. It's very narrow purely residential and winds as well as being a s*d of a steep hill.
It is also directly opposite the Hope & Anchor, the pub where Greg and Joanna had their last lunch together.
I'm not taking what this woman says as so, its like the McCann files, read what's not written.
-
Glad I made you laugh, little humour can go a long way.
Okay so you don't believe that the searches were done by VT or CJ (who by the way I know, not as a friend but as one that says hello in the street and has a quick natter) Why bring Tanja into the mix? I realise why, she had use of the laptop but you are surely not suggesting that she had anything to do with Joanna's murder?
M Hall, don't know why you keep bringing this murder into a 2010 murder. Neither VT nor CJ had anything to do with this murder.
Firstly may I say... Say Hi to CJ... and ask him if he has a few moments to spare to come along and read this forum....
Tanja... who I am bringing into the Mix is ... Tanaj Nickson... The Computer Analyst... Or should I say... The Computer Pointer at a Slide show of the searches expert....
And not to be mixed up wit Tanja Morson... Dr Vincent Tabak's girlfriend who had nothing do do with any of this ... But would have been an excellent witness in Court....
Ok... Melanie Hall.. Is deliberatly in the searches.... If as I asked you to imagine about applying such searches to a person who is old enough to be a serial killer... That is where the Police were trying to lead the public into believing.... (IMO).. That is why they made all sorts of suggestions in The media about opening up The Glenis Caruthers Case... Or implying such an event was happening... Hence the appearance of DCI Gareth Bevan... posing with a pizza... The very same DCI Gareth Bevan who is part of The Melanie Hall inquiry team...who apparently had nothing to do with the Joanna Yeates case.... yet took it upon himself to show the world the pizza that apparently was Missing from said Flat....
And yes... Nina... neither Dr Vincent Tabak or CJ had anything to do with the Melanie Hall murder.... But lets just put aside Dr Vincent Tabak ... And look at what they could have done to CJ if he hadn't had the help and assistance from his friends and lawyers....
I'm sure the world would have been saying exactly the same about CJ... and how the Police had caught a Serial Killer.... And I might be here writing about CJ and not Dr Vincent Tabak.... because which ever way you look at this... This case has more holes than a sieve...
And they cannot really prove that Joanna Yeates was killed in her Flat.... They cannot really prove when she died ....
But maybe that 'Full DNA Profile they never found a match to on Joanna Yeates will start to yield some answers... Because the answers to my questions are not really getting answered.... And.. Karen Thomas... Phil Jones and Ann Reddrop who is enjoying Channel Island life.... would love to come on here and start answering them....
Trouble is Ann.... Island are very small... especially the channel islands... maybe you should perch yourself on Lihou
now that could be your island of choice... But if I remember correctly... It only really becomes an Island when the tide comes in.... Maybe you could caution a few Gulls who happen to stop there on their way to Sark or even Herm... Now I'm sure you don't need a Lor's for that... But a few Guernsey Coppers may help you with your arrest... Or show you your way back to the main land..... Are you still in Jersey Ann?? The Islands are beautiful...
-
I did say that I was NOT a friend of Chris Jefferies just a stop in the street and have a chat with person. If you could see what this has done to this man ...... I knew the man in the papers, multi coloured hair etc., the papers called him weird. He loved the Clifton Village community and well the whole air of the place. I last talked to him in the autumn of 2010 when I signed a petition to stop junkies and drunks using a house opposite the Clifton Primary school.
Since this has all kicked off I raise my hand to him in an acknowledgement gesture and that's all. Why? Because you can see the walls come up before you even open your mouth. He only talks in the Village to ask for whatever he is buying. Shame on all concerned, he was what was called a Character in the Village, not any more though.
So sorry but no, I will not be asking him to take a look at this forum.
-
Thanks for putting me right on Tanja and Tanaj, I will try not to mix them up in future.
-
I did say that I was NOT a friend of Chris Jefferies just a stop in the street and have a chat with person. If you could see what this has done to this man ...... I knew the man in the papers, multi coloured hair etc., the papers called him weird. He loved the Clifton Village community and well the whole air of the place. I last talked to him in the autumn of 2010 when I signed a petition to stop junkies and drunks using a house opposite the Clifton Primary school.
Since this has all kicked off I raise my hand to him in an acknowledgement gesture and that's all. Why? Because you can see the walls come up before you even open your mouth. He only talks in the Village to ask for whatever he is buying. Shame on all concerned, he was what was called a Character in the Village, not any more though.
So sorry but no, I will not be asking him to take a look at this forum.
I can completely understand where you are coming from Nina... What happened to CJ was shocking... His life changed forever... His carefree existence gone... He's having to reform to what people call the Norm so that they would take him seriously, and not allowing for his diverse ways to be expressed without ridicule or confrontation...
It is shocking what the media can do to a person... And tell as many untruths as they want to without consequences..
Well Maybe not ask him.... I was being a but tongue in cheek actually... But I hadn't regarded what he might want to say or not... But I'm sure he had an opinion on Dr Vincent Tabak... And I bet it is nothing like what the media portrayed him as also....
I'm sure leonora would like to ask him a few question if it was an option....
So I plod back on with not having any People who were Witness's reading this forum or anyone who has the ability to change things and question just like I have done... And keep on typing away in the vain hope that someone's 'Alarm Bells" start ringing and they go...... "What a minute"... that didn't actually happen like that... And put their Two Penenth into our chats... And hopefully reveal the Truth that should be out there for ALL... to see.....
-
So sorry but no, I will not be asking him to take a look at this forum.
I actually did ask him in a roundabout way... He knows I contacted him (I believe )... Maybe I peaked his Interest... ?{)(**
-
Hey lighten up a bit Nine.
So what about the parts of VT's story that he was home at 9.29, I mean could you say 'I was home this morning at 9.29 am', that is just not feasible. We would say around 9.20-25'ish something along those lines IMO
Car running for 20 mins to warm up, feasible IMO.
Back in 2010 there was funnily enough not any CCTV that could capture VT's journey from Canynge Rd to ASDA and from ASDA to L/Lane, funny that eh? It may of course have changed by now, Bristol being one of the most populated cities with CCTV and it still didn't manage to capture a shot of VT, apart from Park St if that car was his.
I also wouldn't take the times from A to B from Google maps as so, and an 'ish to every time.
It was the Defences timeline that Dr Vincent Tabak was in his Flat till 9:29pm on Friday 17th December 2010 ...
And I agree how funny it is that the CCTV's around Bristol and Surrounding area's struggled to capture Dr Vincent Tabak on Friday 17th December 2010... Even the ASDA CarPark didn't manage to capture his arrival or departure....
And apart from the image they say is him on Park Street on Saturday 18th December 2010... When I believe he is slightly lost on his way to Pick up Tanja Morson his girlfriend from her Christmas function... And not him trying to find a place to dump Joanna Yeates as has been implied in some of the media at the time.... There is No Footage on CCTV of Dr Vincent Tabak's movements.... Not even cycling up Constitutional Hill.... !!
-
That's okay Nine, quite honestly if I could get away with it I would love to ask him some questions too, but I can't invade another person's space, shame though!
Don't sound so dispondent though someone might hear you. If you really want to prove his innocence why not write to him? I know mrswuh has written but one more can't harm can it?
-
That's okay Nine, quite honestly if I could get away with it I would love to ask him some questions too, but I can't invade another person's space, shame though!
Don't sound so dispondent though someone might hear you. If you really want to prove his innocence why not write to him? I know mrswuh has written but one more can't harm can it?
Well mrswah... didn't get anywhere with that did she... So me writing to him is not going to make any difference if the Prison Location Service are playing Silly B***ers... and not even allowing anyone to know which Prison he is now located in..now is it....
As for CJ... I didn't invade his space... I just gave him a pointer and hoped he would look... Nothing to loose really for either of us.. I would say... 8)--))
And yes... I do get dispondent sometimes... But another day and another avenue for me to check... And before you know it I think I have found the answer and feel like I may be getting somewhere... So yes.... lets hope someone is looking at this... And maybe someone can hear me Shouting !!!!!
-
Okay so maybe VT does not want to be contacted, not so much the PLS playing silly bu**ers. Would they tell people like mrswah that VT doesn't want contact? How about asking the CPU to take another look, a million to one that they will even think about doing it I agree, but if you believe that much do something.
Chris Jefferies didn't return to his flat after being released though I do expect he will have had his mail forwarded.
-
Okay so maybe VT does not want to be contacted, not so much the PLS playing silly bu**ers. Would they tell people like mrswah that VT doesn't want contact? How about asking the CPU to take another look, a million to one that they will even think about doing it I agree, but if you believe that much do something.
Chris Jefferies didn't return to his flat after being released though I do expect he will have had his mail forwarded.
The CPU ???? Doesn't that stand for "Central Processing Unit" in Computers??? What have I missed ???
-
It was the Defences timeline that Dr Vincent Tabak was in his Flat till 9:29pm on Friday 17th December 2010 ...
And I agree how funny it is that the CCTV's around Bristol and Surrounding area's struggled to capture Dr Vincent Tabak on Friday 17th December 2010... Even the ASDA CarPark didn't manage to capture his arrival or departure....
And apart from the image they say is him on Park Street on Saturday 18th December 2010... When I believe he is slightly lost on his way to Pick up Tanja Morson his girlfriend from her Christmas function... And not him trying to find a place to dump Joanna Yeates as has been implied in some of the media at the time.... There is No Footage on CCTV of Dr Vincent Tabak's movements.... Not even cycling up Constitutional Hill.... !!
Park street is virtually a straight road so I don't think he was lost.
-
Sorry CPS.
-
Park street is virtually a straight road so I don't think he was lost.
No.... let me rephrase that.... On Park Street... he ended up taking a wrong turn according to his Trial testimony... And had to Ring up Tanja Morson his girlfriend with directions of where to pick her up I believe ....
-
8)--))
Sorry CPS.
-
So he phoned his girlfriend up ........ so what are you saying?
Actually about 20 yrs ago I did exactly the same thing in Park St that VT claims he did. I was looking for Mark Lane and took a left hand `lane' ended up dead end and the back of some old houses. So in one way you can get lost in Park St, unless VT and me are a particular sort of idiot!
-
So he phoned his girlfriend up ........ so what are you saying?
Actually about 20 yrs ago I did exactly the same thing in Park St that VT claims he did. I was looking for Mark Lane and took a left hand `lane' ended up dead end and the back of some old houses. So in one way you can get lost in Park St, unless VT and me are a particular sort of idiot!
lol.... Well Maybe you do have something in common with Dr Vincent Tabak after all Nina .... 8)--)) Shame someone wasn't in court to explain to the Jury what he was saying was possible and true!!... Think he also ended up in a dead end road too... Maybe it was "Mark Street" that he ended up in Nina...
Phone calls leave records... that is all.....
-
Okay I know as much about phones as I do computers. All I really know is that we leave a paper trail whatever we do.
So go on I'll be silly and ask you what time did VT phone his girlfriend and do mobile phone calls go through straight away? So if you say 9.29 that would have been the actual time he phoned his girlfriend. Are there sometimes little glitches where a signal can't be found and the call takes longer?
-
Okay I know as much about phones as I do computers. All I really know is that we leave a paper trail whatever we do.
So go on I'll be silly and ask you what time did VT phone his girlfriend and do mobile phone calls go through straight away? So if you say 9.29 that would have been the actual time he phoned his girlfriend. Are there sometimes little glitches where a signal can't be found and the call takes longer?
Towers are what phone signals bounce off.. So his phone could give an approximation of what area he is in at anyone time... IE Near Longwood Lane...
He didn't phone his girlfriend at 9:29Pm on Friday the 17th December 2010 as far as I know... but he could have...
9:29pm is the time the defence put him at home on their Time- Line... But I do not know... If this was some of the work carried out by Paul Cook... or Cleggs lot....
Edit... come to think about it maybe he was on his landline at around that time... Because it wasn't just his mobile phone calls that were recorded...!!!
-
In Fact... I do not know what Paul Cook actually did for Dr Vincent Tabak.... apart from not getting him BAIL... Or even making a BAIL APPLICATION....
-
Okay so without blinding me with loads of tables, do you have a location timeline for VT on the evening of the 17th?
-
Please don't take us off piste now by changing the subject to Paul Cook and bail.
-
Please don't take us off piste now by changing the subject to Paul Cook and bail.
Well I'm not really off piste... As he was apart of Dr Vincent Tabak's original Defence...
So Nina... may I ask you what it used to look like inside The Bristol Ram 2010 ?? And where in relation to the toilets and the exit did Joanna Yeates sit...?? Is it a large pub??
-
lol Never been in the Bristol Ram.
-
Okay so without blinding me with loads of tables, do you have a location timeline for VT on the evening of the 17th?
I don't own loads of tables.....
Well a timetable of sorts... Because I cannot tell you exactly because I am not privey to Dr Vincent Tabak's statements..
So using the information I have managed to gather.. I only really need to cover between 8:50pm and 10:13pm on Friday 17th December 2010... As the Prosecution suggested that by the time Dr Vincent Tabak was at Asda he already had Joanna Yeates in the boot of his car.... Or between 9:00pm and 9:30pm depending on whether you go with the prosecution or The Defence.... Or... a combination of the two....
The Prosecution... Now I'm doing this from memory... or else I would need to trawl through all of my posts...
The Prosecution I believe have Joanna Yeates Killed between 9:00pm and 9:30pm on Friday the 17th December 2010... But... they also have Dr Vincent Tabak in his house for 1 hour approx before he went to Asda....
Many people have summised this is when he went back round to Joanna Yeates house to clean up....
Now The Defence... The Defence have Dr Vincent Tabak remaining in his Flat until 9:29pm... They have him seen at 10:13pm... And Asda is mentioned.... Now I have deduced that they only possible reason that Dr Vincent Tabak was seen at 10:13pm had to be on the ASDA CCTV Footage.... which of course they have blurred the timestamp from...
I say this is 10:13pm and ASDA CCTV... because if Dr Vincent Tabak had been picked up on any other CCTV Footage... It would have been played to the Court... And I'm sure the Prosecution would have objected if The Defence came up with a Time of 10:13pm that Dr Vincent Tabak was seen... when it could be proven... If it was a witness who saw Dr Vincent Tabak at 10:13pm... Then I'm sure they would have been called to court to verify this timeline.... And as NO-one was there to help Dr Vincent Tabak... I believe that I can deduce the TimeLine had to come from the ASDA CCTV Footage... (Which he entered on two occasions)..
So between 9:29pm and 10:13pm we have 44 minutes... 20 minutes warming up his car on the Drive... And approx 23 minutes to get to ASDA Via The B4051....
Another thing that needs to be remembered is the houses around the back that over look 44 Canygne Road... Now the Police have in some pictures...Of the outside lights on... And if the outside is lit up... And all the Screaming is going on that the witness's gave statements to... Do you not think it would be possible for some of these witness's to see what was going on just yards away.... And be of an even greater risk to moving a body on your own so many times...??
Dr Vincent Tabak... did not have the time to kill Joanna Yeates (IMO)... And they all knew it and did nothing about it..... !!!!
So to summaries... If Dr Vincent Tabak was in the house for 1 hour before he went to Asda... According to The Prosecution.... we arrive around his start time of 8:45pm to around 9:00pm before waiting 1 hour to go to ASDA depending on his Journey...
We then have The Defence putting Dr Vincent Tabak in his flat at 9:29pm... So logic has to dictate... That Dr Vincent Tabak did not leave his flat before 9:29pm and after starting his car engine remained in his flat until his journey to ASDA in Bedminster..... Which the Prosecution were happy to concede....
Both QC's now making it Impossible for Dr Vincent Tabak to have committed this crime.... (IMO)...
Edit.... This is where the tenants of 44 Canygne Road could have been useful to the Defence or Prosecution.... Surely they would have heard a Car engine running on the drive.... Surprised Neither Council called any of these tenants for verification..... !!
-
We've been sat here for months talking about this case and Dr Vincent Tabak's apparent Plea of "Guilty to Manslaughter"...
Now... that has got me thinking ...
The offence of manslaughter
Manslaughter is a crime that can be broken down into two groups. These are described as:
voluntary manslaughter - where the offender intended to kill or cause really serious harm but is not guilty of
murder due to provocation or mental incapacity (described as diminished responsibility); and
involuntary manslaughter - where the offender did not intend to kill or cause really serious harm but where
death results from an unlawful act or from gross negligence.
So which 'Manslaughter did Dr Vincent Tabak Plead Guilty too???
(A): Voluntary Manslaughter ??
or
(B): Involuntary Manslaughter ???
Looking at the description for "Manslaughter as a Plea.".. I am guessing.... And this is only because at the Trial The Defence stated that Dr Vincent Tabak "Did Not Intend to kill Joanna Yeates."....
He applied no
more than moderate force on a scale of one to three - light, moderate and severe. He did
not intend death or serious injury.
And from The Justice Gap
The only issue in the trial was intent and not sexual motive. That depended on the level of force and the time it would take to kill.
The Prosecution..
Mr Lickley said Tabak had intended to kill the landscape architect or cause her really serious harm because he gripped her throat for long enough and hard enough to end her life.
So looking again at The Old Bailey... which Manslaughter Plea did Dr Vincent Tabak enter into????
(A) Or (B)...
Or was it just your Common or Garden Manslaughter Plea...
Where you don't have any guarantee of an acceptance of your "Plea".. and put yourself at the Mercy of a Jury ready to find you guilty of a more serious charge .... Because The Head Of The Complex Crime Unit has you on her Radar and will not let you go to court for anything less than "Murder" and has never had any intention of accepting the "Manslaughter Plea" that you have just sat in her lap....... Whilst your own Council just looked around the room and said... Ok ..trial it is then.... (IMO).. Not securing any plea deal before The words "Guilty to Manslaughter".. were uttered
This is "WHY" there were no Psychological assessment made and presented at Dr Vincent Tabak's Trial... (IMO)... They didn't need to as he never entered 'A Voluntary Manslaughter Plea ".... (Common or garden Variety was his choice apparently)
So why waste good tax payers money for a Defence... when Dr Vincent Tabak was only entitled to receive a "Base Metal" Service????
He didn't plead "Guilty" To "Manslaughter" with diminished responsibilities... (Common or Garden variety was his choice apparently)...
Neither did he plead 'Guilt to "Involuntary" Manslaughter.... (Common or Garden Variety was his choice apparently)... Although William Clegg was letting The Jury Know that this was possible by his description of what were supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabak's actions.... Leaving the Jury to wonder if that NVQ on "Manslaughter Law they thought they might gain ....would be a good idea, if ever they were to be picked for jury service on a "Murder Trial"....it may come in handy......
No......He just went for 'Pot Luck "Manslaughter" on the ground that he thought that England had a fair Judicial System... And everyone would see straight through the fact that it was impossible for him to commit this "Murder"...
So my question must be.... How can you provide a Jury the opportunity to decide whether or not Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have committed " Voluntary Manslaughter verses "Involuntary Manslaughter.... "When The question of either type of "Manslaughter was never put to them... only a description of intent was ever provided .... I believe ...
And only a "Charge of Murder" was what the Jury had to decide upon... How can a Jury Make an Informed Fair above board decision on "The Guilt" of A Defendant... when in reality... They were never aware of the type of "Manslaughter Plea Dr Vincent Tabak had entered into apparently.... ??
You are now in the realms of expecting a Jury to know `Law" and with their vast knowledge on the subject decide from amongst the EVIDENCE.. that was put before them... That Dr Vincent Tabak did indeed kill Joanna Yeates whether it was intentional or not.... Because apparently an NVQ in "Understand Law on "Manslaughter pleas before you become a juror are available to your left hand side....
Therefore giving you the legal knowledge you must need to be at liberty to decide a Defendant fate when your only choice is "Guilty' to Murder.... And a little "manslaughter will be thrown in... Which you have all read about in the paper back in May 2011... But please don't let that influence you.. put that to one side and get ready with you NVQ's because we are about to test you on your knowledge of "Manslaughter In Law" without full direction or knowledge of whether the defendant pleaded Guilty to either catergory....... .(IMO)...
Do you know something.... I always thought that NVQ stood for "Not Very Qualified"....
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murder-trial-vincent-275776
http://thejusticegap.com/2011/10/vincent-tabak-and-the-law-on-bad-character/
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
Nine Agains point about the true perpetrator being protected is something that we are going to focus on for a while. It is highly likely that we have identified the individual and the conditions leading to his protected status, from our point of view he couldn't be better placed to avoid prosecution.
AH
Now, this sounds interesting --------
-
Hi Nine, sorry that I had to disappear suddenly yesterday, an unexpected guest that stayed and stayed.
I will read your posts later, but having just skimmed the last one before I disappeared I would have thought that VT would have pled Involuntary Manslaughter.
Morning mrswah, no sorry I'm not one for conspiracy theories. I didn't think that Bristol and the surrounding environs had anyone `big' enough worth protecting, unless you class the royals who have populated Gloucestershire.
-
I am going to have to Do this in Parts... "Part 1".....
I remember ....Wikipedia... The font of all knowledge.... And Dr Vincent Tabak's apparent use of this tool for his understanding of virtually everything that was Law Related....
I was trying to understand how someone can apparently "Plead Guilt: to "Manslaughter" and not be given any
(A): Reduction on sentence
(B): A plea bargain
(C): Enter the type of Manslaughter your pleading too...
(D): End up at trial with the jury making their minds up with two options only.... That been Guilty of "'Murder" or not...
I did mention this a while ago... I believed that something didn't appear quite right with that option being (D):...
The Law as I have found out is very difficult to comprehend... As I am finding out whilst writing posts... So for Dr Vincent Tabak to apparently look at Wiki, the font of all knowledge for his get out clause ... On one day and have no clue as of English Law seems preposterous...
Lets start with Wiki's definition of "Manslaughter In English Law"..... which apparently was one of the searches done by Dr Vincent Tabak on the 22nd December 2010
n the English law of homicide, manslaughter is a less serious offence than murder, the differential being between levels of fault based on the mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind"). In England and Wales, the usual practice is to prefer a charge of murder, with the judge or defence able to introduce manslaughter as an option (see lesser included offence). The jury then decides whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of either murder or manslaughter. On conviction for manslaughter, sentencing is at the judge's discretion, whereas a sentence of life imprisonment is mandatory on conviction for murder. Manslaughter may be either voluntary or involuntary, depending on whether the accused has the required mens rea for murder.
There's a mind field already.... " Mens Rea "... Latin... I wonder how Dr Vincent Tabak's Latin is these days ???
Mens rea in criminal law is concerned with the state of mind of the defendant. Most true crimes will require proof of mens rea. Where mens rea is not required the offence is one of strict liability. There are three main levels of mens rea: intention, recklessness and negligence.
Was Dr Vincent Tabak's case "NOT" A True Crime ????
My post last night was concerned with the type of Manslaughter That Dr Vincent Tabak apprentley pled Guilty too...
(A): Voluntary Manslaughter
(B): Involuntary Manslaughter.
Or As I have discovered the type of Intent...
(C): Direct intent:
(D): Oblique intent:
Now I'm wishing I took that NVQ that was on the left hand side.... So my understand of "Manslaughter Charges" would make this a lot easier to write..!!!!
Direct intent:
The majority of cases will be quite straight forward and involve direct intent. Direct intent can be said to exist where the defendant embarks on a course of conduct to bring about a result which in fact occurs. Eg D intends to kill his wife. To achieve that result he gets a knife from the kitchen, sharpens it and then stabs her, killing her. The conduct achieves the desired result.
And:..
Oblique intent:
Oblique intent is more complex. Oblique intent can be said to exist where the defendant embarks on a course of conduct to bring about a desired result, knowing that the consequence of his actions will also bring about another result. Eg D intends to kill his wife. He knows she is going to be on a particular aeroplane and places a bomb on that aeroplane. He knows that his actions will result in the death of the other passengers and crew of the aeroplane even though that may not be part of his desire in carrying out the action. In this situation D is no less culpable in killing the passengers and crew than in killing his wife as he knows that the deaths will happen as a result of his actions.
Dr Vincent Tabak didn't have any Knowledge of English Law.. So how would looking at WIKI apparently equip him with anything??? WIKI is useless for such information... when you need Government Guidelines to quantify the information... (IMO).. And not just Good Old Wiki's say so.....
One thing I will say about the wiki pages is they were edited in June 2017... I'm sure when I looked a while ago you couldn't find some of that information... I'm sure it wasn't worded that way.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter_in_English_law
http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Mens-rea-intention.php
-
Part 2.......
Back to the Intent.... Direct Or Oblique???
Oblique intent:
Oblique intent is more complex. Oblique intent can be said to exist where the defendant embarks on a course of conduct to bring about a desired result, knowing that the consequence of his actions will also bring about another result. Eg D intends to kill his wife. He knows she is going to be on a particular aeroplane and places a bomb on that aeroplane. He knows that his actions will result in the death of the other passengers and crew of the aeroplane even though that may not be part of his desire in carrying out the action. In this situation D is no less culpable in killing the passengers and crew than in killing his wife as he knows that the deaths will happen as a result of his actions.
The courts have struggled to find an appropriate test to apply in cases of oblique intent. In particular the questions which have vexed the courts are:
Should the test be subjective or objective?
What degree of probability is required before it can be said that the defendant intended the result?
Whether the degree of probability should be equal to intention or whether it is evidence of intention from which the jury may infer intention
Is this the reason that "Intent" was never used for Dr Vincent Tabak... Did they not included "Oblique Intent" in the eyes of the Jury??
If Lawyers have struggled on how to apply Oblique Intent... How would a Jury manage to comprehend such a concept??
Subjective or objective test
A subjective test is concerned with the defendant's perspective. In relation to oblique intent it would be concerned only with whether the defendant did foresee the degree of probability of the result occurring from his actions. An objective test looks at the perspective of a reasonable person. Ie Would a reasonable person have foreseen the degree of probability of the result occurring from the defendant's actions.
It is arguable, that since intention requires the highest degree of fault, it should be solely concerned with the defendant's perception. In addition, intention seems to be a concept which naturally requires a subjective inquiry. It seems somehow wrong to decide what the defendant's intention was by reference to what a reasonable person would have contemplated. However, originally an objective test was applied to decide oblique intent:
So subject or Object.. Well Dr Vincent Tabak did not use an Object unless you want to class his right hand as such... When I read about him using his right hand ..I wondered ff he was actually left handed ??? I digress..
Lord Bridge's test on oblique intent:
"First, was death or really serious injury in a murder case (or whatever relevant consequence must be proved to have been intended in any other case) a natural consequence of the defendant's voluntary act? Secondly, did the defendant foresee that consequence as being a natural consequence of his act? The jury should then be told that if they answer yes to both questions it is a proper inference for them to draw that he intended that consequence."
Well that a bit of a revelation... We at a "Murder Trial"... we have "The Defence" trying to prove that Dr Vincent Tabak did not 'Intentional" kill Joanna Yeates... That his action's were 'NOT" meant...
Then we have "The Prosecution"... Would say that he deliberately killed her... and that he must have known that his action would have caused the death of Joanna Yeates and The pain and suffering she went through....
I have "Two Problems Here ".... Firstly the Jury only had only a "Murder" charge to consider...Knowing that The Defendant had already pleaded Guilty to "Manslaughter"... They.. being the Jury "DID NOT" know what type of 'Manslaughter Dr Vincent Tabak actually pleaded Guilty to...
Yet The Defence and The Prosecution appear to be using all the elements relating to A "Manslaughter " Charge... (IMO)...
Even as so far as to use what appears to me to be The 'Oblique" Intent... which not even Lawyers can agree on it use... So how on gods green earth are the jury going to be able to understand all of the legal talk happening in the court room...
And Clegg letting his client sit there without an Interpreter... Except apparently one for medical terms.... I just want to LOL at this point... It's OMG... How is Dr Vincent tabak supposed to understand English Law... If even English Lawyers cannot agree on 'Oblique Intent"????
Lord Lane CJ:
"the jury should be directed that they are not entitled to infer the necessary intention, unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of the defendant's actions and that the defendant appreciated that such was the case."
Okie Dokie... That's a mine field... How can a jury infer anything ..if they are NOT of the Understanding what 'Oblique Intent Is"??? were the words "Oblique Intent" ever uttered in the Court Room at Dr Vincent Tabak's trial.... I'll go with "NO"...(IMO)..
"Did you intend to kill her?" Clegg asked. "No definitely not," Tabak said.
He was then asked: "Did you intend to cause her serious harm?" "No, definitely not," he replied.
Why is "Clegg" talking about The Intention when "The Type of Intention" was never established or.. Explained to the Jury???
Then The Prosecution...
"You proceeded to strangle her, intending, in my judgment, to kill her.
And... "On your own evidence, after an acquaintenceship of only a few minutes, you moved to kiss Joanna and I am quite satisfied that you did not intend to stop there and intended to go much further.
So.... The Prosecution... allow the jury to understand that Their expertise is far superior than the use of The Law'... I'll explain my reasoning...
"The Jury were only given The Prosecutions beliefs... which is not "Law"... If the Jury were not already aware of the types of "Intention" that could be applied to "A Manslaughter" case and should have been applied in this case ...(IMO)... because it had never been established what type of 'Manslaughter Plea" Dr Vincent Tabak had entered into... But the Jury were all too aware that he had apparently admitted to "Manslaughter"
The Jury are asked to make a decision on whether or not the Defendant Intended to Kill Joanna Yeates or Not...
Well how can that be ????
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/tabak-guilty-of-joanna-yeates-murder-2377119.html
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/20/vincent-tabak-apologises-joanna-yeates-parents
http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Mens-rea-intention.php
-
Part 3.....
I still do not understand "HOW"..... How Dr Vincent Tabak could enter a "Guilty To Manslaughter Plea" at "The Old Bailey".. without any provision.... Without 'The Defence" bashing out a deal with 'The Prosecution"...
Dr Vincent Tabak whom up until he attended the very strange "Old Bailey Hearing"... Lets not forget .. The Very same 'Old Bailey hearing , that was listed twice on the same day at the same time at two different Court Rooms for Two different sorts of Hearing.... Which I don't know about anyone else i find this information Mind Blowing!!!
We Have an Intelligent Placid Dutchman" whom apparently went to read Wiki.. to give him the tools to be able to deal with this situation.... Now.. you would have though a "plea " agreement would be made... You would have thought that the Judge would have decided sentence.... You would have thought 'The Type Of Manslaughter" he was admitting too... would have been entered at 'The Old Bailey"....
But... The Old Bailey trial was highly unusual and Irregular... (IMO)...
But I know why "The Type of Manslaughter" was never entered into at the "Old Bailey....(IMO)..
It's because.... At that point in May 2011... no-one not even the defence had any idea of apparently "HOW" Dr Vincent Tabak had Killed Joanna Yeates... You see it sort of makes sense now but "NOT QUITE"....!! This is Extremely Important... And I'm unsure legally where this would put... help Dr Vincent Tabak.... But I am hoping....
So they "The Defence were "NOT" ready for "Trial as they had indicated to Judge field in May 2011 as for him to be able to set a trial date.... The defence had "NO" explantion on paper as to "HOW" Joanna Yeates met her death come to that point... neither did "The Prosecution"!!!
If we have .."The Defence" and "The Prosecution"... Not knowing "How" Dr Vincent Tabak actually managed to kill Joanna Yeates in May 2011... How was A trial date entered into.... How did ANN Reddrop state that they were never going to accept Dr Vincent Tabak's "Manslaughter Plea"... If Dr Vincent Tabak at this point had 'Not told them how he had killed Joanna Yeates ...'Intentionally Or Not"....
I think this is a Eureka moment leonora!!!!!
Think about people... How can The Complex Crime Unit Publicly State that 'They were this was always a "Murder Charge"
The quote below is Ann Redropp speaking 'Head of The Complex Crime Unit....
In May this year... Tabak admitted Jo's Manslaughter..But that was only part of the story.... The Crown's Case Is... And always has been... That it was a deliberate act... on his part.... And that is why we refused to accept his plea to 'Manslaughter"
Does that quote not make you go... eh??? It does me...
"If The Defence and The Prosecution" had NO Idea How Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates on 17th December 2010... How can 'The Prosecution" insist that this had 'Always" been a "Murder" and not "Manslaughter... How without knowing at The Old Bailey In May 2011... Could they happily tell the world that Dr Vincent Tabak would be facing 'A Murder Trial "
Lets quickly go back to the Two listings at 'The Old Bailey"....
The first listing I read was called a "For Mention hearing... this apparently is where the Defence hasn't been given Instruction by The Defendant and a "Plea and Case management Hearing will be set...
Yet to our surprise... On the very same day at the very same court at the very same time... "A Plea And Management Case Hearing" was listed.... Which is mind boggling.....
Again... problems arise.... If Dr Vincent Tabak had Not divulged how he had apparently killed Joanna Yeates... lets just split the two types of hearings a moment...
Without any instruction from Dr Vincent Tabak... we can all understand why "The"... "For Mention Hearing" would take place... bringing with it A New Date and Time ... For The Plea And Case Management Case Hearing....
I'm hoping this is not too hard to follow....
Question again.... How would "The Prosecution have all there 'Witness's and all of their evidence in this case... Including The Statements from any Doctors on how long it would take for someone to die from strangulation... If The Prosecution were not aware about "The "20" seconds Dr Vincent Tabak was apparently to have taken to kill her !!!!
If The Prosecution Or The Defence In May 2011 DID NOT KNOW it took "20" seconds for Dr Vincent tabk to kill Joanna Yeates... How could a trial date be set???? How could they "NOT" accept a 'Manslaughter Plea" when they DID NOT KNOW HOW SHE DIED!!!!!!
How DID THE JUDGE ALLOW THIS "MANSLAUGHTER PLEA" to be entered... when they none of The Councils Knew How Joanna Yeates died !!!!!
What is this saying!!!!!!!!!
HOW DID THE JUDGE ACCEPT THIS MANSLAUGHTER PLEA ... in a sense... So that when the came to trial the only charge facing Dr Vincent Tabak was "MURDER"????
How with absolutely "NO" Evidence... did "The Prosecution"... have the manner of death of Joanna Yeates in their case notes in MAY 2011?? If The Defence did not know how their client apparently killed Joanna Yeates...
How did the DEFENCE... "DISCLOSE"... everything to "The Prosecution" in May 2011 as for all the Councils to be ready for a trial in October 2011... Not only that.... Knowing that this trial would last NO MORE than 4 weeks...... which I will come back too.......
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/exterior-shot-ann-reddrop-crown-prosecution-service-makes-news-footage/131193037
-
Part 4.....
How has 'The Judge... "The Defence.... "The Prosecution" All happily come to the conclusion that in May 2011.. Dr Vincent Tabak will face a "Murder Trial" in October 2011 that will last 4 weeks when... They had NO IDEA how he was supposed to have killed Joanna Yeates ??????
How did they know in MAY 2011... That "Manslaughter" would not be an option at trial... If they hadn't be given any details of how Joanna Yeates was apparently killed by Dr Vincent Tabak????
NONE of them could possibly KNOW..... (IMO).... Not only that... NONE of The Councils Could possibly had all of their witness statements in place... If the had NO IDEA ... how Dr Vincent Tabak actually killed Joanna Yeates....
He could have said he had assistance for ALL these LEGAL people knew... Therefore needed to interview a possible other suspect... He could have said anything.....
He could have said he was doing Handstands or Practicing Judo Moves .... He could have said anything.... Anything that goes to "PROVE" That ALL OF THE STATEMENTS COULD NOT HAVE POSSIBLY BEEN IN THE HAND OF EITHER THE DEFENCE OR PROSECUTION.....!!!!
Meaning how on earth Did the JUDGE manage to set a trial date.. without knowing this !!!!!!!!! And a time schedule of 4 weeks ????
Because the 4 week time limit is extremely IMPORTANT.....
I will say again.... I believe that 'The Complex Case Unit..... needs to take a look at this case... and use your 21 Criteria to Prosecute those who need Prosecuting.. In This Case !!!!!
Was any of this legal ????
How were Dr Vincent Tabak's RIGHTS affected by this underhand use of Law??? .... (IMO)...
I keep going back to 22nd September 2011... where Dr Vincent Tabak signed s statement
which out lined.. I believe how he killed Joanna Yeates.... Proving yet again... That in May 2011 neither The Defence Prosecution Or The Judge... knew how Dr Vincent Tabak had killed Joanna Yeates... So inturn could "NOT" give a Trial date of 'October 2011" and a length of time it was scheduled to take... The Judge also could not decide That it was 'A Murder Case" and "A Murder Case " only that Dr Vincent Tabak would face... If he did not know the circumstances of Joanna Yeates Murder in May 2011...
Meaning he actively accepted a "Manslaughter Plea" in May 2011 without the "Intent" being Known... And not giving Dr Vincent Tabak the opportunity in October 2011 to to have the Jury decide between 'Murder" and Manslaughter" as "Murder' was the only 'Option" given to them......
And therefore not allowing any EVIDENCE to support whether "The Manslaughter" he'd apparently Pled to in "May 2011".. was either Voluntary..Or... Involuntary "Manslaughter"..And whether it was "Direct Intent" or "Oblique Intent"For it to be Voluntary Manslaughter.... Or Whether it was ..... "Diminished responsibilities" needing Two Doctors to give Dr Vincent Tabak a Psychologcal Evaluation.....
Can you ALL.... Honestly say That you believe that Dr Vincent Tabak is 'Guilty" after ready these posts???? Can you ALL say that 'The Prosecution had "ALL" The Evidence against Dr Vincent Tabak.... when they could NOT have possibly have known how she came to die......
I'll say this Again and Again..... Dr Vincent Tabak was 'STICHED UP LIKE A KIPPER FOR THE MURDER OF JOANNA YEATES""... (IMO)... And I believe I can Prove with my posts how they did it.....
DURESS.... Didn't some of our old poster bring that up.... Was Dr Vincent Tabak under DURESS when he made his ADMISSION..... Well I would conclude .... YES!!!!!! (IMO)....
Smoke and Mirrors aye Jixy.... I do believe you were right with your little signature,... even if you didn't know what it referred too.... (Or maybe you did)...
And as it was said:... 'The Truth May never be known...... Well... I am going to have a DAMN good try at revealing it!!!!!!
-
Part 5......
Here I'll look at The 4 weeks for the trial.....
]Complex cases
18. Complex cases that are likely to go to the Crown Court and last more than four weeks should be managed in accordance with the Protocol for the control and management of heavy fraud and other complex criminal cases link to external website4, which sets out best practice and gives guidance to investigators, prosecutors, defendants and judges.
Well... It had to be a "Complex Case" as Ann Redropp 'The Head of The Complex Case Unit" saw the Case through to the bitter end....
Management of cases from the Organised Crime Division of the CPS
6 March 2014 |Protocols|Criminal
23 November 2012
This guidance replaces the protocol of December 2008 which was agreed between the Organised Crime Division of the Crown Prosecution Service (OCD) and Her Majesty’s Courts Service (HMCS).
The OCD is responsible for prosecuting cases from the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA). Typically, these cases involve more than one defendant, are voluminous and raise complex and specialised issues of law. It is recognised that if not closely managed, such cases have the potential to cost vast amounts of public money and take longer than necessary.
Now cost if we remember rightly... was paramount To The Defence.... As Kelcey had described in his interview in the "Law Society Gazette'...
‘We can’t supply a platinum level of service with base metal rates of pay.’ He suggested that firms be open with clients about how much the government pays and explain the constraints this puts on them.
And as Dr Vincent tabak received legal aid... He must have received a "Base Metal Service"... (IMO)...
Introduction
1. This guidance replaces the protocol of December 2008 which was agreed
between the Organised Crime Division of the Crown Prosecution Service (OCD)
and Her Majesty’s Courts Service (HMCS).
2. The OCD is responsible for prosecuting cases from the Serious Organised
Crime Agency (SOCA). Typically, these cases involve more than one defendant,
are voluminous and raise complex and specialised issues of law. It is recognised
that if not closely managed, such cases have the potential to cost vast amounts
of public money and take longer than necessary.
Now If the OCD is Part of The Complex Crime Unit and Ann Redrrop is The Head of the Complex Crime unit... were Procedures followed ??
Procedure after charge
10. Within 24 hours of the laying of a charge, a representative of the OCD will
notify the Cluster Manager of the following information to enable an agreement
to be reached between the Cluster Manager and the reviewing CPS lawyer
before the first appearance as to the DCC to which the case should be sent or
committed:
a. The full name of each defendant and the name of his legal representatives, if
known;
b. The charges laid; and
c. The name and contact details of the Crown Prosecutor with responsibility for
the case.
So which representative of the OCD notified The Cluster Manager ??? You see this is 'After" The Charges are laid... Not before....
Not In December 2010 when "The CPS" went to The Head of The Complex Crime Unit"...asked "Ann Reddrop" for advice on Dr Vincent Tabak.... I can't find anything at the moment on before an arrest......
Who else was Involved in 'Who else decides ... To Prosecute Dr Vincent Tabak with "Ann Reddropp "The Head Of The Complex Crime Unit" at the helm of this "Simple Murder Trial"..????
Who else checks That this 'Simple Murder Case " is being Investiagted by "The Complex Crime Unit......
OMG... I have just had another thought.... That brain of mine needs locking up!!!
Ah.... I see light.... And I see Ann Reddrop.... Hanging herself.....
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/legal-aid-equality-a-myth-says-solicitor-advocate-kelcey/65516.article
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/publications/criminal-protocol/
http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/court/crown-court.htm
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Protocols/OCD+protocol+November+2012+_updated+Jan+2014_.pdf
-
Part 6...... Or.... "Upstairs for thinking... Downstairs for Dancing"....
Ann Reddrop (IMO)... Wasn't thinking.... She was blinded by greed... (IMO)... by the Fame.. she would receive in bring to Justice The 'Persons"... guilty of killing Joanna Yeates ....
OMG.... This Just goes to Prove ...(IMO)... Why she continued right up to trail and beyond.... She's stuck her NECK OUT!!! She said publiclly That The Complex Crime Unit... as she was The Head... Always believed that this was "A Murder Case".....
But what she forgot to tell all of you nice ladies and gentlemen.... Was that they always believed that there were more than one person who committed this crime..... What they also believed (IMO)... was that it could have been a Serial killer"... Making sense of The Complex Crime Units Insistance that it was .... Always A Murder Charge!!!(IMO)...
Just digest that a moment..... How could she categorically insist that The Complex Crime Unit had... and always had believed The death of Joanna Yeates was 'Murder" and 'Always was "Murder"... If they were not looking at was must have been "A Serial Killer"....
A Serial Killer is the ONLY... Possible Way.. In which Ann Reddrop to unequivically say that "The Complex Crime Unit "ALWAYS" knew that this Charge would be "A MURDER" Charge... And NO "Manslughter Plea" bargain or anything else would be entered into..... She... (IMO)... had been going with the possibility that it wasd "Multiple People... Whom had committed "Multiple Murders... (IMO)...
Which again... begs the question..... WHY Dr Vincent Tabak Faced A Murder Charge and a A Murder Charge only..... when he was known to be as clean as a "Whistle'... NOT EVEN A PARKING TICKET!!!!!
WHAT... Evidence did Ann Reddrop believe she had against Dr Vincent Tabak that could remotley suggest that he could be "A" SERIAL KILLER?????
You see.... They really wanted CJ.. to swing for this too..... (IMO)... CJ did say that The Police had always thought that he and Dr Vincent Tabak had colluded...
Well... Ann.... "WHY" in May did you still vigorously pursue Dr Vincent Tabak on A MURDER CHARGE and NOT Accept his MANSLAUGHTER PLEA.... A Manslaughter Plea that was neither "Voluntary nor Involuntary.... Just 'Pot Luck Manslaughter.... because he had NOT given his statement to how this death had occurred..!!!!
How is Jersey Ann??? Lovely weather there .. beautiful beaches ....
Ann Reddrop... (IMO)... Should have stopped pursuing Dr Vincent Tabak with this "Murder Charge" as soon as CJ was let of Bail in March 2011....
Did she have someone else in mind whom apparently must have helped Dr Vincent Tabak??? For her to pursue Dr Vincent Tabak to the bitter end???? She is seen outside the Bristol Crown Court telling The world of her Intenstions.. In The pursuit of Dr Vincent Tabak... Yet as far as I can see... She had NO LEGAL Authority... To Continue with This "Murder Charge" against Dr Vincent Tabak ... when it did NOT come under The 21 Criteria set out in The Governments rules of The Complex Crime Unit .... (IMO)...
As we see here:... Disclosure of material to the defendant should be made in an effective and time efficient manner. Only those documents that meet the test for disclosure (i.e. that assist the defence or undermine the prosecution) should be disclosed; the defence should not be swamped with all the documents the prosecution holds in relation to the case. Evidence schedules should also be prepared as early on as possible. The judge will engage in active case management to ensure that the process of disclosure does not cause the case to overrun;
I believe that all of the Disclosure should have been in The Hands Of "The Defence " and "The Prosecution" in May 2011... Which was an impossibility if Dr Vincent Tabak had not made /signed his statement until 22nd Sepetember 2011... So how was 'A Trial Date " set at "The Old Bailey by Judge Field for October 2011 in May 2011?????
All this seems highly irregular to me... i think i'll give you time to digest these posts and I'll think a little more about them too and what they mean ......
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/exterior-shot-ann-reddrop-crown-prosecution-service-makes-news-footage/131193037
http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/court/crown-court.htm
-
Hi Nine, sorry that I had to disappear suddenly yesterday, an unexpected guest that stayed and stayed.
I will read your posts later, but having just skimmed the last one before I disappeared I would have thought that VT would have pled Involuntary Manslaughter.
Morning mrswah, no sorry I'm not one for conspiracy theories. I didn't think that Bristol and the surrounding environs had anyone `big' enough worth protecting, unless you class the royals who have populated Gloucestershire.
Hi Nina, good to hear from you.
I'm not one for conspiracy theories either, but I don't think it's a conspiracy theory to believe that there are one or more unapprehended killers around. After all, there are plenty of unsolved murders, not only in the Bristol area, but all over the world. I have just returned from holiday, and only just before I went, I heard on the news that it was possible that the wrong person had been imprisoned for a murder some 30 years ago!!
-
As for "protecting" someone, well, I don't know, but it's not beyond the realms of possibility, in my opinion, of course.
-
In May this year... Tabak admitted Jo's Manslaughter..But that was only part of the story.... The Crown's Case Is... And always has been... That it was a deliberate act... on his part.... And that is why we refused to accept his plea to 'Manslaughter"
Ann... Answer me this..... How could you have always Known that it was a deliberate act???
You didn't know Dr Vincent Tabak's side of the story.....
So by this "STATEMENT ANN" are you conceding that you "Always knew That Joanna Yeates" ... "WAS DELIBERATLEY MURDERED"
How can you know this Ann ????
What else did you know ANN??
I keep looking at the video statemnet that ANN reads out at the end of trial.... And even then she has slipped up....
Shes' says and I again will quote..
Vincent Tabak, became the focus of their attention following the finding of DNA on Jo's body
I will quote the next bit,,, but I'm loving this bit.... I have quoted the whole transcrpit before... Again.... skim skim skim... we all so it even when watching a video.. not really paying attention ...
Now... How can Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA have been found on Joanna Yeates body before they took a DNA sample from him in Holland on 31st December 2010.. Not only that DCI Phil Jones states that it was around. "The 20th January 2011 that they got a match to Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA???? In the Judge Rinder Program ????
How can Dr Vincent Tabak become the focus...
Again... Vincent Tabak, became the focus of their attention following the finding of DNA on Jo's body
How can Dr Vincent Tabak become the focus of any investigation just because they have found DNA on Joanna Yeates body.... Ann doesn't say Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA... she just say's DNA... So How could Dr Vincent Tabak become 'The Focus" of any Investigation.....
What is ANN REDDROP actually admitting to here ?????
Late in December the Police asked for assistance and guidence from The Crown Prosecution Service... That assistance has come from The South West Complex Case Work Unit based here in Bristol.. I reviewed the evidence.. Advised that Vincent Tabak should be charged with Jo's murder and began preparing the case for trial
Wow... Now Ann... If DCI Phil Jones did not recieve a match to Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA sample that was apparently taken on(31st December 2010) till around the 20th January 2011... How did you manage to review the case and how did DCI Phil Jones manage to bang up a Judge to get an arrest warrant for around 6:00am in the morning on 20th January 2011...???
It's not a difficult question.... But an answer would be appreciated..... Pretty Please.......ok... Pretty Please with A Cherry On Top....
We also have to remember that the 'Crime Watch' program told us it took "WEEKS" for this sample of DNA on Joanna Yeates body to be analysed... So again Ann...or DCI Phil Jones.... please tell me how Dr Vincent Tabak became the focus of your Investigation after you had matched his DNA around the 20th January 2011 and had an Arrest warrant issued on the 20th January And The Head of The Complex Crime Unit Reviewed this Information... leaving you with only "6" hours of Investigation time available to conclusively prove that Dr Vincent Tabak was indeed 'YOUR MAN"??? Not only that "6" Hours in which to
(A): Investigate Dr Vincent Tabak
(B): Have CCTV of Dr Vincent Tabak
(C): Have interviewed Tanja Morson in relation to Dr Vincent Tabak's movement on 17th December 2010
(D): Had checked his phone records
(E): Had checked whether or not "His" car went over Clifton Suspension Bridge on the 18th December 2010
(F): Had got all the evidence you both would need to 'Charge Dr Vincent Tabak on the 20th January 2011
(G): Typed up you reports
(H): Sent a report 'TO' ANN REDDROP
(I): Ann Redropp Reading this complex report for this complex crime.... And then "Arresting Dr Vincent tabak in '6"
Hours"
If this wasn't so serious it would be LAUGHABLE....!!!!
Now... That has to be a record by anyones standards....
Does Ann Reddrop's admission that Joanna Yeates being Murdered and they always... according to ANN Reddrop knew that this was the case.... Is it possible that the talk of Joanna Yeates being abducted was already in Ann Reddrop's Case file ???
WHY else would she be so adament???
She doesn't flinch... She doesn't waiver..... She is as far as I can tell 100% sure that Joanna Yeates was "Murdered"... (IMO).... She was 100% sure that Dr Vincent Tabak committed this MURDER.....
And how can that be possible... How can she be 100% sure on both counts.... When according to what DCI Phil Jones says in The Judge Rinder Program... They got matched components of Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA with Joanna Yeates DNA sample around the 20th January 2011??????...
Leaving him just 6 hours to Investigate, apply for a warrant to arrest... type up his report go and see Ann Reddrop with the report... her review The Case ... and finally turn up at Aberdeen Road in the wee hours of the morning of 20th January 2010???
Now unless DCI Phil Jones has the ability to time travel... And Police Boxes are indeed Tardis's... It is an IMPOSSIBILITY for him to have Investigate Dr Vincent Tabak after they had a supposed match to the DNA found on Joanna Yeates body....
Making it... They had been looking for a scapegoat... all along... (IMO)... And they set up Dr Vincent Tabak from start to finish....(IMO)... It is the only explanation I can see...
Meaning..... as I have always said.... DR VINCENT TABAK IS INNOCENT!!!!! They Never had a case against Dr Vincent Tabak... (IMO)... They just made it up as they went along...... "The Manslaughter Plea " at the Old Bailey should be testament to that.... (IMO)...
So Ann.... what did you actually know about Joanna Yeates Murder that Nobody else appeared to know ????
Again... we have to come back to someone being 'Protected"... And that definatley was NOT...
Dr Vincent Tabak .."The Placid Dutchman !!!!! (IMO)...
Dr Vincent Tabak "The Placid Dutchman" was SOMEONES!!!!....
Get Out Of Jail Free Card!!!! (IMO)...
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/exterior-shot-ann-reddrop-crown-prosecution-service-makes-news-footage/131193037
Edit.... Is Ann Reddrop conceding that they already had the results of the DNA sample found on Joanna Yeates body by late December 2010... by her statement.... ?? And is that why you contacted the "Dutch Authorities" to interview Dr Vincent Tabak Ann???? So that Interview has to that of a "SUSPECT "Ann.... because realistically you would have NO need to Contact The Dutch Authorities in Relation to speaking to Dr Vincent Tabak.... Which again means he should of had his 'Right" read to him and cautioned.... (IMO)....
-
mrswah.... Beyonce isn't doing too bad is she.... Must be that NVQ she took in "Manslaughter Law"..... @)(++(*
-
Hi Nine, sorry that I had to disappear suddenly yesterday, an unexpected guest that stayed and stayed.
I will read your posts later, but having just skimmed the last one before I disappeared I would have thought that VT would have pled Involuntary Manslaughter.
Morning mrswah, no sorry I'm not one for conspiracy theories. I didn't think that Bristol and the surrounding environs had anyone `big' enough worth protecting, unless you class the royals who have populated Gloucestershire.
No..... you would have thought.....
Dutch engineer Vincent Tabak pleaded guilty to manslaughter during a brief hearing at the Old Bailey in London.
Then...
During the 30 minute hearing Tabak, who was wearing a shirt and tie, dark suit and glasses, spoke in a clear voice to confirm his name and say he was happy for the proceedings to go ahead without a translator.
He then pleaded not guilty to the first count of murder, but guilty to a second count of manslaughter.
No Type of Manslaughter is Mentioned !!!!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8496027/Dutch-engineer-Vincent-Tabak-admits-I-did-kill-Jo-Yeates.html
-
Refering back to the 4 week trial..... which i posted about in (Part 5) Bare with me on this ... I do like a build up....
I have so many tabs open, i loose where i am... Any way back to why i brought The 4 weeks trial to the forefront..
Once it has been established that a trial is likely to take more than 4 weeks.. Council then need to apply for:
A Very High Cost Case
They are forms to fill... there are other people then involved in your case.... And I believe the Defence would definatly need to apply for a "VHCC".... as Dr Vincent Tabak was recieving a "Base Metal Service" having legal aid...
When you think a crime case is likely to last for 40 days or more at trial, fill in and send a VHCC notification request form (MS Word Document, 45.9KB) to the Criminal Cases Unit (CCU)
Do this within 5 working days of:
recognising the case as high cost
the Plea and Case Management Hearing
Well... If as we know all of the witness's we believe should have taken the stand... Then as sure as eggs is eggs, this trial would have come under the "VHCC"...
THis next part is of Interest:
How a VHCC works:
* once the case has been designated a very high cost case (VHCC), there is no opt-out for suppliers from the contracting system
* where a case is designated as a VHCC, it will be conducted by accredited VHCC providers, apart from in exceptional circumstances
* for each VHCC, the defence team (solicitor and advocate) will be assigned a dedicated case manager from the high cost crime team
* it’s the case manager’s role to negotiate with solicitors and advocates what work they’ll do over the next 3 months
* payment is made at the end of each 3 month period, as long as the work falls within the tasks and hours agreed in advance
* You might need further guidance on high cost case arrangements and contract documents for organisations and self-employed advocates. Further guidance on high cost case arrangements and contract documents for organisations and self-employed advocates is available.
This Case should have been more than 4 weeks.. This case should have had tonns of witness's... It had many many written statements... And I believe it was designed to last 4 weeks... As to not have to apply for a "VHCC"... bringing into their case... A control they would loose.....
Part one of the quote...says: once the case has been designated a very high cost case (VHCC), there is no opt-out for suppliers from the contracting system
So... they're stuck with that... But as we read further down on this web page we find out more information...
Fixed Fee Offer contracts
dvocates instructed in criminal Very High Cost Cases (VHCCs) are currently paid in accordance with Interim Fixed Fee Offer contracts (IFFOs).
Once contracted as a VHCC the VHCC Case Managers in the Criminal Cases Unit will gather information about the type of case, volume of material and likely trial length from practitioners in the case and the prosecution if appropriate.
Once validated, the VHCC Case Managers are able to draft a VHCC Substantive IFFO contract for the advocate/s representing their defendant.
Upon receipt of a signed contract the Case Manager will pay the 1st Instalment. If the trial of the defendant(s) has not started within 6 months of the contract being signed, Counsel is entitled to claim an interim 2nd Instalment payment equating to 50% of the 2nd Instalment. When the trial commences, either the balance of the 2nd Instalment or the full 2nd Instalment can be paid. The 3rd Instalment becomes due at the conclusion of the trial.
So there would now be another body deciding on the "Legal Aid"
How to appeal a VHCC decision
LAA case manager and the defence team negotiate hours for each stage of the case in advance. If they can’t reach agreement on hours for a specific task, there’s a right of appeal.
The process and timescales are set out in section 6 of the VHCC specifications.
Appeals: crime high cost cases covers VHCC panel arrangements and decisions
The main reason i have introduced all of this Information... Is because we know about the trial in being a 4 week trial as early as "May 2011"
"Tabak has entered a plea to manslaughter however this has not been accepted by the Crown.
"Until this trial takes place it would be inappropriate and potentially prejudicial for us to comment further."
The trial is expected to last four weeks.
This information is hugely important I would say.... There is NO WAY that they should know as early as MAY 2011 that this trial would take 4 weeks.... (IMO)... Dr Vincent Tabak had not given his version of events to anyone at this time.... He didn't sign his statement until 22nd Setember 2011... So how by May 2011 would anyone know that this trial would last for 4 weeks... Not knowing what witness's Dr Vincent Tabak may need or want as part of his trial...
So maybe you can see why i have brought the 'VHCC" into this case.... "By The Defence applying for "VHCC" we then get brought into the mix a Criminal Case manager from the criminal Case Unit... Who no doubt would start to ask 'QUESTIONS"!!!!
Questions that "The head of The complex Case Unit would not want asking.... (IMO)...
(A): Why is The Complex Case Unit Involved in this "Simple Murder Case ??
(B): Where is The Evidence against The defendant???
(C): Why are you applying for VHCC when The defendant hasn't made an admission??
(D): Which witness's are going to be called ??
(E): Why has This man been arrested ??
(F): We like to poke around cases and made sure that it is a valid case to get funding... So far nothing you have
shown us warrant's any funding as this case should be thrown out....
A bit of poetic licence on (F):... But you get my drift... There would have been other people who would have had a vested interest in how the money was spent and they would have overseen this case...
Well... The Head of The Complex Case Unit would not want that now would you Ann.... (IMO)..
Could you imagine that if someone independent actually looked over this case what they would have said about it.... Probably the same sort of things that I have been saying all along!!!! (IMO)...
This is why I believe another reason that The Head of The Complex Case Unit was involved in this case... It gave her control...It stopped people poking around this case and questioning it's validity... But it still begs the "MASSIVE QUESTION.......
How could they know in May 2011 that this trial would last only 4 weeks?? when Again I will say... they ALL had no idea of apparently how Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have killed Joanna Yeates ????
So I am going to ask again.... WHO entered Dr Vincent Tabak's "Guilty Plea"??
When was it decided that he was Guilty of Manslaughter by The Councils... They had NO information from Dr Vincent Tabak at this point,.... So how would "The Prosecution NO that "Longwood Lane" on a search was not done because Dr Vincent Tabak was possibly visiting friends in the area around that Christmas period...
I want to look at the searches again I think.... In the light of the information that I believe I have uncovered.... Because I believe the work on the searches was done at an early opportunity... And again The 1300 page document was ready in May... Which I believe casts an even bigger doubt... (IMO)..
-
Hi Nina, good to hear from you.
I'm not one for conspiracy theories either, but I don't think it's a conspiracy theory to believe that there are one or more unapprehended killers around. After all, there are plenty of unsolved murders, not only in the Bristol area, but all over the world. I have just returned from holiday, and only just before I went, I heard on the news that it was possible that the wrong person had been imprisoned for a murder some 30 years ago!!
Hi mrswah, hope you had a good holiday. It was just that you seemed to be agreeing with AH's post which prompted my post to you. Probably misunderstood it.
You're right there are plenty of unsolved & MOJ and I expect that Bristol has its fair few. Never said that this was a wonderful crime free city to live in. Bristol certainly has its problems.
Did you see Catching a Killer 01/06 on ch.4? Amazing really in its likeness to the Joanna case. Missing for a full week-end then police notified. Turned out to be the husband, but Thames Valley Police allowed a certain amount of access so the procedure was very interesting I thought, although probably heavily edited.
-
Hi mrswah, hope you had a good holiday. It was just that you seemed to be agreeing with AH's post which prompted my post to you. Probably misunderstood it.
You're right there are plenty of unsolved & MOJ and I expect that Bristol has its fair few. Never said that this was a wonderful crime free city to live in. Bristol certainly has its problems.
Did you see Catching a Killer 01/06 on ch.4? Amazing really in its likeness to the Joanna case. Missing for a full week-end then police notified. Turned out to be the husband, but Thames Valley Police allowed a certain amount of access so the procedure was very interesting I thought, although probably heavily edited.
No, I didn't see it Nina----but I will look out for it on "catch up", You Tube, etc. Might be too late now. I used to watch far more telly than I do these days----seem to fall asleep in the evenings. Old age!!
-
Another tv prog. that I found not only interesting but maybe a real MOJ and that is the Chillenden murders. The guy found guilty Michael Stone is not a very nice person to begin with, but if you watch The Chillenden Murders which was on BBC2 06/06 well it has certainly made me think twice.
This was the murder where mum Lin, daughter Megan and family dog died and Josie Russell survived the attack in a country lane.
-
Did mean to add that Michael Stone has shouted his innocence from the beginning until now. Bet anyone could write to him and would get an answer.
-
Part 1......
Ok... I can't get out of my head "This Manslaughter Plea"....
It won't leave me!!!
lets start with some basics.... Mainly the searches... "The Searches make out Dr Vincent Tabak was looking up laws on Manslaughter on wiki... :The Font of ALL Knowledge... apparently..
But realistically... it wouldn't explain sentencing and what you are likely to get for various crimes that come under 'A Manslaughter Plea"...
Manslaughter
1. Manslaughter is often described as one of the most difficult categories
of case in which to sentence because, as Kerr LCJ observed in Magee,
“offences of manslaughter typically cover a wide factual spectrum”, and the
spectrum ranges from cases which are little more than a tragic accident to
those which are barely distinguishable from murder. From the guidelines
decisions, and decisions at first instance, for sentencing purposes
manslaughter cases can be identified as falling within one of seven broad sub
-categories.
(i) Cases involving substantial violence to the victim. Whilst sentences
range from 6 years on a plea to 14 years on a contest, pleas in cases at
the upper end of the spectrum attract sentences of 10 to 12 years, with
sentences of 12 years being common. Sentences of 6 to 8 years tend to
be reserved for cases where there are strong mitigating personal
factors, or the defendant was not a principal offender.
(ii) Diminished responsibility. Where the defendant was suffering from
diminished responsibility at the time of the offence, and his psychiatric
history shows that he may continue to be a danger to members of the
public in future, sentences of life imprisonment with a minimum term
of 5 to 6 years are almost always imposed, although in one case
(Murray) a minimum term of 12 years was imposed.
(iii) In terrorist cases where the defendant was a secondary party, in two
cases 8 years imprisonment was imposed and 5 years was imposed in
the third.
(iv) Domestic disputes where there may have been an element of violence
and/or provocation by the deceased. In almost every case the
defendant resorted to a knife to stab the deceased. On a plea sentences
range from 4 to 7 years, with the majority attracting sentences of 5
years.
(v) “Single punch” cases. Sentences range between 2 and 5 ½ years, with
sentences of 4 to 5 years reserved for cases where there are many
aggravating factors and few mitigating factors.
(vi) Negligence or “unlawful act”. This residual category encompasses a
wide range of different factual circumstances, sentences range from 1
to 4 years, although in one case (Coyle) the Court of Appeal considered
that the sentence should have been one of 5 to 6 years imprisonment,
but reduced it to 4 to take account of double jeopardy.
(vii) “Corporate manslaughter” involves the failure by a company to meet
its duty of care to ensure the safety of its employees, and may overlap
with cases involving offences under health and safety legislation where
death occurs.
Looking at those guidelines how on earth would Dr Vincent Tabak know pleading to a "Manslaughter Charge" would be his best option... unless advised to do so... And if advise to do so which "Manslaughter" did he plead guilty too???
Wiki... will not give Dr Vincent Tabak this information.... It now tells you different types of Manslaughter... But not what type of sentence you may get...
How does a Dutch National understand English Law not only that.... be on top of English Law making sure that no new laws have been applied and understand that if he plead "Guilty To Manslaughter" In English Law.. He would be out of prison in a matter of years ???
You see I keep going back to that sentencing... And what would have happened If Dr Vincent Tabak had NOT been found GUILTY OF MURDER.... And the only possible other option I could come up with... Is 'Joint enterprise.. Or.. Secondary Party....
And as an accomplice or "Secondary Party" unless he was convicted of "Joint Enterprise" and charged as thus...
Hang on a minute... I might be about to give Jixy a kiss.... "Jogee" now thats a word to cunjour with... And if i am on the right track i may be able to shed light not only on Dr Vincent Tabk's Plea... But... him saying that he was responsible... !!!
Looks like this will be in parts... sorry guys....
Lets go back to the begining with CJ... And i am not going to apologise... because CJ's videoed interview were he states that the Police had thought that he and Dr Vincent Tabak had colluded.... Now... I think that "This" (sorry leonora) Is the important statement.... (IMO)...
You have right up until March 2011 when CJ eventually gets released on bail.... And the Police always talking about this case in terms of "Killers".... `What did they originally charge Dr Vincent Tabak with and more importantly... was it as an "Accomplice"..... ..
This I believe is probably the most IMPORTANT aspect of the Case for Dr Vincent Tabak if I am on the right track...
If he was charged as an Accomplice... Normally he would be charged under "Joint Enterprise"... Thus giving him the same sentence as the original perperteter for the same crime...
But... They could "NOT" go to court with that Charge.... (IMO)... Because.... Dr Vincent Tabak as an Accomplice... would have been tried as an Accomplice.... (or Joint Enterprise)... Allowing us all to know that the was not Responsible But they wanted someone to pay... (IMO)...
And lets not forget.... `Dr Vincent Tabak at NO POINT admits to killing Joanna Yeates... The most we get from him..Is that... He says he is Responsible
SO... as we can see all sorts of magician tricks have been used thus far... Did they Charge him Or suggest to him that he would be classed as a "Secondary Party"???
Question... Could they change the "charge" or do they even need to Mention the charge at Trial.. When someone has already admitted to "Manslaughter"?? Negating the possible original charge .. that Dr Vincent Tabak was charged with when they arrested him???? Or to put it simply.. because Dr Vincent Tabak has pleaded "Guilty To Manslaughter " at The Old Bailey".. Do they simply state that Dr Vincent Tabak;s "NOW charge is The Charge of MURDER.. If you follow my drift...!! Basically... His first charge was "Accomplice.. or Joint Enterprise... Then because he pleaded "Guilt To Manslaughter " at The Old Bailey... when they come to trial.. "The Charge Is that of "MURDER"!!!!
D2 Unaware of the Details
In order to be fully implicated in D1’s crime D2 need not have known exactly what D1 was going to do. D1 was intending to commit a terrorist act, to harm innocent people, and D2 agreed to drive him there. It cannot matter that D2 was unclear whether D1 was going to shoot the victims or blow them up, the means were of no consequence in terms of the culpability of D2.
This quote is an example of "Secondary Party".... But lets apply this "Secondary Party" to Dr Vincent Tabak...
We have to concede to what Dr Vincent tabak may have done that he wasn't aware he did ... which could be construed as"A Secondary Party Act"... Which without knowing or understanding English Law... would make him Responsible....
Come on people... He's a "DUTCH" National... hasn't a cat in hell's chance of understanding English Law... With or Without "Wiki"'s vast knowledge ... (Um)..
So... let me get back to this ....
Literally... How do you get 'A Placid Dutchman" to admit to anything... when you know so far he has not said a word??
Give him "Options"... We do not know what was said in Court Room 2 of The Old Bailey... Even though we know that it's use was highly irregular... So... just as they use a bit of licence with Dr Vincent Tabak... I am doing the same ...
Going back to "responsibility"... The only act that we all are aware that Dr Vincent Tabak did that was made public... was help CJ move his car......
Simple ... Innocent enough.... But marry that with the pressure put on this Placid Dutchman... And the Polices Insistence that CJ and Dr Vincent Tabak had colluded... you then have : A Secondary party... Responsible..For The actions of The supposed First Party...
By implying to Dr Vincent Tabak he had assisted CJ.. They could quite easily have shown him by "English Law".. He was :"RESPONSIBLE" In assisting an offender... Remember the Police... had already told everyone that they had Interviewed "someone " whom went across .. Clifton Suspension Bridge"... And until they had Dr Vincent Tabak in their sights...... The 18th December 2011.. was the important date.... because it had snowed.... And they originally believed that 'The Killer" had gone across.. Clifton Suspension Bridge on the 18th December 2010...
So... we have Dr Vincent Tabak... "The Placid Dutchman"... feeling responsible because if he had assisted CJ.. move his car from the drive.... Thus being responsible for where Joanna Yeates would be found...
I'm not going to keep repeating this... I AM NOT IMPLYING ANYTHING ABOUT CJ...
But... it makes good sense... Because Dr Vincent Tabak has NO IDEA ABOUT ENGLISH LAW... They could have told him anything... He was never to know ...
So... Back to The Manslaughter.... So if we see Dr Vincent Tabak as a "Secondary Party"
N.B Unbeknown to Jixy... It was a conversation about "The Jogee" ruling that reminded me about Joint Enterprise... And in no way did Jixy point me to my conclusions....
-
Part 2....
Agreement
Usually D1 and D2 have agreed to participate before the event. But agreement is not necessary in order to convict D2. D2 may just “pitch in” uninvited, for example, by spontaneously joining in with D1 who is attacking V, D1 causing the injury to V, D2 just “egging him on”.
You see to me it depends on how they informed Dr Vincent Tabak... I know what your all thinking... It applies to terrorism etc.. But not if you apply it to a Forgien National who has NO IDEA OF ENGLISH LAW... Then he is an Accomplice... Who's sentence is minimal... "Being A Secondary Party".... (IMO)...
Who may or may not plead guilt to "Manslaughter "... How else can you manage to plead Guilt To Manslaughter.. without it being "Involuntary" or "Voluntary"...
This sentence would only come into affect if Dr Vincent Tabak is found "Not Guilty Of Murder"... Not needing to bring to court.... Any extra witness.. to Dr Vincent Tabak's Good Character or .. Doctors to make inference to his mental state...
Meaning there is NO NEED For A TYPE OF MANSLAUGHTER TO BE ENTERED INTO.......
Therefore ... No need for him to explain his role in the said event.... because he helped move a car off a drive... But come 22nd September when the penny drops... he's knackered and signs a statemnet that is "NOT" The full version of events... It is only at trial that Dr Vincent Tabak.. first reveals what happened ...
Tabak waited until the last possible moment – when he was in the witness box – to offer his version of events.
That he is well an truly scuppered.... And sobs uncontrolably at what has happened to himself.... Therefore unable to answer over 80 questions put before him... (IMO)...
Think about it... By the time he has admitted Guilt to a "Crime" he hasn't committed.... what is his best option by this point ???
There is NO get out clause... And the defences own diatribe of their client is testiment to that (IMO)...
This offering is "NO MORE RIDICULOUS... Than... 'The Head of The Complex Case Unit seeing through to the bitter end... The Prosecution of "A Simple Murder Trial..... (IMO)...
So now the big question is.... What did they originally charge Dr Vincent Tabak with?? And was The charge originally under Joint Enterprise or as An accomplice being a secondary party???
What we really need to consider..... Is... what sort of sentence did Dr Vincent Tabak believe he would receive if he were to plead "Guilty To Manslaughter" ???? As little as a few years... meaning he had been in prison for the best part of 10 months... Not only that had admitted his GUILT... which in effect should reduce the sentence...
Lets try a bit of maths.....
8 years as a Secondary Party.... Normally you do half.... Nearly a Year done already... Half of your sentence gone for Pleading Guilty.. He would have a year left... Well wouldn't anyone being a Forgien National looking at a life sentence think that was be a good option... Seeing as they already showed you how "Joint Enterprise works ???... (IMO)...
You see.. The main problem has to be... 'What Type of Manslaughter" did Dr Vincent Tabak pled to.. If..... It was never established when he came to trial for "The Murder of Joanna Yeates"....
Leaving me with only one possible option.... unless someone who hasn't done an NVQ on "Manslaughter Law" and is actually qualified.... to explain to me... any other possible options.... Please ....
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/28/joanna-yeates-case-vincent-tabak
https://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/features/Criminal-Liability-Secondary-Party
http://www.jsbni.com/Publications/sentencing-guidelines/Documents/Hart%20J%20Sentencing%20Manslaughter%20Att%20Murder.pdf
-
A Little apology to leonora... I'm not saying CJ's second witness statement isn't important... But there's no way I am ever going to see it... And as far as casting doubt on Dr Vincent Tabak's conviction... Unless CJ himself tells us what was in that statemnet.. It won't help me .. Or Dr Vincent Tabak...
-
I was trying to determine what other charges Dr Vincent Tabak could face in relation to the death of Joanna Yeates..
And the two quotes below with what was called aggravating factors I believe hold the key...
The judge said there were no mitigating features in the case – only aggravating factors – and he proceeded to outline them. "There is a sexual element to the killing of Joanna Yeates," the judge said.
Mr Reardon, who was in court yesterday, remained silent as he heard the judge list the aggravating features of the case including the “sexual element”, the hiding of her body and “cynically implicating” his landlord for the killing.
Dr Vincent Tabak could have been completely blinded with English Law and what possible charges he could face...
Lets look at them as Individual Charges...
(1): The concealment of a body...
Offences Concerning the Coroner
Obstructing a Coroner - Preventing the Burial of a Body
Any disposal of a corpse with intent to obstruct or prevent a coroner's inquest, when there is a duty to hold one, is an offence. The offence is a common law offence, triable only on indictment and carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and/or a fine.
The offence of preventing the burial of a body (indictable only, unlimited imprisonment) is an alternative charge. Proof of this offence does not require proof of the specific intent required for obstructing a coroner.
The offences of obstructing a coroner and preventing the burial of a body may arise for example, when a person decides to conceal the innocent and unexpected death of a relative or friend or prevent his burial. Such cases inevitably raise sensitive public interest factors which must be carefully considered.
When the evidence supports a charge of involuntary manslaughter, it may be necessary to add a charge of obstructing a coroner or preventing a burial if the disposal of the body is more serious than the unlawful act which caused the death.
Obstructing a coroner may also amount to an offence of perverting the course of justice. Regard must be had to the factors outlined in General Charging Practice, above in this guidance and Charging Practice for Public Justice Offences, above in this guidance, which help to identify conduct too serious to charge as obstructing a coroner, when consideration should be given to a charge of perverting the course of justice.
Dr Vincent Tabak was told in court he hid Joanna Yeates Body
(2): Assisting an Offender
Assisting an Offender - section 4(1) Criminal Law Act 1967
The offence of assisting an offender ("the principal offender") is committed when:
* the principal offender has committed an arrestable offence;
* the accused knows or believes that the principal offender has committed that or some other arrestable offence;
* the accused does any act with intent to impede the apprehension or prosecution of the principal offender; and
* the act is done without lawful authority or reasonable excuse.
Did Dr Vincent Tabak believe CJ could have commited the offence??
(3): Perjury
Perjury
By section 1(1) of the Perjury Act 1911, perjury is committed when:
* a lawfully sworn witness or interpreter
* in judicial proceedings
* wilfully makes a false statement
* which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true, and
* which is material in the proceedings.
The offence is triable only on indictment and carries a maximum penalty of seven years' imprisonment and/or a fine.
They said That he had lied about his whereabouts on Friday the 17th December 2010.. They said he didn't first tell them he went to ASDA...
(4): Offences Concerning the Police
Offences Concerning the Police
The offence of obstructing a police officer is committed when a person:
wilfully obstructs
a constable in the execution of his duty, or
a person assisting a constable in the execution of the constable's duty.
It is a summary only offence carrying a maximum penalty of one month's imprisonment and/or a level 3 fine.
A person obstructs a constable if he prevents him from carrying out his duties or makes it more difficult for him to do so.
That's an easy one... Just don't answer question's... That is obstruction in itself..
(5): Sexual Assault:
Sexual Assault (section 3)
The elements of the offence of sexual assault are:
A person (A) intentionally touches another person (B)
the touching is sexual
(B) does not consent to the touching, and
(A) does not reasonably believe that (B) consents.
Key Factor
* The meaning of sexual, consent (See Rape and Sexual Offences: Chapter 3), reasonable belief and evidential and conclusive presumptions apply to this offence.
* Touching is widely defined and includes with any part of the body, or with anything else, and can be through clothing. In R v H (Karl Anthony) [2005] 2 Cr. App. R. 9, the Court of Appeal held that the touching of an individual's
* clothing was sufficient to amount to 'touching' for the purposes of section 3. Where touching was not automatically by its nature sexual, it was possible to ascertain whether the touching had been sexual by determining whether by its nature it might have been sexual and if so whether in the circumstances the purpose had in fact been sexual.
* Touching includes touching amounting to penetration e.g. kissing. Where there is sufficient evidence, penile penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth should be charged as rape and penetration of the vagina or anus with any part of a person's body or other object should be charged as assault by penetration.
Dr Vincent Tabak's apparent try to Kiss Joanna Yeates
The Judge used these potentially chargeable offences and turned them into aggravating Factors... (IMO)
If Dr Vincent Tabak is faced with a list of possible charges coupled with Joint Enterprise... What would you expect him to do??
If I was in Dr Vincent Tabak's position... The "Guilty" To "Manslaughter" Is the cheapest option available ... Thnk I may go with that as 'A Foreign National Personally...(IMO)..
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/soa_2003_and_soa_1956/
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/public_justice_offences_incorporating_the_charging_standard/#a12
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/280447/Shame-Vincent-Tabak-cannot-hang-for-Jo-Yeates-murder-say-parents
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/28/vincent-tabak-guilty-joanna-yeates-murder
-
I myself had a little run in with a Policeman Recently... But I was actually trying to help..
They called around to my house looking for a young woman... Whom had just popped in my house with my eldest..I let the police in...I said she had left and would ring the person who was with her and let the Police Officer speak to them... I didn't know this woman at all... Thought I was being helpful..
The Police said she had been reported "Missing"... which she obviously wasn't as I had seen her and as an adult she could do as she pleased... Her Father had actually dropped her off at my house... It was another relative whom had made the report...
But this Police Officer wasn't happy with my suggestion... He wanted the telephone Number of the person I was calling... I polietly told him I couldn't give out someone number without their consent but I would ring them and he could talk with them..
The Police Officer became very annoyed.. And then told me that I could be 'Charged with Obstructing A Police Officer"....
Well I am not a Placid Dutchman... Or A Forgein National....I was furious.... And promptly told him to leave my home, because I did not want to be dealing with his bullying tactic's when I was trying to be a helpful citizen...
-
As he sent the jury away to consider its verdict, the judge said the central point to consider was whether Tabak had intended to kill or seriously harm Yeates. If the jurors were sure of that, they would return a verdict of guilty.
Tabak had admitted manslaughter but denied murder.
This is the quote from Judge Field.....
Now again... this is WRONG.... (IMO)...
If the only charge available to the Jury is "Murder"... how does intention come into this... when they do not have aa "Manslaughter " option available to them??
We are back to:Mens rea - Intention
When Intention was not brought to the Jurys attention in law i believe... Then how does the Judge ask the Jury to decide on "This Murder Charge".. by telling the Jury 'Whether Tabak had Intended to Kill or cause serious harm"???
We go back to :
Direct Intent Oblique Intent
The current test of oblique intent:
"Where the charge is murder and in the rare cases where the simple direction is not enough, the jury should be directed that they are not entitled to find the necessary intention, unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of the defendant's actions and that the defendant appreciated that such was the case."
So with that definition where the Jury directed to Oblique Intent
And again without any evidence supporting Dr Vincent Tabak in a Medical Sense... There was not any instruction as to what the outcome would be...
How is this a fair trial... If Manslaughter was not entered into by being either :Voluntary or Involuntary ???
Normally at trial where a defendant wouldn't plea 5 months before the trial is to take place... Leaving just the "Murder Charge on the table... Giving the prosecution another possible option..
Alternative Counts
n cases where the defendant faces a charge of murder, the prosecution should decide in advance of a trial whether or not an alternative count of manslaughter should be added to the indictment. Prosecutors should take the following approach:
* If the alternative is added, and the jury cannot reach a verdict in relation to the first count (murder), but return a verdict of guilty in relation to the alternative count (manslaughter), then the prosecution should not seek a retrial on the first count (murder).
* If no alternative is included on the indictment, the prosecution must decide when the jury retire to consider their verdict on murder whether to seek a re-trial if the jury cannot agree, or whether it would be prepared to accept the alternative (manslaughter). Note that the prosecution may be directed to consider the alternative in any event (R v Coutts [2006] UKHL 39). The reason the prosecution should give prior consideration to this question is because even though manslaughter is not on the indictment, the jury may indicate that it has reached a verdict of guilty on the offence of manslaughter. The prosecution must then decide whether it will ask the judge to accept the verdict of manslaughter from the jury or discharge them from returning such a verdict.
* If the prosecution submits that the judge should accept the verdict of manslaughter, then it will be accepting that it will not be proceeding to a retrial on the charge of murder.
If the prosecution submits that the judge should not accept the verdict of manslaughter, and therefore seeks a retrial on the charge of murder, then the judge may agree to accede to this, discharge the jury and order a retrial on the charge of murder.
* If, despite representations to the contrary, the judge accepts the verdict of manslaughter because it meets the justice of the case, then the prosecution will not be able to seek a retrial on the charge of murder even if there is no abuse of process (R v JB [2013] EWCA Crim 356).
The last point in that quote is Interesting.... Having already secured a "Guilty To Manslaughter Plea " from Dr Vincent Tabak.... No retrial would have taken place.... as far as I can see... And no-one would have had the opportunity to test the evidence properly...
Which is funny really... And not in a humorous sense... Wasn't the with-holding of the "Porn" from trial supposed to stop a Re-Trial taking place also???? Catch 22 springs to mind... Major Major!!
Basically Dr Vincent Tabak was up "The Creek without a paddle... " He was going to "Prison" whatever the out come... But we still have the issues of "Voluntary or Involuntary" which were never addressed at trial... Only the constant reminder that it had been Dr Vincent Tabak's Intention to kill Joanna Yeates... Without Mens rea Really being applied in the correct way ...(IMO)...
Every Defendant has a basic right in Law to Defend Him/Herself.... Well Dr Vincent Tabak did not receive that right as the "Manslaughter Plea" was not entered into as a "Defence"... as to whether it was ... "Voluntary or Involuntary Manslaughter .... (IMO)...
http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Mens-rea-intention.php
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/28/vincent-tabak-guilty-joanna-yeates-murder
-
Would be it classed as Professional Misconduct... The way in which it appears Dr Vincent Tabak, not only didn't recieve suitable assistance from Council... (With all the name calling also)...
But the special measures that were taken (IMO)... To have his plea heard at 'The Old Bailey" Court Room 2....
For what essentially is A Simple Murder Trial??? Which did not need the intervention of "The Head of The Complex Case Unit Prosecuting!!
Where 2 different Hearings were being held at 2 Different Court Room on The Same day at the same time...
That being a "For Mention Hearing in one court room and A Plea And Management Case Hearig in another...
Is it unpresidented to use the Old Bailey in this way??? If not it should be ...
I have always believed that someone is looking at this case... And at first it was because that they too believed that Dr Vincent Tabak was Innocent.. But they and anyone I ask never agree that they think Dr Vincent Tabak Innocent...
Which could leave us with the alternative... The Prosecution for Professional Misconduct....
Now if this were to possibly happen.. Those who believe In Dr Vincent Tabak's Guilt may feel that he would be released on a technicality and Not on evidence...
Two things I say to that.... Firstly and Most Importantly..... The Correct use of the law is all important... And if it hasn't been used approperately to convict ANYONE... Let alone Dr Vincent Tabak... It Is then squarely on their shoulders the release of any convict.... (IMO)...
But I hope that I have gone along way into casting doubt on the safety of Dr Vincent Tabak's conviction...
-
Because i had mentioned about "Lor's I thought I would add a copy of such rules to my signature so it would be easy to find....
It outlines the assitance Not only the 'Police" but "The Head of The Complex Crime Unit would need to do (IMO).. to gain access to Dr Vincent Tabak whilst he was in Holland
International Inquiries
The ILO will provide advice and guidance on conducting international enquiries, and act as the force central contact point for NCA, Europol and INTERPOL. In addition, they should:
* work with investigators to understand expectations and realities when conducting international investigations or
enquiries
* request conviction histories for all prisoners
* disseminate relevant material and guidance throughout the force
* identify specific crime scene marks and liaise with foreign law enforcement agencies to establish identification
* identify details relating to wanted and missing persons
* carry out proactive enquiries in line with force priorities and developing issues
* liaise with divisional intelligence teams to help identify future concerns
* continually review their role to monitor further positive interaction with internal departments and outside agencies
* assist with missing persons enquiries with an international link
* assist with the completion of risk assessments
* on occasion work with foreign law enforcement community officers who may be able to pass on urgent
disseminations to their country when the NCA/INTERPOL channels may not be swift enough. These are police and
customs officers posted to the various embassies in the UK and are an invaluable source of support and assistance.
National Police Coordination Centre
In a complex investigation requiring a nationally coordinated response, the senior officer in charge should consider liaising with NPoCC as soon as possible.
NPoCC can advise on national policing responses and provide access to the ACPO president, who will be able to arrange any multi-agency involvement where necessary.
Did the Senior Officer In charge liaise With The National Police Coordination Centre?????
https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/investigations/european-investigations/
-
The drawing showing Vincent Tabak with an interpreter beside him was published in an account of his first court appearance, namely, at Bristol Magistrates Court. She does indeed look strikingly like Lyndsey Farmery, apart from the latter parting her hair left of centre. How amazing! Avon & Somerset Constabulary paid out £3468 in interpreter fees and expenses during the course of "Operation Braid". This hints that Detective Constable Karen Thomas took her own interpreter with her when she travelled to Schiphol on 31st December 2010 to interview Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson, possibily as suspects. The supposition that Lyndsey Farmery was the colleague who accompanied DC Thomas is intriguing. Was Vincent Tabak questioned in Dutch, to ensure that his human rights were not compromised? If he were, the jury was certainly not told. Nor did judge Field ask the witness if this were so.
Ok leonora.... This information is really important.... I let it slide by... I skimmed..
There are more than one question there......
£3468.... That is one hell of a lot of money for an Interpreter... I wondered what the cost of an Interpreter would be... and realistically.. They do not get paid huge sums of money... But I have worked out where maybe it was actually spent...
Lets start with some basics... The court Interpreter is for the defendant...So would come from his costs (IMO)... If i'm wrong put me straight...
We have to think why???? Why did they conduct the Interview at Schiphol and the simple answer to that could be.... This is where the Interpreter is....
Again leonora... A Eureka moment... They had to know that they where going to ask Dr Vincent Tabak several questions to need the services of an INTERPRETER!!!! (IMO)..
It was no coincidence that they interviewed Dr Vincent Tabak for 6 hours ... which as we have established is the length of time allowed to Interview a "SUSPECT" in Dutch Law..
So more Evidence to support the fact that they went over to Holland prepared to Interview Dr Vincent tabak as a "SUSPECT"...
Costs:
Translators’ and interpreters’ fees
Fees for translation and interpreting are set by the Ministry of Justice:
Interpreters are paid a rate of EUR 43.89 per hour. Additionally court interpreters are paid a one-off fee of EUR 20.23 to compensate travelling and waiting time (fixed fee). Travel costs are reimbursed at the rate of EUR 1,55 per kilometre.
Interviewing at The Airport saves on travel costs.... So we really need to find what the money was spent on.... And I believe I have found it.......
Translations from or into French, German and English are remunerated at a rate of EUR 0.79 per line. A rate of EUR 0.14 per word (target language) applies to other languages and of EUR 0.28 per character applies to oriental languages.
I believe the £3468 was spent on 'Translating" The Dutch Writings of The Placid Dutchman"
There are many Translator Services online.... Which make a hefty cost when translating languages..
Going back to why Schiphol
There's another possibility why they used The airport... To me The Airport is an odd place to "Interview" anyone.... But not if they used "KMAR"...
Royal Netherlands Military Police, KMAR is specialized in financial crime and is mainly active in the Schiphol airport district. But.....
The KMAR falls under the Ministry of Defense; however, it performs most of its policing tasks
under the responsibility of other ministries, principally Justice and the Interior. The Military Constabulary
is divided into six districts in the Netherlands. It also operates abroad, protecting embassies and other
buildings and accompanying Dutch service personnel on peace missions. The Military Constabulary is a
police force operating in both military and civilian spheres. It serves as a police force for the Navy, Army,
and Air Force. It also performs police and security tasks at Dutch airports, where it combats drug
smuggling together with the fiscal investigation services. In addition, it is sometimes deployed to help
civilian police forces maintain public order (for instance, in riot squads) and to investigate offenses. The
Military Constabulary is responsible for guarding members of the Royal House and the Prime Minister’s
official residence. It also escorts armored transports for DNB.
Quite simply KMAR could have easily assisted Avon and Somerset Police as :The Military Constabulary is a
police force operating in both military and civilian spheres. It serves as a police force for the Navy, Army,
and Air Force. It also performs police and security tasks at Dutch airports, where it combats drug
smuggling together with the fiscal investigation services. In addition, it is sometimes deployed to help
civilian police forces
They assist Civillian police forces....
We also have to remember that we have The head of The Complex Crime Unit.. Ann Reddrop at The Helm
Which may not be too far fetched getting KMAR Involved.... Making complete sense of why this Interview took place at Schiphol Airport... where KMAR are stationed... (IMO)..
If I stick with KMAR helping Avon and Somerset Police... Then the £3468 was more than likely spent on translating Dr Vincent Tabak's laptop and other devices....(IMO)...
Maybe the Interview in "HOLLAND" is the Important one.....
So Mr Clegg.... why didn't you investigate this Interview ???
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2011/cr1192.pdf
https://www.strakertranslations.com/translation-pricing/
https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_costs_of_proceedings-37-nl-en.do?member=1
-
We know you love a bit of WIKI....
Logo of the KMar
The RNLM performs the following duties:
assistance to and replacement of the police
escorting and protection of NATO convoys
fighting illegal immigration
fighting international crime
guarding the national borders
guarding the royal palaces and the Catshuis, the official residence of the Prime Minister
military police functions for the Dutch Armed Forces
riot control and protection
security and police work at all civilian airports, notably Schiphol Airport
VIP close protection including the Royal Family and high-ranking government officials
Special Protection Assignments Brigade (BSB), special forces for arrests, surveillance and protection
KMOO, the Military Police Service
Two KMar guards protecting the Dutch Crown jewels placed on the Credence table at the inauguration of king Willem-Alexander
The first four units are territorial, other two have national rather than regional responsibilities. The Marechaussee also provides general policing at Schiphol airport and its surrounding area -known as 'Schiphol-Rijk', in addition to border control duty at the airport itself.
fighting international crime "Complex Crime Unit"??
security and police work at all civilian airports, notably Schiphol Airport
Wiki does have the answer ....lol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_the_Netherlands
-
leonora.... whereabouts was Dr Vincent Tabak staying in Holland with his family?? To travel to the Airport for the interview???
-
If he was in UDEN then that is over an hours drive to 'Schiphol Airport"....
I'm sure he had to drive for that Interview... making it even more suspicious that the Interview was held at Schiphol Airport
Making this Interview more likely to bet that of a "SUSPECT".... OMG.. IS DC Karen Thomas around to answer these questions ????
Why would Dr Vincent Tabak need to travel anywhere if as DC Karen Thomas says... They had gone over to Holland to Interview him as a witness???
Surely she would go to where he was staying...
And again the only reason i can come up with for the Interview being at the airport was that Avon and Somerset Police had KMAR's help... Therefore proving Dr Vincent tabak was always seen as a suspect... And was never cautioned... breaching his human rights .... (IMO)...
-
leonora.... whereabouts was Dr Vincent Tabak staying in Holland with his family?? To travel to the Airport for the interview???
His family rented two chalets (cottages) in a leisure complex for the New Year holiday in the Netherlands. The location wasn't mentioned in any of the British media, nor any of the Dutch newspapers that I saw online. I don't rule out that it was mentioned in one of the Dutch TV reports and printed media.
-
Another thing I find odd... Is that DC Karen Thomas says that the interview was at a Hotel....
Does she really mean a Hotel or did they use the facilities at The Detention Centre Schiphol... which oddly enough get outsourced to private companies... G4S being one of them
Privatisation and outsourcing. The provision of security and medical care at detention centres is outsourced to private companies. G4S, one of a growing number of multinational companies involved in immigration detention, provides security at all detention centres, while medical care is provided by various companies.[34] According to Dutch sources, the Schiphol and Rotterdam centres were set up and are operated as public-private partnerships, although these sources do not make clear who all the private partners are.
Anything in this case is possible... I have found ....
https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/countries/europe/netherlands
Edit:.....
The world’s largest private security company G4S, which operates three facilities in the UK and another at Schiphol airport in Amsterdam, told this website it would expand its detention centre contracts should more opportunities appear in mainland Europe.
Next Question.... Did G4S transport Dr Vincent Tabak in Prison van ???
https://euobserver.com/priv-immigration/121454
-
His family rented two chalets (cottages) in a leisure complex for the New Year holiday in the Netherlands. The location wasn't mentioned in any of the British media, nor any of the Dutch newspapers that I saw online. I don't rule out that it was mentioned in one of the Dutch TV reports and printed media.
The nearest lesiure complex to Schiphol I could find where you rent chalets is
https://www.homeaway.com.au/holiday-rental/p6036321
which is 77 kilometeres away from the Airport.....
Still keep asking the question ...Why interview Dr Vincent Tabak at Schiphol Airport if he was "ONLY" supposed to be a "Witness" ???
-
Well.... The Prosecution did a number with their 1300 page document.... They followed procedure....Well sort of.... They took what they required from "Procedure" and applied it to the case against Dr Vincent Tabak...... (IMO)..
(vi)Electronic presentation of evidence
* Electronic presentation of evidence (EPE) has the potential to save huge amounts of time in fraud and other complex criminal trials and should be used more widely.
* HMCS is providing facilities for the easier use of EPE with a standard audio visual facility. Effectively managed, the savings in court time achieved by EPE more than justify the cost.
* There should still be a core bundle of those documents to which frequent reference will be made during the trial.
* The jury may wish to mark that bundle or to refer back to particular pages as the evidence progresses. EPE can be used for presenting all documents not contained in the core bundle.
Greater use of other modern forms of graphical presentations should be made wherever possible.
So realistically the EPE... should be used in: Electronic presentation of evidence (EPE) has the potential to save huge amounts of time in fraud and other complex criminal trials and should be used more widely.
But... The prosecution twisted that and used "The Searches".. as their EPE... My God!!! When it's use is for fraud...
And just to take the absolute pisk.....
The jury may wish to mark that bundle or to refer back to particular pages as the evidence progresses. EPE can be used for presenting all documents not contained in the core bundle.
They actually get them to do this at trial........ Is this some sort of JOKE!!!!
At this point the jury on Wednesday morning 19 October 2011, were invited to write into
their copy of the prosecution chart where they see the words typed in by Tabak
‘definition’ before the words ‘sexual conduct’. The jury were invited to write the word
‘definition’, so that this entry is more accurate, the prosecution counsel Nigel Lickley said,
because these words were missed out when the prosecution constructed the chart of
evidence.
Arrrrrggggggg........
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/pd-protocol/pd_protocol
-
I'm going to review that post....
-
I've been reading some of Sally R's comments on this trial. Firstly she doesn't come across as a professional lawyer, member of ...... to me. It really is like reading something you or I would have written.
She also had VT at the bottom of Constitution Hill (will have to look up the page). Don't know what day, just that he was on his bike and there was snow. Constitution Hill was used as the hill start in car tests many decades ago when I took mine. It's very narrow purely residential and winds as well as being a s*d of a steep hill.
It is also directly opposite the Hope & Anchor, the pub where Greg and Joanna had their last lunch together.
I'm not taking what this woman says as so, its like the McCann files, read what's not written.
Ok... Nina... back to your Constitution Hill.... And Yes... How did he do it???
Timeline 45- Vincent Tabak’s journey home- 6.54 at Constitution Hill. Home just after
7pm by which time Tanja had already left. Text message to Tanja- ‘Just got home’.
Now this Hill is Big..... No way in the cold or even warm is he cycling up that hill...... It's a 1 in 6 gradient climb...
Why Park Street? It's the way to Cliftonwood, of course -and the hills there, starting with the one in six gradient climb that is Constitution Hill, and exploring a few more between the harbour and Clifton. Finally: up Bridge Valley Road to finish at the Downs,
I cannot see how Dr Vincent Tabak rode up Constitution Hill full stop.... never mind get back home just after 7:00 pm....from the start of that ride... 6:54pm.... Have you seen how steep that Hill is??? Maybe get home after 7:00 if he was driving..... It take 4 minutes by car to drive from Constitution Hill to Canygne Road... Now way on God's earth did he cycle this route..... (IMO)...
Just after 7:00pm suggests a minute or two... well that would happen if the traffic is bad and the weather when driving.... Cycling..... Not Happening....
So yes Nina.... I don't believe he cycled to work never... never mind Constitution Hill..... The only sort of Bike that would get up Constitution Hill that fast is a "Motorbike".... Which gave me a flashback... of one of his work colleagues saying that he came to work in a leather fringed Jacket... (Wish I could find that article)..
http://bristolbybike.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/b........-hills-of-north-bristol.html
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
http://veloviewer.com/segment/994926/Constitution+Hill,+Bristol
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
So, Nine--Again and Nina, how do you think VT got back from work on Friday 17th, just as a matter of interest?
-
So, Nine--Again and Nina, how do you think VT got back from work on Friday 17th, just as a matter of interest?
mrswah... I am not sure.... There's a number of possibilities... I need to think about....
-
So, Nine--Again and Nina, how do you think VT got back from work on Friday 17th, just as a matter of interest?
I think he cycled. Temple Meads station has a shed for bikes and as Chris Jefferies has said VT cycled to work in all weathers. VT seems to have been an incredibly fit person IMO, so I suppose riding back using the route he seems to have used he could have been home within half an hour IMO.
-
I think he cycled. Temple Meads station has a shed for bikes and as Chris Jefferies has said VT cycled to work in all weathers. VT seems to have been an incredibly fit person IMO, so I suppose riding back using the route he seems to have used he could have been home within half an hour IMO.
But you mentioned Constitution Hill... The Dutch don't like Hills.... My brother inlaw doesn't like to walk up a hill...
We have things that imply that Dr Vincent Tabak cycled to the station... But nothing definate ... We have the Stereotypical Dutchman...We have The mention of the 'cycle bag"... and ... Cycling basically mentioned in court.... But was it accurate????
Timeline 45- Vincent Tabak’s journey home- 6.54 at Constitution Hill. Home just after
7pm by which time Tanja had already left. Text message to Tanja- ‘Just got home’.
Now how do "The Defence " know that as a time ????? Is it a rough guess.... Or was The car seen by traffic Cams near that area ???? All Dr Vincent Tabaks' timings are done through "texts".. emails... internet use (apparently).. And he being caught on some sort of CCTV....
So on that evidence he was in a car.... (IMO).... (I might change my mind)...
Defence Counsel: Turn to entry 11.
‘Entry 11- seen past the flat at 9.05 where Tanya had already left for work in a lift-share’.
Text message from Tabak: ‘Love you’.
Text answer from Tanja: Love you too. Pretty snow.
Here we have Tanja's Lift share.... I knew i had read that before !!!!!
Then.....
Defence Counsel: Let us look at your movements on Friday 17 December:
Time line 11- left for work
Timeline 12- Cycled to Bristol T Stn
Timeline 13- Train to bath
Timeline 16- Arrive Bath 9.41
It's the defence saying he cycled to work.... But did he ???
Defence Counsel: What time do you leave for work?
Tabak: 9.00 am.
I'm changing my mind... maybe he walked.... Train from Temple Meade leaves at 9:25am arriving at 9:42am
He walked !!Being picked up on CCTV from a business on Jacob Wells Road which runs at the bottom... I believe of Constitution Hill.... A business like "The Hope and Anchor" which is at 38, Jacob's Well Road !!
They have to have CCTV images of Dr Vincent Tabak to put him anywhere near Constitution Hill... And all of there other CCTV images come from pubs and shops!!!
He walked.... and probably in his leather Jacket.....
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
Here you go.... A Google Map image showing how close The Hope and Anchor Pub is to the bottom of Constitution Hill.....
Also picture of Hope And Anchor with CCTV camera above main window ....
But even if the defence say he cycled ... which I cannot see.... why go the route via Constitution Hill????
Image 3 is a direct route for a journey from the station to Canygne Road....
Why are they putting Dr Vincent Tabak in the Vacinity of a Pub that Joanna Yeates went to at lunch time on that day???? That is weird !!!!!!!
Friday December 17, 12.50pm: Miss Yeates and Mr Reardon, who both work for design consultancy BDP in Bristol, have lunch together at the Hope and Anchor near their offices. Joanna eats cheesy chips. Sadly it turns out to be her last meal.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/joanna-yeates-murder-timeline-of-events-2377178.html
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Friday December 17, 12.50pm: Miss Yeates and Mr Reardon, who both work for design consultancy BDP in Bristol, have lunch together at the Hope and Anchor near their offices. Joanna eats cheesy chips. Sadly it turns out to be her last meal.
Hope and Anchor.... Jacob Well's Road Is no where near their Office !
Hang on a minute.... How did they have time for lunch ???? were they working that day ???? It's miles away! Apparently they walked to work that morning....
Edit... I believe the map is inaccurate sorry... Just discovered that this morning....
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/joanna-yeates-murder-timeline-of-events-2377178.html
http://www.bdp.com/globalassets/_documents/studio-directions/bristol.pdf
-
If he walked fast, it would take him nearly 45 minutes, at medium pace nearly an hour. I don't believe it! Even he could not do that walk in 25 minutes: it is a long way.
Why would he need to lie about cycling? Had he been caught on CCTV on foot, that would, I assume, have been pointed out by somebody.
The police would have checked the time he texted Tanja to say he had just got home.
-
I think he cycled. Temple Meads station has a shed for bikes and as Chris Jefferies has said VT cycled to work in all weathers. VT seems to have been an incredibly fit person IMO, so I suppose riding back using the route he seems to have used he could have been home within half an hour IMO.
I would agree.
-
If he walked fast, it would take him nearly 45 minutes, at medium pace nearly an hour. I don't believe it! Even he could not do that walk in 25 minutes: it is a long way.
Why would he need to lie about cycling? Had he been caught on CCTV on foot, that would, I assume, have been pointed out by somebody.
The police would have checked the time he texted Tanja to say he had just got home.
Fair point.... But I'm now puzzled why Joanna Yeates went to The Hope and Anchor for her lunch... when it's a long way away from her Office ....!!!
Maybe Vincent Tabak Car shared.... Maybe he drove.....
ok... he leaves work at 6:00pm gets the 18:07pm or 18:16pm being the fast train... both get him to bristol at 6:30 ish... Going to the bottom of Jacob Wells Road... by car can take anything up to 14 mins....
So CCTV image is of the car!!... possibly...
But why is Joanna Yeates at Jacob Wells Road at lunch Time .... ????
Where are any images of Dr Vincent Tabak riding his bicycle on the 17th December 2010 !!!!!!!
We are deciding he leaves work straight away.... we don't know this .... There is a later train at 18:30 getting into temple mead at 18:44pm... giving him 11 mins to get to Constitution Hill... which is timed at 6:54pm...
Edit.... Which also may lend to the fact that the car was on the road and not the drive... Knowing he would be leaving later on to collect Tanja from the party...
Double Edit.... Why would Dr Vincent Tabak.. either Drive or Cycle via Constitution Hill???? Doesn't make sense to me !!!!
-
Sticking with Hope and Anchor:
31st December 2010 Reported:
Miss Yeates had had lunch with Mr Reardon on the day she vanished.
They had met at the Hope and Anchor, a mile from their home
This report again 31st December 2010.
The 25-year-old and her boyfriend Greg Reardon, 27, dined on cheesy chips and cola drinks at their local pub, the Hope and Anchor, before he left to visit his half-brother, Francis, in Sheffield on December 17.
The landlord of The pub says :
Barman Jack Carrington, 23, who was working at the pub which is just a mile from the flat the couple rented in Bristol, said: “Joanna came in at about 12.30pm with her boyfriend.
He further states : “It was really busy as we had a lot of Christmas parties in, so they sat in the corner on a small table. They only stayed about 20 minutes.
And then contradicts himself when he says .... “I didn’t see them leave because it was so busy – but when I looked over later they were gone. I don’t think I spoke to her because it was so busy.
Again in the next breath he says: “She comes in a lot – especially with her boyfriend – on Friday afternoons. We make conversation with her and she always seems happy – most of the staff recognise her. They are polite but keep themselves to themselves.’’
Friday afternoons... suggests a later time than "Lunch"... ...
So what time did they go to The Hope and Anchor????
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/220303/Joanna-Yeates-last-meal-with-boyfriend-at-favourite-local-pub
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8232412/Joanna-Yeates-murder-suspect-Christopher-Jefferies-let-himself-into-tenants-flat.html
-
Ok... This is bugging me..... Why is "The Hope And Anchor"... mentioned in the papers on the 31st December 2010...???
Not only that... Information as to what Joanna Yeates Ate.....
If I think about that info being leaked so early on.... Then "WHY" isn't Colin Port having A Giraffe at The Leveson Inquiry about the media releasing sensitive information.... He does about other leaks !!!
What is significant about 31st December 2010... to release that info!!!
-
Apologies for my inaccuracy... I'm not sure which is correct... Google maps did not assist me on that post... Putting Hope and Anchor some 22 mins away....
Got another image from a map... says its a ten minute walk... Don't understand what happened with the map last night ...
So ... apologies......
Edit..... I see where I went wrong... I just put Hill Street and Jacobs Well Road... It gave me the other map... oopsie....
-
But you mentioned Constitution Hill... The Dutch don't like Hills.... My brother inlaw doesn't like to walk up a hill...
We have things that imply that Dr Vincent Tabak cycled to the station... But nothing definate ... We have the Stereotypical Dutchman...We have The mention of the 'cycle bag"... and ... Cycling basically mentioned in court.... But was it accurate????
Now how do "The Defence " know that as a time ????? Is it a rough guess.... Or was The car seen by traffic Cams near that area ???? All Dr Vincent Tabaks' timings are done through "texts".. emails... internet use (apparently).. And he being caught on some sort of CCTV....
So on that evidence he was in a car.... (IMO).... (I might change my mind)...
Here we have Tanja's Lift share.... I knew i had read that before !!!!!
Then.....
It's the defence saying he cycled to work.... But did he ???
I'm changing my mind... maybe he walked.... Train from Temple Meade leaves at 9:25am arriving at 9:42am
He walked !!Being picked up on CCTV from a business on Jacob Wells Road which runs at the bottom... I believe of Constitution Hill.... A business like "The Hope and Anchor" which is at 38, Jacob's Well Road !!
They have to have CCTV images of Dr Vincent Tabak to put him anywhere near Constitution Hill... And all of there other CCTV images come from pubs and shops!!!
He walked.... and probably in his leather Jacket.....
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
Does anyone have links from CCTV showing VT walking?
-
Gosh that's a bit of a sweeping statement "the Dutch don't like hills". I don't like hills either and I'm not Dutch!
It's quite interesting that the Hope & Anchor is approx. halfway between Canynge Rd and where Joanna and Greg worked. Back in 2010 it was a very popular pub, super food, so I would take the walk up Park St, round and down via Jacobs Wells Rd and there's your pub.
Constitution Hill. Well I can imagine that someone who was physically fit would choose this route to and from the station in a normal winter. It would be hard work but quick. VT was probably timing himself as well, a lot of people who cycle in Bristol do that. But 2010 and on the 17th December where there was black ice everywhere. It would be dangerous just trying to walk down Constitution Hill, so I really have had my doubts as to whether he used that route, on that day. He could have cycled on that day by the main roads.
-
Just a thought, VT might have taken the bus. There are the buses 8 and 9 that go to Temple Meads station before turning round and coming back to Clifton. The bus stops are at Christchurch at the end of Canynge Rd.
-
Did anybody see VT coming home from work on the 17th? I presume not because if they had we would know whether he was cycling or not.
I'm assuming that VT put himself at Constitution Hill at 7.45 in his interview with the police. No one else saw him there? I just find it pretty weird that he would chose that route on that day. Ah well it must be a `man thing' all these dangerous sports!
Nine have you investigated the buses or do you think it's out of the question.
-
Ok... This is bugging me..... Why is "The Hope And Anchor"... mentioned in the papers on the 31st December 2010...???
Not only that... Information as to what Joanna Yeates Ate.....
If I think about that info being leaked so early on.... Then "WHY" isn't Colin Port having A Giraffe at The Leveson Inquiry about the media releasing sensitive information.... He does about other leaks !!!
What is significant about 31st December 2010... to release that info!!!
What constitutes a leak? Joanna had been missing since the 17th, was found on the 25th so by the 31st surely this was just news not a leak. Where she went and ate is not very important in the grand scheme of things is it?
-
Did anybody see VT coming home from work on the 17th? I presume not because if they had we would know whether he was cycling or not.
I'm assuming that VT put himself at Constitution Hill at 7.45 in his interview with the police. No one else saw him there? I just find it pretty weird that he would chose that route on that day. Ah well it must be a `man thing' all these dangerous sports!
Nine have you investigated the buses or do you think it's out of the question.
If anyone did, it would probably have been CJ, or one of the other neighbours. I don't recall any reports of him being seen on CCTV.
-
If anyone did, it would probably have been CJ, or one of the other neighbours. I don't recall any reports of him being seen on CCTV.
I've got the impression somewhere along the line that there must have CCTV in Canynge Rd. Didn't Sally R say something about a visitor/s being captured on CCTV going to a friends house?
-
I've got the impression somewhere along the line that there must have CCTV in Canynge Rd. Didn't Sally R say something about a visitor/s being captured on CCTV going to a friends house?
I believe the owner of a nearby house in Canynge Road had CCTV recordings, which he handed over to the police, but the recordings for the relevant night had been deleted: apparently, the recordings delete themselves after a few days, and I think the man handed them over too late. At least, that is what I read--------------but then, one can't believe everything one reads in the papers!
-
I believe the owner of a nearby house in Canynge Road had CCTV recordings, which he handed over to the police, but the recordings for the relevant night had been deleted: apparently, the recordings delete themselves after a few days, and I think the man handed them over too late. At least, that is what I read--------------but then, one can't believe everything one reads in the papers!
Thanks Mrswah, what a shame, to late, so much of the comings and goings that day could have been told.
You are totally right, I never believe the media, in fact in what I don't read that's more interesting to me.
-
I believe the owner of a nearby house in Canynge Road had CCTV recordings, which he handed over to the police, but the recordings for the relevant night had been deleted: apparently, the recordings delete themselves after a few days, and I think the man handed them over too late. At least, that is what I read--------------but then, one can't believe everything one reads in the papers!
It was handed in ok....mrswah.... They just let us think that was the case that it had been deleted ....... That is all.. Because.....
DS Mark Saunders did see CCTV footage of Canygne Road for the evening of 17th December 2010 as he remarked on how busy the road was ....
Detectives probing the disappearance of the architect Joanna Yeates have obtained private CCTV footage of activity in her street on the night she went missing. Meanwhile, her parents prepared to make a fresh appeal for information today.
And...
Detective Superintendent Mark Saunders said: “We had someone contact us who had some private CCTV which actually shows Canynge Road [where the flat is located] and the thing for me is that you can see lots of people walking up and down and vehicles driving up and down on Friday night and the early hours of Saturday morning.
So there is footage !!!!
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/detectives-scour-cctv-for-missing-architect-clues-r2j57r8l633
-
It was handed in ok....mrswah.... They just let us think that was the case that it had been deleted ....... That is all.. Because.....
DS Mark Saunders did see CCTV footage of Canygne Road for the evening of 17th December 2010 as he remarked on how busy the road was ....
So there is footage !!!!
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/detectives-scour-cctv-for-missing-architect-clues-r2j57r8l633
Yeah !! So all you/we gotta do is find it !!
That would be amazing wouldn't it?
-
Yeah !! So all you/we gotta do is find it !!
That would be amazing wouldn't it?
*&*%£
Yer ... like the Avon and Somerset Police are just going to hand it over ..... I'll take that as a NO.....
-
*&*%£
Yer ... like the Avon and Somerset Police are just going to hand it over ..... I'll take that as a NO.....
Reckon you have that bang on Nine !!
-
Absolutely!!
I wonder what was on it---but then, I am not supposed to speculate-----------
-
Moving The Renault Megane over to this topic..... The picture on Park Street:/Queens Road
The date on the Image is ... 18th December 2010......
Now I am even questioning that!.... We are supposing it has to be at around 1:40am to 1:45am in the morning on an extremely cold might ... The night if we remember all the snow fell..... And when Dr Vincent Tabak goes to meet Tanja...
Well this image didn't come to us until after the trial...... And looking at the image the date could have been changed.... Why Not.. The Tesco video time and date stamp have been tampered with... we can tell...
So reasons for me to believe this is Not at around 1:40am on the 18th December 2010...
(A): Lack of Snow...
(B): Lots of people crossing the road.... (don't know if that's normal)
(C): Guy wearing white shorts and bear legs.....??? why would you???
This image could be at anytime of the year when it is dark quite honestly.... We don't know ...
But I think it's about time we questioned the only image of what is supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabak driving a Renault Megane on Park Street/Queens Road on the 18th December 2010...(IMO)
Defence Counsel: We can see the journey to collect her. We can see you turn right at
Park Street into a lane that does not lead anywhere. Two minutes later- you came out.
Why did you go there?
Tabak: I was not paying attention to where I was going- so I took a wrong turning and
then to Park Street.
Defence Counsel: We can see the video of you going out of Park Street. Then you made a
call to Tanja. That was to ask her directions as to where to collect her?
He takes a wrong turn... Doesn't mean he drove a wrong turn... could be walking ...
Question... If they cannot see Dr Vincent Tabak in his car on Park Street /Queens Road.. How can they see him making a phone call??? Is he on foot?? and it's has to be another CCTV Image ??
Defence Counsel: We can see that you travelled to a burger bar. Why did you go there?
Tabak: Tanja was hungry- she wanted something to eat.
Defence Counsel: Was it eaten there or in the car?
Tabak: In the car.
The CCTV has to be of him on foot...(IMO).. It describes him at the burger bar and not at the car.. by asking if he ate it there or in his car... Which to me implies that he is on foot.....
The Car and The Burger Bar are seperate.... Just like the Frozen Ground and Joanna Yeates being frozen.... (IMO)...
One other thing... Renault Meganes are not a young girls car (IMO).. It might have suited A Man like Dr Vincent Tabak... I can't envisage Tanja behind the wheel some how .... But that's just me ....
Ok... Say they owned a Car.... Was it a Renault Megane ????
To me it's a Practical sort of car... And if you just need something for nipping here and there seems and odd choice.... She car shares apparently to get to work.... So when does she use it????? And he apparently cycles everywhere .... So when does this Car get used ??
Ok... Maybe I was slightly incorrect...(An Understatement on my part!!) as The building which I believed to be the Cathederal.. where we see The Car on the CCTV image is actually Bristol University or part of Bristol University.... (why hasn't anyone said??)... So literally if the image is of the car outside that building then the road name on google is Queens Road.... Which as you drive down it becomes Park Street on turning slightly right....
Which in turn tells me the images the jury saw were of Dr Vincent tabak walking on park Street... (IMO)..
Was this image meant for CJ when they arrested him??? giving tenuous connections of a man in a silver car driving past a building that says Bristol `university on the 18th December 2010... when they suspected CJ of this crime??
CJ.. please accept my apologises... I'm seeing what the Police could make appear an image to be.... And not that the image is you... I am saying that the image was suggestive and they could apply it to you if they chose to...
I wish CJ was on here..... I would ask him if they showed him that image and said he was seen driving around with Joanna Yeates when they had him in custody... I'm sure CJ would have laughed in their faces ..... !!
Literally... It's a silver looking car.... and that is it!!!
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
Edit... I take full responsibility for Originally saying the image of the car is Park Street... Because of my earlier understanding of The Defence talking about him coming out of Park street... And the two roads become one and I failed to emphasise that...
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I have attached an image of the CCTV Image of what has been said on Dr Vincent Tabak driving around with Joanna Yeates... Which is not correct but bare with me...
Before I have looked at the time stamps on the only CCTV Footage with a time stamp and date .. being the Tesco's video... where It is obvious the tampering that has taken place... So I thought I would look at the Traffic Cam info....
Info it gives..
(A): Local
(B): E:\RECORDER 13\CAME
(C): 03: BRISTOL.99
(D): 18/12/2010
(B): Looks like a location file on a computer where the information is kept.... "The Directory"... And not the information you may find on a traffic camera CCTV Image...
Why would it give you a Directory Location???
This is on someones computer and I do not think it is the 'Traffic Cameras" original footage ..... Those 4 details have been added or are another program it is running through...(IMO)...
The other reason I would add... Is normally if a system is running a CCTV camera system that I am aware of... The Location and Directory Information would be in the address bar... when using a particular program...
But for traffic Information... I cannot see that The Directory would be visible on the image of any car passing by... (IMO)...
You see before at first I was happy that if it was Dr Vincent Tabak's car he couldn't have Joanna yeates in the boot.... as the date said the 18th December 2010... And never really came back to the information upon the image....
But knowing that there are many many CCTV images that we haven't been made aware of.... And the ones that we are aware of have all been tampered with in one way or another ...
(1): Joanna Yeates in Tesco's.... This image should have the information running on a windows program.. The Date
Time would be in smaller writing at the bottom ,I believe of the image and would not have the word play
or frames per second visible on the image...(IMO)
(2): Dr Vincent Tabak in ASDA.... The time is Missing... has been blurred out....
(3): Waitrose .... Again NO Date No Time Stamp
(4): Bargain Booze... No Date No Time stamp
(5): The Bristol Ram.... No Time Stamp
(6): Joanna Yeates walking past Nero Cafe... never shown...
(7): Image of Joanna Yeates passing Hophouse pub... No date or time stamp... date and timestamp of two people
walking past Hophouse pub is shown..
Making the CCTV of the another image that needs to be questioned....
Honestly do you believe that "Bristol Council keep all of their CCTV images of traffic in a "Directory" marked E:\RECORDER 13\CAME... I don't think so...
To get access to CCTV Camera footage we the public need to go via a Government Website... https://www.bristol.gov.uk/crime-emergencies/cctv-in-bristol
So... do you still think it's kept in a Folder marked... E:\RECORDER 13\CAME ??
Because I don't believe that it is ....(IMO)....
Even (A):.. which says "local"... to me means local directory of a computer .... (IMO)
Edit:.....
Oh yes I nearly forgot... The Time Stamp is Missing!!...
-
Just adding to my above post.....
Is The directory the Polices ?? I found a video with similar information upon it.. of a shooting in 2011 and in the Corner it has a time stamp... which is clearly visible.... The Timer counts in hundreths of seconds.... Which I have never seen on a Traffic Camera CCTV
And the same E:\ directory is used ????
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFuG3ksgcuE
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
It's definately a Directory on a Police Computer....
This next Image I have attached is of DJ Derek Missing.... (From Avon and Somerset Police )..The same yellow writing on black boxes ....
The Info on this clip says:
(A):Local
(B): D:\DJ DEREK\9.Brun
(C):01:BRISTOL.81
(D):10/07/2015 23:38:12.193
(B),s Information clearly shows us that it is on the directory of a Police Computer and not any CCTV Camera Time Stamp and Date....
Supporting what I have been saying about the Car Image that we have been lead to believe is Dr Vincent Tabak driving around Bristol..
So Now... No CCTV Video's that are available to view on The Joanna Yeates Case have the Original Information upon them.... They all have had something done to them....
CCTV Footage is massively important when proving someones whereabout and time they were at said location....
I am still questioning the image of The Car on Queens Road/Park Street on 18th December 2010..
The removing of the timestamp is even more important with this image... As I have said... It could be at any time of the evening as soon as it goes dark... That could be 9:00pm at night for all we know ...
Which makes me believe that any Image they had of Dr Vincent Tabak on Park Street or anywhere else was when he is walking... There is NO CCTV Footage anywhere of Dr Vincent Tabak..
(1): Cycling
(2): Driving
(3): In ASDA Carpark
(4): Driving On any roads anywhere on the 17th December 2010
Which begs the question... How did he drive to ASDA... How did he Drive to Longwood Lane .... Was that Renault Megane REG Number RY51 RDU registered to Tanja Morson?? or did they have a "KA" type Car that would be too small to put someones body in without being noticed... Or did they own a Car at all????
If the cars not theirs... The supposed blood evidence in the boot is shot to S***... (IMO)...
Establishing ownership of that car is massive... And Footage of that Car driving around Bristol and Bedminster on the 17th December 2010 is one of the most important pieces of Evidence that is needed... Because how else was Dr Vincent Tabak supposed to get a body from A to B ????
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
www.standard.co.uk/news/joanna-yeates-killed-by-neighbour-who-sent-text-saying-bored-6451788.html
If you scroll down the above link, you will find reference to Vincent and Tanja being seen on CCTV "walking arm in arm". This is the CCTV I remember seeing, but which is no longer available. This was probably when they bought their burgers.
There IS a reason why they would have needed a big car-----they used it to travel to Holland , and, I dare say to many other places too. Tanja would also have needed a car for work. They were a sporty pair, and no doubt would have used the car for carrying their sports equipment . I believe the car belonged to Tanja, not Vincent.
BTW, I, too mistook the university building at the top of Park Street for a Cathedral !
-
I have found some more info about car RY51 RDU:
2002 Renault Megane
RY51RDU Car information
Get a full check
This 2002 Renault Megane Fidji on numberplate RY51 RDU was first registered on Friday 18th of January 2002 near Reading. At an estimated 139,036 miles, this car has done a lower than average number of miles for it's age. This car had 2 previous owners before the current keeper acquired it.
Who is the current keeper ???
According to this the last Registered owner registered this car on : Registered owner changed
25th June 2005
So Did Tanja Morson buy this car or own this car on 25th June 2005 ???
Because I don't believe Tanja Morson is the registered owner now... Considering the terrible crime it is attached too!!
Tanja started working at Dyson in Malmesbury in June 2005.. But also had just finished her job in Peterborough in June 2005
https://cazana.com/uk/car/RY51RDU
-
www.standard.co.uk/news/joanna-yeates-killed-by-neighbour-who-sent-text-saying-bored-6451788.html
If you scroll down the above link, you will find reference to Vincent and Tanja being seen on CCTV "walking arm in arm". This is the CCTV I remember seeing, but which is no longer available. This was probably when they bought their burgers.
There IS a reason why they would have needed a big car-----they used it to travel to Holland , and, I dare say to many other places too. Tanja would also have needed a car for work. They were a sporty pair, and no doubt would have used the car for carrying their sports equipment . I believe the car belonged to Tanja, not Vincent.
BTW, I, too mistook the university building at the top of Park Street for a Cathedral !
Yes mrswah... I'll quote from that page..
Vincent Tabak stole one of her socks then threw her body in the boot of his car and drove off to buy beer and crisps at Asda, the jury heard.
That night he dumped her body beside a remote country lane and was later seen on CCTV walking arm in arm with girlfriend Tanja Morson.
So were is any footage of Dr Vincent Tabak drving that car ????
They may have owned a car mrswah I don't know ... But was it that one ??? And if it was the car RY51 RDU.. Then where is ANY CCTV Footage of this car driving around Bristol or Bedminster on Friday 17th December 2010 ???
Why not show the jury images of Dr Vincent Tabak aimlessly driving around trying to decided where to dump Joanna Yeates body ???
Why not show the jury images of this car "Parked " in ASDA Car Park in Bedminster ???
Why not show the Jury The CCTV Footage DS Mark Saunders viewed of Canygne Road with Dr Vincent Tabak leaving with Joanna Yeates in the boot of that car on Friday 17th December 2010??
Why so little physical evidence for this crime .... ???
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/joanna-yeates-killed-by-neighbour-who-sent-text-saying-bored-6451788.html
-
About one hour after the killing, Tabak texted his girlfriend Miss Morson: "missing you loads. It's boring here without you. V xx."
That should take the time to 9:45pm on Friday 17th December 2010
But I'm sure that text to Tanja was at around 9:30 pm on Friday 17th December 2010... Making an hour before the killing.. 8:30pm on Friday the 17th December 2010... Joanna Yeates was NOT home at this time .... (apparently) in fact she was talking on the phone to Rebecca Scott at 8:30pm on Friday 17th December 2010...
Another hour later he left the flat and drove his silver-grey Renault Megane hatchback - probably with Miss Yeates's body in the boot - to a branch of Asda, the court heard.
According to The Prosecution that should take the time to 10:45pm on Friday 17th December 2010... The timings are terrible and no- one has taken any notice of them....
Now he apparently is at ASDA at approx 10:13pm according to the defence .....
Defence Counsel: Look at our timeline chart again. No 76. Jo Yeates did not get back to
her flat until 8.37 or thereabouts. Timeline 39- you ultimately went to Asda at approx
10.13 pm.
The Defence are already saying Joanna Yeates was at home at 8:37pm on Friday 17th December 2010... when the Offical time of 8:37 pm on Friday 17th December 2010.. Joanna Yeates is buying a Pizza in Tesco's ....
That is him getting back to the flat... He only gets back to Joanna Yeates flat apparently after he has killed her ...
So with that... Clegg is saying that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates between 8:30 pm and 8:37pm on Friday 17th December 2010
Again a reminder that Rebecca Scott spoke to Joanna Yeates from 8:30pm for anything between 7 and 15 minutes.. Making it impossible for her to be killed at this time ..
The defence need some kind of footage to put Dr Vincent Tabak either leaving Canygne Road at 10:13 pm or it's ASDA's own CCTV footage ...
Here vagueness from the Defence:... Joanna’s flat except that it was between the time he went to Asda and the time he texted
his girlfriend, say, between 9.00 pm and 11.00 pm.
Clegg knows the time of those texts!!
But Something has brought me back to the CCTV that DS Mark Saunders viewed.... The Defence must have seen it...(IMO)...
Because:... Defence Counsel: Turn to entry 11.
‘Entry 11- seen past the flat at 9.05 where Tanya had already left for work in a lift-share’.
What CCTV could pick him up in 5 minutes ???? Ah... if the image I have taken with google... which show a house on the corner of Canygne Road and the Junction of Clifton Park has always had a CCTV Camera on the wall.. Then it's possible the CCTV Footage is from that house.. because I cannot see any CCTV cameras around Clifton for motorists..
Did the Police have CCTV Footage from this premises ???
It's the way in which The Defence say he was seen past The Flat... Was he walking or cycling????
Would it take him 5 minutes to cycle to the end of Canygne Road ??? Probably NOT... (IMO).... walking pace maybe ...
It wouldn't take 5 minutes walking time to get to Mr Kingman's CCTV either...
Past The Flat... that sound like it's not too far away.... In 5 minutes how far could you cycle ????? Apparently he is a keen cyclist... Runs... so... going on the info that they have given about Dr Vincent Tabak... He should be a far distance cycling in 5 minutes .... (IMO)...
Again his cycling prowess shows he apparently can far shift it.....
Timeline 45- Vincent Tabak’s journey home- 6.54 at Constitution Hill. Home just after
7pm by which time Tanja had already left. Text message to Tanja- ‘Just got home’.
So it takes him around say... In The words of The Defence ... 7 mins to do Constitution Hill and arrive home... Yet it take 5 minutes to be spotted just past the flat....
This is why I believe he walked to be honest.... Constitution Hill to Canygne Road is a 5 minutes Car Journey.. so he didn't cycle it in that time ....
But looking for this travel... I have just seen something else of interest..... The Bus Journey Time is about 13 minutes... But the most interesting fact is If I caught the next one it says on my google image... 10:56 am....at Jacob's Well Road..
Now doesn't that make more sense of why they knew he was at Constitution Hill at 6:54pm.. looks like he was on the bus to me ..... (IMO)...
Again... Defence Counsel: In our Timeline 113, when your car is seen at Clifton Down- after a
period of 20 minutes or so. How did you feel?
Tabak: In a state of despair; panic; unbelief at what had happened.
What time is timeline 113?? because his journey back from ASDA I believe is Timeline 108 to 111
]Defence Counsel: In our Timeline 108 to 111- a journey that would take you home. Is that
where you went? As the timeline suggests?
Tabak: Yes.
So Timeline 113 has to be when he goes to collect Tanja... and is seen on CCTV at 1:38am on Saturday 18th December 2010..
What is "Your Car".... Dr Vincent Tabak doesn't own a Car we know it is supposed to belong to Tanja....
I so wish i could see this CCTV....
Back to timeline 113... The Defence make it sound like he has drive and stopped for 20 mins at Clifton Down... But they are two seperate events...
Take after a period of 20 mins How did you feel .. That could be about anything.... It's not supported with what he is feeling about.. It could be about his favourite football team being knocked out of a cup final.. for all we know ... It's not clear....
But The Defence Have the two statements together .. giving the impression he got to Clifton Down and sat there for 20 minutes while feeling in despair... Which is not the case ....(IMO)...
So.... How many "Private " CCTV Camera's did the Police access and have to get evidence of Dr Vincent Tabak's movements??
Because these should have been shown in court... Never mind writing timelines... support them with physical evidence....
Are you still sure Dr Vincent Tabak rode a bike to work ????... Because I am not convinced 100%... (IMO)
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/joanna-yeates-killed-by-neighbour-who-sent-text-saying-bored-6451788.html
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Moving The Renault Megane over to this topic..... The picture on Park Street:/Queens Road
The date on the Image is ... 18th December 2010......
Now I am even questioning that!.... We are supposing it has to be at around 1:40am to 1:45am in the morning on an extremely cold might ... The night if we remember all the snow fell..... And when Dr Vincent Tabak goes to meet Tanja...
Well this image didn't come to us until after the trial...... And looking at the image the date could have been changed.... Why Not.. The Tesco video time and date stamp have been tampered with... we can tell...
So reasons for me to believe this is Not at around 1:40am on the 18th December 2010...
(A): Lack of Snow...
(B): Lots of people crossing the road.... (don't know if that's normal)
(C): Guy wearing white shorts and bear legs.....??? why would you???
This image could be at anytime of the year when it is dark quite honestly.... We don't know ...
But I think it's about time we questioned the only image of what is supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabak driving a Renault Megane on Park Street/Queens Road on the 18th December 2010...(IMO)
He takes a wrong turn... Doesn't mean he drove a wrong turn... could be walking ...
Question... If they cannot see Dr Vincent Tabak in his car on Park Street /Queens Road.. How can they see him making a phone call??? Is he on foot?? and it's has to be another CCTV Image ??
The CCTV has to be of him on foot...(IMO).. It describes him at the burger bar and not at the car.. by asking if he ate it there or in his car... Which to me implies that he is on foot.....
The Car and The Burger Bar are seperate.... Just like the Frozen Ground and Joanna Yeates being frozen.... (IMO)...
One other thing... Renault Meganes are not a young girls car (IMO).. It might have suited A Man like Dr Vincent Tabak... I can't envisage Tanja behind the wheel some how .... But that's just me ....
Ok... Say they owned a Car.... Was it a Renault Megane ????
To me it's a Practical sort of car... And if you just need something for nipping here and there seems and odd choice.... She car shares apparently to get to work.... So when does she use it????? And he apparently cycles everywhere .... So when does this Car get used ??
Ok... Maybe I was slightly incorrect...(An Understatement on my part!!) as The building which I believed to be the Cathederal.. where we see The Car on the CCTV image is actually Bristol University or part of Bristol University.... (why hasn't anyone said??)... So literally if the image is of the car outside that building then the road name on google is Queens Road.... Which as you drive down it becomes Park Street on turning slightly right....
Which in turn tells me the images the jury saw were of Dr Vincent tabak walking on park Street... (IMO)..
Was this image meant for CJ when they arrested him??? giving tenuous connections of a man in a silver car driving past a building that says Bristol `university on the 18th December 2010... when they suspected CJ of this crime??
CJ.. please accept my apologises... I'm seeing what the Police could make appear an image to be.... And not that the image is you... I am saying that the image was suggestive and they could apply it to you if they chose to...
I wish CJ was on here..... I would ask him if they showed him that image and said he was seen driving around with Joanna Yeates when they had him in custody... I'm sure CJ would have laughed in their faces ..... !!
Literally... It's a silver looking car.... and that is it!!!
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
Edit... I take full responsibility for Originally saying the image of the car is Park Street... Because of my earlier understanding of The Defence talking about him coming out of Park street... And the two roads become one and I failed to emphasise that...
Well that building is at the top of Park St next to the museum. I believe it belongs to the University, they have graduation day in there and the like.
If VT took a right turn into a dead end in Park St, well heaven knows where he ended up, but he was out in 2 mins. I took a left all those years ago and ended up in a dead end off of Park St.
-
Moving The Renault Megane over to this topic..... The picture on Park Street:/Queens Road
The date on the Image is ... 18th December 2010......
Now I am even questioning that!.... We are supposing it has to be at around 1:40am to 1:45am in the morning on an extremely cold might ... The night if we remember all the snow fell..... And when Dr Vincent Tabak goes to meet Tanja...
Well this image didn't come to us until after the trial...... And looking at the image the date could have been changed.... Why Not.. The Tesco video time and date stamp have been tampered with... we can tell...
So reasons for me to believe this is Not at around 1:40am on the 18th December 2010...
(A): Lack of Snow...
(B): Lots of people crossing the road.... (don't know if that's normal)
(C): Guy wearing white shorts and bear legs.....??? why would you???
This image could be at anytime of the year when it is dark quite honestly.... We don't know ...
But I think it's about time we questioned the only image of what is supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabak driving a Renault Megane on Park Street/Queens Road on the 18th December 2010...(IMO)
He takes a wrong turn... Doesn't mean he drove a wrong turn... could be walking ...
Question... If they cannot see Dr Vincent Tabak in his car on Park Street /Queens Road.. How can they see him making a phone call??? Is he on foot?? and it's has to be another CCTV Image ??
The CCTV has to be of him on foot...(IMO).. It describes him at the burger bar and not at the car.. by asking if he ate it there or in his car... Which to me implies that he is on foot.....
The Car and The Burger Bar are seperate.... Just like the Frozen Ground and Joanna Yeates being frozen.... (IMO)...
One other thing... Renault Meganes are not a young girls car (IMO).. It might have suited A Man like Dr Vincent Tabak... I can't envisage Tanja behind the wheel some how .... But that's just me ....
Ok... Say they owned a Car.... Was it a Renault Megane ????
To me it's a Practical sort of car... And if you just need something for nipping here and there seems and odd choice.... She car shares apparently to get to work.... So when does she use it????? And he apparently cycles everywhere .... So when does this Car get used ??
Ok... Maybe I was slightly incorrect...(An Understatement on my part!!) as The building which I believed to be the Cathederal.. where we see The Car on the CCTV image is actually Bristol University or part of Bristol University.... (why hasn't anyone said??)... So literally if the image is of the car outside that building then the road name on google is Queens Road.... Which as you drive down it becomes Park Street on turning slightly right....
Which in turn tells me the images the jury saw were of Dr Vincent tabak walking on park Street... (IMO)..
Was this image meant for CJ when they arrested him??? giving tenuous connections of a man in a silver car driving past a building that says Bristol `university on the 18th December 2010... when they suspected CJ of this crime??
CJ.. please accept my apologises... I'm seeing what the Police could make appear an image to be.... And not that the image is you... I am saying that the image was suggestive and they could apply it to you if they chose to...
I wish CJ was on here..... I would ask him if they showed him that image and said he was seen driving around with Joanna Yeates when they had him in custody... I'm sure CJ would have laughed in their faces ..... !!
Literally... It's a silver looking car.... and that is it!!!
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
Edit... I take full responsibility for Originally saying the image of the car is Park Street... Because of my earlier understanding of The Defence talking about him coming out of Park street... And the two roads become one and I failed to emphasise that...
(A) is the one thing that Bristol Council gets right, they grit and clear snow from MAIN roads inside town 24/24. So
-
I'm going to use these two quotes... to try establish how Dr Vincent Tabak travelled to work..
Defence Counsel: Turn to entry 11.
‘Entry 11- seen past the flat at 9.05 where Tanya had already left for work in a lift-share’
So this cannot be too far away from 44 Canygne Road
Defence Counsel: Let us look at your movements on Friday 17 December:
Time line 11- left for work
Timeline 12- Cycled to Bristol T Stn
Timeline 13- Train to bath
Timeline 16- Arrive Bath 9.41
He arrives at Bath at 9:41 am on Friday 17th December 2010...
To get to bath at that time he would need to catch the 9:30 am train from Bristol Mead...
Now its taken he 5 minutes to cycle a matter of yards... leaving him 25 minutes to cycle to Temple Mead station... Maybe put his train in a Bike Stand.... Get to the correct platform and catch the 9:30 am train...
It is physically possible taking some 15 minutes to cycle... But for some reason he seems slow cycling on this morning taking 5 minutes to get to either Mr Kingham's CCTV or the possible CCTV on the house at the corner of Canygne Road and Clifton Park..
So is he slow ... Or fast like when he cycles Constitution Hill ???
Where are the CCTV images on the train of Dr Vincent Tabak catching it at Temple mead Station ???
There's CCTV on trains... there's CCTV at Stations... Where is Dr Vincent Tabak at the station ???
Maybe he was carrying his infamous laptop... A brief case perhaps... He had only gotten back from America on the 14th December 2010 so Friday 17th December 2010 was possibly his first day back at work after his trip...
Wouldn't he need to bring to work anything he had done abroad ???
Did Dr Vincent Tabak have Panniers on his bike for carrying his work stuff??? Maybe he had a rucksack ???
How did Dr Vincent Tabak take anything to work???
Or did he just catch the Bus ????
-
(A) is the one thing that Bristol Council gets right, they grit and clear snow from MAIN roads inside town 24/24. So
So..... Why would Dr Vincent Tabak need to go all the way to ASDA in Bedminster to buy "Rock Salt" as has been suggested one of his purchases on Friday 17th December 2010 ...
When he simply could have walked several yards to the nearest Grit Box ... like the one located at Clifton Downs ??
And why therefore look for this ridiculous search:
At Line 225 (sic)
Tabak searched using the words
‘Joanna Yeates’
‘Salt supplies in the Netherlands’
Pointless... Useless rubbish.... (IMO)... Looks good to a Jury though !!!!
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
Moving The Renault Megane over to this topic..... The picture on Park Street:/Queens Road
The date on the Image is ... 18th December 2010......
Now I am even questioning that!.... We are supposing it has to be at around 1:40am to 1:45am in the morning on an extremely cold might ... The night if we remember all the snow fell..... And when Dr Vincent Tabak goes to meet Tanja...
Well this image didn't come to us until after the trial...... And looking at the image the date could have been changed.... Why Not.. The Tesco video time and date stamp have been tampered with... we can tell...
So reasons for me to believe this is Not at around 1:40am on the 18th December 2010...
(A): Lack of Snow...
(B): Lots of people crossing the road.... (don't know if that's normal)
(C): Guy wearing white shorts and bear legs.....??? why would you???
This image could be at anytime of the year when it is dark quite honestly.... We don't know ...
But I think it's about time we questioned the only image of what is supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabak driving a Renault Megane on Park Street/Queens Road on the 18th December 2010...(IMO)
He takes a wrong turn... Doesn't mean he drove a wrong turn... could be walking ...
Question... If they cannot see Dr Vincent Tabak in his car on Park Street /Queens Road.. How can they see him making a phone call??? Is he on foot?? and it's has to be another CCTV Image ??
The CCTV has to be of him on foot...(IMO).. It describes him at the burger bar and not at the car.. by asking if he ate it there or in his car... Which to me implies that he is on foot.....
The Car and The Burger Bar are seperate.... Just like the Frozen Ground and Joanna Yeates being frozen.... (IMO)...
One other thing... Renault Meganes are not a young girls car (IMO).. It might have suited A Man like Dr Vincent Tabak... I can't envisage Tanja behind the wheel some how .... But that's just me ....
Ok... Say they owned a Car.... Was it a Renault Megane ????
To me it's a Practical sort of car... And if you just need something for nipping here and there seems and odd choice.... She car shares apparently to get to work.... So when does she use it????? And he apparently cycles everywhere .... So when does this Car get used ??
Ok... Maybe I was slightly incorrect...(An Understatement on my part!!) as The building which I believed to be the Cathederal.. where we see The Car on the CCTV image is actually Bristol University or part of Bristol University.... (why hasn't anyone said??)... So literally if the image is of the car outside that building then the road name on google is Queens Road.... Which as you drive down it becomes Park Street on turning slightly right....
Which in turn tells me the images the jury saw were of Dr Vincent tabak walking on park Street... (IMO)..
Was this image meant for CJ when they arrested him??? giving tenuous connections of a man in a silver car driving past a building that says Bristol `university on the 18th December 2010... when they suspected CJ of this crime??
CJ.. please accept my apologises... I'm seeing what the Police could make appear an image to be.... And not that the image is you... I am saying that the image was suggestive and they could apply it to you if they chose to...
I wish CJ was on here..... I would ask him if they showed him that image and said he was seen driving around with Joanna Yeates when they had him in custody... I'm sure CJ would have laughed in their faces ..... !!
Literally... It's a silver looking car.... and that is it!!!
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
Edit... I take full responsibility for Originally saying the image of the car is Park Street... Because of my earlier understanding of The Defence talking about him coming out of Park street... And the two roads become one and I failed to emphasise that...
(A) Lack of Snow: it's the one thing that Bristol Council get right, they clear and grit the MAIN roads within Bristol 24hrs daily.
(B) Lots of people: Behave Nine!! There are four people at the most.
(C) Guy in shorts: Mad people in Bristol? I think it's either a short haired woman in a skirt or a man dressed up as a woman or something going to a party perhaps. The guy in front of him looks a bit `bright'.
-
Referring back to the car, it has probably been scrapped by now, and I would imagine Jo's car has too. Both would be pretty ancient by now!
-
I'm going to use these two quotes... to try establish how Dr Vincent Tabak travelled to work..
So this cannot be too far away from 44 Canygne Road
He arrives at Bath at 9:41 am on Friday 17th December 2010...
To get to bath at that time he would need to catch the 9:30 am train from Bristol Mead...
Now its taken he 5 minutes to cycle a matter of yards... leaving him 25 minutes to cycle to Temple Mead station... Maybe put his train in a Bike Stand.... Get to the correct platform and catch the 9:30 am train...
It is physically possible taking some 15 minutes to cycle... But for some reason he seems slow cycling on this morning taking 5 minutes to get to either Mr Kingham's CCTV or the possible CCTV on the house at the corner of Canygne Road and Clifton Park..
So is he slow ... Or fast like when he cycles Constitution Hill ???
Where are the CCTV images on the train of Dr Vincent Tabak catching it at Temple mead Station ???
There's CCTV on trains... there's CCTV at Stations... Where is Dr Vincent Tabak at the station ???
Maybe he was carrying his infamous laptop... A brief case perhaps... He had only gotten back from America on the 14th December 2010 so Friday 17th December 2010 was possibly his first day back at work after his trip...
Wouldn't he need to bring to work anything he had done abroad ???
Did Dr Vincent Tabak have Panniers on his bike for carrying his work stuff??? Maybe he had a rucksack ???
How did Dr Vincent Tabak take anything to work???
Or did he just catch the Bus ????
VT puts himself at the bottom? of Constitution Hill at 6.54 & not 6.45 as I must have read it.
If indeed he was as the bottom of Constitution Hill at nearly five to seven I'm sorry but IMO there is no way he got home "just after 7pm'. It's physically impossible !!
-
VT puts himself at the bottom? of Constitution Hill at 6.54 & not 6.45 as I must have read it.
If indeed he was as the bottom of Constitution Hill at nearly five to seven I'm sorry but IMO there is no way he got home "just after 7pm'. It's physically impossible !!
Timeline 45- Vincent Tabak’s journey home- 6.54 at Constitution Hill. Home just after
7pm by which time Tanja had already left. Text message to Tanja- ‘Just got home’.
From the trial.... It the Defences Timeline..... Who says Dr Vincent Tabak put himself at "Constitution Hill"????
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
VT puts himself at the bottom? of Constitution Hill at 6.54 & not 6.45 as I must have read it.
If indeed he was as the bottom of Constitution Hill at nearly five to seven I'm sorry but IMO there is no way he got home "just after 7pm'. It's physically impossible !!
So if it's physically impossible Nina... How did he get from Constitution Hill to Canygne Road for Just after 7:00pm on Friday 17th December 2010 ??
How did Dr Vincent Tabak Travel ????
-
From the trial.... It the Defences Timeline..... Who says Dr Vincent Tabak put himself at "Constitution Hill"????
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
Sally R paper : Timeline 45- Vincent Tabak’s journey home- 6.54 at Constitution Hill. Home just after 7pm.
-
So if it's physically impossible Nina... How did he get from Constitution Hill to Canygne Road for Just after 7:00pm on Friday 17th December 2010 ??
How did Dr Vincent Tabak Travel ????
I don't know !
-
Sally R paper : Timeline 45- Vincent Tabak’s journey home- 6.54 at Constitution Hill. Home just after 7pm.
Yes Nina I know that I have seen that ...What am I missing ????... Have I written the time wrong somewhere ???? If that is the case please point me to my post so I can correct it.....
-
If he did take the bus that day the bus certainly didn't come up Constitution Hill. Which in it's own way proves that VT was on his BIKE that day.
See what you've done to me Nine, I'm now even using capitals !!
-
Yes Nina I know that I have seen that ...What am I missing ????... Have I written the time wrong somewhere ???? If that is the case please point me to my post so I can correct it.....
Dunno know if you've written times wrong. I just know that I read it wrongly and when reading Sally R I realised it was 6.54 which does make a huge difference in the time of getting home from C/Hill, Regent St, Christchurch turn left Canynge Rd.
-
If he did take the bus that day the bus certainly didn't come up Constitution Hill. Which in it's own way proves that VT was on his BIKE that day.
See what you've done to me Nine, I'm now even using capitals !!
I tend to agree with you on this particular point---I, too, think Vincent was on his bike. I think the timings we have are probably not accurate.
-
What constitutes a leak? Joanna had been missing since the 17th, was found on the 25th so by the 31st surely this was just news not a leak. Where she went and ate is not very important in the grand scheme of things is it?
Colin Port was explaining at "The Leveson Inquiry" how information must have leaked from somewhere for the Newspapers to know about "The Missing Sock"... That is apparently why they went with "The Missing Sock Police Conference ".....
-
I tend to agree with you on this particular point---I, too, think Vincent was on his bike. I think the timings we have are probably not accurate.
mrswah... Dr Vincent Tabak could well have rode a bike..... where is the CCTV footage of this ?
-
I think that you're dead right Mrswah, the timings seem to be out by at least (IMO) 10 mins. Having said that I suppose that `just after 7pm' could mean about 7.10pm?
-
I tend to agree with you on this particular point---I, too, think Vincent was on his bike. I think the timings we have are probably not accurate.
Well that represents a huge Problem then doesn't it mrswah....
I am pointlessly trying to work timings out with no accurate information..... So all the timings I have used from The Sally Ramage papers are not accurate ????
And of course Newspapers get things wrong as well....
Shame I don't have the transcript in my hands....
I don't really know what to say now or do.....
-
mrswah... Dr Vincent Tabak could well have rode a bike..... where is the CCTV footage of this ?
You know very well there is no CCTV for this, just VT's account of the events.
-
Well that represents a huge Problem then doesn't it mrswah....
I am pointlessly trying to work timings out with no accurate information..... So all the timings I have used from The Sally Ramage papers are not accurate ????
And of course Newspapers get things wrong as well....
Shame I don't have the transcript in my hands....
I don't really know what to say now or do.....
You not speaking to me Nine?
-
You not speaking to me Nine?
What do you mean Nina ??? When did I say I was not speaking to you???
-
You know very well there is no CCTV for this, just VT's account of the events.
Is is written down by Dr Vincent Tabak... that he was at "Constitution Hill".... or is it something different??
As I say... "The Defences version of Events... ???
-
I'm getting lost again. We both appear to be reading from the same page, Sally R's paper "The Defences version of Events". So we both have read that VT was at Constitution Hill at 6.54pm and not 6.45pm as I had originally read it as. I don't think that anything is different.
-
What do you mean Nina ??? When did I say I was not speaking to you???
Just I've done loads of posts aimed at you with information and your questions answered and you have replied not once. S'okay though I can take rejection !!
-
I think that you're dead right Mrswah, the timings seem to be out by at least (IMO) 10 mins. Having said that I suppose that `just after 7pm' could mean about 7.10pm?
OK..... "We all seem to know something".. that I don't !!..as you must have the information In front of you to see that "Constitution Hill.. Timeline is written Incorrectly"...
Go on let me in on the joke..... My heads been mashed enough over this last 8 months .... !!
-
Just I've done loads of posts aimed at you with information and your questions answered and you have replied not once. S'okay though I can take rejection !!
Nina I have replied to your posts... Not all true....
-
Just I've done loads of posts aimed at you with information and your questions answered and you have replied not once. S'okay though I can take rejection !!
Question Nina.... why are you directing your posts at me ?????????
-
Question Nina.... why are you directing your posts at me ?????????
'Cause you're the one asking questions.
-
I'm getting lost again. We both appear to be reading from the same page, Sally R's paper "The Defences version of Events". So we both have read that VT was at Constitution Hill at 6.54pm and not 6.45pm as I had originally read it as. I don't think that anything is different.
The thing is Nina... I can see how someone can actually put the number 5 before the number 4 when typing... and Yes... maybe it should read 6:45pm...
But my problem is ..either you know Sally Ramage or are Sally Ramage or know why this is incorrectly written... or you have some other information to hand which you would like to share so I can correct any errors I may have made ...... thank you
Because .. unless someone confirms to me what is written wrong in the document of Sally Ramages... I am at a loss at what to do.... And helping the Placid Dutchman will become even more difficult... (IMO)...
-
'Cause you're the one asking questions.
Poetic... ?{)(**
-
The thing is Nina... I can see how someone can actually put the number 5 before the number 4 when typing... and Yes... maybe it should read 6:45pm...
But my problem is ..either you know Sally Ramage or are Sally Ramage or know why this is incorrectly written... or you have some other information to hand which you would like to share so I can correct any errors I may have made ...... thank you
Because .. unless someone confirms to me what is written wrong in the document of Sally Ramages... I am at a loss at what to do.... And helping the Placid Dutchman will become even more difficult... (IMO)...
I would really like it if Sally Ramage came on the forum... Maybe I could get to see some more of that transcript!
-
OK..... "We all seem to know something".. that I don't !!..as you must have the information In front of you to see that "Constitution Hill.. Timeline is written Incorrectly"...
Go on let me in on the joke..... My heads been mashed enough over this last 8 months .... !!
Nine I don't know anything that you don't know. All I have that you don't have is a knowledge of the area.
All I was saying was that initially I misread Sally R's paper and put VT at C/Hill at 6.45pm and it was 6.54pm. Now this as I have said makes a huge difference to the getting home time. I asked whether 7.10pm could count as `just after 7pm'?
No jokes I'm afraid.
-
You want those undisclosed 300 pages don't you? lol
-
You want those undisclosed 300 pages don't you? lol
*&*%£
Now we Know it was supposed to be 1300 pages of Documents .... Is that an error too.... Yes I would love those Documents ..
The timelines should reveal plenty....
-
mrswah... Dr Vincent Tabak could well have rode a bike..... where is the CCTV footage of this ?
There either isn't any, or it hasn't been made public.
-
The thing is Nina... I can see how someone can actually put the number 5 before the number 4 when typing... and Yes... maybe it should read 6:45pm...
But my problem is ..either you know Sally Ramage or are Sally Ramage or know why this is incorrectly written... or you have some other information to hand which you would like to share so I can correct any errors I may have made ...... thank you
Because .. unless someone confirms to me what is written wrong in the document of Sally Ramages... I am at a loss at what to do.... And helping the Placid Dutchman will become even more difficult... (IMO)...
Sorry never met the woman and am certainly not her. I am just going by the fact that I know some of the characters involved on the peripheral and I live in the area.
Why are you trying to alter the time in those papers? It definitely says VT says he was there 6.54pm, what's wrong about that?
I'm obviously missing something.
-
Nine I don't know anything that you don't know. All I have that you don't have is a knowledge of the area.
All I was saying was that initially I misread Sally R's paper and put VT at C/Hill at 6.45pm and it was 6.54pm. Now this as I have said makes a huge difference to the getting home time. I asked whether 7.10pm could count as `just after 7pm'?
No jokes I'm afraid.
author=mrswah link=topic=8060.msg417413#msg417413 date=1500294178]
I tend to agree with you on this particular point---I, too, think Vincent was on his bike. I think the timings we have are probably not accurate.
Now I have 2 of you whom believe this is incorrect... and probably not accurate... But how we know this piece of information is beyond me .....
Well I could speculate !
-
Sorry never met the woman and am certainly not her. I am just going by the fact that I know some of the characters involved on the peripheral and I live in the area.
Why are you trying to alter the time in those papers? It definitely says VT says he was there 6.54pm, what's wrong about that?
I'm obviously missing something.
I'm not altering any time.... Oh Man... I give up....
So come on Nina.... who else do you know in the area ???
-
Now I have 2 of you whom believe this is incorrect... and probably not accurate... But how we know this piece of information is beyond me .....
Well I could speculate !
What's incorrect? I need a strong cuppa tea, will be back later when I have my sanity back and hopefully Nine has worked things out.
-
What's incorrect? I need a strong cuppa tea, will be back later when I have my sanity back and hopefully Nine has worked things out.
I have been trying to work out whats going on for a long time.... Unless someone gives me the thumbs up I don't know if I am correct...
So... Back to Your TV Program like the Investigator Nina ....
-
I have been trying to work out whats going on for a long time.... Unless someone gives me the thumbs up I don't know if I am correct...
So... Back to Your TV Program like the Investigator Nina ....
Safest way to verify that Nina is to get MWT to tweet me a message ... He had me as a contact...
-
What's incorrect? I need a strong cuppa tea, will be back later when I have my sanity back and hopefully Nine has worked things out.
-
(A): We are (excluding me ).. all the same person
(B): We are Sally Ramage (Excluding me)
(C): We are An Investigator Tv Program (excluding me )
(D): We are MTW (excluding me )
(E): We are Solicitor looking into the Case ..(Excluding me )
(F): We are The Innocence Project in Bristol (Excludingme )
(G): We are related to Dr Vincent Tabak.... (Excluding me )..
(H): We are Dr Vincent Tabak.... (excluding me )
(I): We are the Morson family (excluding me )
(J); We are the Yeates Family (excluding me )..
(K):We are the Tabak Family (excluding me )..
(L):We are reviewing the case (excluding me )
(M): We are from The Complex Crime Unit (Excluding me )...
I could keep going ... I need more information to go on ....
Edit........
(Z): We are pulling my donkeys dangler..... again.... (excluding me )....
Double Edit.... Oh yes whilst I play this guessing game I then get banned for trying to reveal someones Identity.... Slap on the back all round...
If you don't tell me I can''t guess.... Simple Maths really !
Wish I picked up that NVQ on Guessing what is going on.... Next to The NVQ on Manslaughter Law and all the other NVQ's I passed by .... On the left hand side ....
Honest to god Nine I don't know what you're on about.
-
Nine if you could ask someone who worked in Tesco a question what would that question be?
Not a long question.
I have a friend who has worked there since it opened.
-
Honest to god Nine I don't know what you're on about.
(Z): It is then.....
-
Safest way to verify that Nina is to get MWT to tweet me a message ... He had me as a contact...
I don't do twitter I'm not a bird.
-
(Z): It is then.....
Again either you or me are on a different planet, don't know what you're on about.
-
Nine if you could ask someone who worked in Tesco a question what would that question be?
Not a long question.
I have a friend who has worked there since it opened.
What day did Joanna Yeates buy the Pizza and what time... oh know that 2 questions...
To be honest Nina... I think your taking the Mick.. But hey Ho .... what do I know !!! (Zero)!!!
Time for me to turn of my Mac i think ....
-
What day did Joanna Yeates buy the Pizza and what time... oh know that 2 questions...
To be honest Nina... I think your taking the Mick.. But hey Ho .... what do I know !!! (Zero)!!!
Time for me to turn of my Mac i think ....
Seriously you think I'm taking the Mick, why? What's made you think that?
-
What is going on here???
I started this thread on the forum because I suspected (no, I didn't know, and still don't) that Vincent Tabak's conviction was dodgy.
I don't really have much more to say on the subject, to be honest----but I would love the thread to be preserved on here, so that people can read it.
I don't understand why posters are arguing with each other, and I don't believe any of us are anyone other than who we say we are.
If the moderators read all this, they will take the whole thread down, and I wouldn't blame them, to be honest. . This is all getting very silly, and it was not what I intended when I started the thread nearly a year ago.
We have had a lot of useful, constructive discussion, so why spoil it?
As they say on "Dragon's Den", if we cannot have a reasonable discussion with all kinds of people with all kinds of views, i'm out.
-
Quite honestly Mrswah I don't know. I wasn't arguing, but Nine seemed I don't know to get the wrong idea. Seems to think that I am Sally R et al.
Posting to you, I was trying to work out if 7.10pm could be counted as `just after 7pm' and all hell broke loose
-
Actually I shall retire from this Joanna Yeates murder thread.
When I am accused of being other people its just not worth it.
I shall read though.
Bye
-
I came hear for one reason only... !
-
What is going on here???
I started this thread on the forum because I suspected (no, I didn't know, and still don't) that Vincent Tabak's conviction was dodgy.
I don't really have much more to say on the subject, to be honest----but I would love the thread to be preserved on here, so that people can read it.
I don't understand why posters are arguing with each other, and I don't believe any of us are anyone other than who we say we are.
If the moderators read all this, they will take the whole thread down, and I wouldn't blame them, to be honest. . This is all getting very silly, and it was not what I intended when I started the thread nearly a year ago.
We have had a lot of useful, constructive discussion, so why spoil it?
As they say on "Dragon's Den", if we cannot have a reasonable discussion with all kinds of people with all kinds of views, i'm out.
?
-
I'm just going to start with this twitter quote:
Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
DC Richard Barnston now called to give evidence #TabakTrial
2:48 PM - 18 Oct 2011Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
DC Barnston carried out tape recorded interview with #Tabak following his arrest. Transcripts run to 200 pages.
And this ......
Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
DC Paul Derrick in the witness box. He denies there was tension between him and the duty solicitor acting for Tabak.
Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
DC Derrick asked if he thought Tabak's first lawyer was "out of her depth" . He replied "No"
3:26 PM - 18 Oct 2011
Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
No more evidence today in #TabakTrial. Prosecution case expected to be completed in the morning. Trial resumes at 1030.
Ok... I'll need these people for a future post... just establishing their part in trial... Interesting that there were 200 pages of "Transcript" that DC Richard Barnston says statements /interview runs too...
Now where the Jury given access to these 200 pages of Transcript?? Did DC Barnston bring these 200 pages of Transcript to court ????
DC Richard Barston called to give evidence at 2:48pm 18th October 2011 (Rough Time he is in court)
Court retires for the day at 3:26pm 18th October 2011 according to the tweet.. We also in this time have DC Paul Derrick give his evidence ....
We have not even 1 hour of testimony from DC Richard Barnston... who apparently has over 200 pages of transcript... What happened there ????
http://live-news.sky.com/Event/Live_Updates_Vincent_Tabak_Trial3?Page=2
-
Part 1.... Three different types of witness .....
I have been trying to establish what witness's actually appeared in court, and what witness's just had their statements read out: So starting with a list of people who appeared in court and gave evidence themselves...
Witness's who appeared in court
(1): * Darragh Bewell (Friend of Joanna Yeates)
(2): * Andrew Mott (Forensic Officer )
(3): * Lyndsey Lennen (Forensic Specialist)
(4): * DC Mark Luther (Officer In charge of Case )
(5): * Tanja Nickson (Wall Analyist)
(6): * Lindsey Farmery ( IT Power Point Expert)
(7): * Dr Delaney (Pathologist)
(8): * Dr Carey (Pathologist)
(9): * Greg Reardon (Joanna Yeates boyfriend)
(10) * DC Karen Thomas ( Holland Interview)
(11) * Father Henwood (Dog walker who met Joanna Yeates )
(12) * Brotheron (Asummed role of Chaplain)
(13) * DC Geofrey Colvin (Arrested Dr Vincent Tabak)
(14) * Rebecca Scott (Joanna Yeates friend )
(15) * Harry Walker ( neighbour who heard screams )
(16) * Florian Lehman (Neighbour who heard Screams )
(17) * Zoe Lehman (neighbour who heard screams )
(18) * Dr Jennifer Miller ( Examined Joanna Yeates stomach contents )
(19) * DC Richard Barnston ( 200 page transcript?? Interviewed Dr Vincent Tabak)
(20) * DC Paul Derrick ( asked about Dr Vincent Tabak's first lawyer ).
-
Part 2... 2nd Type of Witness....
There is another type of physical witness.... and they are those who appeared but just read out their statements
(21) * Karl Harrison (Forensic Archeologist)
(22) * Maria Brown (Held the Party on Canygne Road)
(23) * Peter Brown (Held Party on Canygne Road)
-
Part 3..... 3rd Type of Witness
The list below are witness's who had their statements read to the jury and didn't appear in Court
(24) * Nurse Ruth Booth Pearson (examined Dr Vincent Tabak when he was arrested )
(25) * Daniel Birch ( Dog walker who found Joanna Yeates)
(26) * Samuel Huscroft (Friend Joanna Yeates ) (text received from Joanna Yeates )
(27) * Mathew Wood (Chris Yeates Friend... Joanna Yeates (text Received from Joanna Yeates )
(28) * Sarah Maddox (At Dinner Party Dr Vincent Tabak attended )
(29) * PC Steve Archer ( Was there when Dr Vincent Tabak was arrested )
(30: * Mathew Phillips (Heard a shreik... was at party on Canygne Road )
(31) * Louise Althrope (Attended Party with Dr Vincent Tabak)
(32) * Geofrey Hardyman (Tenant of 44 Canygne Road )
(33) * Elizabeth Chandler ( Office Manager at BDP)
(34) * Shrikart Sharma ( Dr Vincent Tabak's Boss )
(35) * Glen O'Hare ( Hosted Part Dr Vincent Tabak attended ).
(36) * Anneleise Jackson, (PC... Greg's Phone Call statement )
(37) * Peter Lindsell ( Friends of Joanna Yeates .. at Bristol Mead Station ( Text received from Joanna Yeates )
(38) * Andrew Lillie (Attended a Dinner Party with Dr Vincent Tabak )
(39) * Linda Marland (Attended Party Dr Vincent Tabak attended ) (party was in a bar in Bristol)
Don't think I have missed anybody... But these 'Part Posts" will help with 'Part 4'.....
Edit...
(40): Micheal Breen... Not sure where to put him
(41): PC Martin Faithful
-
Part 4 ..... What did the "Read Out in Court Witness Statements".. say
These witness statements were many.... many statements making many claims.... On either Joanna Yeates or Dr Vincent Tabak... The helped form the basis of The Prosecution Case.... Without these statements "The Jury" would not know quite a lot of information....
Take Daniel Birch for instance... He and his wife Rebecca.. apparently found Joanna Yeates Body... I'll say apparently for 2 reasons... I believe Dr Delaney has already explained it was the Officers who put Joanna Yeates on the Verge (Roadside)... And Daniel Birch wasn't in court to verify his claim ...... And this is where I am taking you...
Definition of Statement
A 'statement' is defined as "any representation of fact or opinion made by a person by whatever means"; and it includes a representation made in a sketch, photo fit or other pictorial form.
Matter stated: implied insertions
A 'matter stated' is one where the purpose or one of the purposes of the person making the statement appears to have been to cause another person to believe the matter or to cause another person to act or a machine to operate on the basis that the matter is as stated (section 115).
Definition of Hearsay
Hearsay" in criminal proceedings is "a statement not made in oral evidence in the proceedings that is evidence of any matter stated" (section 114 (1) Criminal Justice Act 2003).
Matter stated: implied insertions
The effect of this definition of statement is to enable evidence to be admitted of 'implied assertions'. This reverses the decision made in R v Kearley (1992) 2 AC 228 in which police answered telephone calls and personal calls to the defendant's home from people asking about drugs that the defendant had for sale. The prosecution wished to adduce the evidence to prove that the intended recipient of the calls was a dealer in drugs, without evidence from the callers themselves. The House of Lords decided that, as evidence of the fact that the defendant dealt in drugs, the caller's words were hearsay and thus inadmissible.
I'm trying to understand how all those people in "Part 3... of my post on this matter.... evidence was allowed in court.... because realistically I believe it could be hearsay.... And some of the statements had other people brought into these statements.. (eg: Daniel Birch mentions his wife)..
So are the read out statements classed as "Matter Stated" Or are they classed as Hearsay ???
Admissibility of hearsay evidence
(1)In criminal proceedings a statement not made in oral evidence in the proceedings is admissible as evidence of any matter stated if, but only if—
(a)any provision of this Chapter or any other statutory provision makes it admissible,
(b)any rule of law preserved by section 118 makes it admissible,
(c)all parties to the proceedings agree to it being admissible, or
(d)the court is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice for it to be admissible.
(2)In deciding whether a statement not made in oral evidence should be admitted under subsection (1)(d), the court must have regard to the following factors (and to any others it considers relevant)—
(a)how much probative value the statement has (assuming it to be true) in relation to a matter in issue in the proceedings, or how valuable it is for the understanding of other evidence in the case;
(b) what other evidence has been, or can be, given on the matter or evidence mentioned in paragraph (a);
(c) how important the matter or evidence mentioned in paragraph (a) is in the context of the case as a whole;
(d) the circumstances in which the statement was made;
(e) how reliable the maker of the statement appears to be;
(f) how reliable the evidence of the making of the statement appears to be;
(g) whether oral evidence of the matter stated can be given and, if not, why it cannot;
(h) the amount of difficulty involved in challenging the statement;
(i) the extent to which that difficulty would be likely to prejudice the party facing it.
(3) Nothing in this Chapter affects the exclusion of evidence of a statement on grounds other than the fact that it is a statement not made in oral evidence in the proceedings.
So are all the statement in Part 3.. classed as hearsay... not having anything to establish
(A): Their Truth
(B): Their Validaty
(C): Their Accuracy
(D): The extent to which that difficulty would be likely to prejudice the party facing it.
Realistically I do not believe that The Witness's who's statements where read out in court should have been admissible (IMO)... as they prejudiced the Jury as to Dr Vincent Tabak's .. Mental State... Conversation's he may or may no have had .... Conversations people say they had with Joanna Yeates that cannot be verified ... Parties attended as to screams heard ... Injuries Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have had on arrest... Irrelevant..(IMO)..
How can so many witness's give statements that basically are hearsay as far as I can tell....
With so many statements telling us how Joanna Yeates mood was in The Ram Pub differing... How can that be accepted as true and accurate in these written statements ??
PC Martin Faithful (I believe he didn't appear) is described as a Forensic's Officer... his statement make claims To Joanna Yeates thawing... Yet PC Martin Faithful is a Beat Bobby.... How can what he say be accepted??
People who attended parties with Dr Vincent Tabak making assertions as to his mood and what he was supposed to have said ... Hearsay... They are NOT in COURT to makes such statement that could be challenged ...
You have 16 written statements read out in court without these peoples attendance... And 3 statements read out without challenge..
So 19 statements that make all kinds of claims that are unsubstantiated by anyone ..... Martin Faithful supports that Joanna Yeates jeans pocket was visible.... as Daniel Birch had claimed.... Both are statements that are read out How is that evidence ???
You basically have the evidence of a Beat bobby who is not there as far as I am aware backing the statement of a witness that wasn't at court also!!! That can't be right !!!!
Is it normal to have So many witness statements read out at a "Murder Trial" ??????
As far as I am concerned... their statement mean nothing... How trustworthy are these people ?? we know nothing about these people whatsoever.... Yet they all star in The Trial Of The Year..... And everything they have seen or heard has been accepted as Gospel... without anything to prove what they have stated as being True
Is this what our justice system has come to... Filling the court time with unsupported witness statements, to imply whatever they like, just by simply making such a statement and the prosecution using these statements to convict somebody..
So if we get rid of 19 pointless witness's ..... who have not really added to anything proving that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates... We can then look at what the Live witness's actually gave to this trial (IMO)....
Edit... I nearly forgot... Geoffrey Hardyman... The Defences only apparent witness for Dr Vincent Tabak ..(excluding Dr Carey)..... Who says absolutley NOTHING.... Apart from not being able to hear anything and Joanna Yeates had a Cat .... Well that written witness statement really put paid to the Prosecutions case... NOT!!!!
Pointless.... Pointless statement not saying anything..... (IMO)....
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44/section/114
-
Part 5..... The live witnesses...who witnessed nothing...
Looking at the live witnesses and what they added to this trial...
Darragh Bewell...
Well he says he's with Joanna Yeates... there's CCTV of them in the Pub... But what has he witnessed ?????? Nothing)... (IMO)... He hasn't witnessed anything to do with her disappearance or anything in relation to Dr Vincent Tabak....
Greg Reardon
Again... what did he witness.... A Cat that needed feeding ??? He witnessed Nothing.... He didn't speak to Joanna Yeates from when he left for Sheffield... he cannot add to anything as far as Dr Vincent Tabak is concerned because he didn't know him and wasn't there on Friday 17th December 2010..
Harry Walker
He witness nothing also.... He witnessed a party and heard screams that could have been anyones ...
Florian Leham
He also witnessed Nothing... He witnessed a party and screams were heard ... He didn't see anything..
Zoe Lehman
Again witnessed a party and heard screams.... she witnessed "Nothing"...
Father Henwood
He witnessed a woman on the Friday 17th December 2010... it could have been Joanna Yeates it may not have been .... So what did he actually witness ???? Nothing !! (IMO)..
Rebecca Scott Had a telephone conversation with Joanna Yeates .... What did she witness... Nothing....
So out of the 20 live witnesses at court 7 of those witness's... Witnessed "Nothing" that would add in the conviction of Dr Vincent Tabak... Having not either arrested him... Collected and tested Forensics.... Been at the Second Scene of Crime .... Seen the Murder .... Or Interviewed him....
None of the above witnesses witnessed anything in relation to Joanna Yeates disappearance... as they weren't even there ... Not of them saw her or Dr Vincent Tabak over that weekend...
So we have 13 witness's left.....
I may sound like I am being harsh... But witness's should witness events that happen.. eg:..
(A): An arguement that lead to an assault
(B): Seeing someone stab someone else
(C):Being an accomplice
(D): Being at the scene of crime as the offence is committed
(E): Someone who videoed the incident
These examples are witness's... they witnessed an event....
So the above witness's I have listed didn't witness anything at all in this crime.... They were simply used to establish that Joanna Yeates was alive on Friday 17th December 2010...
Which makes me question why Dr Vincent Tabak was charged between Thursday 16th December 2010 and Sunday 19th December 2010....
I will say again... these people witnessed "Nothing"...(IMO)..
Which leaves us with 13 witness's !! (NEXT).....
Edit:... I started with 39 witness's I have 13 left....
-
Greg Reardon
Again... what did he witness.... A Cat that needed feeding ??? He witnessed Nothing.... He didn't speak to Joanna Yeates from when he left for Sheffield... he cannot add to anything as far as Dr Vincent Tabak is concerned because he didn't know him and wasn't there on Friday 17th December 2010..
While the tendency of your posts is 100 percent correct, you are quite mistaken in dismissing Greg's testimony. It was crucial in securing the guilty verdict. The boyfriend testified to "strange movements in the flat", which he tidied up before Joanna's parents arrived. He described these in detail, and the jury, as you and I would have done, took them to signify that a struggle had occurred. When Vincent Tabak declared "there was no struggle", the jury, understandably, did not believe him.
So I think you are unfair on Greg. I think he was a good witness, and I prefer to believe that there WAS a struggle - though he could also have invented these strange movements, without fear of being proved a liar. It is just that Vincent Tabak, as we on this forum can now see with some confidence, was not party to that struggle at all. It may have been the real killer who struggled with Joanna in the flat - or Greg himself - or all three of them.
-
Part 6...... Witness's with Evidence ....
Andrew Mott
A Forensics Officer who didn't say where Joanna Yeates was ...... A Forensic Officer who witnessed a body thawing and tried to stop this body thawing... A Forensics Officer who by his statement of said thawing body.... backs up another witness statement of a PC Martin Faithful, who didn't appear in court either, I believe ... PC Martin Faithful in turn backed up the statement of The Birches, who didn't appear in court who found Joanna Yeates ....
Andrew Mott doesn't ever explain The Fire Services help in the recovery of Joanna Yeates and is evasive in his reply as to why there are NO Photographs of Joanna Yeates been recovered using straps and Broom Handles...
Peter Brotherton
A man who assumes the role of Chaplain... A man whom I believe to be a Prison Officer .. A man that could not substanciate any claims he made about the defendant Dr Vincent Tabak.... A man who first suggest that Dr Vincent Tabak confessed to him that he had killed Joanna Yeates ... A man that had absolutley NO PROOF that this conversation took place...
DCI Mark Luther
The DCI in charge of this case whom I had never heard of and had been made to think that it was DCI Phil Jones who was in Charge of the Joanna Yeates Murder Investigation.... DCI Phil Jones Never appears in court !!!
DS Karen Thomas
The very same Karen Thomas who interviewed Dr Vincent Tabak in Holland... knowing that the Complex Crime Unit where putting a case against Dr Vincent Tabak and therefore should have cautioned him as a suspect... Her statement only adds to what they did to Dr Vincent Tabak in Holland and nothing more ....
Tanya Nickson
Who found blood evidence apparently on the wall above the verge... We do not know if this blood on the wall was deposited as they brought her from behind the wall as I believe she was already placed.. Dr Delaneys testimony suggests that she was brought from one place by Officers and then placed by the roadside (VERGE).. The very same Tanja Nickson who had no business showing the Jury photographs of The Dead Joanna Yeates whilst Joanna Yeates parents were in court... They had avoided court earlier in the week because they knew these images were going to be shown... This was a stunt on Tanya Nicksons Part.... to gain a reaction from the jury...(IMO)
Lyndsey Lennen
The Forensics Analyst who always knew that the DNA evidence was partial...1000/1 yet she allowed the jury to think that there could be NO OTHER CONTRIBUTER other than Dr Vincent Tabak...
Lyndsey Farmery
Officially The IT Expert.... But a Power Point Pointer.... Showing the jury "Pointless slides of presumed searches that Dr Vincent Tabak was alledge to have made on various home and work computers... Evidence that should not have been allowed in court ...(IMO)...
DCI Geoffrey Colvin
Arresting Officer... Only witnessed Dr Vincent Tabak' shock at being arrested ...
DC Richard Barnston
And his 200 page transcript of Interviews with Dr Vincent Tabak that didn't say anything.... Notice no videoed Interviews of Dr Vincent Tabak were shown to the Jury... when in most murder trials they are ...
DC Paul Derrick
Who's soul purpose was to make reference to Dr Vincent Tabaks first lawyer who was female ... adding Nothing to this case ....
Leaving me with 3 witness's .. I appear to have lost one... Think is PC Steve Archer... add no value... was there when Dr Vincent Tabak was arrested.
Dr Delaney An accredited pathologist whom preformed Joanna Yeates Autopsy... whom has allowed us to learn from his testimony... that Joanna Yeates clothes were different than what she wore in the Ram.. And explained how 2 Officer... who more than likely were Fire Officers... Manovered Joanna Yeates and placed her on the 'Roadside ...
Dr Carey Another accredited Professional who carried out the second post mortem... And was the Defences medical expert...
Dr Jennifer Miller Another accredited medical professional who analysed Joanna Yeates stomach contents... These contents were sent to Scotland to be analysed by her ... (Odd) (IMO)....
"So out of 39 witness's you have 3 whom can make constructive factual evidence as to what happened to Joanna Yeates ..
So what were the other witness's ????? Flim Flam ??? they did nothing they did nothing to prove that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates ...
There evidence only added to the "Written Statement" Dr Vincent Tabak signed in September 2011...
No-one other than Dr Vincent Tabak supports "HIM" actually killing Joanna Yeates ... It is 'The Manslaughter Plea at the Old Bailey".. That seals his fate...
A manslaughter Plea that was never entered into as being "voluntary" or Involuntary" Manslaughter... Intent that was never established as to it being "Direct Intent" or "Oblique Intent"..
A whole Case built on Nothing...(IMO)... Nothing Physical putting Dr Vincent Tabak in Joanna Yeates Flat... Nothing Physical putting Joanna Yeates In Dr Vincent Tabak's flat....
No CCTV Footage of Dr Vincent Tabak driving around with Joanna Yeates supposidly in the boot of his car... No Physical Witness who saw Dr Vincent Tabak commit this Crime...
And no exact time of death established by the Medical professional.... As Joanna Yeates death ranges between Dates
So we have what.... A Media Circus ???? Because I cannot see how these witness's proved that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates.... As there was NO Evidence to support this ...(IMO)...
EDIT:... We actually have 4 Medical professional.... One just slipped under the radar... Have posted about it further down....
-
While the tendency of your posts is 100 percent correct, you are quite mistaken in dismissing Greg's testimony. It was crucial in securing the guilty verdict. The boyfriend testified to "strange movements in the flat", which he tidied up before Joanna's parents arrived. He described these in detail, and the jury, as you and I would have done, took them to signify that a struggle had occurred. When Vincent Tabak declared "there was no struggle", the jury, understandably, did not believe him.
So I think you are unfair on Greg. I think he was a good witness, and I prefer to believe that there WAS a struggle - though he could also have invented these strange movements, without fear of being proved a liar. It is just that Vincent Tabak, as we on this forum can now see with some confidence, was not party to that struggle at all. It may have been the real killer who struggled with Joanna in the flat - or Greg himself - or all three of them.
leonora... All I am establishing is that (IMO)... These people should not have given evidence ...as they witnessed nothing (IMO)..
Gregs statement establishes what Greg did and Nothing else ....
All of the witness statements were crucial in returning a guilty verdict... Greg's just held more weight...
I was pointing out that virtually all the witness statements where there for the reason you say Gregs statement was therefore.... To Secure a Conviction against Dr Vincent Tabak... They proved nothing..... (IMO)...
Edit:.... Greg's statement doesn't prove if a fight happened in the Flat.. If he saw blood when he got home....
Nothing in Greg's statement tells us if something happened to Joanna Yeates in Flat 1... Because he tidied up and the flat was already contaminated with the people who had been in and out of it.. When they said that Joanna Yeates was Missing.... Adding to the fact he saw nothing.... So literally he is a useless witness.... (IMO)...
-
I have found my last witness... and it wasn't PC Steve Archer who was one of the 20 witness's who had statements read...
* Anneleise Jackson, (PC... Greg's Phone Call statement )
She informed the court as to the fact that Greg Reardon had rung at about 1:00am on Monday the 20th December 2010 to report Joanna Yeates as a Missing Person.....
-
Just to add.... their could be 20 read out statements:.... I amended my post because i had named someone twice... But on reflection I may have to go back and change it back to 20.. Statements that were read out...
The other person that was in this collection of invisible witness.... Was a Person by the name of Dr White... All I know about Dr White was that he/she was in attendance at an autopsy... So on saying that a statement must have been read out at court, to include Dr White as a witness....
OMG... I have read it wrong.... Dr White did an Autopsy... So where was Dr White in court???
Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Dr Delaney did further examination on 31 Dec and observed another on Jan 17 by Dr White #Vincenttabak #Joannayeates
Dr Delaney watches Dr White Do an autopsy on the 17th January 2011....
So before anyone has been charged... They perform an Autopsy on Joanna Yeates for what I believe must be an Autopsy for "The Defence"..
Aren't they jumping the gun a little..... This is horrendous.... 3 days before they arrest Dr Vincent Tabak they have another Dr Performing an Autopsy on Joanna Yeates which can only be described as an Autopsy for a defendant...(IMO)....
This is extremely important.... Where was this Dr White In Court ??? Why wasn't Dr White in court, is more to the point....
They managed to slip that one in nearly unnoticed.... "Lord have mercy"!...
The 20 statements that are read out in court... are bad enough...
But one particular persons statement amongst all of the statements should have attended court.. (IMO)
And that is Dr White !!!!!
http://live-news.sky.com/Event/Live_Updates_Vincent_Tabak_Trial2
These live update pages take a while to load .....
-
Now after my excitement... I have thought of the other possible reason Dr White performs an AUTOPSY...
Is Dr White The Coronor ??? The Inquest that started but didn't finish ????
Or the inquest that could be closed by the 22nd January 2011 once someone had been charged ..???
So is Dr white A defences expert or is Dr white The Coronor ??
Still meaning that the said Dr White should have attended court at the trial ....(IMO)
-
Again..... 3 days before they arrest Dr Vincent Tabak if Dr White is the Coronor... why has he started this Private Inquest so soon after she is Autopsied by Dr Delaney... None of the details are there for the Coronor ...
The coroner will open the inquest in order to issue a burial order or cremation certificate (if not already issued immediately after the post-mortem examination) as well as hearing evidence confirming the identity of the deceased. The inquest will then be adjourned to be resumed at a later date. When the coroner's investigations are complete, a date for the inquest is set and the people who need to know will be told. Inquests are open to the public and journalists are usually present.
It's not until apparently the Chaplain hears the imaginary confession of Dr Vincent Tabak, does Joanna yeates body get released for burial...
Which brings more questions ....
Well... When was the burial order issued ??
What evidence did Dr White hear ?? (if Dr White is indeed the Coronor )
What later date was set ???
So Dr White are you the Coronor ???
https://bereavementadvice.org/topics/death-certificate-and-coroners-inquest/coroners-inquests
-
Dr White Is this you ??????
3.4 A meeting was called for 3
rd
January at Flax Bourton to discuss the mortuary plans with the
architect and the build co-ordinator. Before the meeting started the architect and build co-ordinator
stated that they had not been aware that any hospital cases were to be performed at the mortuary. A
Forensic Pathologist (Dr Hugh White) who has been heavily involved with the project also stated
that he thought Bath cases were excluded “as it would be a logistical nightmare.’ He was told that
the decision had already been taken.
If this is you... I know it says "Forensic Pathologist"... but are you The Coronor ???
https://democracy.bathnes.gov.uk/Data/Health%20and%20Social%20Services%20Overview%20&%20Scrutiny%20Panel/20070202/Agenda/07zAppendix1.pdf
-
Now if I'm correct in assuming that you are "Thee" Dr White ... I think I can prove that you are indeed a Coroner...
But.... I have this also... Pathologist Dr Hugh White said the toxic level of drugs combined with the large amount of alcohol had lead to Ms Cronin's death.
So if we are on the correct Dr White..... Why didn't he do the toxicology report for Joanna Yeates ... instead of it being sent all the way to Scotland ??????
He obviously does both.... Now interesting that bit of information... Why wouldn't he do the Toxicology ???
EDIT......
Name : Dr Hugh White
Address : Southmead Hospital
Southmead Road
Gloucestershire
Post Code : BS10 5NB
Country : England
Telephone : 0117 959 5623
Expertise : Accidental / unnatural death (Pathology)
Pathology / Coroners
Pathology Of Trauma / Death
Cases : Louis Corbett (2011-06-07)
Liam Cunliffe (2011-06-07)
So Joanna Yeates is NOT listed as one of his cases.... So was he the Coronor for The Joanna Yeates Case... or Was he supposed to be a defendants witness ????
This Dr White is a Home Office Forensic pathologist...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/6588959.stm
http://www.thelawpages.com/legal-directory/Dr-Hugh-White-6549-5.law
-
Congratulations on tracking down Dr. Hugh White! We know the names of the Coroner and the acting Coroner and the Deputy Assistant Coroner. These are all lawyers. Dr. White is a hands-on medical doctor.
I don't believe Dr White was working "for" the defence at all - quite the contrary. The timing of his "examination", two days before it was announced publicly that Joanna had not eaten the pizza, suggests that his task was to remove the contents of her digestive system and send these to Glasgow for analysis by Dr Jennifer Miller. Why was the latter so circumspect in court about her own role? - Presumably because the object of this grisly circus was to prevent the defence's hands-on pathologist, when he was appointed, from gaining legal access to evidence that Joanna had eaten the pizza, or whatever else she had eaten that would show she was still alive at the weekend.
-
Congratulations on tracking down Dr. Hugh White! We know the names of the Coroner and the acting Coroner and the Deputy Assistant Coroner. These are all lawyers. Dr. White is a hands-on medical doctor.
I don't believe Dr White was working "for" the defence at all - quite the contrary. The timing of his "examination", two days before it was announced publicly that Joanna had not eaten the pizza, suggests that his task was to remove the contents of her digestive system and send these to Glasgow for analysis by Dr Jennifer Miller. Why was the latter so circumspect in court about her own role? - Presumably because the object of this grisly circus was to prevent the defence's hands-on pathologist, when he was appointed, from gaining legal access to evidence that Joanna had eaten the pizza, or whatever else she had eaten that would show she was still alive at the weekend.
Dr White Should still have been in court to testify to what he did.....(IMO)...!!! I don't believe that leonora... the stomach content would have been removed by Dr Delaney... (IMO)... I don't believe that Dr White Performed this task... Why would you leave someones stomach contents in them for 23 days ??
Dr Delaney would have emptied the stomach contents as late as Boxing Day... otherwise he would have not been able to perform The Autopsy... He needs to examine her stomach also.... As with the rest of her body....
-
But then I found this .....
Few people know about or understand the reasons behind the sacking, in February 2011, of Avon Coroner Paul Forrest
He was sacked but re-instated..... Then obviously sacked again.....
28th Sepetember 2010:
A coroner who was sacked after a dispute with Bristol City Council has been reinstated.
So who was the Coronor for Joanna Yeates ???? Was it Dr White or was it Dr Forrest who was still working at Flax Bourton in January 2011.... Then sacked again in February 2011 ?? (or where ever this Inquest was opened ??)
If it was Dr Forrest who started Joanna Yeates Inquest... Is this the reason that the Inquest was never completed.... because they sacked him??
Either way Dr white has some explaining to do.... (IMO)
https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2012/04/494517.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-11427227
-
Really thinking about this Dr White... He can't have been the Coronor if Dr Forrest was still working...
So why is Dr White mentioned at The trial of Joanna Yeates ... ????? was he like I first thought??
He was going to be the Defences medical expert ?????
-
If he is the defences medical expert.... Then how was that possible before Dr Vincent Tabak was arrested ???
This autopsy was carried out .. 2 days before The Sobbing Girl calls ...3 days before Dr Vincent tabak's arrest .... And this autopsy is carried out the day before The Yeates family appeal for information.... Which prompts the Sobbing Girl to Call Police about Dr Vincent Tabak..
How would they know that they need a Medical expert for the Defence before someone is charged??? If Dr Forrest was the Official Coronor at that time ???
Edit:.... If Dr white is The defences medical expert,, because Dr Forrest is still working as Coronor in January 2011..
What evidence did they have against Dr Vincent Tabak to arrest him... ??? If 3 days before his arrest they are performing autopsies ??
Repeating myself... which is One day before The Yeates Emotional appeal... prompting the sobbing Girl to call ... which leads to Dr Vincent Tabaks arrest !!
So what was Dr White ?????
-
This gets weirder .....
gagging clauses were included in the severence agreement with Forrest and other staff sacked from their jobs in the Avon Coroners' Office in Flax Bourton.
So there was a gagging order in place when they sacked Dr Forrest... Why would that be ??? I wonder ???
Edit.... Just another thought... If Dr Forrest was under a gagging order... did Dr White actually attend the "Autopsy" on the 17th January 2011??
Or did they substitute in court ... Dr White for Dr Forrest because he had a gagging order in place ????
What did "Dr White" actually do???
https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2012/04/494517.html
-
You are very stubborn, nor do you pay attention, Nine. You are right, however, about Coroner Paul Forrest, who lost his case in the High Court against Bristol. There is a can of worms there, in full public view. During his suspension, Maria E. Voisin was acting as the Coroner for Avon & Somerset. Hers is the name on Joanna's death certificate. Her deputy assistant coroner was Terry Moore, who also rated a mention in connection with the release of the body.
Dr. Hugh White's CV,which you yourself found, describes him as a forensic pathologist. He gave evidence in several other grisly cases that were quoted in the news media and can be found online. He is not on the Home Office's register of pathologists, and therefore has to include on his CV that he does work for coroners.
Why leave the contents of the stomach in situ for 23 days? Presumably while Anne Reddrop negotiated with Dr White, Jennifer Miller and other hands-on professionals about keeping them out of the hands of the defence pathologist. It was important to make public that Joanna had not eaten the pizza just before Vincent Tabak was arrested. The crying girl had nothing to do with this.
-
You are very stubborn, nor do you pay attention, Nine. You are right, however, about Coroner Paul Forrest, who lost his case in the High Court against Bristol. There is a can of worms there, in full public view. During his suspension, Maria E. Voisin was acting as the Coroner for Avon & Somerset. Hers is the name on Joanna's death certificate. Her deputy assistant coroner was Terry Moore, who also rated a mention in connection with the release of the body.
Dr. Hugh White's CV,which you yourself found, describes him as a forensic pathologist. He gave evidence in several other grisly cases that were quoted in the news media and can be found online. He is not on the Home Office's register of pathologists, and therefore has to include on his CV that he does work for coroners.
Why leave the contents of the stomach in situ for 23 days? Presumably while Anne Reddrop negotiated with Dr White, Jennifer Miller and other hands-on professionals about keeping them out of the hands of the defence pathologist. It was important to make public that Joanna had not eaten the pizza just before Vincent Tabak was arrested. The crying girl had nothing to do with this.
That brings us back to Dr White.... What autopsy was Dr White carrying out on the 17th January 2011 with Dr Delaney in attendance ????
The crying girl does... If they are doing an Autopsy for a defendant who hasn't yet been arrested... or even had a Sobbing Girl call before said defendants autopsy is needed for evidence in court ....(IMO)...
Maria E. Voisin name may have been on the Coronors report... But did she perform the Coronors Autopsy... ??? Dr Forrest still could have done the Autopsy before he was sacked... leaving Maria E. Voisin who was acting Coroner to sign Joanna Yeates certificate .....
Ah... So February 11th 2011 Dr Forrest is sacked.... Maria E.Voisin then signs the death certificate... allowing for the burial of Joanna Yeates on the 14th February 2011 I believe...
So Dr Forrest could still have started The Inquest.... (IMO)... still leaving the unanswered question of what role did Dr White play in this trial???
If he isn't mentioned in court because he was 'A Coronor"... as you have pointed out Maria E. Voisin signed off on that.... Why was Dr White performing another Autopsy on Joanna Yeates on the 17th January 2011 ????
-
So why wasn't the Coronor the first to see Joanna Yeates ????
leonora... If you believe it was Maria E.Voisin who was the Coronor and not Dr Forrest Then is it possible that the lady in the purple coat,who is there, when they find Joanna Yeates on Longwood Lane is Maria E.Voisin and the guy with her in the red coat could be Terry Moore,..
I was always under the presumption that the Coronor attended the Scene of Crime
Edit... But it couldn't be that if they didn't know on the 25th December 2010 how Joanna Yeates had died ...
-
OMG.... Talking about Marie E.Voisin possibly being the lady in the purple coat.... Then it dawned on me ....
25 DEC 2010 UK
Police searching for missing architect find female body
Image attached ....
Why are the Police as early as 25th December 2010.... carrying out a finger tip search if at this point if they did not know that Joanna Yeates was Murdered ????
No Autopsy...has been performed she is supposed to be frozen... How do they know at this point she died of strangulation and not Hypothermia ??????
Notice the "Forensic Tent" that is erected.... !!!!!
https://www.channel4.com/news/police-searching-for-missing-architect-find-female-body
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Hang on a minute......
Again why the full on Police Force... Forensics etc... When they find Joanna Yeates if all she was .... was "A Missing Person:???
We have No photgraphs inside the flat that show a struggle....(The flat is pristeen ).... So how did they decide that 'Longwood lane " was the second Scene of Crime???? Or did they believe that it was "The First Scene of Crime ??? meaning they knew more about her death than they are telling us .... So did they know she was dead before they found her at Longwood Lane ????
Still making me question how they knew to bring out the Cavalary... for a "Missing Person"... who is found dead in The Foetal Position... Frozen apparently in this position... Who was there for 8 days apparently...
How could they immediately treat this as a "Murder " Investigation... If Dr Delaney hadn't completed his Autopsy???
Until the next day... to tell the world that Joanna Yeates had been strangled ?????
Edit..... This was always a "Murder Inquiry"... (IMO)...they treated it as such from The day DS Mark Saunders makes his appeal... So did they already have Joanna Yeates body ???? Or was someone sending them information on where to find her ????
Is that what they meant when they said: "We have a sample of you handwriting".... ?? When refering to The "Pizza and the Note that was sent to the pub"??
Something is very strange here .....
-
.
Dr. Hugh White's CV,which you yourself found, . He is not on the Home Office's register of pathologists, and therefore has to include on his CV that he does work for coroners.
So why does it say he is... here then?? : And that was in 2008!
Dr Hugh White, the Home Office forensic pathologist who was asked to carry out a second post-mortem on her body.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/cyprus/3452599/Receptionist-died-after-having-a-facelift.html
-
A coroner is a lawyer. He/she does NOT perform an autopsy or a post-mortem, nor even go near the body. There is no reason for a coroner to visit the scene of the crime. His/her task is to hold an inquest and examine witnesses in a coroner's court and issue a verdict on whether a suspicious death was a result of natural causes, an accident, or the result of the actions of third parties who should be prosecuted. These witnesses will normally include the pathologist(s) who performed the post-mortem examinations.
Paul Forrest, the suspended coroner, is not a doctor. He is a lawyer. As far as I recall, you posted some worthwhile source material some time ago on the function of coroners' inquests and the official excuses for adjourning them.
Maria Voisin did not "sign" Joanna's death certificate. She is, however, the designated "informant". The identity of the physician who certified the cause of death ("Compression of the neck") is not stated on the certificate. The registrar is named as S. L. Thomas.
-
So why does it say he is... here then?? : And that was in 2008!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/cyprus/3452599/Receptionist-died-after-having-a-facelift.html
Presumably he was taken off the Home Office's panel after 2008. Perhaps that is why Dr. White could be persuaded to take part in a complicated arrangement with Dr Russell Delaney and Jennifer Miller whose purpose seems to have been to mislead the public and the jury about the fate of the pizza. What other conclusion can we draw, since he did not himself testify to the nature of the work he carried out on Joanna's body, and Dr Delaney was extremely furtive about Dr White's role? Had he been associated with the defence, as you so stubbornly believe, then it would have been the defence pathologist Dr Nat Cary who mentioned him in court, not prosecution witness Dr Delaney.
-
Maria Voisin did not "sign" Joanna's death certificate. She is, however, the designated "informant". The identity of the physician who certified the cause of death ("Compression of the neck") is not stated on the certificate. The registrar is named as S. L. Thomas.
author=Leonora link=topic=8060.msg417753#msg417753 date=1500546467]
You are very stubborn, nor do you pay attention, Nine. You are right, however, about Coroner Paul Forrest, who lost his case in the High Court against Bristol. There is a can of worms there, in full public view. During his suspension, Maria E. Voisin was acting as the Coroner for Avon & Somerset. Hers is the name on Joanna's death certificate. Her deputy assistant coroner was Terry Moore, who also rated a mention in connection with the release of the body.
I misunderstood your previous quote obviously.....
Doesn't that strike you as odd.... That who ever pronounced her dead is not on the death certificate ??? There must be two certificate then leonora....
have you seen this certificate leonora??/ because right up until the 11th February 2011... Dr Forrest was still the Coroner .....
-
I think I have found what has been staring us in the face all this time ..
I just found this in an article, which got me thinking:....
Another neighbour, Liz Lowman, said: ‘He said he saw two to three people leave the communal basement flat entrance talking in mild quiet tones. He does not remember what sex they are or what they look like.’
Dr Vincent Tabak's flat.... None of us know what it really looks like inside..... and we are all very much aware of the Front Door of Dr Vincent Tabak... But then when I read that comment... I started to think about it.....
And why maybe CJ... second witness statement is so hush hush..... CJ did see something on the night he came home... what or who he saw is a different matter all together.... But more to the point is where he saw them....
The Basement flats we know something about... But I believe after reading that statement... That It's quite possible that there is another exit from Dr Vincent Tabak's flat.... That leads directly to the Communal front door...
I started to think how, before they where turned into basement flat you would have accessed those basements.... And quite simply there has to be a way to access them from inside the building.... There no two ways about it....(IMO).. Yes you can now access them from outside.... But I am almost positive you can still access Dr Vincent Tabaks flat from inside as well.....
In the corner of Dr Vincent Tabak's flat is an area that I have marked on the image I have attached... I believe that this is the area where there would be access to the Communal front door that we see CJ.. coming in and out of....
So Yes... Dr Vincent Tabak could have used the little gate... But not by going past Joanna Yeates flat... But By coming through 44 Canygne Roads front door and going diagonally across the grass.. as The Yeates had said they had seen a couple going diagnoally across the grass in an interview ....
Why else would they do that just to get to their glass plated door? why wouldn't they just walk straight up the path and walk past Joanna Yeates flat to get to there's....There has to be a reason they walked diagonally across the grass... And I believe it is so they can reach the communal front door...
There has to be internal steps from Dr Vincent Tabaks flat to the main front door.... All basements in those Victorian houses have internal access... It's just like cellar access.... No-one is going to go outside to get to their cellar now are they??
So the same has to apply to Dr Vincent Tabak's flat.... (IMO)... It's the internals of the building you need to consider.. And really we don't see loads of Police going in and out of Dr vincent Tabak's flat do we ... No.. we see them always use the Communal front door.... !! We just assumed it was because of CJ... And not one of us stopped to think that maybe thats how they had gained access to Dr Vincent Tabak's flat...
So maybe Dr Vincent Tabak did come out of the communal front door.... maybe Joanna yeates had gone in the communal front door to get her mail... But did they come out of the communal front door at the same time together ... Or was Joanna Yeates actually already with someone and Dr Vincent Tabak was just leaving to go to ASDA for his shopping....
So yes... I can see why they would want of keep CJ's statement quite... Because if he mentioned Dr Vincent Tabak coming out of that door and he had to go to trial to be a witness... everyone would know that Dr Vincent Tabak had another exit out of that building... therefore not needing to go past Joanna Yeates flat to access the little gate ....(IMO)...
Is the green tarpauling there just to stop people seeing that the Police are not going in and out of Dr Vincent Tabak's flat through that door?? It's very possible !!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1342427/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Landlord-Chris-Jefferies-hold-key.html#ixzz4nS0epQ9g
-
How are the Police still Forensically Examining the Property of CJ... once they have released him... They have had 4 days at this point to take what ever they need from CJ's Flat....
But they keep coming in and out of that front door with bags and bags of stuff.... They have the keys to the building.... Dr Vincent Tabak is no longer staying there.... So who's items are they taking out of the front entrance of that building????
They let CJ go... they knew they had nothing on him.... So why are they still going in and out of that front door !!!!
On the 5th January 2011... They are still coming out of that Front door with items .... That is 7 days after CJ's arrest
and 4 days after they have released him.... They still wouldn't have access to Cj's flat after they released him... They should and would have got all of the Forensics from the flat in those days that CJ was in custody... (IMO)..
On the third image.. We see the Forensics coming out with camera equipment.... Is this when they photographed Dr Vincent Tabak's flat??? Remember DCI Mark Luther showed the court images from inside Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat... And we never saw them go down the side of the building with anything!!
If we really think about it... there are NO media photo's of them going to Dr Vincent Tabaks flat with camera's etc.. by means of accessing it down the side of the building.... No Forensics with bags and bags of stuff walking up the side of that building from Dr Vincent Tabak's front door...
And they wouldn't be walking past Joanna Yeates flat with all of Dr Vincent Tabak's stuff either.... So how do they take things from Dr Vincent Tabak's flat without the media seeing it ?????
Straight through the front door..... (IMO)... Meaning they were forensically searching Dr Vincent Tabak's flat before he was arrested.... (IMO)... !!
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I believe they were searching Dr Vincent Tabak's flat before they arrested him.....
Look closley at the circled image I have attached.... That forensics officer has a Laptop in her hands... Now we know CJ didn't have a laptop... So who's laptop is she carrying.... along with what looks like a briefcase or Orgainizer..
They (IMO)... were already searching Dr Vincent Tabak's flat... and gaining access to it internally.... (IMO)...!!!!
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Is this DCI Mark Luther.... That Policeman looks like he's in charge to me .... This is the day after CJ is released... Mark Luther did show photographs from inside Dr Vincent Tabak's flat and at this point I don't believe they should still be searching CJ's flat.... (IMO)..
So is that Policeman I have circled Mark Luther.... what ever rank he maybe ?????
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I believe they were searching Dr Vincent Tabak's flat before they arrested him.....
Look closley at the circled image I have attached.... That forensics officer has a Laptop in her hands... Now we know CJ didn't have a laptop... So who's laptop is she carrying.... along with what looks like a briefcase or Orgainizer..
They (IMO)... were already searching Dr Vincent Tabak's flat... and gaining access to it internally.... (IMO)...!!!!
Are we sure it was a laptop that Christopher Jefferies didn't have? He has stated (though not under oath) that he doesn't have a television, but surely he has a computer? Weren't the police obliged to retrieve his more necessary possessions for him, once he had been released on bail and told firmly by his own lawyer to lie low indefinitely?
Is it possible that the arrest of Christopher Jefferies was a ploy to enable the police to use his keys to gain access to Vincent Tabak & Tanja Morson's flat without their knowledge nor consent? Surely the young couple took their laptop with them to Holland, both to send and receive e-mails (amongst others, to VT's friend in China on New Year's Eve), and to follow the progress of the Joanna Yeates murder inquiry, which was not reported at all in the non-English speaking countries?
What would the police have been looking for? Did they suspect Vincent or Tanja of planning a terror attack - which, of course, requires an understanding of the movement of crowds of people inside or outside buildings?
-
I was looking at Cars that were removed from Canygne Road during the investigation.... I found this image interesting...
The information upon this images says that the Police are removing the car to get to the drain.... I don't think that would be the case ... personally.... Why not just get the driver to remove the car?? They would need permission to remove that car... You mean to tell me it has taken them until the 5th January to search that drain near her home.... Don't believe there is a drain there either ... To be honest... It look like there are NO drains down that part of the road .... (IMO)..
In fact looking closley at both pictures .... There is a little doorway in the wall where there is a silver car parked... You can see it as they take the blue car away...
On The Google images there is NO CAR PARKED There... And there is NO drain in the space where the silver car would have been....(IMO)...
So you have one of two choices.... (IMO)...
(A): It is Dr Vincent Tabak's Car... or car the he used ....
(B): Its Joanna Yeates car....
Because there doesn't seem to be a valuable reason to remove a random car of a street in that fashion.... (IMO)..
I have added 2 images... The Newspaper Article Image.. And a google image of the same place now ....
The Newspaper article implies that the car is taken from a different Street... when it is still Canygne Road .. that The car is removed from ....
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I was looking at Cars that were removed from Canygne Road during the investigation.... I found this image interesting...
The information upon this images says that the Police are removing the car to get to the drain.... I don't think that would be the case ... personally.... Why not just get the driver to remove the car?? They would need permission to remove that car... You mean to tell me it has taken them until the 5th January to search that drain near her home.... Don't believe there is a drain there either ... To be honest... It look like there are NO drains down that part of the road .... (IMO)..
In fact looking closley at both pictures .... There is a little doorway in the wall where there is a silver car parked... You can see it as they take the blue car away...
On The Google images there is NO CAR PARKED There... And there is NO drain in the space where the silver car would have been....(IMO)...
So you have one of two choices.... (IMO)...
(A): It is Dr Vincent Tabak's Car... or car the he used ....
(B): Its Joanna Yeates car....
Because there doesn't seem to be a valuable reason to remove a random car of a street in that fashion.... (IMO)..
I have added 2 images... The Newspaper Article Image.. And a google image of the same place now ....
The Newspaper article implies that the car is taken from a different Street... when it is still Canygne Road .. that The car is removed from ....
Photos are Canynge Square.
-
Well... I learnt something today a quote from Twitter....
Recalling my favourite quote from #Jogee :Hale: "One man's common sense is another man's stupidity"..she's going to be an excellent Pres ;)
Well what does that say about myself... I always thought common sense was a valid guide of understanding the basics.. Yet I seem to maybe have failed...
How do I quantify 'Common Sense" ?? How do I quantify my "Common Sense"??
Now I have always said I applied common sense to my findings... But I now seem to need to question myself....
Maybe "Common Sense" is not the words I should be using... Unless...
I turned left and picked up an NVQ on "Common Sense" instead of "Manslaughter Law"... Then maybe I could quantify my responses .... *&*%£
-
I was trying to understand ... How the Police seemed to spend days searching CJ's Flat....
Now a search warrant as far as I am aware, pertains to certain Items that are on the search warrant in relation to a particular crime...
I believe I am correct in thinking, that If Items are on show and are seen, then they can also take said items as part of the warrant....
Which brings me back to DCI Phil Jones.... And also my belief, that they searched Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat/ Or Maybe it's Joanna yeates Flat DCI Phil Jones is referring too...
Major Crime always comes under complex crime as far as I can tell...
There was still ongoing forensic examination work which was being undertaken. In particular, there were a pair of trainers which we found in Mr Jefferies' house which were hidden underneath a kitchen unit behind a kickboard. Those trainers had some -- had a blood spot on them. That was initially analysed and because of a sensitive forensic technique which they had to use, eventually a DNA profile was found and Mr Jefferies could be eliminatedhttp://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8057.msg411592#msg411592
Well... They wouldn't have had a warrant to search CJ's kitchen units to that extent.... they were not looking for places to hide Drugs or places to hide knives... And Joanna Yeates couldn't possibly have been hidden there...
Did they have a warrant to rip CJ's flat apart at the seams ???? I doubt it...
We are then left with.. Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat or Joanna Yeates flat....
If they didn't have a warrant already to search Dr Vincent Tabak's flat as they hadn't arrested him at this point, it only leaves Joanna Yeates Flat... So did they find the trainers under Joanna Yeates kitchen Unit behind the Kickboard???
I want to look at DCI Phil Jones Statement to The Leveson:...
Mr Philip Jones
Okay. When Vincent Tabak was interviewed, he gave "no comment" in interview. It was only a very small area around a mobile phone which he was willing to talk about. One of the topics in that interview concerned Mr Jefferies, to which he declined -- he again made no comment. Mr Jefferies was still a suspect in the investigation. There was still ongoing forensic examination work which was being undertaken. In particular, there were a pair of trainers which we found in Mr Jefferies' house which were hidden underneath a kitchen unit behind a kickboard. Those trainers had some -- had a blood spot on them. That was initially analysed and because of a sensitive forensic technique which they had to use, eventually a DNA profile was found and Mr Jefferies could be eliminated. So when the forensic lines of inquiry were completed, he was fully eliminated from the investigation, which is then when he was released from his bail without charge.
This statement from DCI Phil Jones flies in the face of Lydnsey Lennen saying they turned everything around in 48 hours... So these trainers should have been turned around in 48 hours... Did they test all of these items they collected ???? Because it takes them weeks to collect everything ...
DCI Phil Jones just says house ... and implies that it was CJ.... But House includes 3 flats belonging to CJ...
Now I am going back to say that the Trainers were located in Dr Vincent Tabak's flat...
We have to remember that the Police thought that Dr Vincent Tabak and CJ had colluded.... Now to check for blood on these trainers... would not take until march... (IMO).. And if that was the real reason they say they let CJ go and Bail was lifted... That should have been a lot sooner (IMO)...
Did the trainers come from Dr Vincent Tabaks flat ??? I'll say NO... because they would have been introduced as evidence in court...
So they had to come from Joanna Yeates flat....
DCI Phil Jones is either admitting one of two things in that statement....
(A): That they suspected CJ of being a Serial Killer
(B): CJ had colluded with Dr Vincent Tabak....
(C): They knew there was someone else who was the killer....
I'll explain.... Hear we have a bit of an apology to CJ along time after he's been released on bail... CJ has to fight tooth and nail for this apology....
"This is an unusual step to take but these were exceptional circumstances. I had a private meeting with Mr Jefferies on Friday and hope to use his experience to inform our serious crime investigations in the future."
So Serious Crime Investigations .... Who should attend
Candidates MUST;
Be of substantive Detective Inspector rank or above or agency/Police Staff equivalent, or awaiting promotion to that rank.
Have access to the investigation of serious and complex crime.
Be PIP Level 2 competent.
Have completed in-force diversity & leadership training.
Serious Crime always come under the Complex Crime umbrella ... http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/9/contents/enacted
So why was 'The Serious Crime Unit involved wiht The Joanna Yeates investigation ????
Back to the trainers.... Where did they secure the trainers from ....???
It cannot have been from Joanna Yeates flat... according to the Forensic Photo's we have come to know ... I say this because.. there is NO Forensic Powder on The Kickboard of the Sink Unit in Joanna Yeates Flat....
So we are left with Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat...
Mr Philip Jones
Okay. When Vincent Tabak was interviewed, he gave "no comment" in interview. It was only a very small area around a mobile phone which he was willing to talk about. One of the topics in that interview concerned Mr Jefferies, to which he declined -- he again made no comment. Mr Jefferies was still a suspect in the investigation. There was still ongoing forensic examination work which was being undertaken.In particular, there were a pair of trainers which we found in Mr Jefferies' house which were hidden underneath a kitchen unit behind a kickboard.
So DCI Phil Jones is talking about there initial Forensic search I believe... Because he would have said Dr Vincent Tabak's flat... Now... Did they search Dr Vincent Tabak's flat at the same time they were looking at CJ's Flat??? without said warrant for Dr Vincent Tabak's flat....
Because the Forensic Pictures tell us it wasn't Joanna Yeates Flat... !!
Or.... Is it Joanna Yeates Flat and they knew who's profile it was ??? There's not a lot of options left..... (IMO)...
(I have attached image of Kickboards in Joanna Yeates Flat...)
http://www.college.police.uk/What-we-do/Learning/Professional-Training/Investigation/Pages/Management-of-Serious-Crime-Investigations.aspx
http://leveson.sayit.mysociety.org/hearing-27-march-2012/mr-philip-jones
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/16/joanna-yeates-police-apologise-christopher-jefferies
-
The Right To A Fair Trial
The Right to a Fair Trial means that people can be sure that processes will be fair and certain. It prevents governments from abusing their powers. A Fair Trial is the best means of separating the guilty from the innocent and protecting against injustice. Without this right, the rule of law and public faith in the justice system collapse. The Right to a Fair Trial is one of the cornerstones of a just society.
How could Dr Vincent Tabak's trial be classed as a fair trial....
The presumption of Innocence
A fundamental element of the right to a fair trial is that every person should be presumed innocent unless and until proved guilty following a fair trial. This is why the responsibility falls on the state to prove guilt and to discharge the presumption of innocence.
So my question is:... How can you attend your own trial as a guilty man.. "Guilty of Manslaughter"... When the basis of a fair trial is the presumption of Innocence ????
Meaning how was the trial Fair????
OMG... there must be something about this trial that legal bods can see has hasn't been followed within the Law ....
https://www.fairtrials.org/about-us/the-right-to-a-fair-trial/the-presumption-of-innocence/
https://www.fairtrials.org/about-us/the-right-to-a-fair-trial/
-
I know I had posted before about "Guilty" until proven "Guiltier".... And I think this is an extremely important matter....
Everyone in Bristol and beyond knew or was aware of The Joanna Yeates 'Murder Case"as it was all over The National media...... And therefore any Juror that would be selected would have been more than aware that Dr Vincent Tabak apparently... "Pled "Guilty " to Manslaughter in May 2011...
When we come to court... Dr Vincent Tabak should be on the stand as a defendant who has the presumption of "Innocence"....
Even if.. he had "Pled " Guilty to "Manslaughter " In May 2011" that information should have been kept away from the general public and potential Jurors until the end of the trial....
It's a bit like when they take previous convictions into account on sentencing....
The Jury should Never have been informed that Dr Vincent Tabak had "Plead Guilty to Manslaughter until after their verdict.... (IMO)...
Then the trial would have been somewhat fairer... But they are informed through the media ... and they are also the "Prosecution"... (I Believe)...
Nigel Lickley suggested to Tabak that, rather than being invited
in, as Tabak had told the court, he may have knocked on her door with an excuse that the
cat had strayed into his flat and Tabak fiercely rejected this scenario. The Defendant
admits manslaughter but denies murder. He repeatedly apologised to Yeates' family and
boyfriend, Greg Reardon, his own family and his girlfriend Tanja Morson.
Denying Dr Vincent Tabak the "Presumption of Innocence" at his own trial... Therefore making this trial wholly unfair and a breach of Dr Vincent Tabak's human Rights... (IMO)....
Basically ... The media should have never been allowed to tell the world that Dr Vincent Tabak had "Pled" Guilty to Manslaughter" unless.. Ann Reddropp accepted said.. "Guilty Plea".... But she wanted the world and his dog to know that they would never accept this "Manslaughter Plea"....
Meaning that Dr Vincent Tabak could Never have a Fair Trial As They had already prejudiced any jury... With the divulging to the world in May 2011 as to Dr Vincent Tabak's guilt... And reaffirmed this "GUILT" to the Jury in October 2011 at Dr Vincent Tabak's Trial as they had already known what had happened at The Old Bailey in May 2011....!!!! (IMO)..
So on that basis alone Dr Vincent Tabak deserves a retrial... As the "Conviction in My Opinion" is unsafe ...!!!
Edit...All through the trial... Th media reports that Dr Vincent Tabak denies "Murder" but admits to "Manslaughter".... How should we all know this before the verdict has been announced !!!!
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
So we are left with 3 options: (IMO)..
(A): Ann Reddrop accepts Dr Vincent Tabaks 'Guilty Plea to manslaughter
(B): This evidence is kept from the Public and the Jury until after the verdict....
(C): The case is thrown out, because the revelation of The "Guilty Plea To Manslaughter" was already made public to
the Nation in May 2011... Information that was made very public...Which PREJUDICED This Trial.... (IMO)
Edit.... Heres a question....
How many articles have been written about Dr Vincent Tabak admitting "Guilty to Manslaughter' before the trial has completed are there ???
If that isn't a flagrant breech of "Law of Presumption of Innocence"... I don't know what is !!!!
Double Edit:.... The Problem is... The Jury only ever had the option to find Dr Vincent Tabak "Guilty of Murder" also..... Doubly affirming that Dr Vincent Tabak's Manslaughter Plea would help in the jury deliberations ....(IMO)
Triple Edit.... Can anyone on the evidence presented and "Not Knowing".. Dr Vincent Tabak had "Pled" Guilty to "Manslaughter".. Say he was "Guilty of Murder??? ... I don't believe so...
The Evidence was only presented to show "INTENT"... And how does a couple of searches show "Intent"???
The Jury had to be fully aware that "Dr Vincent Tabak had "Plead "Guilty To Manslaughter" to start with... To evaluate that he intended to "Murder" Joanna Yeates... Or else... You have a naff story and a couple of searches to prove this.... And No Witness's that have seen Dr Vincent Tabak do anything....!!
-
The jury did not hear during the trial that when police delved into Tabak's computers after his arrest they discovered an interest in hardcore pornography, some of which featured strangulation and bondage.
He accessed a portal to a pornographic site on the day he killed Yeates. Following the killing he sometimes navigated between reports about her disappearance and pornography.
Police were particularly interested in an image on one of his computers showing a slight blonde woman, resembling Yeates, with her pink top pulled up.
Police analysts also found that during business trips Tabak researched escort agencies. While in Los Angeles shortly before his attack on Yeates, police believe, he may have twice used the services of a sex worker, once after checking into a hotel under a false name.
If all that Information was supposed to be Prejudicial to Dr Vincent Tabak's trial... Then how could the fact that the Jury already knew he'd pled "Guilty to Manslaughter'... Not be seen as Predudical to Dr Vincent Tabaks trial ????
Answers to The Court of Appeal please !!!! Someone needs to do something ....(IMO)...!!!!!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/28/vincent-tabak-guilty-joanna-yeates-murder
-
Ah.... I'm just bending my husbands ear again... And then I thought...
At Line 292 of the prosecution chart
Tabak Googled the words
‘manslaughter sentencing’
Then he went to Wikipedia website to search the words
‘manslaughter in English law murder in English law’
Tabak left work at 5.06pm \on 22 Dec 2010
and at home he Googled
‘Los Angeles murder case’
Why is this relevant?????
Why didn't the Jury pick up on this .....
Dr Vincent Tabak researching "Manslaughter in English law" would only be relevant if the Jury had an option to find him "Guilty" of "Manslaughter".... But they were not giving that option....
So that search shouldn't really be irrelevant.... It's only relevant... If the jury are aware that Dr Vincent Tabak has already "Pled guilty " to "Manslaughter "...
Reaffirmimg the Prosecutions Case ... That Dr Vincent Tabak was Cunning and deceitful... But how can that be the case if "Manslaughter" wasn't even on the table ????
The Jury would need to know the relevance of said search ....(IMO)... Therefore showing they were already aware of Dr Vincent Tabak's "Manslaughter Plea " before their deliberations.... (IMO)...
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
Well... I learnt something today a quote from Twitter....
Well what does that say about myself... I always thought common sense was a valid guide of understanding the basics.. Yet I seem to maybe have failed...
How do I quantify 'Common Sense" ?? How do I quantify my "Common Sense"??
Now I have always said I applied common sense to my findings... But I now seem to need to question myself....
Maybe "Common Sense" is not the words I should be using... Unless...
I turned left and picked up an NVQ on "Common Sense" instead of "Manslaughter Law"... Then maybe I could quantify my responses .... *&*%£
"Common sense" is acknowledged to be difficult to quantify. Judges expect jurors to use their common sense. I believe that common sense is what enables the majority of people to make appropriate decisions in their own lives, in most cases, without having to carry out anything like a rigorous analysis. But not everyone will agree with me.
On the other hand, common sense goes wrong in the majority of public issues that we are expected to understand and on which we form points of view.
A couple of months after VT's trial, I concluded that anyone ought to be able to see at once that the verdict was wrong, on the grounds that the prosecution never once indicated his motive. No matter how little anyone knew about the case, commonsense suggests that a person such as VT would not commit murder without a very strong motive. But evidently most people do not see it like that.
In my opinion, the sort of people who analyse murder cases online evince above-average abilities for lateral thinking, but diminished levels of common sense.
-
I had never heard of it before ... You learn something new every day ?{)(**
Origin
Late 16th century (in the sense ‘prove by argument or evidence’): from Latin evincere ‘overcome, defeat’
-
Anyone any thought about the publics awarness of the fact that Dr Vincent tabak 'Pled "Guilty to Manslaughter"? 5 months before the trial commenced in October 2011 ??
Also that it was never entered into whether it was 'Voluntary" or "Involuntary" Manslaughter
-
Another revealing quote from DCI Phil Jones :
Mr Philip Jones
The Gold Group, sir, was comprised of the Chief Constable, the gold commander was the Assistant Chief Constable for Protective Services, and the head of corporate communications, and they would meet daily. So they had an overview of the media interest and they were able to manage and deal with that, allowing me to concentrate on the investigation.
Why was Assistant Chief constable for Protective Services, Involved with the Joanna Yeates case ???
More evidence that they saw this as a Complex Crime...
Why Protective services ??? That's witness protect amongst other things....
I believe that The Assistant Chief Constable for Protective Services is Assistant Chief Constable John Long.... The PDF I have attached lists him between 2008/2011
Why are so many high ranking officers involved in this "Simple Murder Case" ???
Protective Service Elements
Serious and Organised Crime
Our primary role is to ensure that our communities are kept safe from the threat of serious
and organised criminality such as drugs, gun crime and terrorism.
The force is continually seeking to deter, dismantle and disrupt serious and organised
criminal activity within the force area. This involves a review of our approach to intelligence
gathering and the Force Intelligence Unit to ensure that demands can be met. In addition
significant work is being undertaken with partners both locally and nationally through for
example; CDRP’s, Probation, UKBA and SOCA.
I keep coming across IBM and Southwest One.... Is that who Lyndsey Farmery worked for ??
This Southwest One is interesting... Speaking under Parliamentary Privilege at the House of Commons on 18 September
2012, Ian Liddell-Grainger, MP for Bridgwater and West Somerset, told MPs: “There
is a booby-trap in the contract that forces Somerset to compensate IBM if spending
falls. Last week, the County Council had to take the decision to take £2.7m from
contingency funds to pay the company off. If spending remains at the current level,
which it probably will, Somerset will have to fork out £2.7m every year for the next
five years. That is £13.5m, plus a £5m subsidy to the Avon and Somerset force.”(21)
Well a lot was spent on "The Joanna Yeates Case".... that was a simple murder!! How can Policing be for profit??
Again the review was due to happened just days after they arrested Dr Vincent Tabak...
The Southwest One contract is not available to the public, and the figures for both
the amount of savings and the level of taxpayer funded investment have varied
wildly. Despite evidence of failure to make savings agreed, Somerset County Council
24
and Southwest One ended up in a legal dispute over levels of savings delivered by
Strategic Procurement Services. The company brought the case to court, saying it
was entitled to payments when savings reach a certain level.
So how many individuals that worked on the Joanna Yeates case where employed by Southwest One ??
Technology Services
Based at Police Headquarters at Portishead with a small team based at County Hall, Taunton, the department covers both Application Services & Infrastructure Services. These services provide many varied services including solutions, support, and along with developing business applications for our customers.
Portishead?? isn't that where The Joanna Yeates case Head Quarters was ???
How can the Police benefit from using this Service ??
Rewards and benefits
Wellbeing - Southwest One is committed to maintaining the work-life balance of its employees. Flexibility in working arrangements is an important tool in enabling employees to maintain or improve their balance between home and work.
Southwest One Group Stakeholder Pension Plan - Southwest One offers you membership of a group stakeholder pension plan with Scottish Life to help you save for your future. The plan will belong to you and when you save into it so will Southwest One and the taxman (unless you choose to opt out). This will boost your savings and help you to reach your retirement goals.
Life Assurance Scheme - Subject to eligibility, employees have the opportunity to join the Southwest One Group Life Assurance Plan. The benefit provided by the scheme is a lump sum benefit of four times your basic salary upon your death whilst in service.
Income Protection Plan - Subject to eligibility, employees have the opportunity to join the Income Protection Plan. This is an insured ill-health benefit, which becomes available after 5 ½ years’ continuous service.
Eye Vouchers - Southwest One will pay eyesight tests for employees who are regular computer users.
Employee Support Groups - Employees in Southwest One can now access Employee Support Groups available from Avon and Somerset Constabulary and include:-
It appears to be a complete conflict of Interests....(IMO)... So how many people who were actual Police.. worked on the Joanna Yeates Case ??
I can't get my head around this ... It's mental...
Tracey Hayley
Public Sector
Programme Director and Head of Organisational Development
Company NamePublic Sector
Dates EmployedDec 2007 – Mar 2010 Employment Duration2 yrs 4 mos
LocationSouth West England
Delivery of first Joint Venture Company between three public sector authorities and a commercial supplier.
Legal and commercial negotiations, partnership problem solving, negotiating and influencing. Collaboration, consultation, employee relations.
Coaching, mentoring, leadership development, transformational change, cultural and organisational change. Programme Management (OGC certificate in Managing Successful Programmes).
Strategic Planning, risk management, performance and process improvement.
Corporate lead on change management, performance improvement, planning, quality and standards
She worked with Lyndsey Farmery on Operation Jupiter... Also we find :
Scott Fulton
Digital Product Manager ✔ Public Speaker ✔ Helping build digital products & teams that delight customers ✔17 years exp.
February 13, 2009, Tracy worked with Scott in the same group
The very same Scott Fulton who is Head of E services at Avon and Somerset Police... Why didn't he appear in court??? Here's what Scott says about Tracey..
have known Tracy in different roles over the years and have always found her approachable and easy to work with.
More recently she played a key role in the work involved with Avon and Somerset Constabulary's outsourcing of key back office resources to what is now the joint venture company Southwest One.
From the meetings I was involved as part of this process she never appeared phased by the sheer volume of work and detail that was involved with regard to contracts and building relationships between the organisations.
This Case is just bizarre....
https://www.linkedin.com/in/tracyhayler/
http://www.southwestone.co.uk/index.html
https://www.unison.org.uk/content/uploads/2015/09/22662.pdf
http://www.liddellgrainger.org.uk/images/DOCUMENTS/POLICE_and_Procurement.pdf
http://leveson.sayit.mysociety.org/hearing-27-march-2012/mr-philip-jones
-
this gets weirder.....
Tracey Hayler... who has a connection to Nailsea... who follows on Twitter "Martin Faithful"who has only 29 followers.. The very same PC Plod... who's written witness statement claimed he had seen Joanna Yeates, body thawing..??? Who's witness statement backed up the Birches written witness statemnet.. who found Joanna Yeates
Then it gets weirder again.... I believe another lady he follows is a Karen Faithful could be his wife ..... who has never tweeted... But has ITV Press Centre, following her amongst her only 6 followers ..... Is that how the "Leaks" happened ?? Why would ITV Press Centre have a connection to a random Police Officers wife/relative ??
These connections cannot be coincidental... Can they ????
https://twitter.com/MartinFaithfull?lang=en
https://twitter.com/KarenF71?lang=en
https://twitter.com/TracyHayler?lang=en
Why would a plod have anything to do with someone in her position???? Do they know each other on a personal level??
-
Why would a Beat Bobby who area is "Redwood" see Joanna Yeates body... when realistically, it should be Senior Officers who are at the scene??
PCs Martin Faithfull and Greig Difford plus PCSOs Simon Tuong, Charlotte Thompson and Eleanor Hicks covering Redwood.
I find it odd that a PC Plod would even be at that scene to be honest... This was a massive Case... With Top Officers involved.... So why did PC Martin Faithful attend the scene ...not only that ... But becomes an integral witness, in written form.. of not only what Joanna Yeates body looked like on discovery.. But his statement which was read out in court, I believe ..... says he was trying to stop a body from thawing....
You can't seriously believe , that they would allow a Plod right in the middle of the discovery of Joanna Yeates body... That doesn't make sense.... (IMO)..
http://www.northsomersettimes.co.uk/news/all-change-for-police-beat-teams-1-4043815
-
Now this next article is extremely odd.... I'll say for why....
The Article is written by the Daily Mail, but the date of the article is By Daily Mail Reporter
CREATED: 14:38, 24 December 2010
There are many odd things in this article.....
(A): The connection made to Claudia lawerence, and the Assistance North Yorkshire Police gave Avon and Somerset Police..
North Yorkshire Police and Avon and Somerset Police confirmed yesterday that they have 'liaised' over the disappearance of Jo.
(B): It's still a missing person enquiry
'It is still a missing persons inquiry, I do want to stress that, but obviously it is very, very unusual for somebody just to go missing from their address in Clifton, which is why we do have grave concerns for Joanna, which is why we are putting the level of resource we are into this,' Mr Stratford said.
(C): Expecting Dr Delaney
'A pathologist will be attending the scene to examine the body.
(D): This next statement is extremely odd.... I think it's what Jon Stratford says....
'All we want desperately is to find Joanna safe and well, so if she can hear this, please do get in touch with us and tell us where she is and we will take very good care of her.'
That is the weirdest thing ever !!!!
(E): And Then reporting she has been found ???
Police searching for missing Jo Yeates say they have found a woman's body close to a golf course.
No identification has been made on the body which was discovered about four miles from the flat she shared with her boyfriend.
The discovery was made today by a couple walking their dogs in the Failand area of North Somerset, an Avon and Somerset Police spokesman said.
How did they report the day before she was found ????? In part of the article they talk like she is still missing.... This is Christmas Eve... How did the daily mail already report on her being found the day before ????
This from the Guardian on the 24th December 2010
"All we want desperately is to find Joanna safe and well, so if she can hear this, please do get in touch with us and tell us where she is and we will take very good care of her."
Same phrase..... So how is it that The Daily Mail are reporting her found and Missing at the same time on 24th December 2010????
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/dec/24/ukcrime
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1341452/Jo-Yeates-murder-Police-search-missing-architect-finds-womans-body.html#ixzz4nm1GtiWj
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
And Just to make absolutely sure of this Dailey Mail report... The report is basically Reported Twice....
Once on The 24th December 2010 and Then again on the 25th December 2010...
The two images are basically the same.... same report virtually... But On different days....
The articles are virtually identical... apart from On The 24th December 2010 article it doesn't mention The forensic tent.. And Uniformed police officers with wooden poles were searching grass verges.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1341452/Jo-Yeates-murder-Police-search-missing-architect-finds-womans-body.html#comments
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1341520/Missing-architect-Jo-Yeates-Police-womans-body.html#ixzz4nmETIEKF
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I keep going back to the flats layout.... There are 7 flats in the Building...
CJ Lived at Flat 5... he says so on 'The Lost Honour of CJ
Joanna Yeates Lived in Flat 1
Dr Vincent Tabak lived in Flat 2
How are these flats layed out....
I'll come back to that.....
I have been an idiot..... I thought the layout of Joanna Yeates flat was hallway with all the rooms leading off...ie: A door to the bedroom.. A door to the bathroom a door to the kitchen and a door to the frontroom.. I without thinking.. believed they all lead of the hallway... But that is not the case ...
I think it is the Tour Video that throw me... but it has also helped me ... looking at it again..
So you go into Joanna Yeates flat and turn left... Then you open the door to the L- Shaped front Room... Go into the Front Room then..... To your lefthand side is the door to the kitchen which is inside the front room... I don't know why I didn't see it before... Picture blind I think...
But on the tour... they got through the hall turn right first into Joanna Yeates Bedroom, opening the door to get in..... And the doors to the front room and kitchen are already open when they go in there...
So Dr Vincent Tabak , would have had to go through the front room to get to Joanna Yeates kitchen.... but he never mentions doing this.... He says: Tabak: She invited me in.
Defence Counsel William Clegg: Did she open the door?
Tabak: Yes
Defence Counsel: Did you take off your coat?
Tabak: Yes.
Defence Counsel: What room did you go into?
Tabak: Kitchen- both of us.
I thought it was straight from the hall to the kitchen... But it isn't... he doesn't describe how he gets to the kitchen... I would have imagined that she kept the front room door closed as it was very cold that time of year....
So if the settee's were closer for Dr Vincent Tabak to put Joanna Yeates on... why would he carry her to her Bedroom ??... makes no sense... (IMO)...
Now another issue is this image I have found of what is supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabak's flat.. The only image from inside....
It looks out onto the garden:
Image (1): Shows were i got the image and its description of it being Flat 2
Image (2): Is a close up of image
Image (3): From the last honour of CJ
Image (4): The back garden... Can see a bit of lattice in bottom right hand corner ...
Image (5): Outside 47 Canygne Road
Image (6): Shows the Front Room Door which is open... And also the kitchen Door which is open
So back to image 2... It shows dining table chairs and a bit of a view out of the window onto the garden... Now there is two possibilities for image two.... It doesn't look like it is from the front of 44 Canygne Road... Because... There is no lattice fence work at the front of CJ's house... And if it is the back of Flat 2... It then means the bay window at the back is a Dining Room and not a Bedroom....
Other possibility is that it is actually from the house on the opposite side of the street... No:47... I have googled Canygne Road and that house has the square lattice fence.... But of course now everything has over grown...
But CJ.. helps without realising... or maybe he does.... In The Lost Honor of CJ.. there's a shot of him looking across the road as the police are about to turn up... and you can clearly see the Lattice fence around that house... also it isn't as over grown...
But I really think it's 47 Canygne Road the picture of the Dining Room.... Because I can see a Pampas grass to the left of the lattice fence ... which would be to the right/centre in the dining room picture....
Why were the press provided this image ??? All the imagery is there to confuse I believe...
Edit:.... When was that photograph from what is supposed to be flat 2 44, Canygne Road taken??? I say this because the article it comes from is 22nd January 2011... And daffodils do not grow that early as far as I know ... March is normally the time of year you would see them... That has to be the year before ..(IMO)..
So who took the photograph??????? Of a Flat, they say is Flat 2 44,Canygne Road , that no-one had any reason to look at for any crime the year before ....??? Weird !!
So it cannot be Dr Vincent Tabak's flat !!!!!!
Double Edit.. I know why I thought the Hallway was T- shaped... It's because they turn right to go into Joanna Yeates bedroom... And I just assumed that the Hallway was T- shaped.... When in fact in reality the Hallway is L-Shaped.. Trick of the mind... (Clever on their part)...we see what we want to see.... Or.. Should I say we see what they want us to see.... (IMO) But you lot probably already knew that... it was just me who seemed to have missed it...!
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8822459/Jury-shown-inside-Joanna-Yeates-flat.html
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/324139/weeping-girl-tipped-off-jo-police/
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Well as I said.... The Flats have been causing me a headache.... And trying to establish, how the building is set out...
When watching CJ... In The lost Honour of CJ... He says he is in flat 5..... For the past few days my heads been going round and round... trying to work out what is staring me in the face.... I know I am missing something... That is obvious..
And I believe I say it many many times... Even though I do not realise I am doing....
The Police NEVER go down the side of the building to collect anything from The Flat at the rear.... Never...... And it's bothered me... I keep asking WHY????
And I believe that Dr Vincent Tabak didn't actually live in the Flat at the back of the building...(IMO).... We only have the media's word that he did....
Reasons I believe he lives in the house....
(A): Dr Vincent Tabak says he collects his car off the road...... That wouldn't be too far from the communal front
door...
(B): Mrs Lowman Mentioned about The Communal flat...
(C): We never see the Forensic take anything from the back Ground floor flat...
(D): Dr Vincent Tabak Moved out....
Lets look at (D): ...Dr Vincent Tabak moved out of Canygne Road because of all of the disturbance... Police in and out... He was upset with all the comings and goings....
Well if the Police are never seen to be going around the back of the building and are only going in side the building.. that would follow that, the disturbance is more.... Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja should in all honesty not be disturbed once they have entered their home if they lived at the back of the building (IMO)...
But inside the house... The Police are at it none stop..... Up and down stairs constantly asking questions... taking statements etc..... Very unsettling indeed....
Lets think why the Police would possibly think that Dr Vincent Tabak had colluded with CJ.....
I believe it's because they probably lived on the same floor of the building.... CJ is not going to pop off around the back of the building to bang on Dr Vincent Tabak's door to ask him for assistance in moving a body... (IMO)..
Back to "Holland".... Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja would need to see CJ's car..... And what they says is that it changed position....
How would they notice ????... If apparently they used the little gate to exit and went down past Joanna Yeates flat to get to what everyone is saying is their flat....
They wouldn't.... But if they come in the little gate and go across the grass to get to the communal door.. Then they would see CJ's car.... Other wise they wouldn't (IMO)...
I started looking online to find things out about the flats at Canygne Road... And I found this: It list Flat 3 as the Ground Floor Flat....
Flat 3 Ground, 44, Canynge Road, Bristol, City Of Bristol BS8 3LQ
£300,000 Flat, Leasehold, Residential 24 Jan 2001
£143,000 Flat, Leasehold, Residential 23 Feb 1999
It also list this one too:
Ground Floor Flat, 44, Canynge Road, Bristol, Avon BS8 3LQ
£97,500 Flat, Leasehold, Residential 05 Mar 19991 bedroom
£61,500 Flat, Leasehold, Residential 30 Sep 1996
£73,500 Flat, Leasehold, Residential 17 Nov 1995
I thought... Dr Vincent Tabak doesn't live in the flat at the back of the building..... If as Ann Reddrop states... that they had been planning Dr Vincent Tabak's arrest since late December... Then this picture got me thinking... (https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRSE4d-Vo2UwzsSt7Ya0_Vj57cPwRYuQVCkdmEGYEmvEp_BrJK7wQ)
They used it when they arrested CJ... But I don't think CJ lives in that flat.... therefore it has to be Dr Vincent Tabak's (IMO)... Everything is done for a purpose....
Take the image I put up yesterday.... Of what was supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabak's Room... well he would see the house Opposite if he was higher up....
I believe the gardens are communal.... both front and back.... Maybe that is why "Bernard The Cat had Two Cat Trays"....
I was thinking about how "Bernard could have gotten into Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat:... and it's unlikely if they are at the back... and in the cold they are hardly going to leave the door open... But the communal Front Door is open all the time ... People in and out... And then we have the Layout of Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat....
Remember, the odd shaped "Corner Store"...... That shouldn't appear on a plan of the house... If its underground... The odd shaped corner bit... Is the entrance to the building.... It doesn't continue up the building.... So why would it go down into the ground like that ??? It wouldn't (IMO).... Meaning Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat is inside the building and Not at the back of the building.....
It's the imagery again.... Put pictures in the paper of Dr Vincent Tabak being in the back garden and you associate him with the ground Floor Flat.... But if it's communal.... then he could have been in it at anytime ....
Now I did find a picture which I'll attach of three people going into the communal door... A man and 2 woman.... Dr Vincent Tabak did say that he was allowed to return to collect some of his things....
Is the man in the picture Dr Vincent Tabak ???? I believe it possibly is.... (IMO)... He's very tall..... The two woman in the photo are just waiting at the entrance... Now if they don't live there they wouldn't be allowed in to what potentially is a 'Crime Scene"....
So... if we take into account that Dr Vincent Tabak moved out.... and Karen Thomas seeing Dr Vincent Tabak on the 22nd December 2010 as she says... That's also likely if the Police are wandering around the main house knocking on doors....
Why would he feel he needs the Polices permission to enter his flat if he lived around the back??? They Flat at the back of the building doesn't effect anything... It's seperate .... So Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja should be able to come freely....
Now if they live inside the building... then the comings and goings would be problematic for a Police force trying to gain access to these flats...
So I put it to everyone.... Dr Vincent Tabak didn't live at the back of the building... (IMO).. he lived inside it!!!
Think about it..... who's around at court to say... which Flat that they actually lived in ?????
CJ never says anything publicly... I don't know why he doesn't ... But there must be a jolly good reason he has... And no-one else in the building has spoken publicly either....
So... In the last honour of CJ.. we can see what The Basement flat looks like when CJ goes to the door... and it is not layed out quite like it should be ... And maybe that was CJ's little way of showing us the difference between the flats... And NOT that "Greg" actually meet Dr Vincent Tabak.... It was a way for CJ to let us know about that Flat (IMO).....
In The Lost Honour of CJ... He goes to Dr Vincent Tabak's flat for jump leads.... Now this is in the Daylight.... "Greg: went at Night-time as we all know... So there has to be a reason... that CJ added that scene to 'The lost Honour of CJ"...
I'll leave you all to ponder my conclusions about the Flat that Dr Vincent Tabak lived in at 44, Canygne Road...
And if he didn't live at the back of the building.. What possible reason would he have to walk past Joanna Yeates kitchen ????
It's always the DEFENCE... that has given us the Story of how Dr Vincent Tabak came across Joanna Yeates on the night of Friday 17th December 2010... Well the DEFENCE has told so many untruths... (IMO)..
Remember The Flat in Canygne Road that they say CJ put up for sale ..... Was it the one that Dr Vincent Tabak lived in ??? Because in the pictures of the "Bedroom".. Theres a dressing table in the corner... And "Dressing Tables are normally associated with woman and not normally men...... (IMO)...
So is that Flat that was for sale... The Flat that Dr Vincent Tabak lived in?? It's possible... Just like it is Very Possible that Dr Vincent Tabak actually lived inside the main building.. and not at the back as The Police nad Media have lead us to believe...!!!
As we have come to learn.... ANYTHING is possible in This Case !!!!
N:B... I again am not suggesting CJ has done anything untoward ....!!!
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/BS8-3LQ.html
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Another reason I don't believe it's the back ground floor flat... Is Dr Vincent tabak's response to the defence when asked about his phone ....
Defence Counsel: Can you look at item where you sent message to Tanja ‘missing you’
Can you remember if you sent it before you decided to go to Asda.
Recapping- you come off the Internet at 7.37pm (our entry 47) & remain in your flat until
9.29pm (our entry 88).
How soon before that did you left your flat?
Phone?
Did you normally take the phone when you went out?
Tabak: Yes.
Dr Vincent Tabak replies: Defence Counsel: When at home, where was the phone kept?
Tabak: In a little room.
In A Little Room...!!! Not The second bedroom!!!!! Is there even a second bedroom in Dr Vincent Tabaks Flat????
Defence Counsel: Where was the car?
Tabak: On the street.
Why would this car be on the street when it has a designated car Parking space... Tanja apparently didn't use it that evening.... They didn't use it to go to work... So why would they park it on the street.... ????
Defence Counsel: Then you took the body out to the street?
Tabak: No. I backed the car into the drive.
Now think about that.... Because, it's important....
Defence Counsel: Was the car facing Canynge Road?
Tabak: No. The back of the car was facing Canynge Road.
And BINGO.... there it is .... he backed the car from the designated car parking space.... to be level with the communal front door... That is why the boot is facing the road....... (IMO)..
If he lived in the flat at the back of the building... he wouldn't need to move it to put a body into the boot...(IMO)...
That answer always threw me.... I thought it was a double meaning... But I don't think so.... I believe that Dr Vincent Tabak reversed his car from the Designated Parking Space to outside the building..... lets just work out why.....
On the first quote below... The Defence asks where the car was.... But... when it comes to the next quote....
Defence Counsel: Where was the car?
Tabak: On the street.
Clegg deliberatley asks if the car was facing "Canygne Road"... and Not The Street..... Making a definate difference ...(IMO)....
Defence Counsel: Was the car facing Canynge Road?
Tabak: No. The back of the car was facing Canynge Road
So I believe that Dr Vincent Tabak's car was already in the car park... he just backed it down a little to the communal front door ....(IMO)...
Dr Vincent Tabak's answer about..... "The Drive".... would he call it "The Drive" ???? The words The Drive is very English.... I'm sure most would call it The Driveway... And not simply "The Drive"...
As I have said... I believe that the words that come out of Dr Vincent Tabak's mouth on the witness stand have been written for him... he signs a statement in September 2011... But we don't know the content...
So who said the words 'The Drive"... because I don't believe it would be a term that a Dutch National would use .....(IMO)...
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
I have just text my Dutch Brother In-law.... My question....
Would the Dutch say: "The Drive" or "The Driveway" ??
His answer.....
The Driveway I guess!
I'm just now trying to establish what he would call it if you pulled your car up to the side of house.... because why would he say... 'The Driveway I guess????? as a response of a Dutch National describing 'The Drive "......
My Brother In-law ... shouldn't be having to Guess... If it is something that The Dutch Call the private road/street at the side of a house .... (IMO)...
Makes Dr Vincent Tabaks talking about The Drive more intriguing.. (IMO)...
Makes me wonder if when Dr Vincent Tabak says "Street" he actually means the private road at the side of the house.....
Commonly know to us English as The Drive
Edit.... My brother In-law... didn't know in which context I meant the question....!
-
Here we go..... Good old wiki.....
Results of sister projects
Driveway
Sound: driveway (help, file) on the driveway driveway an access road to a greater road He picked up the wrong driveway and reached the southern highway
A Driveway would lead to a greater Road..... And The Drive in Dutch gets translated to "The Ride"....
So what would the Dutch call the land at the side of a building, you drive your car on to Park.....
Not The Drive..... (IMO)
https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=+De+oprit&title=Speciaal:Zoeken&go=Article&searchToken=87uc9p6di86n82ojq8vg3f706
https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=De+rit&title=Speciaal:Zoeken&profile=default&fulltext=1&searchToken=brl7vx8grr06hnsgriox9y29
-
I think First and Foremost when ever we look at what Dr Vincent Tabak, says or doesn't say.....
Is that he is A Dutch National First and Foremost.... Even if he can speak English Fluently!!!!!
Edit.... Makes me question CJ again..... In The lost Honour of CJ.... he is letting people know, when he asks Dr Vincent Tabak if they call jump leads.. Jump leads in Dutch... CJ... Is allowing everyone to know .. that Dr Vincent Tabak is a Dutch National... And won't say everything the same way as the English do..... (IMO)....
-
The Dutch Brother In-law has replied to my text again....
To understand how I asked the Dutch brother in-law... I'll explain about the road next to my house...
Next to my house is a cobbled road... It's a drive.... It's private... It comes off the main road.... My door opens straight onto this cobbled road .... (The cobbled Road is the length of the house roughly..)
So I asked The Dutchie , what he would call The cobbled road outside my house.....
My question... A driveway in English.. means a road leading up to a private house... what would the Dutch say...??
And text him again before he replied so he understood what type of road I meant.....
My Question.... What would you call the road outside my door... the cobbled road??
His reply to both questions in one text:
I would call it parking rather than Driveway. Your cobbled road I would call street.
So when Dr Vincent Tabak say:
Defence Counsel: Where was the car?
Tabak: On the street.
I believe Dr Vincent Tabak means the DRIVEWAY/DRIVE..... (IMO)....
And thats why we find him making... what at first appeared to be a confusing statement... next.....
Defence Counsel: Was the car facing Canynge Road?
Tabak: No. The back of the car was facing Canynge Road.
Because Dr Vincent Tabak backed the car out of the designated Parking Space (On The Street/The Drive).... meaning that was the reason The Back of the car was facing "Canygne Road"........ There is no other explaintion for it .... (IMO)....
Again.... We Must not forget that Dr Vincent Tabak is A Dutch National.........
EDIT.... There are no other houses on my cobbled road... I own the cobbled road....(but give access).. I have the only door onto it.... My neighbours have front doors and backdoors..... I have a side door onto the cobbled road.....
It does how ever get used as shared access for my neighbours to park around the back of the building... which my Dutch Brother In-Law has seen when he has stayed....
Edit... Just to clarify.... The cobbled road is enclosed.. no other house are on the opposite side of it... just my garden...
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
I have attached an image of where the cars are parked at Canygne Road in the carpark.... I have circled the area Dr Vincent Tabak would use...
Why would Dr Vincent Tabak move the car when the boot faces Canygne Road, just to put a body in the boot.... When it would be just as easy to put the body in the boot of the car where the car is parked ... Especially as he apparently has had no problem carrying a dead weight around a flat and between flats .....
He wouldn't...(IMO)..
He moved the car for the reason he gave..... For it to warm up before he had to get Tanja...
-
I have just noticed something on that diagram.....
I have attached the image again and circled the shed.....
The shed is located at the end of the building and not in The Garden..... Blocking access to Joanna Yeates flat....
So how would Dr Vincent Tabak walk down past Joanna Yeates Kitchen window?????
Was there more than one shed at 44 Canygne Road ????
If Joanna Yeates flat is described as having it's own private entrance why would Dr Vincent tabak be able to walk past her window... And on saying that....
If Joanna Yeates and Greg needed to get their car from it's designated Parking Space... They surely would have seen alot more of Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson... as they would have walked around the back to get to their designated car parking space regularly passing Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat Door.... (If Dr Vincent Tabak lived in that Flat)... (IMO)..
I don't believe that was the direction Joanna Yeates and Greg Reardon accessed the Car... maybe this diagram is accurate... and a shed actually blocked off access to the back of Canygne Road...
Edit I have attached 2 more images... They clearly show that the SHED blocks access to the back of 44 Canygne Road....
meaning Dr Vincent Tabak could not have walked past Joanna Yeates kitchen window to gain access to the little gate....
Double Edit... Looking at image 2... Because the path going down to the flat door is sloped... It would stop the people from the building behind seeing anything outside Joanna Yeates flat.. making that area more private....
Anyone from the back buildings who heard what they describe as a scream.... SEE NOTHING!!... And it's possible to see why with the shed blocking off the pavement.... (IMO)...
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Just another thought about the shed at the bottom of the building.... If Dr Vincent Tabak could somehow squeeze past for instance....
Then why isn't there ever any Crime Scene Tape stopping anyone from access Joanna Yeates Flat from the back of the building where the shed is located???
Police either appoint a Police Officer outside a Crime scene or Tape off The Crime Scene.... So Why Isn't there either an Officer permanently parked at the bottom of that pathway... or crime scene tape... stopping access????
-
Just another thought about the shed at the bottom of the building.... If Dr Vincent Tabak could somehow squeeze past for instance....
Then why isn't there ever any Crime Scene Tape stopping anyone from access Joanna Yeates Flat from the back of the building where the shed is located???
Police either appoint a Police Officer outside a Crime scene or Tape off The Crime Scene.... So Why Isn't there either an Officer permanently parked at the bottom of that pathway... or crime scene tape... stopping access????
Shed is part of a wall built with old or weathered bricks.
I googled it when I came home and it does look like a shed made of wooden planks.
-
A view from the back at another address showing the Green Tarpaulin around the back of 44 Canygne Road ...... Notice how it's in an L shape... It doesn't got all the way to the end of the building.... It stops at Joanna yeates Bedroom window ....
A little strange .... Is something in the way ???
First Image shows them erecting it .....
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Anyone any thought about the publics awarness of the fact that Dr Vincent tabak 'Pled "Guilty to Manslaughter"? 5 months before the trial commenced in October 2011 ??
Also that it was never entered into whether it was 'Voluntary" or "Involuntary" Manslaughter
What I think is neither here nor there, but facts ought to be respected. When a defendant has been charged, the CPS normally briefs a lawyer to assemble the case against the defendant, and then presents this case to the defence lawyer. On this basis, the defence lawyer advises the client on how to plead at the plea hearing. The Crown then decides how to proceed with the arraignment on the basis of the plea entered.
So far, there is nothing in itself unusual in a jury being confronted with a defendant whose plea is already familiar to them. However, a defendant would normally plead Not Guilty unless he knew that the Crown had such a strong case against him that he would certainly be convicted when his case was brought to trial. If he expected to lose, then his lawyer would secure the prior agreement of the Crown to a remission of sentence in return for a Guilty plea.
The first thing that is weird about this case is that the trial revealed that the evidence against Vincent Tabak had been derisory, so, obviously, Mr Clegg should have advised him to plead Not Guilty. The second weird thing is that, even though they knew nothing of the evidence against him, many of the press, the general public, and presumably the persons who would form the jury too, were astonished at his Manslaughter plea, yet all but a handful of us came to accept that he must have killed Joanna, even after they learnt how derisory was the evidence against him.
I take it for granted that the prosecution would not have held back any bona fide evidence they had that would have helped their case, since they led so much "evidence" that was hearsay and not even true. So I don't understand why there weren't more sceptics who turned their attention to the soundness of the plea.
The distinction between "voluntary" and "involuntary" manslaughter is obviously significant, if you are right about the existence of such a distinction in English law. Could it be that this distinction was covered by one of those discussions on a point of law that were mentioned in the tweets but not explained?
-
I think First and Foremost when ever we look at what Dr Vincent Tabak, says or doesn't say.....
Is that he is A Dutch National First and Foremost.... Even if he can speak English Fluently!!!!!
Edit.... Makes me question CJ again..... In The lost Honour of CJ.... he is letting people know, when he asks Dr Vincent Tabak if they call jump leads.. Jump leads in Dutch... CJ... Is allowing everyone to know .. that Dr Vincent Tabak is a Dutch National... And won't say everything the same way as the English do..... (IMO)....
CJ, of course, never asked VT whether or not he had jump leads, as VT was still at work at the time he and his neighbour helped Greg to get his car started. That was a piece of fiction introduced for the sake of the film, just as the scene where CJ takes Greg round to VT's flat to introduce him to Vincent and Tanja is fictional.
-
I was aware of how a "Plea Agreement" would happen... But I would have imagined that if a "Plea Agreement" was entered into then it wouldn't happen before a trial....
And if said "Plea Agreement" had been entered into.. then it wouldn't go to trial, but go before the judge after he has looked at any mitigating factors, or the defendant previous Good/Bad character.. Been involved in other criminal activities for instance ...
Then the judge would pass sentence ....
I do not understand how 5 months This "Plea" had been entered into... then not being accepted... and a trial date set....
Allowing for the world to know of said "Plea"..... had taken place....
I was under the impression that this "Plea" would happen at trial and not 5 months before a trial if it wasn't going to be accepted...
Leonora.... or anyone for that matter.... Can anyone give me an example of a defendant who has "Pled Guilty To Manslaughter, months before trial... where it has NOT been accepted, and then go to trial.... where the jury already know that this "Guilty To manslaughter Plea was entered into Months prior???
It seems irregular to me.... Like I said leonora... The jury shouldn't have known that information (IMO)... till after the trial... The 'Plea was basically "The Prosecutions Case".... without the Plea there was NO Case!!
And putting Dr Vincent Tabak on the stand also seems ridiculous ... why did the Defence do that???
There was a basic outline of a story... that was it.... If the statement that Dr Vincent Tabak had signed ...had been read out to the jury ... like 20 other statements... There wouldn't have had anything to go on.....
But instead they have a Placid Dutchman... Sobbing and unable to answer over 80 questions... which in turn makes it appear as if he is being evasive and as some have said, only sobbing for himself ........ Which only Adds to the juries opinion of him.... (IMO)..
The Defences behaviour was appauling (IMO)... They did not help their client once ...(IMO)..
I'm trying to understand this....
If a defendant wishes to be sentenced on a basis which is not agreed, the prosecution advocate should invite the judge not to accept the defendant's version unless he or she gives evidence on oath to be tested in cross-examination. The Criminal Practice Direction [2013] EWCA Crim 1631 which came into force on 7 October 2013 states that in such circumstances the defence advocate should be prepared to call the defendant and, if the defendant is not willing to testify, subject to any explanation that may be given, the judge may draw such inferences as appear appropriate.
So according to this... It is The Judge who doesn't accept the "Plea".... And therefore we have Dr Vincent Tabak on the stand explaining his version of events..... In the vain hope that he will get a reduced sentence...
It's like a game of Russian Roulette....
So why did "Ann Reddrop" Head of The Complex Case Unit... let everyone know that they were not accepting this "Plea"... when it was for the judge to decide, whether or not is was accepted!!!
So...if that information is how it unfolded... Dr Vincent Tabak.. had... No Explanation as to what happened to Joanna Yeates ... he only signed his statement on the 22nd September 2011.. I believe ...
Therefore I can see how it would have gone to trial in a way.... But the question is WHY... If they had NO EVIDENCE... why enter the "Plea" in the first place ????
There would be NO real need to argue sentence on a "Manslaughter Plea" (IMO)... The admittance of Guilt should have reduced the sentence in the first place...
To me the above QUOTE, would only be of use to someone whom Pled Guilty to Murder .... Which of course Dr Vincent Tabak didn't....
Question... Did Clegg argue sentence ????? I don't think so...
Which also brings another question... If The Judge followed what it says in the QUOTE... Then why wasn't Manslaughter given to the Jury as an option????
I'll say this because... If it was all about length of possible sentence, therefore a jury should have heard any mitigating circumstances, the jury should have had an opportunity to make a decision on "ALL" evidence ...
But therefore... shouldn't the trial have been a "Manslaughter trial"???
I have just noticed this .....
Where the defendant pleads guilty but wants to be sentenced on a different basis to that disclosed by the prosecution case:
a) the defendant must set out that basis in writing, identifying what is in dispute;
b) the court may invite the parties to make representations about whether the dispute is material to sentence; and
c) if the court decides that it is a material dispute, the court will -
(i) invite such further representations or evidence as it may require;
(ii) decide the dispute.
So the defendant at First wants to be sentenced on a different basis.... And we come back to what is not agreed... Very interesting this quote....
Lets look at (a).... a) the defendant must set out that basis in writing, identifying what is in dispute:
Dr Vincent Tabak didn't set anything out in writing.... He only signed the statement... in September 2011...
What is in writing that Dr Vincent Tabak disputed ????? The only thing he could dispute would be "The Porn"... And when did the Prosecution disclose that !!!!!
This is bizarre....
Ok.... If my understanding is correct....
Dr Vincent Tabak is at The Old Bailey... he enters the infamous "Guilty to Manslaughter Plea.. "... which should have been accepted ..But obviously wasn't ... But the argument is about length of sentence...
Then it''s the judges turn... To say he is not happy and this is going to trial.... Needing to argue out about other material... possibly the 'Porn"..
So where is it in writing from Dr Vincent Tabak that he disputed 'The Porn" before he arrived at the Old Bailey??
There is "NO" Other Material that could possibly be argued out.... The Prosecution presented Nothing In the way of Evidence against Dr Vincent Tabak... So what would need to be argued out????
I have found something else ... that makes me question.... Dr Vincent Tabak's "Guilty to manslaughter Plea".... And Everyone knowing about it before trial
From PART 3
CASE MANAGEMENT
(4) In respect of each count in the indictment—
(a) if the defendant declines to enter a plea, the court must treat that as a not guilty plea
unless rule 25.11 applies (Defendant unfit to plead);
(b) if the defendant pleads not guilty to the offence charged by that count but guilty to
another offence of which the court could convict on that count—
(i) if the prosecutor and the court accept that plea, the court must treat the plea as one of
guilty of that other offence, but
(ii) otherwise, the court must treat the plea as one of not guilty;
So If my understanding is correct... Dr Vincent Tabak's Plea should have been seen as "NOT GUILTY" as The Prosecution didn't accept this ....
(i) if the prosecutor and the court accept that plea, the court must treat the plea as one of
guilty of that other offence, but
(ii) otherwise, the court must treat the plea as one of not guilty;
So why wasn't Dr Vincent Tabak seen as NOT GUILTY...
Therefore if this is how it is seen in LAW... Why did they Tell The world that Dr Vincent Tabak had Pled Guilty To Manslaughter?? when if my understanding is correct... He is seen as "NOT GUILTY" !!!!
Meaning they prejudiced the jury before the trial.... (IMO)..
And if we go back to the judge wanting to hear the evidence to decide sentence... Then the Charge Dr Vincent Tabak should have been facing in court would have been The Charge of "Manslaughter" and NOT of "Murder" ....(IMO)..
But what do I know ... !!
EDIT..... I can only see the Judge wanting The Defendant to explain himself in court if he was going to decide on The Sentence for "Murder.".. Because i cannot see how he would need a jury when it came to mitigating circumstances for "Manslaughter"... That would be The Judges discretion.... (IMO)
They appear to have combined every rule in the book.... (IMO).. And used each part of said rules to Convict Dr Vincent Tabak.... (IMO)...
http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/2015/crim-proc-rules-2015-part-03.pdf
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_-_general_principles/#a02
-
Just to satisfy my insistance that it is unheard of..
That A Jury would be aware of the fact that the defendant pled 'Guilty to Manslaughter".. Months before a Murder trial... And everyone knew this before the trial commenced...
Could someone give me a link to a trial that happened in the same way.... Where everyone was aware of this fact that the defendant had "Pled Guilty to manslaughter" months before said "Murder" trial was due to take place....And before the Jurors sat for the first time .... Because I don't think there is such an example....
But I could be mistaken..... !!
-
Ok... here's another thing to ponder.....
Where was Dr Vincent Tabak held before he appeared at Bristol magistrates Court???
If however, you are to be charged with an offence and the police decide you should still be kept in custody, you will be taken to a court to decide whether or not to release you on bail before the trial.
Dr Vincent Tabak should still have been held at The Police Station as far as I can tell....
No application for Bail was ever entered into... Why??
But he appeared in court on the 24th January 2011
Paul Cook, counsel for Mr Tabak, confirmed that his client wished to apply for bail.
Dr Vincent tabak was then:
Mr Tabak was taken from the court in the back of a police van, rather than a closed prison vehicle. He sat alone, without a prison officer.
So where did they take him?????
January 26, 2011 | by SWNS Reporter
Tabak, 32, is now in Gloucester prison 30 miles up the road from where he was being held in Bristol.
If Dr Vincent Tabak has not applied for bail... How can they hold him in "Gloucester Prison"... Or any prison for that matter before Bail has been applied for ??...
I could understand him been held at the Police Station... But Not "PRISON"...
His first appearance at court should have been for Bail whether it was accepted or denied... (IMO)... So how do they manage to put Dr Vincent Tabak in Prison before he has applied for bail?????
Tabak, 32, is now in Gloucester prison 30 miles up the road from where he was being held in Bristol.
It only says he was being held in "Bristol".... That could mean the Police Station!!!
Edit.... Not only That he is sent to Long Lartin... before BAIL is 'Accepted "or "Denied".. How does that work!!!
Double Edit.. Now don't got telling me it was for his own safety... because CJ was out on Bail at this time.... And they didn't let the world no he was Innocent... They didn't release CJ from Bail until March 2011..
So why was Bail NEVER applied for ??????
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8280005/Joanna-Yeates-murder-suspect-Vincent-Tabak-enjoyed-normal-family-Christmas.html
http://swns.com/news/vincent-tabak-moved-prison-over-attack-fears-14290/
https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_rights_of_defendants_in_criminal_proceedings_-169-EW-maximizeMS-en.do?clang=en&idSubpage=2&member=1
-
A pdf on Bail ...
http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/2015/crim-proc-rules-2015-part-14.pdf
-
The distinction between "voluntary" and "involuntary" manslaughter is obviously significant, if you are right about the existence of such a distinction in English law. Could it be that this distinction was covered by one of those discussions on a point of law that were mentioned in the tweets but not explained?
Yes... There is a distinction In Law between "Voluntary Manslaughter and "Involuntary Manslaughter"...
But my joking about an NVQ in "Manslaughter Law".. was to point out... That not only must the Jury understand the charge is Murder.... And find Dr Vincent Tabak Guilty of Murder... as this was there only option... But having been made aware That Dr Vincent Tabak had already "Pleaded Guilty to Manslaughter "
They then would need to have a comprehension of "Manslaughter in Law"...(IMO).. As to distinguish between whether it was a Voluntary or Involuntary act.. on Dr Vincent Tabak's part... And once they understood that,.. Then they could make a the choice ....
The evidence didn't prove "Murder ".. (IMO)... So did the Jury use the fact they knew about the Manslaughter Plea back in May 2011... affect the way they decided that Dr Vincent Tabak was 'Guilty' of Murder in October 2011???
And if NO Evidence was brought to show whether it was "Voluntary or Involuntary"... You are therefore expecting a Jury.. To understand "Manslaughter In Law"... (IMO)...
-
Oh... What do I know.... I seem to be banging my head against a brick wall...
All is fair in LOVE AND WAR... But not in "JUSTICE" it appears to me.... I am just a citizen who believes a Placid Dutchman is Innocent... And feel that his rights were violated.... And The Evidence doesn't add up...
But I can waffle on until the cows come home...
No-one as far as I can tell is going to do anything about this... And seeing as I don't live next to the farm anymore I don't think they will know where to find me.... And I've probably bent everyones ears enough by now...
I don't know what more I can add... Unless I find something new ...
-
Ok... here's another thing to ponder.....
Where was Dr Vincent Tabak held before he appeared at Bristol magistrates Court???
Dr Vincent Tabak should still have been held at The Police Station as far as I can tell....
No application for Bail was ever entered into... Why??
But he appeared in court on the 24th January 2011
Dr Vincent tabak was then:
So where did they take him?????
January 26, 2011 | by SWNS Reporter
If Dr Vincent Tabak has not applied for bail... How can they hold him in "Gloucester Prison"... Or any prison for that matter before Bail has been applied for ??...
I could understand him been held at the Police Station... But Not "PRISON"...
His first appearance at court should have been for Bail whether it was accepted or denied... (IMO)... So how do they manage to put Dr Vincent Tabak in Prison before he has applied for bail?????
It only says he was being held in "Bristol".... That could mean the Police Station!!!
Edit.... Not only That he is sent to Long Lartin... before BAIL is 'Accepted "or "Denied".. How does that work!!!
Double Edit.. Now don't got telling me it was for his own safety... because CJ was out on Bail at this time.... And they didn't let the world no he was Innocent... They didn't release CJ from Bail until March 2011..
So why was Bail NEVER applied for ??????
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8280005/Joanna-Yeates-murder-suspect-Vincent-Tabak-enjoyed-normal-family-Christmas.html
http://swns.com/news/vincent-tabak-moved-prison-over-attack-fears-14290/
https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_rights_of_defendants_in_criminal_proceedings_-169-EW-maximizeMS-en.do?clang=en&idSubpage=2&member=1
Vincent Tabak was remanded in custody in Bristol prison for the one night between his appearance before the Magistrate and his appearance the next day for the abortive bail hearing before judge Treacy at Bristol Crown Court. The press claimed at the time that he spent a night of terror, as local feelings ran high. This was the explanation why he was moved to Gloucester, and then to Long Lartin. However, I have come to believe that this was just an excuse. Since he is not a Moslem, nor a violent man, the only explanation has to be that he was considered a threat to national security, but that the public is not supposed to be told. Long Lartin prison specialises in terror suspects, persons who cannot be deported, and especially violent criminals.
-
Well as I said.... The Flats have been causing me a headache.... And trying to establish, how the building is set out...
When watching CJ... In The lost Honour of CJ... He says he is in flat 5..... For the past few days my heads been going round and round... trying to work out what is staring me in the face.... I know I am missing something... That is obvious..
Christopher Jefferies doesn't say anything in "The Lost Honour..." It is actor Jason Watkins who impersonates the landlord whose honour was lost. The honour of each of them has been seriously compromised by this case, since they have chosen to appear in public, and reinforce, and even supplement, the massive falsehoods that have been disseminated about the case.
The police never said anything to suggest that they suspected Mr Jefferies and Vincent Tabak may have been accomplices in this crime. It was the landlord himself, evidently, who, in a TV interview, attributed this theory to the police. He didn't believe it himself, but he had to have an answer to all the people who asked him why he thought he had been held on bail so long. He couldn't reply, "They needed to ensure that I didn't talk to the press and tell what I knew", though this is the answer which best fits the facts.
-
And I believe that Dr Vincent Tabak didn't actually live in the Flat at the back of the building...(IMO).... We only have the media's word that he did....
CJ never says anything publicly... I don't know why he doesn't ... But there must be a jolly good reason he has... And no-one else in the building has spoken publicly either....
Right from the time he was arrested, Vincent Tabak was described as Joanna's neighbour - a resident of the flat next to hers - not a resident of the same house. Surely at that stage in the case, when the journalists were still displaying a measure of healthy scepticism, they must have satisfied themselves of these basic facts? The journalists talked to anyone in Canynge Road who would listen, so surely the neighbours who knew who lived in which flat would have spoken out if Christopher Jefferies did NOT live in the flat immediately adjoining the front door, and Vincent Tabak didn't live in the flat directly underneath him?
The topological paradoxes you have revealed are nevertheless very disturbing. Is nothing sacred? How could Vincent Tabak carry the body round to his own flat if it were upstairs? - and then downstairs again to the car to which no witness testified he had access? Surely his own testimony makes it clear that his flat is at basement level?
Surely Christopher Jefferies would not deliberately mislead the public whom he loves about which flats he let out to tenants?
According to the diagrams published at the time, Christopher Jefferies's flat occupied only one-half of what is misleadingly designated the "ground floor". If there were two flats on each storey, then 44 Canynge Road would contain a total of eight flats. However, there are only five names on the plate outside the main entrance. Which of the storeys contains only one flat?
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg418240#msg418240
-
Oh... What do I know.... I seem to be banging my head against a brick wall...
All is fair in LOVE AND WAR... But not in "JUSTICE" it appears to me.... I am just a citizen who believes a Placid Dutchman is Innocent... And feel that his rights were violated.... And The Evidence doesn't add up...
But I can waffle on until the cows come home...
No-one as far as I can tell is going to do anything about this... And seeing as I don't live next to the farm anymore I don't think they will know where to find me.... And I've probably bent everyones ears enough by now...
I don't know what more I can add... Unless I find something new ...
Every single step is a step in the right direction. We are hunting in the dark and we don't know if we will find a mouse or a mammoth but we all believe something is there. We can't plan to attack it until we've found it and we go in nothing more than our own blind faith. It fears us more than we fear it, as do those who try to protect it. If it is there we will find it, maybe not tomorrow, or the next day, but ultimately it can only hide from a hunter or show itself as it returns an attack against unknown odds, either way it's stuffed.
Never give up, never doubt your own instinct and never, never trust a copper!
-
Every single step is a step in the right direction. We are hunting in the dark and we don't know if we will find a mouse or a mammoth but we all believe something is there. We can't plan to attack it until we've found it and we go in nothing more than our own blind faith. It fears us more than we fear it, as do those who try to protect it. If it is there we will find it, maybe not tomorrow, or the next day, but ultimately it can only hide from a hunter or show itself as it returns an attack against unknown odds, either way it's stuffed.
Never give up, never doubt your own instinct and never, never trust a copper!
My own instinct tells me that, one day we will find out the truth about the Joanna Yeates case. Somebody will come forward with new information if there is any, or else we will discover good evidence that VT did do it. That is why it is important to have this forum standing.
I wouldn't agree that we can "never" trust coppers. We just need to be wary.
My instinct (yet again) tells me to be equally suspicious of juries, who, let's face it, are made up of ordinary members of the public, some who think constructively, and some who assume that if a person is on trial, he or she must be guilty. And, I am particularly suspicious of "forensic" experts who tell us that enhanced DNA is good enough evidence to catch criminals.
-
My own instinct tells me that, one day we will find out the truth about the Joanna Yeates case. Somebody will come forward with new information if there is any, or else we will discover good evidence that VT did do it. That is why it is important to have this forum standing.
I wouldn't agree that we can "never" trust coppers. We just need to be wary.
My instinct (yet again) tells me to be equally suspicious of juries, who, let's face it, are made up of ordinary members of the public, some who think constructively, and some who assume that if a person is on trial, he or she must be guilty. And, I am particularly suspicious of "forensic" experts who tell us that enhanced DNA is good enough evidence to catch criminals.
I agree in that I believe there was more to this case than has ever been revealed publicly. That said however, I do believe Tabak is guilty of killing Joanna but as to whether it was murder or manslaughter is another question.
-
How does this sound to people ????
Mrs Yeates said: "I want nothing to do with the flat now. It was Jo's home, a beautiful place - but it's a sinister place now."
It almost sounds like Joanna Yeates owned the flat.... Maybe she did!!
She said the flat was being taken back by landlord Christopher Jefferies, the retired public school teacher who was wrongly arrested on suspicion of murder last year.
So.... Thinking about this.... Why would CJ... allow for this Flat to be kept as a Time Capsule for the Jury to come to view it, in October 2011... If he owned it....??
Wouldn't he want the rental value of this property...??
Why would he help the Police by keeping the flat empty??
Wouldn't Crime Scene Photo's surfice for a Jury???
I remember early reports talking of the value of the flat... and that shouldn't have been relevant if she only rented it....(IMO)..
The body of 25-year-old Miss Yeates, who had been strangled, was found by dog walkers on Christmas morning, three miles from her £200,000 flat in the upmarket area of Clifton, Bristol.
Did Joanna Yeates actually own that flat... and CJ own different flats ????
It's puzzling me know.... Why would CJ... assist the Police in The prosecution of A Dutch national... by keeping the Flat that he was supposed to own as a time capsule ??? They didn't permanetly block off Longwood Lane !!
CJ.. had been held on Bail until March 2011.... Had fought to get his name cleared.... So why then would he help the Police by keeping Joanna Yeates flat as a Time Capsule ??? It makes no sense ...(IMO)...
Edit.... Or did Mr and Mrs Yeates own the flat ???? And Joanna Yeates rented it from them ??
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1342427/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Landlord-Chris-Jefferies-hold-key.html#ixzz4oDDrna4Y
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8902569/Joanna-Yeates-mother-clears-out-sinister-Bristol-flat.html
-
Flat 3 is The ground Floor Flat.... I believe there would be leases to all the flats, because each flat will lease the land the whole building is sat upon....(IMO)...
I think The main question.... Is who owns "WHICH FLAT".... !!!!
http://landregistry.data.gov.uk/app/ppd/search?limit=1000&min_date=1+March+1995&paon=44&saon=FLAT+3
-
Flat 3 is The ground Floor Flat.... I believe there would be leases to all the flats, because each flat will lease the land the whole building is sat upon....(IMO)...
I think The main question.... Is who owns "WHICH FLAT".... !!!!
http://landregistry.data.gov.uk/app/ppd/search?limit=1000&min_date=1+March+1995&paon=44&saon=FLAT+3
In one of his interviews, Christopher Jefferies recounted that Greg and Joanna had contacted him about the basement flat on the day that the advertisement appeared, and that they had made a good impression on him. It doesn't sound as if there can be much doubt that he was indeed their landlord. The police and Christopher Jefferies undoubtedly have an uneasy hold over each other (probably owing to his 2nd witness statement). It can only be speculation, but perhaps part of the condition of his release from bail was that he made no attempt to re-let or re-furbish the flat until after the trial.
-
According to the diagrams published at the time, Christopher Jefferies's flat occupied only one-half of what is misleadingly designated the "ground floor". If there were two flats on each storey, then 44 Canynge Road would contain a total of eight flats. However, there are only five names on the plate outside the main entrance. Which of the storeys contains only one flat?
How do you know this.... And what names are on the plate ??? are they the same names that have been there the last 7 years ??
-
How do you know this.... And what names are on the plate ??? are they the same names that have been there the last 7 years ??
This photo was taken in February 2014.
-
It's just a list of names.... But is it correct??... It could be... But I don't know .... At The end of the day... Every man and his dog must have been to that front door... Your hardly going to advertise the fact that a flat is empty now are you!!
I'm still looking at this... And I hope I can come up with an answer ....
-
(i) if the prosecutor and the court accept that plea, the court must treat the plea as one of
guilty of that other offence, but
(ii) otherwise, the court must treat the plea as one of not guilty;
I was just thinking about this....
If Dr Vincent Tabak was seen as "Not Guilty" before he faced a "Murder trial... Then does that mean he would have been free if the Jury found him NOT GUILTY of "Murder"???? As the only option Offered to the Jury was "The Murder Charge"..
You then have to ask yourself why.. Dr Vincent Tabak took the stand??
A Lawyer is there to Defend... Why didn't Clegg just tell Dr Vincent Tabak to keep quite???
It's for the "Prosecution" to prove their Case... NOT for the "Defence to "Prove" The Prosecutions case for them...
What would have happened if Dr Vincent Tabak had just sat there and not said a word???
The "Prosecution" had NO CASE!!!
It was only because Dr Vincent Tabak takes the stand that we are supposed to understand the unfolding events...
Why did "Clegg" get Dr Vincent Tabak to take the stand???
And why did "Clegg: get Dr Vincent Tabak to sign his "Statement in September 2011...
No signed statement... No Case !!!
I thought "Clegg" had a great reputation... why would he jeopardize it???
http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/2015/crim-proc-rules-2015-part-03.pdf
-
Right to respect for private and family life
(1): Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
(2): There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Wasn't Dr Vincent Tabak's privacy invaded???
The Polices constant comings and goings at 44,Canygne Road, made it impossible for Dr Vincent Tabak to remain at home and he went and stayed at a friends house...
It is not common Police Policy as far as I know... To cause such great disruption to other neighbours of any property where a Crime may have taken Place...
There was nothing to suggest that Joanna Yeates had indeed been Murdered in her own home at this time... There was nothing to prove this conclusively one way or the other.. And I believe the same applies today... The Police had no evidence to prove that Joanna Yeates was killed in her home ...
I want to look at this in terms of law...And of course my understanding of Law...
The rules governing discovery
I believe that the information obtained on Dr Vincent Tabak's computer in relation to his supposed 'Internet Searches" and other electronic communication, is seen within "The rules governing discovery"...
Firstly I must point out.. That these rules really apply to Civil procedures... But I believe that they have commandeered the law from "Civil Procedure" and used it in A Criminal Procedure"...
Discussions between the parties before the first Case Management Conference in relation to the use of technology and disclosure
8 The parties and their legal representatives must, before the first case management conference, discuss the use of technology in the management of Electronic Documents and the conduct of proceedings, in particular for the purpose of –
(1): creating lists of documents to be disclosed;
(2): giving disclosure by providing documents and information regarding documents in electronic format; and
(3): presenting documents and other material to the court at the trial.
9 The parties and their legal representatives must also, before the first case management conference, discuss the disclosure of Electronic Documents. In some cases (for example heavy and complex cases) it may be appropriate to begin discussions before proceedings are commenced. The discussions should include (where appropriate) the following matters –
(1): the categories of Electronic Documents within the parties' control, the computer systems, electronic devices and media on which any relevant documents may be held, storage systems and document retention policies;
(2): the scope of the reasonable search for Electronic Documents required by rule 31.7;
(3): the tools and techniques (if any) which should be considered to reduce the burden and cost of disclosure of Electronic Documents, including –
(a): limiting disclosure of documents or certain categories of documents to particular date ranges, to particular custodians of documents, or to particular types of documents;
(b): the use of agreed Keyword Searches;
(c): the use of agreed software tools;
(d): the methods to be used to identify duplicate documents;
(e): the use of Data Sampling;
(f): the methods to be used to identify privileged documents and other non-disclosable documents, to redact documents (where redaction is appropriate), and for dealing with privileged or other documents which have been inadvertently disclosed; and
(g): the use of a staged approach to the disclosure of Electronic Documents;
(4): the preservation of Electronic Documents, with a view to preventing loss of such documents before the trial;
(5): the exchange of data relating to Electronic Documents in an agreed electronic format using agreed fields;
(6): the formats in which Electronic Documents are to be provided on inspection and the methods to be used;
(7): the basis of charging for or sharing the cost of the provision of Electronic Documents, and whether any arrangements for charging or sharing of costs are final or are subject to re-allocation in accordance with any order for costs subsequently made; and
(8): whether it would be appropriate to use the services of a neutral electronic repository for storage of Electronic Documents.
So lets look at that..... The parties and their legal representatives must also, before the first case management conference, discuss the disclosure of Electronic Documents. In some cases (for example heavy and complex cases) it may be appropriate to begin discussions before proceedings are commenced. The discussions should include (where appropriate) the following matters –
Well what is classed as 'A Document" firstly???
Personally I would have thought it was in relation to a transaction... But lets apply this to "The Searches"...
Firstly... I believe that "The Prosecution", should have informed and made available to "The Defence" at The Case Management Hearing.. The disclosure of these "Documents" (Searches) This Case Management hearing that was Heard at The Old Bailey in May 2011...
It should not have been a complete surprise at Trial in October 2011.. That "The Prosecution" had a 1300 page Document, containing these "Searches".. If they were going to be introduced into Evidence...(IMO)..
Lets look at the use of "Data sampling".... This I believe is Lyndsey Farmeys Field of expertise....
If we looked at Dr Vincent Tabak's computer searches as a whole... we would see that he was just like any other citizen... He would have possibly 'Searched for "The latest free Offer"... he could have searched for... "How many coffee granules are there in a teaspoon of "Ground Coffee".. He could have searched for...
Do Elephants really hide in Custard... He could have searched for... "Is Beyoncy really a Legal Expert???
The point I am making is... How many "Searches were created on not only Dr Vincent Tabak's "Home" Computer... but on Dr Vincent Tabak's "Work" computer.... To put the "Searches of this 'Placid Dutchman" into Context???
The Prosecution were allowed to present "These Electronic Document" without there being "Any Disclosure To 'The Defence".. But also without 'The Context of Dr Vincent Tabak's "FULL Search History" being brought to the table...
If we think about how we search ourselves.. We may do "Hundreds of Searches a day when aimlessly Surfing The net.... If as "The Prosecution and The Defence" have told us... Dr Vincent Tabak was "Bored"... Then he in all reality could have made "Hundreds and Hundreds of Searches on his computer.... Adding Tanja Morson's searches to the total as well.... Plenty searches could have been performed
Whilst i Have been posting on this forum, many a time I have 50 plus web pages open whilst searching on another page and going back and forth.... My Searches are purely related to this case by and large... But i do look at other things at the same time as I am doing this....
My point being..... If Dr Vincent Tabak had a "HISTORY" of searches on his computer and "NOT" all of them related in anyway to Joanna Yeates ... Then how can these "SAID SEARCHES".. be used as EVIDENCE and PROOF of GUILT!!!!... IF DR VINCENT TABAK PERFORMED 300 SEARCHES A DAY AND 2 SEARCHES OUT OF THOSE 300 SEARCHES COULD BE LINKED OR ASSOCIATED TO JOANNA YEATES... THEN HOW DOES THAT PROVE THAT HE WAS CONSTANTLY SEARCHING THE INTERNET TO COVER HIS TRACKS????? It doesn't..(IMO)
Lyndsey Farmery Is an "Intelligence Analyst"... Her Role within the "Police" is to Collect Data.. She 'Analyses Data"...
The only "Data" That our "Power Point Pointing Performer".. Analysed Was any 'DATA" She deemed To be relevant to The Joanna Yeates Murder Case....
She just collected 'The data That she decided was relevant to this case ..... And ignored any other Data that may or maynot have shown that Dr Vincent tabak was just like any other citizen at the time... Checking out what was going on about his neighbour... Whilst Internet shopping for Presents or How many Elephants you can get in a bowl of custard for that matter...
How did Dr Vincent Tabak's Internet History prove that he was obsessed with The Joanna Yeates 'Missing Persons Inquiry"/ "Murder case"... If all of the 'Other Internet Searches" were not included in the evidence??
Watering down The relevance of Dr Vincent Tabak's Internet Search History"... (IMO)
I liken it to describing someone as a Gambling Addict.....
If one person goes to a "Bookies" every single week to put on say... "The Irish Lottery...And maybe a few Horse bets ... And this person works in a Factory of, lets say 500 staff....
Each staff member has about 5 tickets each for the Irish Lottery/ Horse Betting... making a total of 2500 bets "A Week"...
Because this person is happy to pop in the Bookies for the staff, does it every week...
They decide to have a loyalty card.. which would give "Them".. Free Bets and Bonuses ... All of those tickets would then be related to that person's loyalty card and that "ONE PERSON...... Meaning 2500 bets are attributed to the person placing the bets....
Therefore if someone said... OMG... That Person puts 2500 bets on a week... They "MUST" have a GAMBLING problem... Without the other evidence to discount this claim.... 'Everyone would agree that "The Person" did INDEED have a GAMBLING Problem"..
So how can you say that Dr Vincent Tabak had an "Obsession with the Joanna Yeates Case.... and was Trying to Cover his tracks by keeping "One Step Ahead of The Investigation".. as Ann Reddrop stated... If not all of the Information is brought forward, to "prove " or disprove".... That this was indeed the case ?
Meaning (IMO)... The Prosecution withheld Evidence And by just thinking about The Internet searches, not including Every Internet Search That was Done on either Dr Vincent Tabak's "Home" or "Work" computer... The Case against him was "Prejudical" and NOT OPEN AND FAIR... (IMO)..
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part31/pd_part31b
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/I/chapter/7
-
I will just add.... That the person who places "The Bets"... only does a 20p a week "Lucky Dip" on the 'Irish Lottery"
Yet Joe Bloggs who's bets are within those 2500 bets a week... Spends £2000 per week on his betting habits...
How do you distinguish between the bets???
This is why I deem "Internet Searches" to NOT be Relevant to Court Cases.... when someone cherry picks their way through Someones' Internet History... Without evidence to show Who exactly did which search and what other searches were happening between those dates... Which in this Case is between... 17th December 2010 and 19th January 2011 (Making thousands of searches possible...)
How can they "ALL" be attributed to Dr Vincent Tabak... And How can they show relevancy ????
As with Dr Vincent Tabak using various Computers at "Work".. Other People had access to them.. also who else apart from HIMSELF.. ever accessed his Home Computer??? We Don't Know.. ( He may have taken it to work with him!!)
So did.. Dr Vincent Tabak actually make the searches or was it somebody else....
And if it cannot be "Proven" who used which "Computer..." And at What Time"... without all of the of the searches that where made between The Dates I have listed... How could anyone prove whether ..
Dr Vincent Tabak was the 20p Gambler.... Or was he the £2000 a week Gambler .... Can anyone really make a distinction??? Because I can't !!!!
-
Ann Reddrop.... The very same Ann Reddrop who stood in front of the TV cameras and expressed to the world, what a Cunning, Manipulative, deceitful man, Dr Vincent Tabak was... And how he had lied and did everything he could to get one step ahead of the Investigation.....
The very same Ann Reddrop who was The Head of The complex Crime Unit... A Unit that deals with "Complex Crime"....
Now that we remember who she is, I want to remember that other little statement that she made ... The one that goes...
Late in December the Police ask for assistance and guidance from The Crown Prosecution Service.. That assistance has come from "The South West Case Work Unit" based here in Bristol... I reviewed the Evidence and Advised that Vincent Tabak should be charged with this murder and began preparing this case for trial... In May this year Tabak admitted Jo's Manslaughter....but that was only part of it..
Ann who in late December 2010 decide that this Placid Dutchman was wholly responsible for the death of Joanna Yeates....
Now... I have always tried to guess what she meant as late December... When we knew that they sent a team of Detectives to Holland on the 31st December 2010....
That in itself is enough to raise an eyebrow or two..... But I think I can go one better.... And I didn't really think it was possible to be honest... But ....Oh yes it is ...!!!
The image and video that I have attached says it all...... It says that they did indeed set Dr Vincent Tabak up in my opinion...And if you are not going with my opinion on that then, the only other possible option you have left... Is That Joanna yeates , lived in the Entire Ground floor and Dr Vincent Tabak lived in a Flat in the main house...
I have attached a video to this post... A wonderful little News Clip that throws doubt on Dr Vincent Tabak's conviction ..(IMO)...
And what gives this information away so clearly is the weather..... This video clip (IMO)... show how almost immediatley they were setting Dr Vincent Tabak up to take the fall... (Or did you have someone else in mind at this time Ann)!!!!!
Because when in December 2010 it snowed, we have a lovely video clip starting at the back of Canygne Road, looking directly at Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat, standing on what must be the garden .... then walking down to the side of Joanna Yeates Flat where you can clearly see snow everywhere....
Not only that... It also goes to prove that Dr Vincent Tabak did not buy Rock Salt to clear the path as the snow is still there...
How can they be filming Dr Vincent Tabak flat in the "FROZEN" winter, when as you have all said you didn't suspect Dr Vincent Tabak till the lovely Karen Thomas popped over for a cuppa and a chat... because if you have suspected Dr Vincent Tabak... I am sure he would have been cautioned before his interview in Holland.... And we wouldn't have video evidence of DC Karen Thomas and DCI Phil Jones telling the world how Dr Vincent Tabak's over interest in Forensics caused you all to suspect him....
You see you can't have it both ways...
The News Clip is obviously taken in December 2010:
oanna Yeates murder trial: defendant Vincent Tabak gives evidence; December 2010 Bristol: Clifton: Canynge Road: SNOW ON GROUND GV Exterior of flat where Joanne Yeates lived Path beside flat PAN to front door
Another video showing The "FROZEN path outside Joanna Yeates Flat...!!
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/656385638
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/656487136
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Ann.... were nearly friends... i feel like I almost know you... You are in my thoughts on a regular basis.. And we're not even pen pals.... But I do love the Islands Ann... Good Choice...
Were was I... Oh Yes... finding evidence to prove that you all had already decided that Dr Vincent Tabak was guilty before he was charged.....
Lets go back to privacy... And.... not upsetting residents in the area that you are investigating....
You see Ann... The other little problem I have apart from the filming outside Dr Vincent tabaks Flat at the back of the building in December 2010.. Is..........
How did you manage to start putting up The scaffolding and Green tarpaulin around Dr Vincent tabak's Flat on the 20th January 2011... when as you know ANN... you had only just arrested Dr Vincent Tabak... and as far as the world was concerned you had all made the same mistake as you had done with CJ.....
How could you be so sure NO LAWYER would demand the release of this Placid Dutchman IMMEDIATLEY through lack of evidence.... How were you all so confident that he would be charged with "MURDER" as early as the 20th January 2011...
You couldn't possibly have known this, could you ANN... Yet there we have it... A load of busy little scaffolders.. working away to hide the view into Dr Vincent Tabaks Flat.... Which is extremely odd anyway... As you didn't screen anyother part of the building especially when you arrested CJ.... !!!
Clip #: 655366558SD
Collection: ITN
Date created: 20 January, 2011
Licence type: Rights-ready
Release info: Not released. More information
Clip length: 00:00:16:11
Location: United Kingdom
Again Ann.... Not released.... Oh I wonder why????
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/687958316
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/655388432
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/655366558
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Now this little clip is odd....
Somebody explain the Random Couple in The News Clip ... that are shown on a tour of Joanna Yeates Flat....
Beach Life...???. And what's with the close up of a "Black and White Cat????
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Now this next post is for mrswah and leonora....
The Fire Crew.... Well not totally them.... We have in this next video... The arrival in The Black Car of 4 Rope access guys... 4 guys who are heavily geared up to tackle someone far more serious than removing a body from A Grass Verge...
What are these guys retrieving??? Must be something of significance if it takes 4 of them....(IMO)....!!!
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/688034660
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Here we had Chief Superintendent Jon Stratford telling us as early as the 7th January 2011... That its unlikely that there is a continuing threat!!
Quote from Chief Superintendent Jon Stratford
In our experience and using our professional judgement, it's very unlikely, that there is a continuing threat to public in this area. And certainly the Investigation Team are finding nothing that would suggest that at this time
So... How can he be so sure ????? What does he know ??????? I thought Dr Vincent Tabak was a Serial Killer in the making according to some.... He is freely wandering the streets of Bristol on the 7th January 2011...
So who did you think killed Joanna Yeates ???? Because it obviously was not Dr Vincent Tabak!!!
Was the person you suspected out of the country at This Time???!!!!
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/655295256
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The Missing Sock.....
The First Image I have attached is of the old man handing the sock in from the video clip... The other two images are from the internet...
The first image the guys hair looks longer.... Or is that just me????
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/655303460
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I'll apologise now for the many images... but I believe that they are needed...I'm sure you will understand why when you view them...
These images come from them removing the Intercom Plate from the Front of Joanna Yeates Flat... Not only that we have the men who are removing the door making ... many many Forensic Errors!!!
(A): We have a man.. ripping the tape with his teeth that he is going to use for the Front door of Joanna yeates...
(B): We have a woman appear that I have never seen before...
(C): This same woman with Forensic Gloves on scratching her nose
(D):The Guy wrapping the door up not only walks all over the plastic covering.. But also wipes his nose with his gloves on....
So... Cross contamination everywhere... Forensic's clearly Compromised.... There whole Forensic chain put into question.... Any Good Defence Lawyer would have ripped the Prosecution apart....
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/685650778
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
More evidence of the lack of Forensic Control in this case...
(A): different guy Wiping his nose on to his plastic gloves
(B): The lady who is new to me ... Entering Joanna Yeates flat without a Forensic Suit... And unlocking the Front door without gloves
(C):Man with his Gloved Hand in his pocket....... No Cross Contamination there Ann!!
(D): Why are they using D.R.A Maintenance to remove this door???? The Same Maintenance crew who are going in and out of Joanna Yeates Flat!!!
(E): The Old Guy Scratching his head with his thumb whilst wearing gloves
There is no way on God's Earth that Joanna Yeates was killed in that Flat the way in which The Cross Contamination.... Random odd Job men are working that Crime!!!! (IMO)....
Joanna Yeates probably didn't even make it home....(IMO)!!!!!! All this staging.... And for what.... Is this when the planned arrest took shape ????
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/685655606
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The Fire Trucks... And DI Joe Goff.....
Now I hadn't realised that DI Joe Goff was actually on Longwood Lane, he amongst so many Police on the day of the discovery of an unidentified body on 'Longwood Lane " on the 25th December 2010...
Until they had a post mortem they apparently didn't know the cause of death... Yet every senior looking Police Officer from Avon and Somerset, have gathered on Longwood lane to sort out their strategy..
DI Joe Goff is carrying something in his hand... It appears to be a kind of bag with a book inside... He has his own book in his hand also.. so what is he carrying?? (could it be the significant piece of evidence? Is it a rucksack?)
Look at the third and last image.... what is he carrying???
And as leonora and mrswah have always said.... Why so many Fire Trucks ????
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/688789862
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Now... The Police have always insisted that Joanna yeates was on A grass Verge and there are some of us who simply do not believe this is true!!
The appearance of so many fire engine at the scene on Longwood Lane would suggest other wise....
The type of Stretcher that was used to recovery Joanna Yeates is all important... This stretcher will help prove that she was in a far more inaccessible area than a Grass Verge..
I have an image of said stretcher... It is of the type used by the fire service to rescue people from hard to access places ..... Now there is no doubt that Joanna Yeates was recovered from over the wall ...(IMO)...
In the second image I am not sure what is in the Firemen's hand??? Anyone identify this piece of equipment ???
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/688789872
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The Police activity on The 24th December 2010 at Canygne Road, shows that they are investigating this "Missing persons Inquiry as a 'Murder inquiry"...(IMO)...
I am trying to identify the Senior Police Officer leaving 44 Canygne Road with the Forensic woman we know and another DSI woman and then getting into the on site Police unit..
He looks like The Guy who carries out the Forensics on other images we have ...
And why are they going into 43, Canygne Road ?? surely they have had days to search there ???
A couple talking to Police outside Joanna Yeates Flat..... Also a picture of a different CSI woman... I wonder who she is ???
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/688841636
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I find this next report puzzling....
It's when the search and rescue go out looking for Joanna Yeates... I think it's the 24th December 2010..
The Interesting part of this is that the area is sealed off with "Crime Scene Tape"... And we have a couple there walking there dog...
Noted is the ambulances that are in place.... Had they found her there ?????
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/659295816
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I would just like to add to this post...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg418537#msg418537
That by the 29th December 2010... The snow had gone.... This is when CJ was talking to News reports outside Canygne Road...
So the fact that they had already been taking images of Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat before this date is rather suspect....(IMO)...
Seeing as Dr Vincent Tabak was away for most of the Christmas period.... And CJ wasn't arrested nor had Dr Vincent Tabak called the Police from Holland!!!
Joanna Yeates murder:
29.12.2010 Christopher Jefferies speaking to press SOT - It is a serious distortion of what I said to the police and I have no further comment to make because that is almost certain itself to be distorted 30.12.2010 Car (belonging to Christopher Jefferies) being lifted on to back of police truck Police truck carrying Jefferies' car driving away Forensic officer carrying evidence bags out of Jefferies' flat
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/659148876
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Why doesn't Chief Superintendent Jon Stratford want the public to think that there is a killer out there... When as he says... It's an unusual Crime for The Clifton area ...
He then goes on to say: At about 2:20 ish... what whole video...
Could I... It's very impertinent of me I know ....
Could I just amend the question slightly from.... you've got a killer on the loose...
I think He is on Clifton Downs having this Interview ..... No date for this Interview ....
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/689706524
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I find this next report puzzling....
It's when the search and rescue go out looking for Joanna Yeates... I think it's the 24th December 2010..
The Interesting part of this is that the area is sealed off with "Crime Scene Tape"... And we have a couple there walking there dog...
Noted is the ambulances that are in place.... Had they found her there ?????
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/659295816
It's not an ambulance, but a white minibus, probably for transporting detachments of police officers. The dog is not a labrador, but a St Bernard, or a St Bernard lookalike. The Birches, who allegedly found Joanna's body, were walking their chocolate labrador, called Roxy. The priest who testified that he saw Joanna was walking his labrador.
-
It's not an ambulance, but a white minibus, probably for transporting detachments of police officers. The dog is not a labrador, but a St Bernard, or a St Bernard lookalike. The Birches, who allegedly found Joanna's body, were walking their chocolate labrador, called Roxy. The priest who testified that he saw Joanna was walking his labrador.
It says Rescue Ambulance on the front Bonnet... And Ambulance down the side.... And I'm amazed that you haven't said anything else leonora... All those Fire Trucks !!
Bit small for a St. Bernard.... ?{)(**
-
It says Rescue Ambulance on the front Bonnet... And Ambulance down the side.... And I'm amazed that you haven't said anything else leonora... All those Fire Trucks !!
Bit small for a St. Bernard.... ?{)(**
The labels "Rescue Ambulance" and "Ambulance" are just a ruse for the benefit of journalists, neighbours and suspects. Just like DCI Phil Jones's insistance that Joanna was fully clothed and had incurred no other injury than those that caused her strangulation. I imagine it is normally used for transporting detachments of heavily armed police officers to houses where terrorists are believed to be holed up. In between, the vehicle is probably used for transporting packing cases.
There was no fire, so the pumping tenders had to be used for draining a large pond in the quarry, and the crane for retrieving the vehicle that was in the pond. Even more mysterious is the apparent lack of curiosity about the fire trucks on the part of the news media. This can be explained only by a conspiracy. Editors are very intelligent people, but they know that no one ever lost money by under-estimating the intelligence of the general public.
-
That is a very good picture of all the fire engines!!!
As for what DCI Goff is carrying, I thought it was a laptop at first, now I think it is probably a loose leaf file.
I was always under the impression that Vincent and Tanja moved out of their flat because Tanja felt uncomfortable being there-----and it happened that her friend was abroad, so there was a flat for them to use. Had there not been, I'm sure they would have stayed at no 44.
-
Why in the "CrimeWatch" Reconstruction.. Is the girl who is playing the part of Joanna Yeates wearing a Black Rucksack with White down the edges??
All the images of Joanna Yeates have her wearing a Blue Rucksack why would they change the colour of the 'Rucksack"???
I have noticed there is a lot of references to "Black and White"...
(A): Joanna Yeates Bathroom
(B): Joanna Yeates Bedroom
(C): The settee's in Joanna Yeates front room.. ( One with cover removed)
(D): Bernard The Cat
(E):All The CCTV images that are Black and white...
Why would the Police deliberatley change the "Colour" of The Rucksack That Joanna yeates was supposed to be carrying???
Not sure what it means ....!!
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/655516666
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/655377712
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The ambulance really is an ambulance. It was purchased to enable access to areas around the Severn Estuary where other ambulances cannot go due to the terrain. The white van is a SOCO's van (Scene Of Crime Officer) (I use the term "officer" lightly here, they are just anyone trained to use ear buds to swab surfaces and put them into a plastic bag so someone with a brain can analyse anything stuck to the cotton wool). Standard procedure is to check an area is clear of anything of interest and delineate the cleared space with anything to hand, in this case police tape. Anything that gets found is placed into the area and from then on is considered "forensic", i.e. "The Property of The Courts". That's all the tape is there for, there is nothing in that cleared space. The couple walking the dog are outside of that small space and the photographer has included the tape in the shot just for effect.
-
I believe that the Flat is Staged.... I don't believe that the flat has Joanna Yeates furniture inside it..... And although everyone may think I have lost the plot... bare with me.... And my reasoning for believing that this is the case .....
The reason which I will give you supporting evidence as to why I believe that the flat is staged.... Look at Image 1 and Image 3...
They show the kitchen window sill... On Image one... The Police have obviously not finished painting the tiles!!! Because by the time Image three is taken which is when the Jury have been.... we have all the tiles the same colour!!!
Why would the Police need to Paint The Kitchen tiles in Joanna Yeates Flat???
Whether or not you believe in confessions or admission of GUILT.... The fact that The Police Have Clearly tampered with evidence should be more than enough to cast doubt on Dr Vincent Tabak's conviction....(IMO)...
This also make me believe that the "For Rent Advert... that was on Rightmove is actually Joanna Yeates flat... and what it looked like .... With the kitchen blind down.... I will say this because all the kitchen tiles have been painted... and obviously that painting had happened after Joanna Yeates was dead....
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/19/article-2050880-0E58081400000578-386_634x417.jpg)
Edit..... It's a Crime Scene (apparently).... WHY ARE YOU PAINTING TILES?????? You can even see the UNDERCOAT... So that is deliberate (IMO)... You're not going to top coat until you finish undercoating... !!
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/656494322
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-27696067.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2050880/Vincent-Tabak-trial-Joanna-Yeates-killed-accident-objected-kiss.html
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Removed by Me... Pointless post.. sorry
-
..........
-
......
-
For someone who has read no more than Wikipedia's account of this case, the absence of a motive on the part of Vincent Tabak ought to loom large as the "elephant in the room". Unfortunately the elephant in the room is a threatened species which few people acknowledge. On the other hand, the dog that did not bark in the night is a much loved pet familiar to EVERYONE. I cannot imagine why I never thought it odd before that Mr Clegg failed to open his case for the defence by barking, "MOTIVE? Woof woof!"
Instead, as we know, he opened it by telling the jury that he didn't expect them to like his client. Then he invited the same client into the witness box to spend two days playing out the bluebeard role devised for him.
Just imagine what would have happened if Vincent Tabak had gone on answering "No comment" and pleaded not guilty. The trial would have been somewhat shorter. Mr. Clegg would have had a lovely time demolishing each of the prosecution witnesses in turn with a few well-aimed questions. He would have issued the jury with copies of the very sympathetic preface to his client's PhD thesis. He would then have opened his case by asking what motive the CPS thought Joanna's murderer had. He would have called Christopher Jefferies, Tanja Morson and select character witnesses to testify. It would have taken the jury one cup of coffee to declare the accused innocent.
-
Remember these guys.... http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg418544#msg418544
The clumsy lot with the handling of Forensics.....
Well I hadn't realised that they came back... Oh yes... And this time to put the scaffolding around Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat..... Now what was it that DCI Phil Jones said about keeping each site seperate, forensically???? No Cross Contamination.... No one from one site working at another ????
Phil... would you like to explain........???? What was that I couldn't quite hear you??????
The main man (The one who rips gaffer tape with his teeth on the other clip)..has tried a little disguise... this time he's wearing glasses..... Same company as well..... Now that is very strange, wouldn't you say %£&)**#
He actively involved ... you can see him at the back of the wagon with his safety helmet on..... Why are the "POLICE" using RANDOM WORKMEN..... AT A CRIME SCENE ???????? Again!!! not only at one site... but TWO!!!
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/687958316
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Ok..... D.R.A Maintenance LTD Stands for David Ronald Avery.. A private builders company
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/03467566/officers
An interesting read......
But why have we got a Private Builders Company carrying out Forensic work at 44 Canygne Road... Slap bang in the middle of a "Murder Investigation"?????
So.... What DCI Karen Thomas really meant to say to everyone.... was That When Dr Vincent Tabak apparently saw The door being removed,... he wondered why a set of builders were working on a "Crime Scene"!!!
Wasn't Dr Vincent Tabak apparently worried he may have touched the door ????
”The officer explained to him that he had placed himself at the flat once on one occasion, he said he had been there and touched the door.
Well... To be honest.. him touching the door wouldn't really matter if we have builders removing it, now would it! That throws the Forensics right out of the window.... literally!!! (IMO)...
Why were they there ??
This case is nuts... Why employee "Bob The Builder" to do Forensics ?????
http://swns.com/news/vincent-tabak-contacted-detectives-following-chris-jefferies-arrest-21315/
Edit:.... before DCI Phil Jones employed these random workmen.... Did he DNA test any of them, as to eliminate them from the enquiry???? Or did he really know who had killed Joanna Yeates by the 29th December 2010, when they first appear at 44,Canygne Road, using their teeth to rip gaffer tape when removing Joanna yeates front door.... Which is 2 days before they even Interview Dr Vincent Tabak in Holland???
This was also before they had arrested CJ!!
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Once the police had set the bandwagon rolling by inviting the national media to cover the disappearance of a missing person, everyone wanted to get in on the act. Local suppliers of storage containers lobbied the police to buy packing cases for all the evidence they were going to collect, so, having bought all these packing cases, detectives had to send their men out to find evidence to put into them.
Having lured all these journalists to Bristol, the police felt obliged to organise goings-on to keep them interested. I am sure that every intelligent witness/suspect who was questioned by the police felt obliged to ask polite questions about the progress of the case, such as, "Why did you remove her front-door?"
As Noel O'Gara always used to say, "You couldn't make it up even if you tried".
-
Once the police had set the bandwagon rolling by inviting the national media to cover the disappearance of a missing person, everyone wanted to get in on the act. Local suppliers of storage containers lobbied the police to buy packing cases for all the evidence they were going to collect, so, having bought all these packing cases, detectives had to send their men out to find evidence to put into them.
Having lured all these journalists to Bristol, the police felt obliged to organise goings-on to keep them interested. I am sure that every intelligent witness/suspect who was questioned by the police felt obliged to ask polite questions about the progress of the case, such as, "Why did you remove her front-door?"
As Noel O'Gara always used to say, "You couldn't make it up even if you tried".
My problem is it's supposed to be a "Crime Scene"... So Bob The Builder shouldn't even be there ....(IMO)... !!!!
Does this also support that Joanna Yeates did not arrive home ????
-
So, does anyone know if removing a front door IS normal police practice? I have never heard of such a thing before.
-
So, does anyone know if removing a front door IS normal police practice? I have never heard of such a thing before.
I believe it was for show mrswah... other people may know differently.... Doesn't really matter either way..(IMO).... You don't have 'Bob The Builder " at a crime scene... they even go into the flat as well...
-
So, does anyone know if removing a front door IS normal police practice? I have never heard of such a thing before.
It may well be "normal police practice" when intending to entrap a suspect in the full knowledge that the task will be captured by news photographers.
-
It may well be "normal police practice" when intending to entrap a suspect in the full knowledge that the task will be captured by news photographers.
But Again...... Why employee "Bob The Builder" to do this "FORENSIC" task???? shouldn't the crime scene be free of members of the PUBLIC?????
-
It may well be "normal police practice" when intending to entrap a suspect in the full knowledge that the task will be captured by news photographers.
In all honesty leonora.... The Defence should have been all over that piece of Evidence of "Bob The Builder" using his mouth to rip gaffer tape... And "Bob The Builder " being at a Crime Scene"... So much so... it would cast doubt in the juries mind.. that the Forensic's had been compromised... Also casting DOUBT on Dr Vincent Tabak's charge he was facing!!!!! (IMO)....
How can any of the FORENSIC's be trusted... If the basic's are not followed ???????
-
Here's a challenge......
Give me a list of evidence that proved Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates.... Evidence that supports what he said in Court!
-
Here's a challenge......
Give me a list of evidence that proved Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates.... Evidence that supports what he said in Court!
This is what most people will say:
He said he did it and told the court how he did it.
He isn't protesting his innocence, and nor is his family.
His DNA was found on Joanna's body.
Joanna's blood was found in the boot of his car.
The police would not have arrested him without good reason.
He is a big bloke, and therefore, capable of moving a body.
Oh, and, as one person on another forum said, "his eyes are too close together."
Oh, and as another person on a forum said, "he is probably an Aspie, and they are weird people."
The last point infuriates me, the one before is just plain stupid, and I think us few on here have challenged all the others----------!
-
This is what most people will say:
He said he did it and told the court how he did it.
He isn't protesting his innocence, and nor is his family.
His DNA was found on Joanna's body.
Joanna's blood was found in the boot of his car.
The police would not have arrested him without good reason.
He is a big bloke, and therefore, capable of moving a body.
Oh, and, as one person on another forum said, "his eyes are too close together."
Oh, and as another person on a forum said, "he is probably an Aspie, and they are weird people."
The last point infuriates me, the one before is just plain stupid, and I think us few on here have challenged all the others----------!
Yes mrswah.... nothing really...
But as leonora has always said... where was the "Motive"???
Another thing that really bothers me... Is that he is charged between dates.... Is that even possible legally???
How can he be charged between the 16th December 2010 and the 19th December 2010 and originaly between the 16th December 2010 and the 26th December 2010..
If they are happy he killed her on Friday 17th December 2010.. then why isn't he charged for that date ???
She was supposed to be alive on the Thursday 16th December 2010..... Was she ???
And if the only thing they have changed is to shorten the time between... Then in my mind whether I am correct or not is... She died on the 16th December 2010 or was Missing from the 16th December 2010 and by the 19th December 2010... They knew she was dead !!! (IMO)....
The date span appears weird... don't know of another case when this has been used as a charge date for Murder!!....
-
This little clip... shows the Police checking the Manhole cover directly outside Joanna Yeates front door... The is one Officer with a Crowbar and another with a long pole with a V shape cut out from it....
The Officer with the long pole proceed to lift the cover and the Officer with the crow bar goes around the back of the property to do?????
Because I don't see how this happened in an area being Dr Vincent Tabak's back yard... Did they get a warrant??? Dr Vincent Tabak was away in Cambridge at the time.... Is this the reason DC Karen Thomas rang Dr Vincent Tabak... wanting his OK for them to search outside the back of his property??? Hardly shouts Murderer trying to hide stuff does it???
Part way through the clip.. the same Officers come back out from Canygne Road... and one is carrying a oblong bag.... Have they retrieved this bag from one of the drains ??? The Officer with the bag then disappears... The other two continue to search at 43, Canygne Road opposite Joanna Yeates house ...
There is also a drain underneath Joanna Yeates bedroom window and one outside the bay window of Dr Vincent Tabak's flat...
This event happens on the 24th December 2010... I wonder what's in the bag...?? what type of bag is it???
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/688841636
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Another thought past me by watching that video clip....
There isn't a lot of room between the building and the shed... How did Dr Vincent Tabak manage to carry Joanna Yeates in his arms past the shed ??? He doesn't say he gives her a Fireman's lift in fact he describes carrying her ...
Defence Counsel: Accepting that she was dead, what did you do?
Tabak: After a couple of minutes I lifted the body and carried it over to my flat.
Defence Counsel: Your hand being on what part of her body?
Tabak: One arm was underneath her knees.
So how did he manage to carry her past the Garden Shed with her going across his body ????? They wouldn't fit past the gap ...
The Officers just appear to manage to get past comfortably....
Edit... Why do we never see them Forensically Testing the SHED???.... They pass it all the time... If Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have taken her that way or any one else you would think that they would test the SHED!!!.... (IMO)...
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/688841636
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Another thing I noticed was missing in this video clip.... The Policeman who was guarding the gate, didn't have a log book to sign in and out the Police Officers attending the "Crime Scene"...
I thought ALL people who attended the 'Crime Scene" were supposed to sign the visiting log!!!
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
... Why do we never see them Forensically Testing the SHED???.... They pass it all the time... If Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have taken her that way or any one else you would think that they would test the SHED!!!.... (IMO)...
You need to consider the chronology. Not until nine months later did VT sign his enhanced statement declaring that he had carried Joanna's lifeless body along the path around the back of the house. So the police back in December wouldn't have dreamt of testing the sides of the shed where her head or feet might have brushed it if they had known she was dead. Nobody told the jury to examine the space between the shed and the house to decide if it were wide enough for a man carrying a body to pass that way, so they didn't do this. If any forensic evidence had been found at the house to back up VT's enhanced statement at all, the jury would certainly have been told about it. So we are bound to conclude that that part of the statement was a complete fabrication, and that he didn't kill her at 44 Canynge Road.
Nice video clip, though!
-
There are many factors to consider in this case, but I want to start at the begining... The bit when the Police are alerted to Joanna yeates being Missing...
The Police have always maintained that Joanna yeates was killed on Friday 17th December 2010... They never shift from this... The only indication that a different day is possible is when I believe that they wanted CJ in the frame... I believe that it was possibily CJ's car going over Clifton Suspension bridge... And they used that to put pressure on him to confess to Joann Yeates Murder... That.. and the fact he had keys....
I am not going back over the CJ debarcle... Just refreshing and putting things into context...
So..... why "Friday 17th December 2010"????
Why without a shadow of a doubt, did the Police say that Joanna yeates was "Murdered /Missing" on this particular day???
Put Dr Vincent Tabak aside for one moment..... and lets really ask our selves why.. 17th December 2010??
That date starts very early on....
We can go to the: https://www.facebook.com/groups/169097479794933/ That page says Missing since 17th December 2010.
Also: https://helpfindjo.wordpress.com/page/4/
Every article... every statement says clearly that she was 'Missing".. from Friday 17th December 2010
When she hadn't responded to text.. everyone said it wasn't unusual... So because she didn't reply on Friday 17th December 2010... How does that make her "Missing" on that date ???
Her bed could have been slept in.....as an earring is found under the duvet...
The flat was untidy... Is that enough to indicate that someone was Missing since Friday 17th December 2010???
Greg was away... she hadn't planned to meet anyone as far as we know... So how were the Police positive that it was Friday the 17th December 2010??
They have so much information to process before they can make a claim as to the fact she went Missing on Friday 17th December 2010... The have to interview Greg... They have to establish his alibi.. It's normal procedure.. The will need to check his phone.. Everything about his time and travel will need to be scrutinized..
But that information will only tell them what Greg did over that weekend... It will not tell them what Joanna Yeates did over that weekend...
If Dr Vincent tabak was able to get from Canygne Road to Bedminster and then Longwood lane without being caught on CCTV... what's to say that Joanna Yeates didn't make a similar journey?? I am not saying she did... Just pointing out the possibility that it was easy...apparently to leave Canygne Road undetected...
There nothing in the Flat to indicate a struggle.... There's nothing in the flat to indicate forced entry... there's nothing in the flat to say anything... Yet a lot of time was spent there processing it.... Her clothes... One of the most important pieces of evidence needed when establishing when someone has gone "Missing".. A description, of what they were last seen wearing normally accompanies, 'The Missing Person Poster"....
Yet we find NO DESCRIPTION.... We have instead an image of her in a shop.... An image of her wearing a white coat... But the white coat is in the flat still... This information that the coat is in the flat emerges by the 22nd December 2010...
So what about the rest of her clothing??? Greg and everyone at the pub knew what she was wearing... why not a description of her clothes ??
Even the distinctive watch she was wearing when she was found wasn't used as part of the description of he 'Missing"...
Greg says he went round the flat checking things... He at first thought she was doing fun things... To me that indicates she had changed her clothes... And nothing really was out of the ordinary when he arrived home... He may have felt a little annoyed she wasn't there to see him on his return... But obviously,.. nothing over the weekend had alerted him that anything was wrong at home in Canygne Road....
Her Coat being in the Hallway... didn't un-nerve him... which to me says she must have had other coats to wear besides the white coat... Same with the footwear... Nothing in the flat immediately gave him grounds to panic...
He went around tidy as he goes... He drank beer, he ate tea... he did everything normally that one would expect upon his immediate arrival... Nothing in the FLAT INDICATED ANYTHING WAS WRONG.... at that point...
He must have noticed the clothes.... He never says she was wearing the same clothes as she did on the Friday 17th December 2010... Thats why I believe he at first thought she had gone to do fun things... So you have to question that.... What else had gone from the flat that indicated to Greg that she had gone to do fun things ????
Something else must have been "Missing"... for him to think she was doing 'Fun Things"... I also wonder about the phone.. Now if Joanna Yeates wasn't one for answering texts etc.... Did she always take her phone with her ??? It obviously wasn't her lifeline, like some girls are with their phones, if she didn't always answer texts... Did she regularly leave her phone behind ??
This would make more sense to Greg's initial reaction and why it takes so long for him to alert anyone... Even when he rang the phone at 9:00pm.. It took a while before the penny finally dropped... So I believe her phone being in the flat possibly wasn't a huge red flag... maybe it was... But it's something to think about...
So we are still on the 17th December 2010... Nothing there to indicate that this is the day she disappeared... So why all the posters and TV interviews saying she went Missing on Friday 17th December 2010??
That's a definate date... nothing to say... sometime over that weekend we believe she was Missing.. we have a sighting of her in... etc etc etc ... No... we have a date... and a date that they stick too no matter what... I am not saying that they are wrong... From the first TV interviews we are told it's the 17th December 2010.... all of the Missing posters says the same .... The Police at this time haven't had time t collect and check every CCTV in Bristol... Who's to say at this time she hasn't been seen in a shop elsewhere...
How did they definatly know that she was going home on Friday 17th December 2010.. when her flat was empty and Greg was away... Who's to say she didn't take a detour and pop off to someones house she knew.... No-one can forsee what someone is thinking... Until every single avenue had been investigated.. they could not determine that she went "Missing" on that friday...
They could summise that this was a probability... but without proof how would anyone know ....
So we come back to the Polices action... they are at the property in no time... They treat this case very differently from the start... Because what??? what is it that makes them get straight onto this case as a "Missing/Murder inquiry from the very moment Greg calls them...
Lets pretend it's not Greg and Joanna Yeates.. makes it easier for me to explain.... A boyfriend away for the weekend calls the Police because his girlfriend isn't at home when he returns... He had tried to contact her... But.... and this is where details matter... She didn't reply... But for her that isn't unusual... I at first thought she had gone off to do fun things... The Flat looked no different from when I left... The dishes were still in the sink... Her white coats is on the hook... her bag is here.... There is no sign anyone has been in the flat.... But I don't know where she is and i am starting to worry.....
Now... at what point does the Policeman/woman on the other end of the phone drop everything and rush around to Canygne Road to check everything... Not only that start to do door to door inquiries of the neighbours ???
Are they not at first busy quizzing said boyfriend??? Are they not bombarding said boyfriend of his whereabouts?? Are they not checking this is not some type of domestic?? Are they not checking that the boyfirend and girlfriend fell out and she just left...
No they're not.... The are banging neighbours out of bed to see if they have seen anything of Joanna yeates... Or noticed anything unusual....
That speaks volumes..... Remember the headlines.... 'NOT A SUSPECT"... he's a WITNESS...... when talking about Greg.... The question really has to be , what did Greg witness?? What did Greg see to make him a WITNESS... because he has to have seen something... just like CJ's second witness statement... There has to be something that Greg Reardon actually WITNESSED for him to be a witness.. So what was it?? Did he see someone leaving via the gate also...??? what did he see....
It has to be in the flat.... He didn't notice anything in the flat for nearly 4 hours... So what did he find??? I believe he had to find something that shouldn't have been there... Was it the trainers that were found under the sink... where there other items in the flat that shouldn't have been....??
Joanna Yeates mother from the very start says she has been abducted... There has to be something in that Flat that indicated that she was abducted... It is not the first thing that would pop into someones head.... You have to remember that Greg didn't know Joanna Yeates parents very well...
She was my future. This Christmas was going to be our first together. I was going to spend it with her family, which is always a big deal for a boyfriend.
At this point it's 20 question to the boyfriend you don't really know too well... Not... banging on car doors trying to find her.... Something in that flat or someone was seen, for Greg Reardon to be considered a witness by the Police and for Joanna Yeates mother to insist that her daughter had been abducted .....(IMO)
So was there a note ????? The police said when they got the Pizza packaging and note that was sent to the pub... that they had the killers handwriting.... is this what they had??? Is this what they meant?? A written note saying that they had Joanna Yeates ?? Was there a note left in the flat??
Because realistically when you look at my "Lets Pretend" paragraph.... there is nothing there that would indicate or warrant the full force of The Avon and Somerset Police to respond in such a way as to fear that Joanna Yeates life was in danger from day one.... Not only respond to it nationally... But, have virtually every cold case detective play his or her part visually on the TV for someone to see that they are working this case .....
It was never a "Missing Persons Inquiry"...(IMO).... The Police had to have evidence that Joanna Yeates was last alive on Friday 17th December 2010... For them to come out from the very minute the phone call was made by Greg Reardon on Monday 20th December 2010 and Investigate this immediately with all of their resources and attention... Not ever wavering from any other stance and not ever changing the date of her absence being from Friday 17th December 2010!!!
Edit......Was a clue left about the trainers under the sink. behind the kickboard?? These trainers never get mentioned until DCI Phil Jones reveals this information at The Leveson Inquiry!!
You would have thought they were a vital piece of evidence seeing as they had what apparently was a spot of blood on them.... If they were of no evidential value.... DCI Phil Jones does not need to mention this piece of evidence no-one knew about...
So who is he letting know he has got the trainers ??? Who did the trainers belong to??
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8230065/Joanna-Yeates-murder-timeline.html
-
TV news clips are useful... Yet they can also be confusing... This clip I have found gives me more questions than answers....
This is from a News report dated 23rd December 2010
Said at :3:14 of video The search and rescue guy says....
The helicopter and I, totally agree original search, Isn't just appropriate, because there could be snow on top
What is he talking about???? Snow on top of what ??????
Do they know she isn't alive... They don't want to disturb the snow.... What does he mean????
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=de4f8OqwJPU
Edit.... If The search and rescue guy means what I think he means and they are looking for a body, then they must have some information that she has been left somewhere... Information maybe her abductor has given police... So if they knew something like this so early on... Why did they arrest Dr Vincent Tabak ???
-
Back to that clip...... The reporter at 4:48 of video Rhiannon Mills - from sky news says: Video date 23rd December 2010
Now I did ask DCI Brennan earlier about the parents suggestion that she may have been abducted, he didn't want to be drawn on it, but he certainly said that was one area of inquiry that they are looking into. He also was very keen to stress, that christmas may be coming up, certainly going to carry on investigating until they can hopefully find Jo.
So who is DCI Brennan...???? Which Police Force did he work for....
Is it DCI Martin Brennan who specialises in Kidnap from the Midlands Police force
Is It DCI Andy Brennan Who was West Yorkshire then Manchester Police
I can't find any others.... either way it suggest that they were looking at this case as a 'Complexed Crime Case".. And possibly abduction with the two candidates we have... They are from other forces who deal with Serious Crime... Now for them to be involved this early in a "Missing persons Inquiry"... There had to be a lot more too it than Joanna Yeates being a "Missing Person"... (IMO)..
We appear to have so many other Police Forces Involved with this Investigation from very much day one ....!!
I can only find a Martin Brennan's LinkedIn here's what it says ...
Worked in law enforcement for past 26 years, specialising in leading teams proactively investigating serious and organised crime, including demand led kidnaps, covert operations and anti corruption.
Passionate about effective leadership and management of teams and individuals within the outdoors. Successfully led over 30 international expeditions to countries including Nepal, Africa, South America and Dog Sledding within the Arctic Circle in Norway.
Or we have this on the other Policeman:
http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/local/localbrad/8767730.Sharon_Beshenivsky_detective_to_head_murder_team/
Either way why was he involved in "The Joanna Yeates Murder Investigation"????
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/ex-head-of-police-murder-squad-leaves-county-force-for-new-role-1-6729147
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=de4f8OqwJPU
-
DCI Joe Goff... Interesting Officer I am trying to get a handle on at the moment... He serves in The British Virgin islands (I believe Tortola..)and I am now begining to wonder if he possibly speaks Dutch... Not only that i am starting to wonder if he was the other Officer that went to Holland with DC Karen Thomas ...
Detective Inspector Joe Goff, who was part of the police investigation team, described the Dutchman as a “social inadequate”.
He told reporters: “He is a complex character, I would suggest.
“And going back to Tabak’s time in Holland, people that we spoke to there describe almost a social inadequate.”
So... did Joe Goff travel to Holland to speak to people about Dr Vincent Tabak... This statement tends to support that theory (IMO)...
It also describes DI Joe Goff as part of the Investigation team.... and not from Avon and Somerset Police... Doesn't specify where he is from !!
Edit....If Dr Vincent Tabak is a social inadequate as described by DI Joe Goff... Then why all of a sudden would he feel he had the confidence to engage with his next door neighbour he didn't know??
The descriptions these Police Officers give of Dr Vincent Tabak are very interesting...
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/280447/Shame-Vincent-Tabak-cannot-hang-for-Jo-Yeates-murder-say-parents
-
There are many factors to consider in this case, but I want to start at the begining... The bit when the Police are alerted to Joanna yeates being Missing...
The Police have always maintained that Joanna yeates was killed on Friday 17th December 2010... They never shift from this... The only indication that a different day is possible is when I believe that they wanted CJ in the frame... I believe that it was possibily CJ's car going over Clifton Suspension bridge... And they used that to put pressure on him to confess to Joann Yeates Murder... That.. and the fact he had keys....
I am not going back over the CJ debarcle... Just refreshing and putting things into context...
So..... why "Friday 17th December 2010"????
Why without a shadow of a doubt, did the Police say that Joanna yeates was "Murdered /Missing" on this particular day???
Put Dr Vincent Tabak aside for one moment..... and lets really ask our selves why.. 17th December 2010??
That date starts very early on....
We can go to the: https://www.facebook.com/groups/169097479794933/ That page says Missing since 17th December 2010.
Also: https://helpfindjo.wordpress.com/page/4/
Every article... every statement says clearly that she was 'Missing".. from Friday 17th December 2010
When she hadn't responded to text.. everyone said it wasn't unusual... So because she didn't reply on Friday 17th December 2010... How does that make her "Missing" on that date ???
Her bed could have been slept in.....as an earring is found under the duvet...
The flat was untidy... Is that enough to indicate that someone was Missing since Friday 17th December 2010???
Greg was away... she hadn't planned to meet anyone as far as we know... So how were the Police positive that it was Friday the 17th December 2010??
They have so much information to process before they can make a claim as to the fact she went Missing on Friday 17th December 2010... The have to interview Greg... They have to establish his alibi.. It's normal procedure.. The will need to check his phone.. Everything about his time and travel will need to be scrutinized..
But that information will only tell them what Greg did over that weekend... It will not tell them what Joanna Yeates did over that weekend...
If Dr Vincent tabak was able to get from Canygne Road to Bedminster and then Longwood lane without being caught on CCTV... what's to say that Joanna Yeates didn't make a similar journey?? I am not saying she did... Just pointing out the possibility that it was easy...apparently to leave Canygne Road undetected...
There nothing in the Flat to indicate a struggle.... There's nothing in the flat to indicate forced entry... there's nothing in the flat to say anything... Yet a lot of time was spent there processing it.... Her clothes... One of the most important pieces of evidence needed when establishing when someone has gone "Missing".. A description, of what they were last seen wearing normally accompanies, 'The Missing Person Poster"....
Yet we find NO DESCRIPTION.... We have instead an image of her in a shop.... An image of her wearing a white coat... But the white coat is in the flat still... This information that the coat is in the flat emerges by the 22nd December 2010...
So what about the rest of her clothing??? Greg and everyone at the pub knew what she was wearing... why not a description of her clothes ??
Even the distinctive watch she was wearing when she was found wasn't used as part of the description of he 'Missing"...
Greg says he went round the flat checking things... He at first thought she was doing fun things... To me that indicates she had changed her clothes... And nothing really was out of the ordinary when he arrived home... He may have felt a little annoyed she wasn't there to see him on his return... But obviously,.. nothing over the weekend had alerted him that anything was wrong at home in Canygne Road....
Her Coat being in the Hallway... didn't un-nerve him... which to me says she must have had other coats to wear besides the white coat... Same with the footwear... Nothing in the flat immediately gave him grounds to panic...
He went around tidy as he goes... He drank beer, he ate tea... he did everything normally that one would expect upon his immediate arrival... Nothing in the FLAT INDICATED ANYTHING WAS WRONG.... at that point...
He must have noticed the clothes.... He never says she was wearing the same clothes as she did on the Friday 17th December 2010... Thats why I believe he at first thought she had gone to do fun things... So you have to question that.... What else had gone from the flat that indicated to Greg that she had gone to do fun things ????
Something else must have been "Missing"... for him to think she was doing 'Fun Things"... I also wonder about the phone.. Now if Joanna Yeates wasn't one for answering texts etc.... Did she always take her phone with her ??? It obviously wasn't her lifeline, like some girls are with their phones, if she didn't always answer texts... Did she regularly leave her phone behind ??
This would make more sense to Greg's initial reaction and why it takes so long for him to alert anyone... Even when he rang the phone at 9:00pm.. It took a while before the penny finally dropped... So I believe her phone being in the flat possibly wasn't a huge red flag... maybe it was... But it's something to think about...
So we are still on the 17th December 2010... Nothing there to indicate that this is the day she disappeared... So why all the posters and TV interviews saying she went Missing on Friday 17th December 2010??
That's a definate date... nothing to say... sometime over that weekend we believe she was Missing.. we have a sighting of her in... etc etc etc ... No... we have a date... and a date that they stick too no matter what... I am not saying that they are wrong... From the first TV interviews we are told it's the 17th December 2010.... all of the Missing posters says the same .... The Police at this time haven't had time t collect and check every CCTV in Bristol... Who's to say at this time she hasn't been seen in a shop elsewhere...
How did they definatly know that she was going home on Friday 17th December 2010.. when her flat was empty and Greg was away... Who's to say she didn't take a detour and pop off to someones house she knew.... No-one can forsee what someone is thinking... Until every single avenue had been investigated.. they could not determine that she went "Missing" on that friday...
They could summise that this was a probability... but without proof how would anyone know ....
So we come back to the Polices action... they are at the property in no time... They treat this case very differently from the start... Because what??? what is it that makes them get straight onto this case as a "Missing/Murder inquiry from the very moment Greg calls them...
Lets pretend it's not Greg and Joanna Yeates.. makes it easier for me to explain.... A boyfriend away for the weekend calls the Police because his girlfriend isn't at home when he returns... He had tried to contact her... But.... and this is where details matter... She didn't reply... But for her that isn't unusual... I at first thought she had gone off to do fun things... The Flat looked no different from when I left... The dishes were still in the sink... Her white coats is on the hook... her bag is here.... There is no sign anyone has been in the flat.... But I don't know where she is and i am starting to worry.....
Now... at what point does the Policeman/woman on the other end of the phone drop everything and rush around to Canygne Road to check everything... Not only that start to do door to door inquiries of the neighbours ???
Are they not at first busy quizzing said boyfriend??? Are they not bombarding said boyfriend of his whereabouts?? Are they not checking this is not some type of domestic?? Are they not checking that the boyfirend and girlfriend fell out and she just left...
No they're not.... The are banging neighbours out of bed to see if they have seen anything of Joanna yeates... Or noticed anything unusual....
That speaks volumes..... Remember the headlines.... 'NOT A SUSPECT"... he's a WITNESS...... when talking about Greg.... The question really has to be , what did Greg witness?? What did Greg see to make him a WITNESS... because he has to have seen something... just like CJ's second witness statement... There has to be something that Greg Reardon actually WITNESSED for him to be a witness.. So what was it?? Did he see someone leaving via the gate also...??? what did he see....
It has to be in the flat.... He didn't notice anything in the flat for nearly 4 hours... So what did he find??? I believe he had to find something that shouldn't have been there... Was it the trainers that were found under the sink... where there other items in the flat that shouldn't have been....??
Joanna Yeates mother from the very start says she has been abducted... There has to be something in that Flat that indicated that she was abducted... It is not the first thing that would pop into someones head.... You have to remember that Greg didn't know Joanna Yeates parents very well...
At this point it's 20 question to the boyfriend you don't really know too well... Not... banging on car doors trying to find her.... Something in that flat or someone was seen, for Greg Reardon to be considered a witness by the Police and for Joanna Yeates mother to insist that her daughter had been abducted .....(IMO)
So was there a note ????? The police said when they got the Pizza packaging and note that was sent to the pub... that they had the killers handwriting.... is this what they had??? Is this what they meant?? A written note saying that they had Joanna Yeates ?? Was there a note left in the flat??
Because realistically when you look at my "Lets Pretend" paragraph.... there is nothing there that would indicate or warrant the full force of The Avon and Somerset Police to respond in such a way as to fear that Joanna Yeates life was in danger from day one.... Not only respond to it nationally... But, have virtually every cold case detective play his or her part visually on the TV for someone to see that they are working this case .....
It was never a "Missing Persons Inquiry"...(IMO).... The Police had to have evidence that Joanna Yeates was last alive on Friday 17th December 2010... For them to come out from the very minute the phone call was made by Greg Reardon on Monday 20th December 2010 and Investigate this immediately with all of their resources and attention... Not ever wavering from any other stance and not ever changing the date of her absence being from Friday 17th December 2010!!!
Edit......Was a clue left about the trainers under the sink. behind the kickboard?? These trainers never get mentioned until DCI Phil Jones reveals this information at The Leveson Inquiry!!
You would have thought they were a vital piece of evidence seeing as they had what apparently was a spot of blood on them.... If they were of no evidential value.... DCI Phil Jones does not need to mention this piece of evidence no-one knew about...
So who is he letting know he has got the trainers ??? Who did the trainers belong to??
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8230065/Joanna-Yeates-murder-timeline.html
Must admit Nine, you have a very convincing argument here, with maybe a few points one could argue over but nothing that would detract from the overall picture.
AH
-
More from The Police Conference... Sometimes I wonder if they slip up, and reveal a little more than they meant too...
My post that AH, has quoted above, where I ask if something was Missing, whether Greg noticed something was Missing...
Here i'll quote from the Police Conference of December 28th 2010 when the press are asking questions of DCI Phil Jones..
At 8:45 on the video..... The guy from the Evening Post asks:..
Is there anything on her mobile phone or laptop that has given any leads
DCI Phil Jones replies:..
Erm... That Invesa... Er... that forensic examination is still on going
Erm Investa.... Was he about to say Investigation?? Was her laptop Missing ???
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8noQpXm0HQU
-
Now... early Indications were always that there was no forced entry... So i find DCI Phil Jones response at Another Police Conference quite puzzling...
3rd January 2011
But I'm not able to speculate, whether she let someone in to the flat, whether someone was already in there, or someone broke into the flat..
Now on the 29th December 2010 we have a report in the news saying:..
Her keys, mobile phone, purse and coat had been left behind at their flat and forensic examiners have said there was no sign of a forced entry or a struggle at the property.
So why on the 3rd January 2011... is DCI Phil Jones even mentioning the possibility of someone breaking into the flat??
Old sash windows are easy to access... If they haven't had time to test all the forensics.. how do they know that no-one entered via a sash window ??
Ah..... forced entry... = Breaking in and damage appears as a result
Enter via a window = open sash window without signs of breaking anything..
Maybe thats why we see the forensics on the outside of the sash window ..!!
I have attached an image of them forensically testing the sash window.... They must believe that she wouldn't open the door to a stranger... Having an Intercom to speak to anyone who comes to the door... Image attached..
So what were the results of the forensic's done on the window ??? We never see the other side of the window... bedroom curtain are closed and so are the front room curtains... But I was looking at the Forensics and them testing the window and it confused me...
We see the two forensic people arrive at the front room window of Joanna Yeates and we can see the closed curtain... Yet... when they are applying the forensic liquid... there are no curtains there?? So which flat are they testing the windows on??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b133XlpYvxc
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/uk-england-bristol-12089150
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/656442052
-
This image has taken me an age to capture....... I didn't understand why the Intercom plate was removed.. And even the image I have captured doesn't really tell you why...
But..... Where all the other flats in the main house have a name on the Intercom.... Joanna Yeates Flat doesn't... It only says Flat 1...
I had to put this clip through quick time and pretend to trim it so i could get the frame that i was looking for ...
And all the Intercom plate says is Flat 1... So if a stranger had chanced upon the house... they wouldn't know that Joanna Yeates lived there...
Also knowing that Greg would be away, wouldn't be of use to a stranger if they did not know which Flat the couple lived in ...
You have more possibilities....
(1):... She was not in her flat and her things were returned...
Now that scenario would need for something with her address on in her bag for a stranger to return her possessions..Does that go with the possibility that she collected something from The Post Office, being Baryah's... That shop, what ever the name, has always been a Post Office as well as a convenience shop..
But again..... why would a stranger bother returning her possessions ???
(2):.. It was someone she knew and they returned her possessions...
No stranger would be waiting in her flat for her, not knowing where she lived!!! No stranger would be breaking in to that Flat if they didn't know who lived there, if it's a sexually motivated attack??
It could have quite easily have been a bachelor pad for a stranger to attempt an attack... why would they???
So having just the Flat Number available to see... who would know who lives there ????
For her to let Dr Vincent Tabak into her flat she would have had to know him...(IMO)... I cannot believe someone who was concerned about being on there own would let anyone in they didn't know ...
Joanna Yeates is described as a sensible woman.... So.. why would she let Dr Vincent Tabak in ???? A man she could barely have seen since moving into 44, Canygne Road... As he was away for a great deal of this time....
You also know have the possibility that someone was watching her from the road side... Well If that was the case ... her curtains would not be closed ... They would need to know she was totally alone to even attempt an entry... And she in turn would have fought back... But she doesn't appear to have fought with her killer...
(3): She let someone in she knew.... This has to be the case if she was killed in the Flat... No-one else knew where she lived... It's just a Flat amongst Flats on a Road... She could have lived anywhere... There was nothing visually to indicate that she lived in Flat 1 at 44, Canygne Road... And the Police have already confirmed that she wasn't followed...
So... if someone had broken in and she had disturbed them... there would have been a scene of a struggle.... but there was not... So I believe we can discount that....
Someone she knew had to have gone to the flat or she met them and they returned her possessions later... (IMO)....
Because I cannot see any other reason that the Police felt the need to remove that Intercom Plate from the from of Flat 1 .. 44, canygne Road..... This plate is removed when "Bob The Builder " is working there... And if it was of such evidentiary value they wouldn't want 'Bob The Builder to accidently touch it... when he's busy ripping gaffer tape with his mouth and wiping his nose on his plastic forensic gloves...
The door was removed on the 29th December 2010... the same day as they removed the Intercom plate... And if this Intercom Plate was so important ... I believe it would have been removed a lot sooner, and not when 'bob the Builder " was about being unsteady on his feet.... Contaminating the Crime Scene....(IMO)...
Edit..... Did the Police talk to other neighbour to find out whether or not Dr Vincent tabak had a habit of popping into peoples flats that he didn't know ??? Did Dr Vincent Tabak have a habit of looking into peoples windows when he past them???
Because he would have had to be actively trying to look into the kitchen window for Joanna Yeates to respond to him... And if his sole purpose was to go to ASDA..... Why especially when he did't know at that time that Joanna Yeates boyfriend may be at home... Did he look into the kitchen window on his way to ASDA?? And not look directly ahead of himself??
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/685650778
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Now... There were other possibilities for a stranger or anyone to know where the couple lived.... And I will go back to this...
On The 16th October 2010... Greg advertises on Facebook that he is giving away FREE SKI equipment... Then again he advertises on the 28th October 2010... I have blanked out his phone Number....
What else did Greg say on facebook ??? Did someone know that he was attending a Christening on the weekend of 17th- 19th December 2010... Did someone who saw that advert know that Joanna Yeates would be alone... Did someone who saw that advert and went to Flat 1 Canygne Road.. return when Greg was away??? Was it someone who knew the couple ???
Did the Police check this avenue???? Because I do not believe that they did... DCI Phil Jones says that they did DNA tests on everyone that they Interviewed... And we know there were very few DNA tests actually performed on anyone that knew the couple... I believe the papers had said "One" friend had their DNA tested ...!!!
Where he has advertised the Free Ski's is on a facebook page called.... UWE Snowsport Racers who's members appear to have dwindled ... In Fact as it stands Greg Reardon's post on the 28th October 2010, is the last post on the site.... unless the Police or someone has removed them.... But I would have thought that they would have removed Greg's also if it were the Police .... Seeing as everything else to do with Greg Reardon is removed from 2010....
https://www.facebook.com/groups/36573472454/
-
Another image of Dr Vincent Tabak that I never really took much notice of, until the time the image was supposed to have been taken, set alarms bells off with me....
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/01/23/article-1349615-0CDF6F2A000005DC-371_634x431.jpg)
Before arrest: Tabak is captured on CCTV at 6.15pm on the evening before he was held on suspicion of murdering Joanna Yeates. He is seen wearing a black coat and shoes walking past Cotham Stores in Clifton
Now it didn't immediatley make me think anything.... Dr Vincent Tabak in his black coat.... Until you realise that this is at 6:15pm on Wednesday 19th January 2011.... And.........
He's walking..... He isn't riding his bike.... he's pootling around in a long black coat without a bicycle in sight.... Dr Vincent Tabak would have finished work... So... wheres the BICYCLE.. they said he rode to work??????
Because NOW... I don't believe he did!!! he probably always caught the bus to the train station..... (IMO)....
The 32-year-old Dutchman is captured on CCTV walking past Cotham Stores in Abbotsford Road, Clifton, Bristol, at 6.15pm last Wednesday. Within hours he would be arrested over the murder of the architect.
Again they are saying that Dr Vincent Tabak..... WALKS!!!! BECAUSE WHERE IS THE BICYCLE!!!!!!!!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349615/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Vincent-Tabak-charged-murder-court-Monday.html#ixzz4q706Sze5
-
Another image of Dr Vincent Tabak that I never really took much notice of, until the time the image was supposed to have been taken, set alarms bells off with me....
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/01/23/article-1349615-0CDF6F2A000005DC-371_634x431.jpg)
Now it didn't immediatley make me think anything.... Dr Vincent Tabak in his black coat.... Until you realise that this is at 6:15pm on Wednesday 19th January 2011.... And.........
He's walking..... He isn't riding his bike.... he's pootling around in a long black coat without a bicycle in sight.... Dr Vincent Tabak would have finished work... So... wheres the BICYCLE.. they said he rode to work??????
Because NOW... I don't believe he did!!! he probably always caught the bus to the train station..... (IMO)....
Again they are saying that Dr Vincent Tabak..... WALKS!!!! BECAUSE WHERE IS THE BICYCLE!!!!!!!!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349615/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Vincent-Tabak-charged-murder-court-Monday.html#ixzz4q706Sze5
Next question..... Is this really an image of Dr Vincent Tabak????
I'll ask the question because we have already seen the forensic people take a Black Coat from Canygne Road long before Dr Vincent Tabak was even a suspect.....
Images 1 & 2.... These were taken on 4th January 2011...
So is the CCTV Image really Dr Vincent Tabak??
And if it is.... who's Black Coat did they take from Flat 1 Canygne Road on 4th January 2011??
Did someone else leave Their Black coat at Joanna Yeates Flat at Canygne Road ???? Because I'm struggling for an answer as to why the Forensics have a "Black Coat' in their arms !!!!!
Is this why Dr Vincent Tabak mentions that he put his coat on the coat stand in his testimony.... ??? No-one else would know about the "Black Coat".. In the flat apart from the Police.... It's an odd detail...(IMO)... Not the sort of thing an 'Socially Inadequate Placid Dutchman would do.... (IMO).... (Descriptions of him made by Dc Joe Goff and DCI Phil Jones combined )...!! If he was socially awkward... why feel comfortable to pop your coat on a coat stand of someone you don't know ???
So which one is it???
(1): The CCTV is really Dr Vincent Tabak without a bicycle!!(Therefore he doesn't cycle to work).. Or.....
(2): Someone else left a "Black Coat on the Coat Stand at Flat 1 44, Canygne Road !!!
It has to be (2)...(IMO).. Because we still have the forensics taking the Black Coat away from Flat 1 Canygne Road on the 4th January 2011... (Unless someone else has a better idea !)
Because.. if the image isn't Dr Vincent Tabak on the 19th January 2011... You still have to question how they could have possibly got a hold of Dr Vincent Tabak's "Black Coat" before he was arrested ???
looking at my other post about "Lets Pretend"... when I suggested that something must have been left in the flat.... Was it the black coat???
Does this mean we need to check the trial transcript again and see what is within this transcript that is true.... and not necessary what Dr Vincent Tabak did.... But maybe what someone else did ????
It's just a strange detail for him to mention (IMO)... when so many other things about the flat he could have said, to show everyone that he had been inside ....!!(IMO)...
Who's Black Coat is it?????????
Edit... The Police obviously want someone to see that Black Coat... It's just slung across the Forensic womans arm... No forensic bag... No Nothing!!
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/event/key-scenes-from-jo-yeates-murder-case-107861085#police-remove-property-to-examine-from-the-flat-of-joanna-yeates-the-picture-id107862662
-
Another image of Dr Vincent Tabak that I never really took much notice of, until the time the image was supposed to have been taken, set alarms bells off with me....
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/01/23/article-1349615-0CDF6F2A000005DC-371_634x431.jpg)
Now it didn't immediatley make me think anything.... Dr Vincent Tabak in his black coat.... Until you realise that this is at 6:15pm on Wednesday 19th January 2011.... And.........
He's walking..... He isn't riding his bike.... he's pootling around in a long black coat without a bicycle in sight.... Dr Vincent Tabak would have finished work... So... wheres the BICYCLE.. they said he rode to work??????
Because NOW... I don't believe he did!!! he probably always caught the bus to the train station..... (IMO)....
Again they are saying that Dr Vincent Tabak..... WALKS!!!! BECAUSE WHERE IS THE BICYCLE!!!!!!!!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349615/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Vincent-Tabak-charged-murder-court-Monday.html#ixzz4q706Sze5
Abbotsford Rd is in Cotham not Clifton, so this photo would have been taken when he was staying in Aberdeen Rd. The Cotham Stores are just round the corner from Aberdeen Rd.
-
Abbotsford Rd is in Cotham not Clifton, so this photo would have been taken when he was staying in Aberdeen Rd. The Cotham Stores are just round the corner from Aberdeen Rd.
Yes it was when he was staying at Aberdeen Road... Because it was the day before he was arrested....
Still no bike visible.... What do you think to the Forensic Officer with The Black Coat in her arms... Or Bob The Builder and his Cross Contamination????
Looking at that image of him walking it appears he has a folder under his right arm.... Did he just come from the station????? Where he doesn't use a bike doesn't need a bike and probably never cycled to work!!! (IMO)...
Edit.... Or is it a laptop??? And if he takes his laptop to work... then why would he have the need to use Buro Happolds Computers to do searches on the Internet?
-
Yes it was when he was staying at Aberdeen Road... Because it was the day before he was arrested....
Still no bike visible.... What do you think to the Forensic Officer with The Black Coat in her arms... Or Bob The Builder and his Cross Contamination????
Looking at that image of him walking it appears he has a folder under his right arm.... Did he just come from the station????? Where he doesn't use a bike doesn't need a bike and probably never cycled to work!!! (IMO)...
Edit.... Or is it a laptop??? And if he takes his laptop to work... then why would he have the need to use Buro Happolds Computers to do searches on the Internet?
Just because VT rode a bike to work doesn't mean he didn't use his legs and walk at times, especially when the weather was treacherous.
To me it looks as though that image was captured at night time, so he wouldn't be going to work, maybe coming home. IMO.
If you look at the angle of VT's right shoulder and then where the white bit, gloves I think are, I think it's obvious he is carrying something under his arm. What, I couldn't say.
I haven't found the links to the images of Forensic woman or as you rather rudely call him "Bob the Builder". This company may have a proven record of keeping quiet, which is probably worth it's weight in gold! We'll never know.
-
Yes it was when he was staying at Aberdeen Road... Because it was the day before he was arrested....
Still no bike visible.... What do you think to the Forensic Officer with The Black Coat in her arms... Or Bob The Builder and his Cross Contamination????
Looking at that image of him walking it appears he has a folder under his right arm.... Did he just come from the station????? Where he doesn't use a bike doesn't need a bike and probably never cycled to work!!! (IMO)...
Edit.... Or is it a laptop??? And if he takes his laptop to work... then why would he have the need to use Buro Happolds Computers to do searches on the Internet?
Well don't know where my post went!! So I'll start again.
Just because VT was known to bike it whenever possible, does not mean that he didn't use his legs as well, especially when the weather was treacherous.
To me the picture looks as though is was captured at night. If you look at VT's right shoulder and arm, then where the white bit, gloves I think, end up, it's obvious he has something under his arm. What I couldn't say.
He also may take work home, though the weather in 2010 did not IMO lend itself to just having folders. Both IMO laptop and folders would have to be inside a soft case? Otherwise he has been sent to the shops and they are just carrier bags!!
-
Well don't know where my post went!! So I'll start again.
Just because VT was known to bike it whenever possible, does not mean that he didn't use his legs as well, especially when the weather was treacherous.
To me the picture looks as though is was captured at night. If you look at VT's right shoulder and arm, then where the white bit, gloves I think, end up, it's obvious he has something under his arm. What I couldn't say.
He also may take work home, though the weather in 2010 did not IMO lend itself to just having folders. Both IMO laptop and folders would have to be inside a soft case? Otherwise he has been sent to the shops and they are just carrier bags!!
The time capture of the CCTV image was 6:15pm on Wednesday 19th January 2011... Of course it would be dark at this time ....
-
Nine can you point me in the direction of Forensic Woman & "Bob" can't put the rest of what you've named him because I find that a bit disrespectful. I would like to see those.
-
GOLD COMMANDER.....
A quote from DCI Phil Jones at The Leveson Inquiry...
That strategy was additionally captured in a document prepared by the Head of
Corporate Communications and me with oversight from ACC Rod Hansen who
was Gold Commander for the investigation.
Why a "Gold Commander"... Is That normal in a simple "MissingPerson/Murder Inquiry???
Complex incidents and operations
In more complex incidents and operations where the police response is likely to comprise a number of different elements, or where the police response requires officers to be deployed across force boundaries, the GSB command structure may become stretched and command responsibilities less clear.
(https://www.app.college.police.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Operations-Command-structure.png)
https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/operations/command-and-control/command-structures/
https://www.gloucestershire.police.uk/more-on-us/about-us/chief-officer-group/
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122182731/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-DCI-Phillip-Jones.pdf
-
Nine can you point me in the direction of Forensic Woman & "Bob" can't put the rest of what you've named him because I find that a bit disrespectful. I would like to see those.
Nina.... whats wrong with calling him Bob The Builder??? Ok he's probably called dave... But he is a Builder .... !!
Or did you mean I was being disrespectful to Bob The Builder ????
Here are the links Nina....
Bob the Builder ripping gaffer tape and wiping his nose on Forensic gloves ...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg418543#msg418543
If you look at the video clip I have attached to that post.... Bob The Builder actually goes inside Flat 1... when I don't think he should ...Bob The Builder shouldn't be there ...(IMO)!!
Bob the Builders credentials ...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg419415#msg419415
Forensic woman... You'll need to scroll down on this post... Because of the quote...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg420405#msg420405
And an additional one of the Police having painted the kitchen tiles.... (IMO)..
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg418939#msg418939
Edit.... If you mean I am being disrespectful in general I don't agree... I think employing random builders to work a "Crime Scene" Is far more disrespectful than I have ever been.... !!!!
One thing I will say about myself... Is if I do not try and detach myself, from what this horror of a crime is... I cannot look logically at the discrepancies that are clear for all to see.. And I may come across as uncaring.. But I need to be to the point, so as to uncover the terrible things that have happened in this case ....(IMO)...
-
Nina.... whats wrong with calling him Bob The Builder??? Ok he's probably called dave... But he is a Builder .... !!
Or did you mean I was being disrespectful to Bob The Builder ????
Here are the links Nina....
Bob the Builder ripping gaffer tape and wiping his nose on Forensic gloves ...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg418543#msg418543
If you look at the video clip I have attached to that post.... Bob The Builder actually goes inside Flat 1... when I don't think he should ...Bob The Builder shouldn't be there ...(IMO)!!
Bob the Builders credentials ...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg419415#msg419415
Forensic woman... You'll need to scroll down on this post... Because of the quote...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg420405#msg420405
And an additional one of the Police having painted the kitchen tiles.... (IMO)..
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg418939#msg418939
Edit.... If you mean I am being disrespectful in general I don't agree... I think employing random builders to work a "Crime Scene" Is far more disrespectful than I have ever been.... !!!!
One thing I will say about myself... Is if I do not try and detach myself, from what this horror of a crime is... I cannot look logically at the discrepancies that are clear for all to see.. And I may come across as uncaring.. But I need to be to the point, so as to uncover the terrible things that have happened in this case ....(IMO)...
You know I don't mean anything like that Nine, it's just that we don't know why the police used this company, it may have had the virtue of keeping quiet!! You can't expect the police to have scaffolders, builders & the like amongst their ranks, surely?
Also it does look to me like Bob/Dave is tearing off the tape prior to winding it around two already wrapped items.
I'll have a look at the rest, but at first glance it seems like they are all outside the flat, so who's to say that before going back into the flat they didn't change gloves. We just don't know.
-
This has always intrigued me.... What is the white shape marked out behind the sofa..?? It must have been of importance for it to be there... So what does it denote???
(http://i3.dailyrecord.co.uk/incoming/article926836.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/inside-the-house-of-joanna-yeates-imahe-gallery-set-image-9-266914929.jpg)
Just another little thought.... If this is a time capsule... Why is The Standard lamp not plugged in????
-
You know I don't mean anything like that Nine, it's just that we don't know why the police used this company, it may have had the virtue of keeping quiet!! You can't expect the police to have scaffolders, builders & the like amongst their ranks, surely?
Also it does look to me like Bob/Dave is tearing off the tape prior to winding it around two already wrapped items.
I'll have a look at the rest, but at first glance it seems like they are all outside the flat, so who's to say that before going back into the flat they didn't change gloves. We just don't know.
Nina... You may think you can take away from what I have discovered... But you cannot take away Bob The Builder ripping gaffer Tape with his teeth...
At The end of the day you need "Forensic Officers doing work at a "Crime Scene"... I'm sure they are versed in using a "Screw Driver"!!!!
Where as Bob The builder has No Forensic Qualifications whatsoever....!!!
NB... Nina it is not that it looks like Bob The Builder is ripping gaffer tape with his teeth.... Bob The Builder ...IS!!! ripping gaffer tape with his teeth!!!!!
-
This has always intrigued me.... What is the white shape marked out behind the sofa..?? It must have been of importance for it to be there... So what does it denote???
(http://i3.dailyrecord.co.uk/incoming/article926836.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/inside-the-house-of-joanna-yeates-imahe-gallery-set-image-9-266914929.jpg)
What sofa? I see shelves and a standard light. Not unless you're suggesting that the sofa was in front of the plug sockets?
-
Nina... You can take away from what I have discovered... But you cannot take away Bob The Builder ripping gaffer Tape with his teeth...
At The end of the day you need "Forensic Officers doing work at a "Crime Scene"... I'm sure they are versed in using a "Screw Driver"!!!!
Where as Bob The builder has No Forensic Qualifications whatsoever....!!!
NB... Nina it is not that it looks like Bob The Builder is ripping gaffer tape with his teeth.... Bob The Builder ...IS!!! ripping gaffer tape with his teeth!!!!!
I am not trying to take away anything you have found and I have to admit you have brought a few things to this forum that has got me thinking.
At the end of the day Bob/Dave still looks like he's ripping the tape off to bind the two covered items in front of him. The other guy is looking at them to, looks like two long things, pipes?
-
What sofa? I see shelves and a standard light. Not unless you're suggesting that the sofa was in front of the plug sockets?
Good Morning Nina... Please look at the white outline I pointed out... thank you
-
I am not trying to take away anything you have found and I have to admit you have brought a few things to this forum that has got me thinking.
At the end of the day Bob/Dave still looks like he's ripping the tape off to bind the two covered items in front of him. The other guy is looking at them to, looks like two long things, pipes?
Simple question.... Where are their "Forensic Suits?????
And I am Pleased that I have got you thinking... What have I got you thinking about???
-
Good Morning Nina... Please look at the white outline I pointed out... thank you !
You mean the white oblong thing on one of the carpet/underlay squares? Lord knows what that is, does it really matter, any more than the blob on the next square which looks like blood?
-
Simple question.... Where are their "Forensic Suits?????
And I am Pleased that I have got you thinking... What have I got you thinking about???
Don't ask!!!
-
You mean the white oblong thing on one of the carpet/underlay squares? Lord knows what that is, does it really matter, any more than the blob on the next square which looks like blood?
It must denote something of Importance was there... Yet this item what ever it is was never brought to court.... So what is so important that an outline has been made of said item....
And yes... That could be blood... But that was never brought to court either !!
-
Don't ask!!!
What do you mean don't ask??? Why would you say that ??? It's a perfectly simple question ?{)(**
You did mention it after all.....
-
It must denote something of Importance was there... Yet this item what ever it is was never brought to court.... So what is so important that an outline has been made of said item....
And yes... That could be blood... But that was never brought to court either !!
I must admit it's a weird shape and makes no sense to me at all.
Again we don't really know what was said fully in the trial. This is not the McCann files, not posted online from a 'professional' source, although IMO Levy was/is far from professional. Anyone know if he's died from obesity yet?
And yes as I pointed out it does look like blood, probably one of the police spilling coffee! Joanna Yeates' murder was not Avon & Somerset's finest hour!
-
What do you mean don't ask??? Why would you say that ??? It's a perfectly simple question ?{)(**
You did mention it after all.....
Oh come on Nine you got no sense of humour at all?
-
I must admit it's a weird shape and makes no sense to me at all.
Again we don't really know what was said fully in the trial. This is not the McCann files, not posted online from a 'professional' source, although IMO Levy was/is far from professional. Anyone know if he's died from obesity yet?
And yes as I pointed out it does look like blood, probably one of the police spilling coffee! Joanna Yeates' murder was not Avon & Somerset's finest hour!
I agree it wasn't their finest hour!!.... I do not know what Avon and Somerset Police where doing in this case... It makes NO Sense at all.... (IMO)...
-
I agree it wasn't their finest hour!!.... I do not know what Avon and Somerset Police where doing in this case... It makes NO Sense at all.... (IMO)...
Well obviously not their job!
-
Well obviously not their job!
8@??)( Have we a break through Nina ???
-
Oh come on Nine you got no sense of humour at all?
I do have a sense of humour Nina... But this case isn't really funny... Not when peoples lives have been destroyed !!
-
8@??)( Have we a break through Nina ???
I have always said that this was not Avon & Somerset's finest hour.
Break through, I don't honestly know. You have made me think about a few things, but I doubt that any murder trial taken to pieces would be `truthful & honest' and there would be the odd minor thing that was probably not done by the book. This is Bristol though not Guantanamo bay, and I do keep coming back to the fact that VT confessed to killing Joanna.
-
No forced entry'
Officers have also removed the front door to Miss Yeates' flat in Canynge Road as part of the investigation.
A police spokeswoman said: "The door is being taken for forensic analysis."
Miss Yeates' was last seen alive on 17 December.
"OFFICERS"... Since when has Bob The Builder been an OFFICER????"
This is the problem of having Bob The Builder doing Forensics.... Any Defence Lawyer worth his salt would have ripped into the Cross Contamination and the lack of professional Protocol when the door was taken from Joanna Yeates Flat!!!!.... (IMO)...
Therefore this evidence in itself would cast doubt on the Whole of The Forensics in this case and how they were collected... Bringing in to question Any Forensic samples that were obtained in this case ....
making the whole process a shambles (IMO).... !!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/uk-england-bristol-12089150
-
I do have a sense of humour Nina... But this case isn't really funny... Not when peoples lives have been destroyed !!
Many people's lives were destroyed the moment Joanna Yeates was murdered.
-
Many people's lives were destroyed the moment Joanna Yeates was murdered.
Totally agree.... But more lives have been destroyed in "The Process of Persuing The Placid Dutchman... Who I cannot see has any Complex Crime Connections... Yet they used all of The Complex Crime Units and The CPS's Head of Complex Crime Unit Ann Reddrop to capture said Placid Dutchman!! ..... Every Cold Case Detective involved from day one been actively seen on TV... Too many Detectives for a simple Murder Case... from too many different agencies...(IMO)...
Have you never questioned why all These Important people are Involved in this simple Murder Nina ???
-
Totally agree.... But more lives have been destroyed in "The Process of Persuing The Placid Dutchman... Who I cannot see has any Complex Crime Connections... Yet they used all of The Complex Crime Units and The Prosecution Head of Complex Crime Unit Ann Reddrop to capture said Placid Dutchman!! ..... Every Cold Case Detective involved from day one been actively seen on TV... Too many Detectives for a simple Murder Case... from too many different agencies...(IMO)...
Have you never questioned why all These Important people are Involved in this simple Murder Nina ???
Err no..... having Avon & Somerset's finest around kind of makes me feel a bit secure.
I don't believe a lot of what comes from them, especially as they have Sue Mountbaton overseeing them. She was the owner of Mountbatons bakery, bit like Greggs, who bought most of Mountbaton when Sue M put it into receivership. Lovely.
Complex Crime Units I'm afraid are lost on me. Joanna Yeates was murdered, VT admitted he did it and is, as we post, in prison, keeping his head down if he's sensible, which despite the murder he does seem to me to be a sensible sort of person.
-
I have always said that this was not Avon & Somerset's finest hour.
Break through, I don't honestly know. You have made me think about a few things, but I doubt that any murder trial taken to pieces would be `truthful & honest' and there would be the odd minor thing that was probably not done by the book. This is Bristol though not Guantanamo bay, and I do keep coming back to the fact that VT confessed to killing Joanna.
Minor.... I think there are Major problems with this case ....
Would you care to enlighten me on the FEW things that I have made you think about Nina...
As for the Confession... Dr Vincent Tabak has never confessed to anything... You have a statement that was signed... The evidence does not support that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates in her Flat..... There is a distinct lack of evidence to support this..... (IMO)....
-
Minor.... I think there are Major problems with this case ....
Would you care to enlighten me on the FEW things that I have made you think about Nina...
As for the Confession... Dr Vincent Tabak has never confessed to anything... You have a statement that was signed... The evidence does not support that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates in her Flat..... There is a distinct lack of evidence to support this..... (IMO)....
Well there you go .... you have a `statement that was signed' ..... not Guantanamo bay remember Nine?
Gotta go and have my lunch.
Bye
-
Complex Crime Units I'm afraid are lost on me. Joanna Yeates was murdered, VT admitted he did it and is, as we post, in prison, keeping his head down if he's sensible, which despite the murder he does seem to me to be a sensible sort of person.
Complex Crimes and The Complex Crime Unit,.... Does exactly what it says on the tin....
They Investigate Complex Crimes, which The Complex Crime Unit that Ann Reddrop was The head of, had 21 criteria to adhere too... None other than 'lor's" would Dr Vincent Tabak come under .... and the only use "Lor's " has is to give The Complex Crime Unit access to an individual abroad...
So why was 'The Murder of Joanna Yeates A Complex Crime "??????
Mutual Legal Assistance by vetting proposed letters of request (LORs)
http://www.cps.gov.uk/southwest/who_we_are/complex_casework_unit/
-
What is the Big Transparent Polythene Blow up item that I have circled in the image on Longwood lane ... never really noticed it before ....
Why would that cube shaped item be needed ??
Is this what they use to when they have brought Joanna Yeates from over the wall????
The only other thing I thought of was for using Super Glue fuming to develop finger prints etc on a body.... But that shouldn't be the case, because Joanna Yeates is supposed to be frozen and that would hamper such a proceedure .... (IMO)...
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Mobile Phones 9 January 2011
As well as interviewing all the people that were in the Ram pub the night Jo went missing, police are painstakingly going through all the mobile phones that were in the areas where she was seen that evening.
It is hoped that the signals from her killer's mobile phone will help detectives to trace more suspects.
This is exactly what I would have expected them to do with Dr Vincent Tabak's Mobile Phone... checking his whereabouts... Checking his Journey to Longwood lane...
I don't believe for one moment that they traced all the signal of all the mobile phones in the area.... But... they should have traced Dr Vincent Tabak's mobile phone... And used that to bolster their case against him in court.. Of course we know that was not the case.... The question then has to be why didn't the police trace Dr Vincent Tabak's mobile phone signal to put him in the vicinity of Longwood Lane on 17th December 2010....
Reading what is said in the quote, sounds to me that they already have someone in mind, and are looking to see if there were other people with this person at the same time, because they have always believed that there were at least two killers....
So... If they believe that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates... I will ask again.... Why did they not bring to trial the traced mobile phone signals ????
Surely that would impress upon a jury that he actually was in the Longwood Lane area !!!!!!
But... I don't believe he did it... And this is why the Police could not produce the traced signals of Dr Vincent Tabak's phone... because it would put him somewhere else entirely..... (IMO)...!!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1345385/Police-urged-DNA-test-EVERY-man-Bristol-hunt-killer-Joanna-Yeates.html#ixzz4qGn6Psqk
-
Was there something else shielding Joanna Yeates from being seen??
Detectives are uncertain when Miss Yeates’s body was left in Longwood Lane, but are investigating the theory that heavy snowfall in early hours of Saturday 18 December could have played a part in concealing her remains.
So the snow didn't play a part then ????
What else was stopping her from being visible ?? Her being over the wall??? Something else covering her????
Because if she is lying on The Verge for 8 days as they insist later on...something else other than snow must have been obstructing the view of her ...
They have always maintained that it was the snow that concealed her.. well... obviously not... They talk as if they are feet of snow... and when you look at Longwood lane there is barely any snow there.... not enough to conceal a body.... (IMO)...
Is it the metal object that is on the side of the road that was concealing Joanna Yeates ???
Image attached ....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8244617/Joanna-Yeates-murder-groundsman-may-have-heard-killer.html
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Complex Crimes and The Complex Crime Unit,.... Does exactly what it says on the tin....
They Investigate Complex Crimes, which The Complex Crime Unit that Ann Reddrop was The head of, had 21 criteria to adhere too... None other than 'lor's" would Dr Vincent Tabak come under .... and the only use "Lor's " has is to give The Complex Crime Unit access to an individual abroad...
So why was 'The Murder of Joanna Yeates A Complex Crime "??????
http://www.cps.gov.uk/southwest/who_we_are/complex_casework_unit/
I have just been watching `Catching a Killer' where to a certain extent Thames Valley police let the cameras in on the Natalie Hemming investigation. Remarkably similar to this murder in some respects. It does give us a slight indication of how the police think and then act.
Thames Valley had the Complex Crimes Unit in too, so maybe with some murders they do call them in. Natalie was classed as a High Risk Missing Person at first.
-
Was there something else shielding Joanna Yeates from being seen??
So the snow didn't play a part then ????
What else was stopping her from being visible ?? Her being over the wall??? Something else covering her????
Because if she is lying on The Verge for 8 days as they insist later on...something else other than snow must have been obstructing the view of her ...
They have always maintained that it was the snow that concealed her.. well... obviously not... They talk as if they are feet of snow... and when you look at Longwood lane there is barely any snow there.... not enough to conceal a body.... (IMO)...
Is it the metal object that is on the side of the road that was concealing Joanna Yeates ???
Image attached ....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8244617/Joanna-Yeates-murder-groundsman-may-have-heard-killer.html
Okay just for you Nine, I have dug out my 2010 diary (grumble!!) because I do think that not only snow but freezing fog, sheet & black ice and the accumulation of new snow ontop of ice, have all played their parts in this sorry case.
My diary is just for appointments etc., plus events out of the ordinary, so it's not a full account, especially when it comes to the weather. This year I have noted the awful things at Manchester, London and of course Grenfell Towers.
Oh one thing you need to know is that if you live in Bristol you don't look towards the south-west for weather, it's Cardiff we are nearest. South-west seems to be only Devon & Cornwall according to the Met!
I've taken out my swear words:
Tues November 9th 2010 - Freezing, really freezing. First day.
Wed " 17th " - Very, very wet, windy and freezing cold again.
Tues " 30th " - Frozen!
Wed Dec 1 st - Ice
Fri 3rd - Temps. not above freezing during day and bl**dy awful nights.
Sunday 5th - Snow & ice
Mon 6th - Washing machines can't be delivered because of ice and bad weather.
Wed 8th - Ice bound again.
Thurs 16th - Freezing. Later in day light snow. Still -4 daytime.
Fri 17th - Day time temps. not above freezing. Had light dusting snow evening.
Sat 18th - Stayed up to watch some of the snow, really heavy.
Sun 19th - Good 3" of snow on the bushes in back garden. Still freezing though.
Mon 20th - More hevy snow
Tues 21st - Freezing day and night.
Thurs 23rd - Sleet and rain on freezing surfaces = sheet ice. So, so cold.
That's it, by no means comprehensive, but should give you an idea of what thing were like in my neck of the woods.
-
So if you take on board the fact that I obviously can't multitask very well, sorry about the spelling and wobbley text. The child and cat were both yelling at me!!
Anyway if you take what I wrote at the time about the weather, then think about poor Joanna being put into a `slight indentation' of the earth, not a ditch, I think that you can see how she wasn't discovered for that length of time.
-
So if you take on board the fact that I obviously can't multitask very well, sorry about the spelling and wobbley text. The child and cat were both yelling at me!!
Anyway if you take what I wrote at the time about the weather, then think about poor Joanna being put into a `slight indentation' of the earth, not a ditch, I think that you can see how she wasn't discovered for that length of time.
Thank you so much Nina.... That is really helpful.... I will come back to your posts... been out all day... now have visitors... But it puts other things in context for me.... 8)--))
bye
-
GOLD COMMANDER.....
A quote from DCI Phil Jones at The Leveson Inquiry...
Why a "Gold Commander"... Is That normal in a simple "MissingPerson/Murder Inquiry???
(https://www.app.college.police.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Operations-Command-structure.png)
https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/operations/command-and-control/command-structures/
https://www.gloucestershire.police.uk/more-on-us/about-us/chief-officer-group/
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122182731/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-DCI-Phillip-Jones.pdf
Why indeed? Until you joined the fray, I had never asked myself who this "obscure" Acting Chief Constable Rod Hansen really was:
https://www.gloucestershire.police.uk/more-on-us/about-us/chief-officer-group/
Note that both he Jon Stratford, and Julian Moss have moved to the Gloucestershire force, and the latter is claiming credit for "critical incidents such as the murder of Joanna Yates" (sic). The words "hostage" and "army" ring bells. Julian Moss was the Chief Superintendant who confirmed that the police were going to prosecute Vincent Tabak for possessing images of child abuse.
-
Why indeed? Until you joined the fray, I had never asked myself who this "obscure" Acting Chief Constable Rod Hansen really was:
https://www.gloucestershire.police.uk/more-on-us/about-us/chief-officer-group/
Note that both he Jon Stratford, and Julian Moss have moved to the Gloucestershire force, and the latter is claiming credit for "critical incidents such as the murder of Joanna Yates" (sic). The words "hostage" and "army" ring bells. Julian Moss was the Chief Superintendant who confirmed that the police were going to prosecute Vincent Tabak for possessing images of child abuse.
Why do you think both have moved to another force----or is this kind of thing usual?
-
Why do you think both have moved to another force----or is this kind of thing usual?
I inadvertently left out a comma. All three of the senior officers mentioned - Rod Hansen, Jon Stratford and Julian Moss - moved from Avon & Somerset Constabulary to Gloucestershire Constabulary after the Joanna Yeates case.
Mr Bond, they have a saying in Chicago: "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action." - Auric Goldfinger
-
I inadvertently left out a comma. All three of the senior officers mentioned - Rod Hansen, Jon Stratford and Julian Moss - moved from Avon & Somerset Constabulary to Gloucestershire Constabulary after the Joanna Yeates case.
Mr Bond, they have a saying in Chicago: "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action." - Auric Goldfinger
Hm----------
-
Okay just for you Nine, I have dug out my 2010 diary (grumble!!) because I do think that not only snow but freezing fog, sheet & black ice and the accumulation of new snow ontop of ice, have all played their parts in this sorry case.
My diary is just for appointments etc., plus events out of the ordinary, so it's not a full account, especially when it comes to the weather. This year I have noted the awful things at Manchester, London and of course Grenfell Towers.
Oh one thing you need to know is that if you live in Bristol you don't look towards the south-west for weather, it's Cardiff we are nearest. South-west seems to be only Devon & Cornwall according to the Met!
I've taken out my swear words:
Tues November 9th 2010 - Freezing, really freezing. First day.
Wed " 17th " - Very, very wet, windy and freezing cold again.
Tues " 30th " - Frozen!
Wed Dec 1 st - Ice
Fri 3rd - Temps. not above freezing during day and bl**dy awful nights.
Sunday 5th - Snow & ice
Mon 6th - Washing machines can't be delivered because of ice and bad weather.
Wed 8th - Ice bound again.
Thurs 16th - Freezing. Later in day light snow. Still -4 daytime.
Fri 17th - Day time temps. not above freezing. Had light dusting snow evening.
Sat 18th - Stayed up to watch some of the snow, really heavy.
Sun 19th - Good 3" of snow on the bushes in back garden. Still freezing though.
Mon 20th - More hevy snow
Tues 21st - Freezing day and night.
Thurs 23rd - Sleet and rain on freezing surfaces = sheet ice. So, so cold.
That's it, by no means comprehensive, but should give you an idea of what thing were like in my neck of the woods.
Thanks again for these entries of yours Nina.... Part 1...
I believe they help point to a possible other conclusion... When Joanna Yeates body is discovered, DCI Phi Jones states that she has been on the verge for several days...
Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have covered Joanna Yeates with leaves and the snow did the rest... I have a hard time imagining someone leaving her on a grass verge covered in leaves in the first place....
The simplest action would have been to leave her in her own flat.... (IMO)... I do not understand the need to move her..
He's apparently just committed a murder....A murder he stated in court was an accident.... So why move the body??? There is no logical reason for this course of action.... Why not tidy up ... wipe down and close the door behind himself???
With the statement in court we discover the supposed course of events... (IMO)... And the amount of moving of a body and even going to ASDA, to me seems a ridiculous response.... He has ever possibility of been seen... He also has the possibility of being pulled over by the police.... For instance... what if he had a defective bulb on his car?? What if his driving had become erratic because he was pre-occupied with a dead body in a car boot???
For Dr Vincent Tabak to be this cunning , manipulative individual... I would have thought his best option would have been to leave her exactly where she was.... As the police have insisted .... In her Flat....!
No fibre transfer... No blood transfer... No DNA transfer... He would have had all the time in the world to carefully clean a crime scene.... Then go back home to his own flat... He didn't need to be in ASDA to create the alibi as it has been claimed being the reason for his trip... He literally could have made telephone calls or used his laptop, to put him at home....
So who ever put her on Longwood lane... did it for a reason... And Longwood lane has to have a connection to that person ..... (IMO)...
So back to DCI Phil Jones... As a result of the findings of the post mortem, we believe that Joanna body has been in the roadside verge off Longwood Lane for Failand several days, before being discovered on Christmas morning..
Several days to me is 3 or 4... he doesn't say for over a week or about a week.... And as it snowed heavy again on Monday the 20th December 2010 , with the diary of Nina giving us the weather... it's possible that she was put there later on if she was covered in snow ....
I want to go back to DCI Phil Jones statement I have transcribed ... This statement is at a Police conference on the 28th December 2010.. The day after he becomes in charge of the Investigation...
Off Longwood Lane...??
That doesn't sound like she was On Longwood lane... (IMO)... Off me away from... so how could she be in the area they have stated that she was ?????
For instance... Canygne Road off Percival Road... wouldn't mean Joanna Yeates lived at Percival Road... would it?? So off Longwood Lane means a different area to me .... There are many side roads/tracks off Longwood lane, so there are many places that she could have been.... The Grass Verge is definitely ON... Longwood lane!!
This article I have found whilst looking at Longwood Lane has drawn my attention.... It was written on the 12th January 2011...
The Police Know something... They have to... there is no two ways about it... and this quote I will make, clearly states that they know something... And it has nothing to do with Dr Vincent Tabak....
They told police they had seen a car driving slowly up and down Longwood Lane three or four times on the morning after Jo was last seen.
Their 999 call was lodged 36 hours before Jo’s boyfriend Greg Reardon, 27, reported her missing.
Police are now considering whether the killer went back to the spot where Jo had been dumped – to assess whether to move her body to a better hiding place.
Do I hear "Alarm Bells"??????
36 hours before Greg Reardon called the Police is at 12:45pm on Saturday 18th December 2010....
Now here is where we have the real problem........
Detectives are thought to be exploring the possibility that the killer drove up and down the lane to find where he had left the body hours earlier. There is also the chance the killer may have been forced to repeatedly drive up and down the road after being disturbed by passers-by.
If they didn't know when Joanna Yeates had been killed, how did they know the killer had left her there hours earlier ????
The killer is supposed to have know where he dumped the body.... not be driving up and down looking for where he left it!!! That to me sounds like it is not clearly easy to see.... He would have surely spotted a mound...(IMO)... So she has to be somewhere that is not easily accessible (IMO)...
Remember... 'several days".... That was DCI Jones time of the body being on Longwood lane ....
Again transcript from DCI Phil Jones.....
I'm keen to hear from anybody who saw or heard anyone acting suspiciously in the Longwood lane area particularly the area near to the entrance of Durnford Quarry over the last week, but in particular the weekend of Friday December the 17th to Sunday the 19th December. This was the weekend when we experienced heavy snow in the area
So we have a couple talking about a car acting suspiciously... we have talk of a killer possibily looking for a better hiding place... And we have a police officer wanting information as to whether anybody saw a suspicious looking person on Longwood lane that week....
That last quote is very interesting... Was Joanna Yeates moved ????? DCI Phil Jones need to know if anyone came back that week to "Perhaps" move a body... to me suggests that she had been moved... there must be some indication on her body that shows she has been moved...
The only indication that I can think of is "Lividity".... And with DCI Andrew Moss saying he had to try and stop a body from thawing... It indicate that lividity would be a possibility and blood would settle else where.... (IMO)...
Did Joanna Yeates show signs of being moved ???? If they believe that someone had been driving up and down Longwood Lane several times as wanting to find a better hiding place..... There has to be an indication that a "BODY" has been moved.... (IMO)
Why else would DCI Phil Jones need information on someones activity over that week and implore the public to get in touch!!!
Either that or DCI Phil Jones has actually had communication from the killer, as to where Joanna Yeates maybe and also that the Killer had been seen many times and disturbed by many people going about their activities...(IMO).. He has got to know something to be asking for assistance from the public about vehicle movement on Longwood lane during that week......
Why else is DCI Phil Jones interested keen to hear from anybody who saw or heard anyone acting suspiciously in the Longwood lane area particularly the area near to the entrance of Durnford Quarry over the last week,??
The last week??? Something has got to indicate that she was either.....
(1): Moved
(2): Put on Longwood lane later than Friday the 17th December 2010
(3): The Police had communication with the killer
That information must rule out Dr Vincent Tabak.... (IMO)... because if Dr Vincent Tabak had any other time he couldn't account for... both DCI Phil Jones and Ann Reddrop would have been on him like a ton of bricks.... (IMO).... bringing to trial that information of him returning to try and move a body....!!!
Has Joanna Yeates got material from the quarry on her body??? Maybe there is something upon Joanna Yeates that shows she was somewhere else before being 'ON" Longwood Lane ???
There has to be a definite indication somewhere for DCI Phil Jones to be having a 'Police Conference " to appeal for information..... (IMO)...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8noQpXm0HQU&t=617s
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murder-cops-probe-103679
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvideo/8265779/Joanna-Yeates-parents-make-appeal-for-information.html
-
Part 2....... The Sobbing Girl.... I believe she is IMPORTANT....!!!
Local horse rider Emma Brewer said yesterday: “It is a bit weird if someone was driving up and down this lane because there is no obvious explanation. It seems suspicious to me. Some people do the school run and would come up and down the lane once, but not on a Saturday, and never three or four times.
So it's Emma Brewer who called the Police I believe.... “I suppose the killer might have panicked on the Friday night, dumped the body and then come back the next day. By then it had snowed very heavily.
why would she know that the killer dumped the body on Friday Night???? why wasn't it the early hours of Saturday morning Mrs Brewer...???
She couldn't possibily know what lairs of snow... what lairs of debris where upon Joanna Yeates body to say whether or not Joanna yeates had lain on Longwood lane from the "Friday Night"!!! That is impossible..... (IMO)...
Again Emma Brewer ... “The snow was there for days. And there was another snowfall on the Monday.”
So snow covering a body, could have happened on the Monday 20th December 2010 as I have said earlier in this post....
A Cyclist quotes... “And we’re quite high up here. It’s windy and the snow does tend to drift.
So drifting snow... unsure of date of deposition,... Returning vehicles... How does that go with Dr Vincent Tabak ????
Somebody out there, does know what happened to Joanna, somebody out there is holding that vital piece of information we need to help provide Joanna's family with the answers they need and they want.
So who are they appealing too??? Has Somebody out there contacted the Police with information??? They are appealing for that person to get back in touch (IMO)... someone out there knows something.... Because he is not directing that statement to the killer... And normally the Police would direct statements to a killer (IMO)... But this is directed at a seperate individual (IMO)...
The next quote is from the parents of Joanna Yeates ....
In a heartfelt statement, the couple from Ampfield, Hants, said someone, somewhere knew what had happened to their daughter and warned that if they did not come forward others might suffer the same fate.
Indicating again... that the Police had information given to them and where appealing for them to come forward ....(IMO)...
The parents appeal is a day before we hear of the sobbing girl story is being leaked.... Now, I believe if The Sobbing Girl existed,....... then the information she gave was 'Nothing" to do with Dr Vincent Tabak, because that phone call would have been played in court and even if she didn't appear in court a written statement to add to the 20 written statements... would have been read out at trial.... So I believe The Sobbing Girl was either a complete 'Untruth"... Or she did ring up but told the police different information than what everyone thought she said and didn't implicate Dr Vincent Tabak.....
We have The Police and The Parents.... both appealing directly to someone... someone that The Police kNow has this information.... and the only possible conclusion i can draw from that ...Is..... that this person had already been in contact wth the Police.....
Maybe The Sobbing Girl rang much earlier.... And that is why they could say that there was a Sobbing Girl ringing.... Because maybe it wasn't an UNTRUTH after all.... she rang before the Police Conference on the 12th January 2011 with bits of information... and was crying on the phone at the same time, not giving the Police everything that they needed ......
The Sobbing Girl is Maybe the person who needs to be located... (IMO)....
The sobbing Girl was maybe present at the time....
The Sobbing girl may have know that Joanna Yeates was killed on Friday 17th December 2010....
The Sobbing Girl may have know that Joanna Yeates was on Longwood Lane .....
The Sobbing Girl may have known that the killer had tried to move the body.....
The Sobbing girl may have known the killer tried to put the body over the wall....
The Sobbing Girl may have been under pressure to help move this body....
The Sobbing Girl may have been at Flat 1 on Friday the 17th December 2010.... The Sobbing Girl knew 'EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED"...
Lets look at the reports of the time again.... How could DCI Phil Jones know this information, before trial???
Det Chief Inspector Phil Jones, who is leading the murder hunt, has said it is possible the killer may have tried to lift her over the quarry wall, but failed in his attempt and instead left her on the narrow roadside verge.
Because... The Sobbing Girl told him... (IMO)....
How could DCI Phil Jones be so definiate about many aspect of this case before court.... And before Dr Vincent Tabak had signed his statement on 22nd September 2011... And only having those version of events told in court for the first time ... How could he be so certain that she was at home ????? How when he appeals on 28th December he is NOT SURE WHEN JOANNA YEATES WAS LEFT ON LONGWOOD LANE... But suddenly he now knows it was 'Friday The 17th December 2010!!
So lets look at the 4x4...
DCI Jones said: 'We have had a number of reports of vehicles in Longwood Lane during the late Friday evening and early hours of Saturday morning, including a possibly light-coloured 4x4 vehicle.
'This 4x4 and the other vehicles may be completely unconnected but I urge anyone in that car or any other driver in the vicinity that night to come forward.'
This report is on the 3rd January 2011... They know they are looking for a light coloured 4x4... (IMO)... If there are many many vehicles on Longwood lane between Friday 17th December 2010 and Saturday Morning... why pick up on the 4x4... Dr Vincent Tabak didn't have a 4x4 and in he says at court cars passed ... So if he has stopped on Longwood lane, then his car would also have been seen...... And the Police are NOT appealing for a MEGANE!!!!!
Defence Counsel: There were many marks on the body. How did that happen?
Tabak: I at first left her by the roadside and two or 3 cars went past and I was in a state of
complete panic. I’m sorry for doing that. I put her parents though hell. I’m so sorry for
that. I can’t believe I did that.
Wheres the witness's and the witness appeal for Dr Vincent Tabak's 'MEGANE"!!!
Also interesting I hadn't really picked up on was..... I at first left her by the roadside
Again supporting what I was saying about her body being moved.... (IMO).... Because he doesn't continue with trying to do anything with her......
Does that information about the 4x4 come directly from The Sobbing Girl"????
Is that why when they come to question Dr Vincent Tabak, the questions they ask him at the Police station that he constantly makes a 'NO COMMENT reply to.... end up being virtually what he says in court... These questions mirror what Dr Vincent Tabak says in his statement....
(IMO)... That is only possible if the Police already have certain information.... And was the information given to the Police well before the 19th January 2011, by 'The Sobbing Girl ring and telling them some Information she knew....
DCI Phil Jones had NO Forensics in Flat 1 linking Dr Vincent Tabak to the Scene.... yet they spent over a week processing that Flat.... They came out of Flat 1 with huge amounts of Forensic material ..... But none of it was ever associated with Dr Vincent Tabak....
Lets look back at what Dr Vincent Tabak says in court.... those odd details that are pointless (IMO)....
Defence Counsel: After you put the body in the boot of your car, what did you do next?
Tabak: I went back to Joanna’s flat and switched off the TV and the oven; I took away the
sock and the pizza.
Why would Dr Vincent Tabak need to mention that he switched the oven and TV off ????? How would anyone know that Joanna Yeates had been in the flat long enough to have even turned the oven on......
Why does Clegg need to give this piece of information.... He took off his coat.
He hung it on her coat rack.
Because Dr Vincent Tabak doesn't say anything about a coat rack......
Defence Counsel: Did you take off your coat?
Tabak: Yes.
Defence Counsel: What room did you go into?
Tabak: Kitchen- both of us.
I did ask if that Black Coat in the Forensic womans arms had been left in Flat 1... maybe it was !!!! But obviously not Dr Vincent Tabak's as there's CCTV footage on the 19th January 2011 of him wearing his coat....
If the coat wasn't left behind.... was it a prop used by Police ??? How else would anyone know that a coat had been hung upon a coat rack????? Did The Sobbing Girl divulge that piece of information.... Did the Sobbing Girl know about the TV and Oven being switched off... because I could see you maybe worry about a house fire... But leaving the TV playing to itself wouldn't make any difference ....(IMO)... And as I keep saying why would Dr Vincent Tabak feel the need to move a body... when leaving Joanna Yeates in her Flat would have been the easiest option for him.... (IMO)......
Is that why DCI Phil Jones talks about "The Killers" as in plural... because The Sobbing Girl had divulged that Information????
So.... what did The Sobbing Girl know about the Murder???? because as sure as eggs is eggs... she DID NOT RING UP ABOUT DR VINCENT TABAK...... (IMO)..... !!!!
And maybe now we need to look at this case and the information about this case as 'A Party" had already told the Police vital Information and that information was what they were working with..... So back to the basic question.... Who was The sobbing Girl?????
Maybe it's time for us to appeal to this "SOBBING GIRL" and ask for her to come forward and tell us what she knows....... (IMO)...
Because The sobbing Girl is a witness!!! (IMO)....
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8noQpXm0HQU&t=617s
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murder-cops-probe-103679
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvideo/8265779/Joanna-Yeates-parents-make-appeal-for-information.html
-
This I believe is the thing that has been staring everybody in the face for so many years.... Everyone on all the forums discounted The Sobbing Girl and never came back to her....
She is The Elephant in The Room ...(IMO)... She is the one who knows 'Something" She is the "THING" we have all been Missing.....
The Police really didn't need to let the Public know about this "Sobbing Girl".... I believe thats why the appeal happened on the 18th January 2011.... To keep telling the Sobbing Girl they need her vital information.... And to push her further they release in the press that a "Sobbing Girl" had rung the Police.....(IMO)....
Because I believe that.... It is The Sobbing Girl who is The True witness in The Murder of Joanna Yeates ..... (IMO)....
-
PART 1 ...... of your post Nine.
I totally agree with you, if you had killed someone in their flat why would you move them? If you're afraid of DNA being found, well moving Joanna to your flat and then to your girlfriend's car will spread it around, not the reverse. Then to L/Lane, none of that has ever made sense to me. It doesn't matter if it was VT or a stranger why move her?
I just don't see how my weather notations from 7 years ago lead you to another conclusion. I did not come to a conclusion, it's just about the weather. When I wrote it in 2010 I certainly didn't know that someone was going to be murdered or that I would be putting my notations on the www!!
-
PART 1 ...... of your post Nine.
I totally agree with you, if you had killed someone in their flat why would you move them? If you're afraid of DNA being found, well moving Joanna to your flat and then to your girlfriend's car will spread it around, not the reverse. Then to L/Lane, none of that has ever made sense to me. It doesn't matter if it was VT or a stranger why move her?
I just don't see how my weather notations from 7 years ago lead you to another conclusion. I did not come to a conclusion, it's just about the weather. When I wrote it in 2010 I certainly didn't know that someone was going to be murdered or that I would be putting my notations on the www!!
It's pieces that are missing Nina.... Possibilities of a body having snow on it from a later date.... Re-reading articles I have read many times before....And this time actually taking in the information that is there .... Seeing what is said and finding out what apparently they left out of these stories... Because ..Avon and somerset Police.. divulged so much Information on this case , before they had even caught a possible suspect.... That's not the sort of thing a Police Force normally does in a "Murder Inquiry"...
And yes... there is NO Need for Dr Vincent Tabak or any stranger to have moved Joanna yeates body from her Flat... risking leaving more evidence behind..... I have always said statistically a stranger would walk a victim to the site of where a body is found.... And not move them after.... There is no benefit for a stranger to move a body... When the time could be used to wipe down a 'Crime Scene"...
Only someone needing to distance themselves from Joanna Yeates.. would feel the need to move her body..... (IMO).... And that would have to be someone she knew .... (IMO)..
-
Part 1 again ........
Exactly what conclusion have you drawn Nine?
-
It's pieces that are missing Nina.... Possibilities of a body having snow on it from a later date.... Re-reading articles I have read many times before....And this time actually taking in the information that is there .... Seeing what is said and finding out what apparently they left out of these stories... Because ..Avon and somerset Police.. divulged so much Information on this case , before they had even caught a possible suspect.... That's not the sort of thing a Police Force normally does in a "Murder Inquiry"...
And yes... there is NO Need for Dr Vincent Tabak or any stranger to have moved Joanna yeates body from her Flat... risking leaving more evidence behind..... I have always said statistically a stranger would walk a victim to the site of where a body is found.... And not move them after.... There is no benefit for a stranger to move a body... When the time could be used to wipe down a 'Crime Scene"...
Only someone needing to distance themselves from Joanna Yeates.. would feel the need to move her body..... (IMO).... And that would have to be someone she knew .... (IMO)..
I just gotta say that anyone walking a victim to their murder site would not have chosen Friday 17/12/2010.
It was bl**dy worse than freezing.
Normally in this part of the uk, its cold perhaps freezing, then you have snow and the weather warms up again, until the next time.
In 2010 it didn't do that, if anything it got colder. brrrrr!!
-
Part 1 again ........
Exactly what conclusion have you drawn Nine?
Part 1 encompasses part 2.... I feel there is more to look at again, in relation to what The Police say early on in the Investigation... And with your weather notes and re-reading information, I think I may come to a better understanding of what the Police actually meant about "Longwood lane".... And there shifting time scale....
The next quote is from DCI Phil Jones .....
And I'm working with a number of Forensic Specialists to determine the timings..
Timings.. relates to more than one event.... (IMO)... So I believe Joanna Yeates was moved not only from her flat , but also a different location... That could possibly be The second location the Police did a search of and was reported on the 14th January 2011...... The Police did search Providence Lane....
Officers have been carrying out detailed searches of the grass verges in nearby Providence Lane in case the killer discarded the sock as he fled the scene.
The rural area is surrounded by woods and is also close to a golf course.
One local, who asked not to be identified said: “There were loads of police going through the undergrowth around Providence Lane with sticks. I have no idea if they found anything useful.”
You also have The Grounds mans description and statement....
The man, who is based at one of the sports clubs bordering Longwood Lane in Failand, where Miss Yeates’s body was dumped, heard a car pull up on the secluded road on one of the nights after she disappeared.
You have this piece from the BBC.... Police have said post-mortem results showed she had been dead for "several days before being discovered"
So was she held somewhere and was alive later than the 17th December 2010... because several days from the 25th December is around the 20th December 2010..... Not 8 days....
Had someone discovered a dead Joanna Yeates earlier??? then she was moved to Longwood Lane... was it something the Sobbing Girl said??
Was Joanna Yeates on "Providence Road First" ?????
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8259799/Joanna-Yeates-murder-detectives-search-village-close-to-where-architects-body-was-found.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8244617/Joanna-Yeates-murder-groundsman-may-have-heard-killer.html
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg369364;topicseen#msg369364
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/uk-england-bristol-12089150
-
It's pieces that are missing Nina.... Possibilities of a body having snow on it from a later date.... Re-reading articles I have read many times before....And this time actually taking in the information that is there .... Seeing what is said and finding out what apparently they left out of these stories... Because ..Avon and somerset Police.. divulged so much Information on this case , before they had even caught a possible suspect.... That's not the sort of thing a Police Force normally does in a "Murder Inquiry"...
And yes... there is NO Need for Dr Vincent Tabak or any stranger to have moved Joanna yeates body from her Flat... risking leaving more evidence behind..... I have always said statistically a stranger would walk a victim to the site of where a body is found.... And not move them after.... There is no benefit for a stranger to move a body... When the time could be used to wipe down a 'Crime Scene"...
Only someone needing to distance themselves from Joanna Yeates.. would feel the need to move her body..... (IMO).... And that would have to be someone she knew .... (IMO)..
Well you know from my post that there was heavy snow on the 20/12, everyone goes on about the snow in the early hours of 18/12 but the 20th is hardly mentioned. So we know that if Joanna was `dumped' in L/Lane late on the night of the 17th, she would have been heavily snowed upon in the early hours of the 18/12.
There was heavy snow on the Monday 20/12 .... proof from my post and Mrs Brewer? Was she on horseback at the time? Just she would have seen more up there than on legs or in a car. Anyway in the day & night between 18th and 20th Joanna would have been frozen and had slush from the road and drifting snow, depending on which way the wind was blowing. So Joanna was well and truly covered, poor lass.
PS - we `don't know for sure' Joanna was dumped on 17/12 ..... just anticipating your reply!
-
Well you know from my post that there was heavy snow on the 20/12, everyone goes on about the snow in the early hours of 18/12 but the 20th is hardly mentioned. So we know that if Joanna was `dumped' in L/Lane late on the night of the 17th, she would have been heavily snowed upon in the early hours of the 18/12.
There was heavy snow on the Monday 20/12 .... proof from my post and Mrs Brewer? Was she on horseback at the time? Just she would have seen more up there than on legs or in a car. Anyway in the day & night between 18th and 20th Joanna would have been frozen and had slush from the road and drifting snow, depending on which way the wind was blowing. So Joanna was well and truly covered, poor lass.
PS - we `don't know for sure' Joanna was dumped on 17/12 ..... just anticipating your reply!
She could have been dumped on the 17th December 2010... Just not on Longwood lane on that date..... she could have been held captive..(IMO)....
Soil and pollen tests are also expected to be carried out within the next 48
hours.
Now that makes sense to me now.... If Joanna Yeates had been on Providence Lane before being placed on Longwood lane, then Pollen Samples would be imperative to prove that she had shifted from one location to another.... And I would think that there could and would be different vegetation on Providence Lane and surrounding woodland...than Longwood Lane....
Lets face it... These 'Pollen Samples" were never used to pin point Dr Vincent Tabak having moved her from Canygne Road to Longwood Lane.... Also if she was moved from Canygne Road and samples from there could have come from any suspect....
So I believe the Pollen Samples have to be important to prove that she had shifted location..... And maybe the other location is Providence lane (IMO)....!!
It's what is between the layers of snow that is important Nina.... Proving she had been moved more than once... also proving she was put on Longwood Lane on another date...(IMO)...
We know that there were leaves about Joanna Yeates.... but where the leaves from the trees in Longwood lane.... Or were the leaves from the trees of the woods near Providence Lane...
It was never established the variety of tree that these leaves had come from in court!!!!
I have attached an image of the trees just OFF Providence Lane ... any othe the vegetation from there may have been upon Joanna yeates, warranting the need for Pollen Samples ....(IMO)...
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/300493/jo-crucial-clue-found/
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
She could have been dumped on the 17th December 2010... Just not on Longwood lane on that date.....(IMO)....
Now that makes sense to me now.... If Joanna Yeates had been on Providence Lane before being placed on Longwood lane, then Pollen Samples would be imperative to prove that she had shifted from one location to another.... And I would think that there could and would be different vegetation on Providence Lane and surrounding woodland...than Longwood Lane....
Lets face it... These 'Pollen Samples" were never used to pin point Dr Vincent Tabak having moved her from Canygne Road to Longwood Lane.... Also if she was moved from Canygne Road and samples from there could have come from any suspect....
So I believe the Pollen Samples have to be important to prove that she had shifted location..... And maybe the other location is Providence lane (IMO)....!!
It's what is between the layers of snow that is important Nina.... Proving she had been moved more than once... also proving she was put on Longwood Lane on another date...(IMO)...
We know that there were leaves about Joanna Yeates.... but where the leaves from the trees in Longwood lane.... Or were the leaves from the trees of the woods near Providence Lane...
It was never established the variety of tree that these leaves had come from in court!!!!
I have attached an image of the trees just OFF Providence Lane ... any othe the vegetation from there may have been upon Joanna yeates, warranting the need for Pollen Samples ....(IMO)...
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/300493/jo-crucial-clue-found/
But what difference would it make whether Joanna was dumped in P/Lane or L/Lane?
What difference would it make to your case that VT is innocent.
-
But what difference would it make whether Joanna was dumped in P/Lane or L/Lane?
What difference would it make to your case that VT is innocent.
That is stating the Obvious Nina.... Dr Vincent Tabak is charged with Killing Joanna Yeates between 16th December 2010 and 19th December 2010... He claims in court with that version of events that he dumped her on Longwood Lane .... on Friday 17th December 2010
With the rest of the time Dr Vincent Tabak was either with someone or was away from Bristol , he couldn't possibly have moved Joanna Yeates body from "Providence Lane to Longwood Lane"...
The Prosecutions case is that she was dumped on Longwood Lane by Dr Vincent Tabak on that date...
Defence Counsel: Did you know Longwood Lane at all?
Tabak: No.
So he doesn't know it at all... But ....
Great store was made of his Longwood Lane related search...
At Line 257 of the prosecution Chart
Tabak searched on Google Maps for
‘Longwood Lane’
This is before or around the 21st December 2010 which is a Tuesday... Dr Vincent Tabak could have been working... or not...
If Joanna Yeates has been moved from Providence Lane to Longwood Lane... For Dr Vincent Tabak to be involved he would need to know that... He would need to be able to add that information to his version of events to prove that he indeed was involved with The Murder of Joanna Yeates ....Proving that a piece of evidence no one other than the killer knew, therefore proving the ridiculous statement as true... (IMO)...
But the search could be one of two things....
The time the Police knew that Joanna Yeates had been moved.... I have always said that I do not believe these searches belong to Dr Vincent Tabak....
Or for people who believe the searches were his ... as has been said before he was checking the area for a party he was attending...
There is too much information "Missing" from Dr Vincent Tabak's version of events to make it true.....(IMO)...
If she is dumped on Longwood Lane around the 20th December 2010 when it was snowing... Dr Vincent Tabak could not have possibly done this.... I'm sure the Police would have checked his car boot before this date , as they were searching anything and everything to do with that Building.... And on that date he was always with his girlfriend...
If Tanja Morson was The Sobbing Girl... I am sure the Prosecution would have had her at trial quick sharp!!!!.....(IMO)..
If the Sobbing Girl is The witness I believe she could be.... and Joanna Yeates body was moved from another location other than Canygne Road... Then Dr Vincent Tabak could not have killed her as they said that he did..... (IMO)...
And it is someone else who is responsible for the murder of Joanna Yeates ....!! (IMO)...
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
Sorry, I have become a temp. babysitter for next door's little boy, adorable little terror!!
I shall digest your last post Nine and reply later.
-
Again a suggestion of the importance of Providence Lane.....
If the killer did approach Longwood Lane via Providence Lane, it would suggest he or she travelled via Brunel Way on Bristol’s Cumberland Basin, which has no cameras.
If Dr Vincent Tabak went from Bedminster to Providence lane ..... and then to Longwood lane it wouldn't make sense... He could have found somewhere more appropriate to hide a body on "Providence Lane"
And would have being driving all around the houses to godown Providence Lane to Longwood lane from ASDA in Bedminster....
I have attached a map of the direct route from Asda in Bedminster to Longwood Lane ..... It passes the top of "Providence Lane ... But what it does reveal..... Is why the route to Bristol Airport is mentioned....
Defence Counsel: When you left where did you drive then?
Tabak: I drove away from home; I drove in the direction of the airport; and ended up in
Longwood lane.
If he took the route of the A38 to the airport then turned right onto the A3029, then turn left on the B3128, taking a left on Long Ashton Road and then turning onto Providence Lane.... Which leads to Longwood Lane...
But someone had to know about "Providence Lane" to say that Dr Vincent Tabak was driving aimlessly about on his way to the airport, and Joanna Yeates had to have been in that vicinity ....(IMO)... And for "Providence Lane to have even been searched.... (IMO)...
Is Dr Vincent Tabak really going to to the journey that I have written in Bold!! I do not believe so... But.... PROVIDENCE LANE.... Is the Important Lane I believe ....!! And it is 'Off Longwood Lane".... !!!!
http://swns.com/news/jo-yeates-murder-police-search-grass-verges-near-longwood-lane-13584/
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
And this is the "Brunel Way on Bristol’s Cumberland Basin,"......
I have attached an image of a map from Asda in Bedminster to... Brunel Way on Bristol’s Cumberland Basin,
Don't think that is likely either..... (IMO)... !!!!
Why wasn't this evidence brought to court ????
And if this route was taken... surely there must have been CCTV camera's about??
-
Why indeed? Until you joined the fray, I had never asked myself who this "obscure" Acting Chief Constable Rod Hansen really was:
https://www.gloucestershire.police.uk/more-on-us/about-us/chief-officer-group/
Note that both he Jon Stratford, and Julian Moss have moved to the Gloucestershire force, and the latter is claiming credit for "critical incidents such as the murder of Joanna Yates" (sic). The words "hostage" and "army" ring bells. Julian Moss was the Chief Superintendant who confirmed that the police were going to prosecute Vincent Tabak for possessing images of child abuse.
Yes I did know that they moved to Gloucester Force.... And a lot of them either moved.... retired or took a job of a lower standard....
What does that say about The Joanna Yeates Case ...!!
-
An unusual approach to interviewing witness's...
It is understood that police have interviewed around 20 young professionals by phone who attended the party.
So how many witness's did the police just RING?????
A spokesman for Avon and Somerset police confirmed that detectives had interviewed a young woman who heard screams while at a party.
This must be Zoe Lehman.... Did they ring her also.... Is that how they interviewed potential witness's????
Why are the Police not having these interviews in person??????
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8230979/Joanna-Yeates-murder-screams-heard-the-night-architect-went-missing.html
The article is dated 30th December 2010......
-
An unusual approach to interviewing witness's...
So how many witness's did the police just RING?????
This must be Zoe Lehman.... Did they ring her also.... Is that how they interviewed potential witness's????
Why are the Police not having these interviews in person??????
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8230979/Joanna-Yeates-murder-screams-heard-the-night-architect-went-missing.html
The article is dated 30th December 2010......
The person was NOT Zoe Lehman, who had not even reach No. 53 at the time when she herself heard screams.
"The claims were made by a young woman attending a party held opposite Miss Yeates's flat in Clifton, Bristol.
As she stepped outside for a cigarette just after 9pm on December 17 she heard two screams, the Daily Mail reported."
NONE of the known witnesses said anything in their statements/in court about stepping outside for a cigarette. The claim about screams came from the unnamed cigarette woman, who, like the crying woman, was never heard of again. I don't believe she existed. I believe someone from inside the investigation, who knew that the party had been taking place, decided to interview the participants, telling them that someone else at the party had heard screams, and asking them if they had heard screams or recalled the allegation.
It wouldn't surprise me if the cigarette woman was an accomplice of the perpetrator.
-
I'm going to write word for word what was said on on of the posters when looking for Joanna Yeates.... The time scale changes on a regular basis.... This Has DCI Phil Jones name on the bottom of the poster and Avon and Somerset Constabulary logo....
Operation Braid
At about 8pm on Friday the 17th December 2010, Joanna YEATES, a 25 year old female, left the Tesco's store in Clifton and it is believed that she made her way home to Canygne Road. Joanna's body was subsequently discovered at 9am Christmas Day at Longwood Lane, Failand.
Joanna was last seen wearing a white / cream coloured ski- jacket and was carrying both a rucksack and a carrier bag. Joanna is pictured below.
If you saw Joanna on foot or in a vehicle, or you have any information that you may think might be relevant to the investigation. Please telephone the incident room on 01179 454085 or on Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111 or 0845 4567000.
Detective Chief Inspector Phil Jones
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now 2 very noticeable things with that poster is that 'Joanna Yeates " left 'Tesco's ' at 8:00pm according to the "Official Looking Police Poster"...
And the other being whether Joanna Yeates was seen in a vehicle..... Now I never knew they had asked for that information before ...
Maybe that CCTV footage that DS Mark Saunders saw of Canygne Road, doesn't have Joanna yeates upon it at all....
But 8:00pm??? why the constant shifting timelines ????? Makes me wonder about her reply to a male friend in a text....
She then texted Peter: “Where are you?”
Peter replied “On my way to a wedding. Where are you?”
She replied: “At home- on my todd”.
How long was Joanna Yeates at home for ??????
Another puzzler for me.... when we eventually get a description of something she is wearing they cannot accuratley describe it's colour....
white/cream isn't an accurate description..... It is either White or it is Cream... Did they really have this coat at her flat??
Seems a little odd for a description.... And this is the first time I have ever seen any description about what Joanna Yeates was wearing in a Poster .... So what about the watch??? And Trousers ????
Let me look at that description again...... Joanna was last seen wearing a white / cream coloured ski- jacket
So that tells me that they didn't have the coat at her flat.... What is the point of describing something that she apparently was last seen wearing, if people are not looking out for a ski- jacket.... What if someone had found a discarded ski- Jacket in a remote place.... When did they decide to remove the description from the Joanna Yeates posters ?
What Coat "HAD" Joanna Yeates left at home .... because I am begining to wonder if it is The Ski- Jacket!!!!
The Police have always said... Her purse, and keys were left at the flat.... then we get "The Coat."...
Is it a case of what we always do... presume that the... "Coat at the Flat is the one in The images" when in fact the "Police describes this outer garment as a Ski- Jacket... Did she have The Ski-Jacket on when she was found ??? Was there a Ski- Jacket in the vicinity???
Was that item what the Police were looking for in bushes on Longwood Lane ..Providence Lane ,.. and Canygne Road.... Because when you see the video's of the Police searching the bushes... They quickly go through them... Is it because they are looking for The Ski -Jacket????
OMG... whilst looking for the Bushes video... I found something else....
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Well this image has to say it all...... I knew I'd seen the Forensic Officers at the bay window on the ground Floor Level of Canygne Road....
You have 2 questions here..... Why are they Forensically testing what is supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat on 24/25th December 2010... when he was just simply a neigbour at this time.... But to me I don't think that it it Dr vincent Tabak's Flat... I do not think Dr Vincent Tabak lived on the Ground floor.... I think Flat 1 Was vacant or adjoined the other basement/ground floor flat....
And the reason's I say are two fold...
The Forensic Officers would not be testing the outside of the Bay Window for any Forensics.. even if it was Dr Vincent Tabak's and even if it was after they arrested him... (which it is not)... because Dr vincent Tabak didn't exit his house via a Bay Window .....
Now I'm going to put the image together with the original video clip i showed everyone of the back of Canygne Road... And I am almost positive that Joanna Yeates had the ground Floor and Dr Vincent Tabak lived in the main house ....
A description from The Video clip on The Getty site...
Missing woman Joanna Yeates: police find body;
Missing woman Joanna Yeates: police find body
24.12.2010 Bristol: Clifton: Police forensic investigators (wearing protective suits) searching windows of flat where Joanna Yeates lived
Notice the date.... 24th December 2010... This is December ... Now why are 'Forensic Officers " anywhere near the Flat that they claimed Dr Vincent Tabak lived.. ??? He wasn't a suspect until 31st December 2010 when the infamous Holland interview took place... Dr Vincent Tabak is away at this time in Cambridge...
So... did they start collect forensics against Dr Vincent Tabak befre time.... OR... Did Joanna Yeates Live in that Flat????
Is that why we have this video.... http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/656385638 of the back of Canygne Road... It was where Joanna Yeates lived??? And because The Intercom Plate only said Flat 1.. maybe that was why they removed it????
here is the clip I got the Bay window image from.... it's at 1 second....!!!
Also from the description.... Back view forensic officer taking evidence from window
What were they taking from the window ????? And why were they there ????
Just watched the clip again... It looks like they are sweeping something from the window bottom??
EDIT... I just want to add this..... Maybe it was a communal Flat.... ????
Another neighbour, Liz Lowman, said: ‘He said he saw two to three people leave the communal basement flat entrance talking in mild quiet tones.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1342427/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Landlord-Chris-Jefferies-hold-key.html#ixzz4qUjPWDCB
If Dr Vincent Tabak didn't live in the ground floor flat.... how could he carry Joanna Yeates to his flat without being seen... up the stairs of the Main House??????
This gets weirder.... I didn't think it possible !!!!!
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
This is news to me .... "Bristol Post... 20th August 2017.... !!!!
It was his call implicating Mr Jefferies that was among the reasons why police arrested the schoolmaster in the first place – he called from Holland to tell them he thought his landlord had moved his car that night.
Why have they started again telling untruths this late in the day ???? The article is dated ... 20th August 2017 !!!
They had arrested CJ before Dr Vincent Tabak made the phone call.... What is going on here ????
That Sunday night, and on the Monday and Tuesday, police began investigating, and Jo’s friends swung into action with social media appeals at first.
Well Greg didn't ring them until the Monday Morning..... Why is the Bristol Post having a Dr Vincent Tabak day ?????
Why are The Bristol Post telling an untruth about Holland and Dr Vincent Tabak's phone call being one of the reasons CJ was arrested ???!!!
CJ was arrested on the 30th December 2010.... according to DCI Phil Jones ,Dr Vincent Tabak had seen CJ's arrest on TV whilst he was in Holland and that was what apparently prompted the phone call... There is no evidence provided in court to prove whether it was actually Dr Vincent Tabak who made the phone call or Tanja Morson!!!
Edit.... Just incase The Bristol Post is reading..... read the whole subject matter.... Then you tell me whether Dr Vincent Tabak was illegally questioned in Holland on the 31st December 2010... Because as sure as eggs is eggs DC Karen Thomas should have cautioned Dr Vincent Tabak in Holland..... In her 6 hour interview... They questioned him as a suspect.... (IMO)...
Ask Ann Reddrop.... she'd planned Dr Vincent Tabak's arrest since late December 2010.... Well... what date was that exactly Ann!!!!!!
Start doing some journalistic work and look at "Bob The Builder"... And ask yourself why he "Contaminates The Crime scene"... Then ask yourself... why on gods earth the Police employed "Bob The Builder " in the first place... when "Forensic Officers were needed to follow protocol and keep a 'Crime Scene" UNCONTAMINATED!!
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/crimes-shook-bristol-jo-yeates-349034
AH... Has The Tree been shook ???
-
I think i have discovered what I believed was the metal object near to the entrance of The woods on Longwood Lane...
I believe it is Police Tape... But..... The Police Tape that goes across the road is tide to the Lamp Post/ Wood Pole... And The Police Tape that is on two levels appears to go into the wood.... If I am not mistaken...
Where The Police looking at a Scene in The wood?? We have Pictures of a forensic tent right next to the wood ....
Another thing I noticed.. Was that there is a lot of debris in the road and it isn't leaf matter ?? What is it???
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Well this image has to say it all...... I knew I'd seen the Forensic Officers at the bay window on the ground Floor Level of Canygne Road....
You have 2 questions here..... Why are they Forensically testing what is supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat on 24/25th December 2010... when he was just simply a neigbour at this time.... But to me I don't think that it it Dr vincent Tabak's Flat... I do not think Dr Vincent Tabak lived on the Ground floor.... I think Flat 1 Was vacant or adjoined the other basement/ground floor flat....
And the reason's I say are two fold...
The Forensic Officers would not be testing the outside of the Bay Window for any Forensics.. even if it was Dr Vincent Tabak's and even if it was after they arrested him... (which it is not)... because Dr vincent Tabak didn't exit his house via a Bay Window .....
Now I'm going to put the image together with the original video clip i showed everyone of the back of Canygne Road... And I am almost positive that Joanna Yeates had the ground Floor and Dr Vincent Tabak lived in the main house ....
A description from The Video clip on The Getty site...
Notice the date.... 24th December 2010... This is December ... Now why are 'Forensic Officers " anywhere near the Flat that they claimed Dr Vincent Tabak lived.. ??? He wasn't a suspect until 31st December 2010 when the infamous Holland interview took place... Dr Vincent Tabak is away at this time in Cambridge...
So... did they start collect forensics against Dr Vincent Tabak befre time.... OR... Did Joanna Yeates Live in that Flat????
Is that why we have this video.... http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/656385638 of the back of Canygne Road... It was where Joanna Yeates lived??? And because The Intercom Plate only said Flat 1.. maybe that was why they removed it????
here is the clip I got the Bay window image from.... it's at 1 second....!!!
Also from the description....
What were they taking from the window ????? And why were they there ????
Just watched the clip again... It looks like they are sweeping something from the window bottom??
EDIT... I just want to add this..... Maybe it was a communal Flat.... ????
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1342427/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Landlord-Chris-Jefferies-hold-key.html#ixzz4qUjPWDCB
If Dr Vincent Tabak didn't live in the ground floor flat.... how could he carry Joanna Yeates to his flat without being seen... up the stairs of the Main House??????
This gets weirder.... I didn't think it possible !!!!!
The next Clip says :
Joanna Yeates murder:
Flowers laid outside flat/prayer vigil at church
Joanna Yeates murder: Flowers laid outside flat/prayer vigil at church; ENGLAND: Somerset: Bristol: EXT Windows of flat shared by murder victim Joanna Yeates and her boyfriend Greg Reardon / building housing flat where Joanna Yeates lived / building with police incident van parked outside / garden gate and path leading to front door of flat / message on flowers left at entrance to flats / flat of Joanna Yeates and Greg Reardon
...
There is no need for the media to start zooming into The Bay window on the 28th December 2010....
EXT Windows of flat shared by murder victim Joanna Yeates and her boyfriend Greg Reardon
Why if The Forensic Officers did Forensics on The Bay Windows and The Media saying that those Windows are from the Flat that Joanna Yeates shared with her boyfriend.... Have we been told that this is Dr Vincent Tabak's flat???
When did they decide to tell the world that Dr Vincent Tabak lived there??
And more importantly... why when we have the video tour of the Flat... do we not get to go to the bay windows ??? Are the red shelves blocking an entrance???
I find it odd, that the media seemed aware of the Flat and what windows were to what Flat.... Obviously we cannot say that the media were mistaken, as the Forensics on the 24th/25th December on the bay windows goes to support that the windows must have belonged to Joanna Yeates ....
How are those Flats layed out.... This is not the first time I have asked this question!!!!
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/691696914
-
This is news to me .... "Bristol Post... 20th August 2017.... !!!!
Why have they started again telling untruths this late in the day ???? The article is dated ... 20th August 2017 !!!
They had arrested CJ before Dr Vincent Tabak made the phone call.... What is going on here ????
Well Greg didn't ring them until the Monday Morning..... Why is the Bristol Post having a Dr Vincent Tabak day ?????
Why are The Bristol Post telling an untruth about Holland and Dr Vincent Tabak's phone call being one of the reasons CJ was arrested ???!!!
CJ was arrested on the 30th December 2010.... according to DCI Phil Jones ,Dr Vincent Tabak had seen CJ's arrest on TV whilst he was in Holland and that was what apparently prompted the phone call... There is no evidence provided in court to prove whether it was actually Dr Vincent Tabak who made the phone call or Tanja Morson!!!
Edit.... Just incase The Bristol Post is reading..... read the whole subject matter.... Then you tell me whether Dr Vincent Tabak was illegally questioned in Holland on the 31st December 2010... Because as sure as eggs is eggs DC Karen Thomas should have cautioned Dr Vincent Tabak in Holland..... In her 6 hour interview... They questioned him as a suspect.... (IMO)...
Ask Ann Reddrop.... she'd planned Dr Vincent Tabak's arrest since late December 2010.... Well... what date was that exactly Ann!!!!!!
Start doing some journalistic work and look at "Bob The Builder"... And ask yourself why he "Contaminates The Crime scene"... Then ask yourself... why on gods earth the Police employed "Bob The Builder " in the first place... when "Forensic Officers were needed to follow protocol and keep a 'Crime Scene" UNCONTAMINATED!!
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/crimes-shook-bristol-jo-yeates-349034
AH... Has The Tree been shook ???
Here also 2nd August 2017.....
Next door was a perverted fantasist named Vincent Tabak. The Dutchman’s infatuation with Joanna and his obsession with internet images showing chilling depictions of women being choked proved to be a fatal combination. Joanna’s partially clothed, frozen body was found at a roadside in Somerset on Christmas Day in 2010, eight days after she had been reported missing.
Dear Daily Mail.....
I will try and excuse your ignorance.... But as The Porn was never brought to The trial of Dr Vincent Tabak it isn't Evidence,....
There was NO Proof That Dr Vincent Tabak was addicted to Pornography.... No Images , video's were shown in Court of his apparent obsession with Strangulation Porn.... So how do you know it exists???
Your Headline and I will quote...
Killed by porn: Six women and girls whose lives were horrifically snuffed out by men addicted to vile pornography and seeking to reenact it in the most chilling fashion
States that he is amongst many addicted to porn... Where was the evidence to prove that Dr Vincent Tabak tried to re-enact this pornography????
I don't know about you.... But I personally would like the evidence that this was the case .... Hasn't anyone learnt anything after the CJ debarcle?? It's easy to make a monster out of a person who cannot defend themselves... And any amount of untruths can be told....
I have a problem even believing the NONE Evidence that was brought to trial.... please read the posts on this forum and come back again with a better answer... And tell me whether you really believe the garbage that has been said from day one .....
Maybe you know whether Joanna Yeates lived in the whole of the ground floor flat.... Forensics were a bit too quick, Forensically testing the bay window, before Dr Vincent Tabak was ever considered a suspect.... But maybe you should ask good old Ann about that one.....
Please show me your evidence to support your story...
PS... Joanna Yeates was fully clothed.... as stated several times by DCI Phil Jones !!
Regards Nine...Again
We do appear to be having a month of it at the moment..... !!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4755176/The-women-girls-killed-men-addicted-pornography.html#ixzz4qandn6Ar
-
August 6, 2017 (modified 7 August 2017 | 10:24)
© RESTRICTED PLAYBACK
OMG... We even have the Italian online papers talking all things Dr Vincent Tabak.... !! It has been translated ......
The missing serial killer"
Even when, in February, he collapsed in front of the prison priest, Tabak admits that he had promised aggression. At the trial, during the five hours spent at the witness desk, his hands clinging to the podium, he claims to have seen Joanna greet the kitchen window and interpret it as an invitation to enter. She insists she did not want to kill her, tried to kiss her and panicked, screaming. But the jurors do not believe him: a tall young man over a meter and ninety does not cling to the neck of a girl much more fragile than he does to "take away his life," by chance.
Just over three weeks after the beginning of the debate, on October 28, 2011, the defendant is sentenced to life imprisonment.
Immediately afterwards it emerges that there was violent pornographic material in his PCs, video and pictures of affectionate and strangely ladies. Details omitted during the trial because the judge had ruled that Tabak's sexual life was not relevant. According to many criminologists, however, if it had not been captured, Joanna's assassination could have been the first in the career of a serial killer.
Whats going on NOW... For Dr Vincent Tabak to be appearing in an Italian online issue... when I don't think it would have been big news in Italy.....
And certainly Not Now !!
Is someone about to open this case up?????
Would you like to comment Paolo Beltramin ??
http://www.corriere.it/cronache/17_agosto_03/corpo-joanna-yeates-sotto-neve-assassino-porta-accanto-jefferies-femminicidio-beltramin-20923a48-788c-11e7-8ef0-c9b41f95269b.shtml
-
August 6, 2017 (modified 7 August 2017 | 10:24)
© RESTRICTED PLAYBACK
OMG... We even have the Italian online papers talking all things Dr Vincent Tabak.... !! It has been translated ......
Whats going on NOW... For Dr Vincent Tabak to be appearing in an Italian online issue... when I don't think it would have been big news in Italy.....
And certainly Not Now !!
Is someone about to open this case up?????
Would you like to comment Paolo Beltramin ??
http://www.corriere.it/cronache/17_agosto_03/corpo-joanna-yeates-sotto-neve-assassino-porta-accanto-jefferies-femminicidio-beltramin-20923a48-788c-11e7-8ef0-c9b41f95269b.shtml
What a scoop! The Italian connection is the celebrated murder of a young British university student in Perugia three years before Joanna Yeates was murdered in Bristol. Each of these cases is the subject of a film shown by Netflix. The only person whose conviction still stands for the Italian murder was tried behind closed doors, had no history of violence, and was convicted on the basis of DNA at the crime scene which could have been planted there to incriminate him. I believe Paolo Beltramin may have been tipped off by the killer of both victims to distract attention from the fact that the prosecutors in both cases invented lurid sexual motives for which there was no actual evidence.
-
What a scoop! The Italian connection is the celebrated murder of a young British university student in Perugia three years before Joanna Yeates was murdered in Bristol. Each of these cases is the subject of a film shown by Netflix. The only person whose conviction still stands for the Italian murder was tried behind closed doors, had no history of violence, and was convicted on the basis of DNA at the crime scene which could have been planted there to incriminate him. I believe Paolo Beltramin may have been tipped off by the killer of both victims to distract attention from the fact that the prosecutors in both cases invented lurid sexual motives for which there was no actual evidence.
Leonora... Never even thought about the Italian connection, that you have spoken about....
What is going on?
-
This Bay Window business, is really bugging me... Not only the Bay window but the back of the house...
Where did Dr Vincent Tabak live ???
Where did Joanna Yeates live ????
I know we are supposed to know the answer to those 2 questions, but I don't now !!
I look at the date when they first were doing Forensic's on The bay Window, and there are two clips... The first clip I has mentioned before,Is dated the 24th December 2010.... I had seen that one of the Forensic officers points to the other to work on the Bay Window and the clip shows her painting some black material upon it....
The second clip is dated the 25th December 2010... But part of it's description is the 24th December 2010... I believe that the media used part of the clip from the 24th December 2010.... The images from clip 659296240 are the same as the images from clip 659120944 which I have attached images from ....
Chief Superintendent Jon Stratford himself is interviewed outside Canygne Road on the 24th December 2010... I believe the third clip is a continuation of the other clip from the 24th December 2010, as we have the Officers rummaging through the rubbish.... Chief Superintendent Jon Stratford goes on to say:
There's nothing other than the fact she's disappeared, there is nothing to suggest that she has come to harm at the current time. So we need to be careful, we need to make sure we don't speculate, but obviously our Detectives are Investigating ever possible, erm, explanation for her disappearance.
So if Joanna Yeates is just a "Missing Person" on the 24th December 2010.... Why are they 'Forensically Examining the Bay Window... The only reason for this is that it is "Joanna Yeates Flat".....
They wouldn't need to Forensically Examine any body elses windows for a "Missing Person"... Even though the "Forensic Examination", tells us something Far More Serious has happened to Joanna Yeates....
This information I cannot stress how Important it is.... we are talking the 24th December 2010 !!
We are talking a time of a "Missing Person".... we have No Murder at this point.. We have the Police clearly working on the Bay Window on the 24th December 2010... WHY???
It has got to be Joanna Yeates Flat....
There is NO Other explanation for it at this time !! And if Joanna Yeates was in the whole of the ground floor ... where was Dr Vincent Tabak.... Why has CJ NOT said anything ????
What did the Jury see on their tour ???? Did they go into the Bay windowed area ??? Did they only see what we have seen on the Video of the tour of Joanna Yeates flat....
You have one last possibility with the Bay Window... DC Karen Thomas rang Dr Vincent Tabak on the 24th December 2010... I never understood, why she made this phone call when he was away in Cambridge... But she did..
Had she called Dr Vincent Tabak to ask Permission to "Forensically Test".. The Bay Window on the ground floor???
You can only have this as the outcome if there were indeed 2 flats on the ground floor level.... Which then flies in the face of DC Karen Thomas claiming that Dr Vincent Tabak was too interested in Forensics.....
OMG.... That has to be it..... Dr Vincent Tabak's Over Interest in Forensics... she had asked his Permission to Forensically examine The Bay Window and he obliged .... So when he starts asking her about The Forensics at the property which she has asked him if it's ok to perform.. in the NOW Infamous Holland Interview... she turns it around and pretends he has an over Interest in Forensics.... So as to give the public her supposed reason for testing Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA..... (IMO)..
DC Karen Thomas .... Is that how it went ??????? Did The Dutchman help you and then you used it against him ???? Please answer me that !!!
The Placid Dutchman whom you have all pretended was, manipulating, Calculated, trying to keep one step ahead of the Investigation....
He wasn't was he.... You had brought him into the Investigation by asking for his assistance... didn't you !!!! (IMO)...
So people which one is it......
(A): Joanna yeates Lived In The Ground Floor including the Bay Window... Or..
(B): DC Karen Thomas asked Dr Vincent Tabak if it would be ok to test his Bay Window just in case a perpetrator had touched his window looking for where Joanna yeates lived ????
And if as has been said Dr Vincent Tabak was trying to keep one step ahead of this Investigation why would he give the Police Permission to test The Bay Window???
You also have to take into account if you go with (A):... The Dr Vincent Tabak could not have had 2 bedrooms in his Ground Floor Flat... making it impossible for him to put Joanna Yeates on the bed in his second bedroom !!!
Going back to The date the 24th December 2010... The Police must have had Good Reason, to believe a "Serious Crime had taken place... To be Forensically testing that Bay Window at that time .... ..(IMO)...
Did the Police turn round what Dr Vincent Tabak was asking about regards The Forensics that had been going on in his Flat... Just like they turned around The Phone Call about helping CJ move The Car off The Drive ??
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/659296240
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/659120944
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/659221024
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Thought I'd share this video of DCI Phil Jones outside Bristol Crown Court..
His facial expressions say a great deal..... (IMO)
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/688209604
-
Why is DCI Jones squirming throughout Ann Reddrop's statement to The media... He looks extremely uncomfortable...
She even asks him before she starts her statement if he is "OK"... which he replies "Yer"..
For 2:25 The other Police Officer expression rarely changes... yet DCI Phil Jones face contorts regularly... WHY??
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/688209048
-
I have just read this on twitter ....
Criminal Appeals @C4CrimAppeals 3h3 hours ago
More
In England & Wales, trial recordings are destroyed after just 7yrs & transcripts cost thousands of £s. Meanwhile in Louisiana.. #OpenJustice
If that is the case ... Then Dr Vincent Tabak is up the swanny without a proverbal paddle.....
If no-one can locate Dr Vincent Tabak... And no-one is taking on this case there is 14 months to obtain these transcripts before they are destroyed....
Well I am sure that will suit a lot of people won't it!
But it will not change the fact that we have found discrepancies in this case from start to finish!! (IMO)...
-
I have found something I do not quite understand.... It appears to be Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat and indeed i was pointed to it as such from 'WebSlueths...
I only have a description.....
Letting information:
Furnishing: Unfurnished
Added on Rightmove: 04 May 2011 (2305 days ago)
Key features
clifton Flat Unfurnished Property Driveway Parking Available 2 Bedrooms 1 Reception Medium Sized Garden 1 Bathroom
Full description
We are pleased to offer this newly refurbished lower ground floor flat in this imposing period property located on one of Clifton s most sought after residential roads. The flat offers two well proportioned double bedrooms, a very spacious living/dining room with a bay window and feature fireplace, a newly installed bathroom with a shower over the bath, galley style kicthen and an adjoining utility room with the appliances. The flat is newly carpeted and decorated throughout, is offered on an unfurnished basis and further benefits from use of the rear garden and an allocated off street parking space.
I have screenshot the information because it always has a habit of disappearing....
This is extremely odd... The advert date is The 4th May 2011... The property has been fully refurbished.... How long does that take ????
When were all of Dr Vincent Tabak's possessions taken from the flat??
When were all of Tanja Morson's possessions taken from the flat...??
4th May 2011..... Who did the refurbishment ??? These things take time ??? Dr Vincent Tabak hasn't entered any type of Plea yet... we have his home, refurbished and on the market quick sharp!!!
What happened to the defence taking photographs etc of Dr Vincent Tabak's home to show how difficult it would be to carry a body to the spare bedroom.....
So Dr Vincent Tabak was the owner of The Bay Window...... So come on Now DCI Phil Jones... explain to me exactly how you managed to NOT only do Forensics on The Outside of Dr Vincent Tabak Bay Window on The 24th December 2010... But state after Trial that Dr Vincent Tabak was a Suspect within 10 day's of Joanna Yeates being found ??? But did you get a warrant to perform this invasive task???
You stated that you suspected Dr Vincent Tabak , within 10 days of Joanna Yeates being found.... Well.. in my mind you must have located her sooner than you would have us believe... You are actively pursuing Dr Vincent Tabak on the 24th December 2010 by having The Forensic Officers testing Dr Vincent Tabak's Bay Window...
Again if he was a "SUSPECT"... then your Holland Interview should have included a "Caution"..... (IMO)...
And DC Karen Thomas is telling untruths about Dr Vincent Tabak's over Interest in Forensic's being the reason that she suspected Dr Vincent Tabak.... Because you obviously suspected him of something on the 24th December 2010... or else you wouldn't be doing 'Forensics" on The Bay Window...... (IMO).... !!!
Why is everyone so confident to refurbish this property at this point in time ?????
In my mind you are totally admitting that there is No DNA Evidence In Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat whatsoever.... You are admitting this because ..The Defence obviously does not need to examine for themselves Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat....
This is quite disturbing (IMO)... Did Bob The Builder come round and re-jig the entire interior of the ground floor??
Did Joanna Yeates really have a Bay Window to start with, and changes took place??? I really need to understand what took place at Dr Vincent Tabaks Flat by 4th May 2011???
You see that date should have maybe been OK... because everyone was expecting Dr Vincent Tabak to appear in court on that day... But the venue and date changed... didn't it!
So no "Guilty Plea"... No NOTHING!
It also smacks of someone already being aware of what Plea Dr Vincent Tabak was going to make.... (IMO)....
How has this property been rushed to be refurbished... Smack Bang in the middle of a "Murder Case "???
If I were Dr Vincent Tabak I would want my Defence Team to go around to where I lived and test everything.....
DCI Phil Jones.... No Forensic DNA , finger prints or anything whatsoever in Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat????? Nothing of Interest whatsoever in The Flat That Dr Vincent Tabak lived at ?????
Because there can't be if this Flat is back on the Market in record time ....(IMO)!!!!!
Edit.... another question,.... what was the date of this advert for Joanna Yeates Flat??
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-27696067.html of Joanna Yeates flat????
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-29859883.html Flat 2
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?129675-UK-Joanna-Yeates-25-Clifton-Bristol-17-Dec-2010-13/page28
Edit.... Who owned Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat ???? Because I have never been sure... even though people have said it was CJ..???
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8424.msg421095#msg421095
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Now this is where things get Interesting,.......
They then briefly saw the garden flat where defendant Vincent Tabak lived
before spending 22 minutes next door at Jo’s home.
What did taking the Jury around to Dr Vincent Tabak's Refurbished Flat achieve ?????
Did Dr Vincent Tabak live in The Ground Floor Flat?????
Who had become the new tenant to allow a Jury to visit????
This is irregular (IMO).... How can The jury have a clear understanding of Dr Vincent Tabak's movement, if the flat he supposedly lived in had been refurbished by the 4Th May 2011?
And The Trial was in October 2011??
Did Dr Vincent Tabak actually live in the main house... ????
Are we back to The Bay Window belonging to Joanna Yeates ?????
Edit..... Was Two Bedrooms created for this flat when it was refurbished ?????? I would expect a Defence Lawyer to suggest that............
Therefore creating reasonable doubt in the juries mind ....(IMO)...
Double Edit... This is the video of them Forensically testing the Bay Window.. The caption says that it is Joanna Yeates Flat!!!
Missing woman Joanna Yeates: police find body; Missing woman Joanna Yeates: police find body
24.12.2010 Bristol: Clifton: Police forensic investigators (wearing protective suits) searching windows of flat where Joanna Yeates lived Police officers searching through rubbish in bins Back view forensic officer taking evidence from window
Restrictions
Restrictions: No use by regional TV or radio in UK and Ireland until 3 days after date of creation. Prior approval required if clip features ITN newsreader or reporter, please contact your local Getty Images representative.
Details
Credit: ITN
Clip #: 659120944SD
Collection: ITN
Date created: 25 December, 2010
Licence type: Rights-ready
Release info: Not released. More information
Clip length: 00:00:09:23
Location: United Kingdom
Mastered to: QuickTime 8-bit Photo-JPEG SD 720x576 25i More information
Originally shot on: 576 25i
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/659120944
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/833591/jurors-visit-tragic-jo-yeates-flat/
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The real question now is......
Who's Bay Window is it...???
-
That refurbishment of Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat by 4th May 2011, has got me really concerned....
I have said I don't know how many times , that there are no Photographs of The Forensic Officers, taking any items from the bottom flat, which we know as number 2...
I always thought it weird that the media were not there watching as they removed items from this flat....
We only see Forensic Officers working in the Main House... Bringing any amount of "Forensic material out of the building....( Of Course not forgetting... what we know as Flat 1)
I wondered why the pavement next to what is supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabaks flat had been removed an replaced...
(http://swns.com/wp-content/themes/wp-clear/scripts/timthumb.php?src=http://swns.com/images/stories/tabaktrial3/tabaktrial1.jpg&w=450&h=276&zc=1)
Then we have The Green tarpaulin surrounding the back of the building... I never understood why that was put there at all.... People from around the back could clearly see what was happening up until the 20th January when this tarpaulin was placed around the building by D.R.A Maintainence, whom I jokingly call 'Bob The Builder"...
Is the real reason for the Tarpaulin, to hide the fact that they are stripping the house out and refurbishing it???
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/01/20/article-1348832-0CD6F642000005DC-780_634x332.jpg)
This to me appears quite plausible...
But you then have to put the question... How by the 20th January 2011 did they know that Dr Vincent Tabak was going to be arrested for the "Murder of Joanna Yeates???? Not only that but, Dr Vincent Tabak would be charged as such??? And he would not be applying for bail????
There has to be a reason for that tarpaulin... And I do not believe that it has anything to do with shielding the property because they are Forensically testing it....
(http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/view-of-the-drive-leading-from-the-front-of-44-canynge-road-bristol-picture-id129068908?s=612x612)
Looking at all the replacement of the pavements makes sense to me now... If.... They were refurbishing that Flat as they say in the "For Rent" advert that was dated 4th May 2011...
They had installed a fully refurbished bathroom...
Well... If they needed to access the drains as they appear to have done in the images you can see, did they actually turn the ground floor into 2 flats at this time ??
Did Joanna Yeates live in the whole of the Ground Floor???? It may seem far fetched to some... But with The "Forensics" testing The Bay Window on the 24th December 2010 and the media saying it was Joanna Yeates and Greg Reardons Flat... I can only come to the conclusion that it was .....
I keep coming back to Justice Field I think who said... 'The Whole truth may Never be known"....
Well... Am I getting closer ?????
The next question is why????
Why have they gone to such great lengths to put Dr Vincent Tabak away????
Does nobody have any concerns as to 'The Refurbishment of This Flat by the 4th May 2011...long before Dr Vincent Tabak's Trial commenced in October 2011????
The jury visit Dr Vincent Tabak's flat and Joanna Yeates Flat at the trial....
But what was really shown to the Jury??? because I do not believe the time capsule rubbish anymore....
What time capsule?? There are NO Images... I repeat... NO Images of what Joanna Yeates flat looked like before they went in there and took everything out....
Don't you think that odd????
And the fact that in Joanna Yeates bedroom.. The different sets of furniture?? And in the front room... The fridge is in it.... Had The fridge been taken from the other part of the ground floor???
Image 4 shows the fridge ....
The video tour....
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/656490716
The way the flat was layed out, seemed squashed... too much furniture to me... But if they had more space than we have been lead to believe, then the massive couches could have been in the room with The Bay Window..... (IMO)..
Are we not a least bit curious as to why all this smoke and mirrors has taken place ????
These things should make people think.... These things should make people question Dr Vincent Tabak's supposed "Guilt To Manslaughter Plea"... Is he really guilty??
Because if they have gone to this great length to hide the possibility that Joanna Yeates and Greg lived in the whole of the Ground floor.... Then what lengths did they go to to put Dr Vincent Tabak away????
You have to go back to that Bay Window and The refurbishment of what is supposed to be Flat2 ...
And seriously question what has gone on in this case..... (IMO) !!!
Edit..... If Dr Vincent Tabak really lived in The main House as I believe it is quite possible.... Why, would he removed the body of Joanna Yeates from her flat??? Why would he risk carrying her to his ???
He would need to carry her through the communal front door... where he could be seen by anyone entering or exiting the building!!
Double edit.... Notice the dream catcher thingy in the Bay Window at the back of the building.... There are similar items in Flat 1's bedroom .... So Again... Did Joanna yeates rent The whole of the Ground Floor at 44,Canygne Road ????
N:B... Please don't just comment on The Dream Catcher... I prefer if people look at what I have written about the whole of the ground floor and make their comments based on that information....
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
CJ's second witness statement.....
What did CJ see...???
Did he see Dr Vincent Tabak leaving The Communal Front Door going to ASDA....????
-
We have the same with The Pavement outside what we know as Flat 1...
I never understood why these pavements were lifted.... But Now I think i do......
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/656486708
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Remember DCI Phil Jones talking about finding the Trainers under the kitchen sink behind the kickboard..... which didn't come to light until the "Leveson Inquiry"....
Well did they actually find them when they renovated the Flat!!!
Because it seemed really odd that they found them in such a place....
So the story goes that they didn't release CJ until after they got the test done on the trainers....
Jones said: "Mr Jefferies was still a suspect in the investigation. There were still ongoing forensic examination being undertaken. In particular there were a pair of trainers that we found in Mr Jefferies's house which were hidden underneath a kitchen unit.
"Those trainers had a blood spot on them. That was analysed, eventually a DNA profile was found and Mr Jefferies could be eliminated. When the forensic lines of inquiry were completed he was fully eliminated from the investigation, which was when he was released from his bail with no charge."
I couldn't understand why it was until March he was on bail.... But I don't believe the trainers are the reason.... But I believe they found the trainers when they started the renovations.... And not when they were doing forensics... (IMO)..
Edit.... How did the Police get CJ, to cooperate..... That is if indeed the Flat belonged to CJ???
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/mar/27/joanna-yeates-landlord-tests-trainers
-
SurfBoards... I do remember the image of Joanna Yeates with a surf Board... I just assumed that they were rented... but no... To my surprise they apparently lived in The hallway of Joanna Yeates Flat....
Don't remember ever seeing the Forensic Officers removing Surfboards from the Flat.... I discovered the information about The Surfboard from a tweet from Skynewslive...
It was a tweet skynewsgather made on the Judges summing up...
11:54 AM - 26 Oct 2011Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
Greg found an apron in hall by the surf boards, and one of Joanna's earrings on their bed. A recipe for mince pies downloaded on work PC.
We know that the earring was in the bed... Yet the judge tells the jury that the earring was on the bed.... That makes a huge difference if the jury had forgotten where this piece of evidence was...
Being on the bed would go with what Dr Vincent Tabak's statement said about placing Joanna Yeates on her bed...
But we know from Greg's Testimony that he found the earring in The bed... which has never been explained how it got there ...
I am trying to envisage where these Surfboards would have lived in the hallway... Its not that big the hallway to what is flat1... If the Surfboards lived there .. what about their bicycles and Greg's Skis??
How did Dr Vincent Tabak manage to negotiate the hallway without knocking everything over whilst carrying Joanna Yeates around to his flat??
Dr Vincent Tabak.. doesn't mention the difficulties of the Hallway... You would think that he would have mentioned the Surfboards... You wouldn't miss them.... They are enormous.....
Why would the apron be in the Hallway???
You could envisage the apron being in the Hallway if an attack had started there... But then there would be surfboards in the way... And a scene of a struggle...
Dr Vincent Tabak would have literally have had to knock on her door...or Press the intercom and the minute she let him in attacked her... for the apron to be in the hall.... It seems more likely she took it off and dropped it there herself on her way out to me...
Another thing that I have thought about... why did the conversation that Joanna Yeates have with Dr Vincent Tabak not include the fact that he was Dutch...??
Neither Greg nor Joanna Yeates had meet Dr Vincent Tabak and would not have been aware that he was Dutch... You would have thought the conversation in the kitchen would have Joanna Yeates asking him where he was from?? And maybe how long he had been in England... What brought him to England... And what he did for a living...
But apparently not.... The conversation talks cats apparently and flirty things....
No talk about things they may have in common.... Their work... when they moved into the building.... No talk about there interests... we just get "flirty and cats"....
I cannot see Joanna Yeates letting a complete stranger into her house.... If she was in need of company.. why didn't she stay at The Ram??
If she opened her door to someone... it had to be someone she knew ....(IMO)...
11:52 AM - 26 Oct 2011Twitter
skymartinbrunt
@skymartinbrunt
Judge #JoYeates resuming summing up now, reminding jury of statement from boyfriend Greg Reardon
So does this mean the information about The Surfboard was from Greg's written statement he gave to Police... Or what Greg Reardon actually stated in court when he was in the witness box??
Because I do not remember any of the papers reporting about the surfboards in the hallway, throughout the trial....!!
http://live-news.sky.com/Event/Joanna_Yeates_Murder_Trial2?Page=1
This link always takes a while to load, then you'll need to scroll down...
-
Where in the Hallway did these Surfboards live??
(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/1390286.main_image.jpg?strip=all&w=682&h=455&crop=1)
You would expect them to be on the wall side behind the door as not to knock into them when you enter the flat....
They cannot have been behind the door.... The Cat trays are there .... Then you have the shelf for shoes and a Coat stand... so where did these surfboards live ???
Maybe to the right of the door ... but thats close to the door and if there are two Surfboards they would jut out...(IMO)...
And they are not going to be anywhere near a radiator as they would warp.... (IMO)..
I would have imagined the ski's being in the corner near the door.. I just can't see how you would get two enormous surfboards in that tiny hallway.... along with Ski Equipment and Bicycles.... where is everything going to fit???
lets not forget the plastic pedestal that also was in that Hallway... I can't imagine where abouts that fit in there also...
They included a pair of Jo’s briefs which were on top of a green plastic
pedestal which had been chipped. He later found an earring inside a duvet
and another on the floor under clothing.
Again from a paper mentioning the whereabouts of this pedestal...
Mr Reardon noticed two broken pieces of plastic on a green pedestal in the hallway, with a pair of Jo's briefs on top.
Edit...... If the Forensic Officers didn't remove these Surfboards.. and Greg was apparently allowed to remove his belongings from the flat... why isn't Joanna Yeates surfboard in the Hallway???
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2050063/Vincent-Tabak-strangled-Jo-Yeates-20-seconds-stifle-scream-arm-her.html#ixzz4qvyGJ4pd
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/845725/he-held-jo-yeates-throat-for-20-seconds-to-stop-her-screaming/
-
Mr Reardon noticed two broken pieces of plastic on a green pedestal in the hallway, with a pair of Jo's briefs on top.
Now I assumed the Green pedestal was Plastic.... But maybe not...
Are the two pieces of broken plastic the "Console"????
The screams were heard 40 minutes before you texted Sonja.
No. I don’t know.
The apron dropped near to the door?
I don’t know?
Shhards of console- did you do that?
I don’t know.
POr of her knickers by the door. Did you put them there?
I don’t know.
Earrings in the bedroom
So are we talking a games Console ??
The apron dropped near to the door?
So where near to the door did the Surfboards live ????
Edit...
Don't leave your board upright leaning against things, all it takes is a slip and it can topple over resulting in cracks and costly repairs. Store it indoors, horizontally with the fins facing up, preferably on a rack and in a good padded board bag where possible. Also it’s best not to store your board when sopping wet as this can cause delamination over time.
So where was the Surfboards... I'm sure they would have looked after such expensive items....
https://philpapers.org/archive/RAMTMT-4.pdf
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2050063/Vincent-Tabak-strangled-Jo-Yeates-20-seconds-stifle-scream-arm-her.html#ixzz1bJKak8dh
http://www.ospreyactionsports.co.uk/article/58/caring-for-your-surfboard
-
Here's an image of Joanna Yeates with her Surfboard..... It's massive!!!
(https://images.jg-cdn.com/image/f48fe381-75ed-4b81-b75d-d554ed690f23.jpg?template=fundraisingpagegalleryxl)
Now tell me where next to the door that Surfboard and Greg's Surfboard are going to fit in that tiny Hallway???
Joanna Yeates is 5' 4" tall ... hazarding a guess that Surfboard looks about 8' plus... that isn't, fitting in no hallway....(IMO)
Edit.... Why would Joanna Yeates and Greg Reardon move into such a tiny little Flat having so much equipment and no where to store such equipment... They are not going to be storing their valubles in the shed....
So.. I will go back to the Bay Window... Did Joanna Yeates and Greg Reardon live in the whole of the ground floor... ??
-
Clearly we see in the Hallway a Coat Stand...
So why does Clegg tell the jury it's a Coat Rack????
He took off his coat.
He hung it on her coat rack.
Coat Rack's are normally hung on the wall creating more room in a Hallway... And as we know it is a Coat Stand, which would cause Dr Vincent Tabak more difficulty carrying Joanna Yeates from the flat....
Also those surfboards in the way....
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
What are the marks on the hallway??
I thought that they were made by The Forensics.... I find them curious as they appear to be at the exact same height and distance apart on both walls....
I wonder what they denote... I have attached an Image which i have circled and one which i have not, so you can see for yourselves what these marks are !!
Edit.... are those marks where some kind of racking would have been for the Surfboards....
If I am suggesting that it is possible Joanna Yeates and Greg Reardon lived in the whole of the ground Floor.. then that hallway could quite simply have been where they stored all their equipment.....
The marks on the wall are too equal to be anything other than something attached there ....(IMO)....
So am I correct in saying The Bay Window belonged to Joanna Yeates flat???
-
The more I look at the hallway.. The more I see.....
I must say I constantly get thrown or confused by what indicts that it was two flats and what indicates that it was one flat....
But if it was two Flats then there had to be some sort of entrance to the Bay Windowed room.... For that to be Joanna Yeates...
Anyway... i was looking at more clips and this time I noticed what I believe to be a Hoover in The Hallway next to the shoe rack.... On the video clip there is a Blue Object that isn't in any of the Images of the Hallway.... I have attached an image ......
So when did The media First get to look inside Joanna Yeates Flat??? And who removed the blue object that looks like a Hoover ???
This is not the first time I have noticed items change position.... So if the hoover is there.. where were the cat trays... What did they do with what looks like a Hoover object?? There is no date on this clip... which is a shame ....
I have shown before pictures of the trainers on the shoe stand changing position... In what should ultimatley be a time capsule... I''l attach those images again ....
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/12/article-2048247-0E57FB5F00000578-723_634x413.jpg)
First images shows trainers on shoe stand facing in different directions...
(http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/general-view-of-the-hallway-in-the-flat-that-joanna-yeates-lived-in-picture-id809558144?s=612x612)
Now they face the same way.... ???? This Flat is supposed to be untouched !!
Coming back to The Hoover item.... where are all Joanna Yeates electrical appliances ????
Can anyone identify what i believe is the Hoover.... what else could it be ????
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/656473260
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I thought CJ had kept away from Canygne Road after his arrest... and was held up inside one of his friends homes...
At about 1:14 of the clip.. The Police Officer grabs something near the bushes and briefly looks over and says:
Mr Jefferies Coming back
I assumed that CJ was away from The Property for months... and didn't get his belongings returned till after he was eliminated... How comes he's there on this day being the day Dr Vincent Tabak is arrested ???
From a newspaper Article :...
But the following weeks became very much more painful, before I started to feel any real sense of restored identity.
Almost as great as the shock of arrest was the announcement that every item of clothing I possessed had been removed from my flat for forensic examination, and the flat itself would remain in police hands.
I had nothing to wear but the clothes I had been given at the police station and, to add to the feeling of disconnection, even my watch and mobile phone remained confiscated.
I was fortunate to be on my way to stay with the same friend who had made the legal arrangements, but as I was driven away by the solicitor there was the sharp realisation of how unbearably isolated and vulnerable I would still be if I had nowhere to go but a bail hostel.
As it was, for three months I moved between four sets of friends whose lives provided the psychological security without which it would have been almost impossible to cope.
So why is CJ turning up at Canygne Road on the 20th January 2011...
How long was CJ unable to go out till after dark???
I was unable for a time to go out, except occasionally after dark, because the press were desperate for the scoop of discovering where I was. More generally, there was the effect on me of nine weeks of waiting to be cleared of suspicion.
If the press were desperate for a scoop... Then why didn't they pounce on him when he returned on the 20th January 2011... As described by the Officer in the clip?????
When finally, in early March, I was publicly cleared of involvement in the murder, my possessions were returned and I was able to return to my flat.
How was he there in January 20th 2011... when he says it wasn't until march he went back !!
Edit...... More to the point... If CJ had said that the police thought that he and Dr Vincent Tabak had colluded.. Then why would the Police be happy he was at the house?? You would think that they would have escorted him.. You would think they would have wanted him clear of the building.... Did CJ's Bail conditions have anything on them regarding returning to the property... Because I would have thought that ought to be the case.... If they thought he and Dr Vincent Tabak had colluded... especially on the day they had arrested Dr Vincent Tabak.....(IMO)...
Double Edit....... The only other option i can think of if CJ is coming back to Canygne Road... Is That..... even though the video clip is dated 20th January 2011.... The footage was taken earlier.... Near the 29th December 2010....
I say this for a couple of reasons.... D.R.A Maintenances.. little transit van is seen in the road.... D.R.A Maintenance.. put the scaffolding up... In the ealier part of the footage there is frost/snow on the roofs...
So... question.... why would CJ say he never returned to the house if it was untrue????
Which make the more likely option being... That the footage was done on the 29th December 2010 when everyone see's CJ and this being the day that CJ does get accosted by the media in regards to his statement to the Police...
And the 29th December being.. The day that D.R.A maintenance removed the blue door from Joanna yeates flat!!
We now have to ask ourselves... why are the Police putting Scaffolding up around the back of the building ... where Dr Vincent Tabak is supposed to live on what could possibly be the 29th December 2010???
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/687958442
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25625572
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I will say that from the above post ... That this video must have been taken on the 29th December 2010....
I have attached an image that shows D.R.A Maintenances little transit van parked in the exact same spot as we have seen on the video of the door being removed.....
So... why on the 29th December 2010.... are they erecting scaffolding outside Dr vincent Tabak's flat... 2 days before the Holland interview ????
more importantly... why didn't the media report this ???
So why is D.R.A. Maintenance crawling all over a crime Scene on the 29th December 2010??
On the flat bed truck the guy removes a wheel barrow... why would they bring a wheel barrow to 44, Canygne Road this early in the day???
Is this when the refurbishment of Flat 2 started ???
Edit.... I'll ask again..... Did Dr Vincent Tabak live in what we have been told is Flat 2??? If they are already starting work on that property , which it appears they are doing... And.... Dr Vincent Tabak is in Holland on the 29th December 2010... when did Dr Vincent Tabak return to Canygne Road to collect some of his belongings??
is the picture of a man entering the main entrance at Canygne Road Dr Vincent Tabak?? therefore putting him as a tenant inside the main building???
Can't find the image I posted at the mo...
Double Edit.... I have located the image of what I believe to be Dr Vincent Tabak returning to the flat and entering the main door...
The image of what I believe to be Dr Vincent Tabak returning to Canygne Road is taken on the 4th january 2011... after he returned from Holland on the 2nd January 2011...
I have attached another image of the same picture with the date ....
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/687958442
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/687958316
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Have we come to understand... when apparently Dr Vincent Tabak was a suspect???
Because I will say Again and again... If the scaffolding is being erected on the 29th December 2010 and CJ hasn't even been arrested at this point..... Why wasn't Dr Vincent Tabak cautioned in the Holland interview as a suspect...?
DCI Phil Jones had stated after the trial that Dr Vincent Tabak was a suspect within 10 days of Joanna Yeates being found.... Have we narrowed it down to 4 days ????
And if so.... what made DCI Phil Jones consider Dr Vincent Tabak a suspect in the first place ??? And at this early stage ????
DCI Jones said Tabak was under police suspicion within 10 days of Joanna’s body being found on Christmas morning.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/280447/Shame-Vincent-Tabak-cannot-hang-for-Jo-Yeates-murder-say-parents
Edit..... Why is Bob The Builder allowed to work on two properties at 44,Canygne Road on the same day??
Now if I was A defence lawyer I would be shouting Cross contamination!!!!!!
-
i have found a BBC video of them erecting the Scaffolding at the back of the building..... And yes... Bob the builder is in the frame ....
I don't think the scaffolding went past the edge of the building.... That is why we never see it when the rest of the Forensics are carried out... Because there is always a Police van or car blocking the view down the side of the building....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-12242228/jo-yeates-murder-inquiry-32-year-old-man-arrested
Edit... look how close up to what is supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabak's front door the Scaffolding is.... (Image 3)
How would he ever get in??????
-
From this clip you can see that The Scaffolding stops just behind the building... In the area where if you looked at it face on...Is the narrow part I believe where the staircase of the building is.....
I have attached an image so you can see.... I have circled another images to show where the scaffolding ends ...
This scaffolding could easily have been erected on the 29th December 2010... And we would have been none the wiser.....
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/655366558
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I thought CJ had kept away from Canygne Road after his arrest... and was held up inside one of his friends homes...
At about 1:14 of the clip.. The Police Officer grabs something near the bushes and briefly looks over and says:
I assumed that CJ was away from The Property for months... and didn't get his belongings returned till after he was eliminated... How comes he's there on this day being the day Dr Vincent Tabak is arrested ???
From a newspaper Article :...
So why is CJ turning up at Canygne Road on the 20th January 2011...
How long was CJ unable to go out till after dark???
If the press were desperate for a scoop... Then why didn't they pounce on him when he returned on the 20th January 2011... As described by the Officer in the clip?????
How was he there in January 20th 2011... when he says it wasn't until march he went back !!
Edit...... More to the point... If CJ had said that the police thought that he and Dr Vincent Tabak had colluded.. Then why would the Police be happy he was at the house?? You would think that they would have escorted him.. You would think they would have wanted him clear of the building.... Did CJ's Bail conditions have anything on them regarding returning to the property... Because I would have thought that ought to be the case.... If they thought he and Dr Vincent Tabak had colluded... especially on the day they had arrested Dr Vincent Tabak.....(IMO)...
Double Edit....... The only other option i can think of if CJ is coming back to Canygne Road... Is That..... even though the video clip is dated 20th January 2011.... The footage was taken earlier.... Near the 29th December 2010....
I say this for a couple of reasons.... D.R.A Maintenances.. little transit van is seen in the road.... D.R.A Maintenance.. put the scaffolding up... In the ealier part of the footage there is frost/snow on the roofs...
So... question.... why would CJ say he never returned to the house if it was untrue????
Which make the more likely option being... That the footage was done on the 29th December 2010 when everyone see's CJ and this being the day that CJ does get accosted by the media in regards to his statement to the Police...
And the 29th December being.. The day that D.R.A maintenance removed the blue door from Joanna yeates flat!!
We now have to ask ourselves... why are the Police putting Scaffolding up around the back of the building ... where Dr Vincent Tabak is supposed to live on what could possibly be the 29th December 2010???
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/687958442
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25625572
The remark "Jefferies coming back" from this Getty video from 20 January is a giveaway. Brilliant scoop on your part!!!
On the other hand, it was obviously CJ's lawyer who advised him, if he were asked, to air a theory that the reason for his own arrest had been a suspicion in the minds of the police that he had colluded with Vincent Tabak. It would sound plausible to the gullible public who believe that the conviction of VT was sound, and CJ is never going to be held accountable for airing his own theories.
However, the police have never given any reason for arresting CJ. Unlike himself, they could be held accountable. To anyone familiar with the sequence of events, it is obvious that CJ was arrested and then held on bail for so long so as to silence him - to ensure that he never revealed the full contents of his 2nd witness statement.
CJ was longing to get back to his own property, and as soon as his lawyer heard that someone else had been arrested for the murder of Joanna Yeates, he must have contacted Ann Reddrop and told her that his client must be allowed into 20 Canynge Road, or he would haul her into court.
I refer anyone who wants to assert that "they" would never do something like that to any of the millions of people who regard Charles Dickens as a distinguished novelist, and "A Tale of Two Cities" as one of his masterpieces, and who did not at once dismiss the story on this very basis, as soon as the reached the bit where a respectable middle-class character was thrown into prison to prevent his witness testimony from being heard.
-
Another image I am staring to ask questions about is this image of Dr Vincent Tabak in Cotham....
(http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article1579468.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/vincent-tabak-article-803669646.jpg)
This image shows more of the picture and surroundings...... I'm now thinking this is actually outside Aberdeen Road, and not outside a store as has been said.... Look at the bins to his left...
I wouldn't imagine the Police checking all the shops in Cotham just incase Dr Vincent Tabak had to happen past them.... So I am almost certain that the image of Dr Vincent Tabak is of him on the drive at Aberdeen Road....
The car to his right looks like it's parked on the paved drive....
-
The remark "Jefferies coming back" from this Getty video from 20 January is a giveaway. Brilliant scoop on your part!!!
On the other hand, it was obviously CJ's lawyer who advised him, if he were asked, to air a theory that the reason for his own arrest had been a suspicion in the minds of the police that he had colluded with Vincent Tabak. It would sound plausible to the gullible public who believe that the conviction of VT was sound, and CJ is never going to be held accountable for airing his own theories.
However, the police have never given any reason for arresting CJ. Unlike himself, they could be held accountable. To anyone familiar with the sequence of events, it is obvious that CJ was arrested and then held on bail for so long so as to silence him - to ensure that he never revealed the full contents of his 2nd witness statement.
CJ was longing to get back to his own property, and as soon as his lawyer heard that someone else had been arrested for the murder of Joanna Yeates, he must have contacted Ann Reddrop and told her that his client must be allowed into 20 Canynge Road, or he would haul her into court.
I refer anyone who wants to assert that "they" would never do something like that to any of the millions of people who regard Charles Dickens as a distinguished novelist, and "A Tale of Two Cities" as one of his masterpieces, and who did not at once dismiss the story on this very basis, as soon as the reached the bit where a respectable middle-class character was thrown into prison to prevent his witness testimony from being heard.
Thanks leonora.... Not sure what CJ's lawyers advised him though....
So why are they erecting scaffolding around what is supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabak's flat as early as the 29th December 2010 ????
DCI Phil Jones..... would you like to answer that little question ?????
Now.... Is this why they rushed to arrest Dr Vincent Tabak..... because a review would certainly be asking lots of questions regarding Avon and Somersets behaviour at this point???
Did they arrest Dr Vincent Tabak to stop the review taking place ?????
Because if another force had seen"Bob the Builder all over the Crime Scene.... I am sure that they would have had something to say on the matter !!!! (IMO)....
leonora it's not 20 Canygne Road it's 44, Canygne Road.... and I believe that the video was taken earlier than the 20th january 2011...
I believe the video is all part of the recordings that are done on the 29th December 2010.. When D.R.A. Maintenance where videoed removing The Blue Door from flat 1... I believe they probably did the door after they had put the scaffolding up....(IMO)...
Edit.... CJ was longing to get back to his own property, and as soon as his lawyer heard that someone else had been arrested for the murder of Joanna Yeates, he must have contacted Ann Reddrop and told her that his client must be allowed into 20 Canynge Road, or he would haul her into court.
CJ... (IMO)... would not be turning up at that property on the 20th January 2011 .... He was still on Police Bail... and journalists at the scene would have had an absolute field day.. If he turned up on the day Dr Vincent Tabak was arrested ....
Or as mrswah says... I could be wrong!!
-
Another image I am staring to ask questions about is this image of Dr Vincent Tabak in Cotham....
(http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article1579468.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/vincent-tabak-article-803669646.jpg)
This image shows more of the picture and surroundings...... I'm now thinking this is actually outside Aberdeen Road, and not outside a store as has been said.... Look at the bins to his left...
I wouldn't imagine the Police checking all the shops in Cotham just incase Dr Vincent Tabak had to happen past them.... So I am almost certain that the image of Dr Vincent Tabak is of him on the drive at Aberdeen Road....
The car to his right looks like it's parked on the paved drive....
The houses in Aberdeen Rd do not have driveways for cars. It's take your luck on the road for parking.
-
The houses in Aberdeen Rd do not have driveways for cars. It's take your luck on the road for parking.
Pictures attached show a vehicle parked on the paved area at Aberdeen Road ....
Has none of my other posts pricked your interest??
-
Pictures attached show a vehicle parked on the paved area at Aberdeen Road ....
Has none of my other posts pricked your interest??
Put it this way, there are at least 4 floors per house & the frontage is not enough for all cars. So it's dustbins and bicycles, Bristol Council making it a MUST to have parking for bikes!! Quite useless.
No not really, you see you have already posted them before, so it's old ground. I've even answered a few of your questions too.
-
And also who's to say that the `plain clothes car' is not just that, belonging the Avon's finest?
-
And also who's to say that the `plain clothes car' is not just that, belonging the Avon's finest?
The car that is next to Dr Vincent Tabak on the Black and white CCTV image, shouldn't be a Plain Police Officers car... as the image was apparantly taken on Wednesday 19th January 2011 at 6:15pm I believe... and They didn't arrest Dr Vincent Tabak until the following day....
The images from my last post were taken after Dr Vincent Tabak's arrest....
No.. comment on my posts Nina in regards to "Surfboards??" "CJ Coming Back??" etc...?? No curious ??
-
The car that is next to Dr Vincent Tabak on the Black and white CCTV image, shouldn't be a Plain Police Officers car... as the image was apparantly taken on Wednesday 19th January 2011 at 6:15pm I believe... and They didn't arrest Dr Vincent Tabak until the following day....
The images from my last post were taken after Dr Vincent Tabak's arrest....
No.. comment on my posts Nina in regards to "Surfboards??" "CJ Coming Back??" etc...?? No curious ??
I meant the car above the image with the police car. I didn't make any comment about the car next to VT.
Surfboards, well Nine we know that Greg R sold a certain amount of sports stuff for beer/money, who's to say someone didn't see them and buy them too. They could have been sold at another time. We just don't know and I don't see the use in speculation to this extent.
Even if you solved the mystery of the missing surfboards, would that help you in any way in your quest to prove VT is innocent?
-
I meant the car above the image with the police car. I didn't make any comment about the car next to VT.
Surfboards, well Nine we know that Greg R sold a certain amount of sports stuff for beer/money, who's to say someone didn't see them and buy them too. They could have been sold at another time. We just don't know and I don't see the use in speculation to this extent.
Even if you solved the mystery of the missing surfboards, would that help you in any way in your quest to prove VT is innocent?
Now Nina... Greg Reardon... didn't sell any equipment... he gave away free ski.. equipment to anyone who came on a first come first served basis... And stated that beer would sweeten the deal... he told everyone that he was in Clifton... This was on the 16th Decemeber 2010..
The Surfboards were apparently in the hallway.. The Judge made the comment about the apron being next to the Surfboards in the Hallway, when Greg returned from Sheffield....
I think it's important to work the case backwards... showing the improbabilities of what was stated in court.... And how Dr Vincent Tabak apparently managed to carry Joanna Yeates with ease out of Flat 1 Canygne Road... when it would be an impossibility with all that equipment in the way....
Dr Vincent Tabak never mentions anything obstructing his path out of Flat 1... And realistically he should have had all sorts of problems leaving that property... with 3 extra items we know about being present in the Hallway...
That being....2 Surfboards and a Pedestal.... Where exactly where these items located.... ????? The Surboards were by the Door... Where did the Pedestal live ????
That Hallway is tiny... Now for Dr Vincent Tabak to leave flat 1 so easily, seems improbable to me.... yet he never mentions anything restricting his movement out of flat1...
Which if he had actually been inside Flat 1... Two Massive Surfboards would have been the first thing he remembered.... They are just like the Elephant in The Room..... You can't miss them ......!!
So as I have said many times I do not believe the statement that was made in court...... You would have thought that 'The Surfboards" being so big and just sitting in that tiny Hallway ... would have been the first topic of Conversation and not about their respective partners being away... followed by flirty things and cats.... (IMO)...
-
Edit... sorry wasn't happy with that post....
-
I keep looking at that clip..... And the position of The Police Officers placing the Police Tape across the road is actually on Percival Road at the junction of Canygne Road..... And contniue to the opposite end of the junction at Percival Road where they wrap the tape around a a bamboo twig.......
I have attached images of the continuation of the tape attachment ..... Watch the video to see what I mean...
It appears that CJ could have be staying at the end of Canygne Road on Percieval Road when the video is shot... Now it does make sense to me because we have a video on the 29th December 2010 of CJ being Interviewed by the media... and he is actually on the opposite side of the road than that of 44, Canygne Road...
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/657035358
I never understood why they Interviewed him from that side of the road to be honest... But if he wasn't staying at 44,Canygne Road whilst the work was taking place on the 29th December 2010, he may have been at an address on Percival Road on that corner ,where the Police Officer looks across and states that...
Mr Jefferies Coming back.
Meaning CJ could have been walking from the corner of Percival Road and down Canygne Road on that side of the street... Stopping opposite his home address and giving said Interview to reporters.. Then he goes into 44, Canygne Road...
On The video clip the Police Officer isn't looking down the road ... he is looking between the bushes.... Was CJ staying at the house on the corner of Percival Road and Canygne Road when the scaffolding was being erected....??
Was as I believe the 29th December 2010 that the scaffolding was being erected... ?? I also noticed that there wasn't a car behind the black car they are next too... And outside Canygne Road there are vehicles virtually on top of one another .....
Again I would say CJ would not have been anywhere near Canygne Road on the 29th January 2011.... (IMO)... for fear of being accosted by the Media....
Were the Police aware that CJ was at the house on the corner of Percival Road and Canygne Road..... Was CJ just visiting this address....??? I don't know ....
The Police Officers response appears that he knows CJ is there.... Because he says Mr Jefferies is coming back
indicating to me that CJ was returning back to where he was staying....
So what have we got????? The Scaffolding being erected on the 20th January 2011 as the video date suggests... And CJ living on his own door step at this time......
Or.... has CJ moved out of the property of Canygne Road on the 29th December 2010, so that the police can perform some invasive procedures on the property?????
It does make me question what the video clip really means ..... I'll come back to this in my next post....
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/687958442
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Now another thing I noticed on The video that is dated the 20th January 2011... Is that the Police Incident Van is no longer there...
Which I assume would be correct if this was indeed the date that the video was taken.....
But then we have to come back to what the Police Officer says:
Mr Jefferies coming back
So did CJ stay on the Corner of Canygne Road and percival Road on the 20th January 2011.. If the date of the video footage is correct???
And why weren't the media all over him at this time....???
Did the Police remove the incident Vehicle to make it look like the scaffolding went up on a different date ????
Either way you have a puzzler...
I have attached 2 images outside Canygne Road... One which is 29th December 2010 and the other which is from the video clip dated 20th January 2010..
So can someone tell me which option it is please ????
Did the video actually get recorded on the 20th January 2011 with CJ staying right on his own door step... Or was it recorded the same time as the Blue Door removal ????
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/687958442
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
When he was eventually bailed, the friends Jefferies went to stay with warned him not to look at the papers. “To this day, quite a lot of it I haven’t read,” he says. “At the time, all I looked at were specific things the lawyers wanted me to check to make sure there was no truth in what was being said.” Was he furious at what he did read? “It was more contempt. If it hadn’t been so serious, it would have been laughable. It was so grotesque.”
Where did CJ's friends live..... surely not at the bottom of Canygne Road at the Junction of Percival Road???
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2014/dec/07/-sp-peter-morgan-christopher-jefferies-tv-drama-joanna-yeates
-
Does the Incident Vehicle keep moving position???? I believe it does ....
Look at the series of Photo's I have attached.... I noticed the silver car is always parked in front of it.... Is that the vehicle they use to keep moving the Incident vehicle ???
Could they have moved the Incident Vehicle when the Scaffolding Footage was shot????
Why does this Incident Vehicle keep moving virtually every day... ???
The images are from the 27th 28th and 29th December 2010...
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The Policeman definitely is at the Corner of Percival Road on the video dated 20th January 2011..
I have attached 2 images... One from the video and one from google....
Was CJ staying at that house on that corner ????
Edit.... The house is actually 41, Canygne Road.. even though it is on the corner of Percival Road I believe...
So the big question is..... Was the footage of the scaffolding being erected on the 20th January 2011 and if so.. Did CJ still live on Canygne Road ????
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
So sorry to keep going over the scaffolding.... But...
To hire a company to erect scaffolding must take time to book....
So How did the Police manage to hire the scaffolding company on the 20th January 2011, the very same day as they arrested Dr Vincent Tabak??
He was only under arrest... no guarantee he would be charged!
-
So sorry to keep going over the scaffolding.... But...
To hire a company to erect scaffolding must take time to book....
So How did the Police manage to hire the scaffolding company on the 20th January 2011, the very same day as they arrested Dr Vincent Tabak??
He was only under arrest... no guarantee he would be charged!
It takes us mere mortals time to arrange for a scaffolding company to call. It may well be different for the police??
-
I would suggest that there was no Forensic evidence at the Flat of Joanna Yeates, and even on the 20th January 2011... the Police believed that she had been moved in either a Large Suitcase or Large Holdall..
So on arrest of Dr Vincent Tabak... The Police had "NO" Forensic Evidence whatsoever linking him to Joanna Yeates..
The DNA profile was low copy and couldn't identify Dr Vincent Tabak... So what evidence did they have to arrest him???
The reporter says this evening... when the clip is obviously in the daytime... why didn't they go back in the evening to report??
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/655515830
Edit... I will transcribe this video too.. as it goes with my next post and I don't want the information to disappear....
Search teams are still inside the neighbouring Flat this evening It's reported that Detectives believe that Ms Yeates body could of been transported in a Suitcase or Large Holdall
Now why would they say that !!!!!
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
We have struggled to understand why Dr Vincent Tabak was originally charged on The 24th January 2011, that between the 16th December The 26th December 2010, he killed Joanna Yeates..
Obviously some bright spark asked the question.. why the range of date... and stating that "We" know ahe was alive on the 17th December 2010... Now I will transcribe the video in case it goes missing... It's a short clip again of 26 seconds and was made on the 24th January 2011 by a TV News outlet...
The charge was put before Mr Tabak that he murdered his neighbour between the 16th and the 26th of December.
But in fact we know Ms Yeates was last seen on the 17th and that her body was found on the 25th. The CPS told Channel 4 News that the dates had to be kept necessarily broad because Detectives still do not know exactly when the 25 year old was killed.
The CPS has to be Ann Reddrop, she isn't going to let just anyone give that information out....(IMO)
So Miss Reddrop.... You had No idea when Joanna Yeates was killed when you arrested Dr Vincent Tabak.
My question to you then is..... If at this point of charging Dr Vincent Tabak on the 24th January 2011, how did you know he had killed her..??
What Evidence did you have that proved Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates ????
You are admitting you had no idea about when she died... and your range of dates suggest that.... And the video from The News outlet states that!
So that brings in to question when was she put on Longwood Lane??? Because surely you the prosecution claim she had been there since Friday 17th December 2010...
I really need to know , with what evidence did you charge Dr Vincent Tabak.... You knew where he was all over the Christmas Period... DC Karen Thomas called him on the 24th December 2010 whilst he was staying in Cambridge.. (You make us believe you knew that...)
You also were aware that he then went over to Holland where the same DC Karen Thomas Interviewed him for 6 hours... where may I add she should have cautioned him... Because... As I have posted DCI Phil Jones states after the trial that Dr Vincent Tabak was a suspect within 10 days of Joanna Yeates being found.!!!
So I think you have contradicted yourself Ann.... You have NO IDEA... Yet you have arrested a man that you know was not around a great deal of the time !!!! (Or did you NOT KNOW ANN!!!)
Is that why by the time you took Dr Vincent Tabak to trial, you changed the charge dates for between the 16th December 2010 and the 19th December 2010.... because Dr Vincent Tabak was still in Bristol!!!
Ann..Ann..Ann... I am not that gulible.... If you didn't know on the 24th January 2011... you didn't know in October 2011 when the trial took place either.... Did you!!!
You kept the 16th December which I find curious... why ???? Why the 16th December 2010... Is it because it wasn't that weekend??? Is that why the trial is made up of people proving they saw or heard from her on the 17th December 2010... Do these people actually say the 17th December 2010 when they are on the stand????
Did Rebecca Scott know more than she has told us??? (I am not accusing Rebecca Scott of anything... Just wondering if she was told not to say anything else other than about the phone call)....
Did Rebecca Scott ever say that she spoke to Joanna Yeates on Friday the 17th December 2010?? Or does she just say she was the last person to speak to her ?????
I put it to you Ann Reddrop... when DC Karen Thomas made that telephone call to Dr vincent Tabak on the 24th December 2010... she had NO IDEA That he was actually in Cambridge.... And when you realised that he had an alibi for the 24th December 2010, you changed the charge dates to between the 16th December 2010 and the 19th December 2010.... (IMO)....
Come on Ann... tell me... Am I correct?????
Because I believe that Dr Vincent Tabak said 'NO COMMENT" to virtually every question when he was first arrested... Didn't he .... He virtually doesn't say a word until the 22nd September 2011... So how could you have know to change the charge date ?????
It's possible and most probable that you have actually spoken to Tanja Morson.. you find out that Dr Vincent Tabak was with her in Cambridge on the 24th December 2010... Is that how you learnt Dr Vincent Tabak had an alibi for this time frame ????
You must have a statement from Tanja Morson Miss Reddrop.... "surely"?? I would love to see it Ann... Please just pm me with the info......!!!
How can you change the charge date ???? Is that even legal?????
Again Ann I will ask you another question.... Was Joanna Yeates actually recovered on the 26th December 2010??
Because to me it would make sense to DCI Andrew Moss's statement in court that he had to try stop her body from thawing!!... Was she somewhere hard to reach?? These question may seem foolish... But Ann you have shown time and time again... That you wanted Dr Vincent Tabak away in prison at any cost....(IMO)...And you kept the 16th December 2010 in the charge against Dr Vincent Tabak...... so the 26th December 2010 also had to be of significance....(IMO)
Why did you still include the 16th December 2010 in the charge, if Joanna yeates was supposed to be alive then???
You see Ann... I originally thought that the two dates being 16th December 2010.. meaning she was alive and the 26th December 2010 meaning she was definitely dead... But that cannot be the case.. Seeing as you changed the charge date from between the 16th December 2010 and the 26th December 2010.... To the 16th December and the 19th December 2010...
Again my question has to be .. Why The 16th December 2010??? Is that the day she went into Bargain Booze and the Robin Payne was working there at the time and said that.... "Joanna Yeates came in on the night before the students went home for the holidays".... So Ann... had Joanna Yeates gone Missing from the 16th December 2010?? Because your charge from that date does not make sense and suggest to me that it is possible......
And remember Ann.. Your original range of dates was from the 16th December 2010 to the 26th December 2010... So I will ask again and again.... Why still include the 16th December 2010 in Dr Vincent Tabak's charge... If the date of the 16th December 2010 isn't Significant??? Is that what the real killer would know ???
So tell me again what EVIDENCE you had to arrest Dr Vncent Tabak in the first place.... we know that on the 20th January 2010, the Police believed that she had been taken away from the property in a suitcase or large holdall... So there cannot have been any evidence at Flat 1 of any kind of assault... which included Dr Vincent Tabak being involved!!! (IMO)..
Did the CCTV footage that DS Mark Saunders viewed from Canygne Road show someone with a Large Suit Case or Holdall on Canygne Road... The description sounds vague... like they have seen someone or something but just can't quite make it out.... Is this why we never see the private CCTV footage in court!!!!
Search teams are still inside the neighbouring Flat this evening It's reported that Detectives believe that Ms Yeates body could of been transported in a Suitcase or Large Holdall
Why would they even suggest such a thing???? Unless they saw it???
Did you or the police see someone leave the Canygne Road area with a Suitcase or large Holdall???? It seems a reasonable question to me.... What do you say ??
Did the Police show Ann Reddrop the footage from Canygne Road??? Did Flat 1 show signs of a fight or struggle, but because there was nothing forensically linking Dr Vincent Tabak to Flat 1, the evidence couldn't be brought to court??
We have descriptions of an untidy Flat... Greg tidying up as he went along... Something in that Flat made Joanna Yeates mother believe that she had been abducted... Yet no evidence is brought to court for the jury to understand why she may have thought that was possible....
What does the evidence in Flat 1 Canygne Road show Ann??? What did it tell everyone ????
We have NO Forced Entry, but signs of an abduction... We have NO signs of how Joanna Yeates left Flat 1.. Yet we are suggesting a Suitcase or Large Holdall... We have CCTV of Canygne Road, but we don't bring it to trial... We have a range of dates between the 16th December 2010 and the 26th December 2010.. But we suddenly decide it had to be the Dutchman on the 17th December 2010... We stick with the 16th December 2010, without any valid reason for this date...
Never mind questioning why Dr Vincent Tabak was charged changed twice that between 16th December 2010 and the 26th December 2010.. when he first appeared at Bristol court and when he is at trial between the 16th December 2010 and the 19th December 2010.. that he did kill Joanna Yeates...
We need to be questioning.... WHY The 16th December 2010 in the first place.....(IMO)..
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/655512858
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Why would they say that?
I don't know, but I'll speculate as following: IF Joanna was killed in her flat, whoever moved her body would have had to do so in a vehicle. There was no forensic evidence in the cars taken away and examined by the police/forensic team apart from a tiny blood spot on a seal in the car used by VT. One would have expected there to be more: for a start, Joanna was bleeding quite a bit. So, there had to be an explanation for this, hence the bag/suitcase.
In court, VT said that he had used a cycle bag. I happen not to believe him, although most people would! I tend to think VT's story was concocted by his lawyers , and that he was too dispirited/devoid of hope by this time to challenge it. He might even have been suffering from "false memory syndrome"----who knows? Just my opinion.
Nobody considered the fact that Joanna might have been killed at Longwood Lane. As far as I can see, this is possible. Nobody considered that she might have been killed in a car other than the cars that were examined. Also possible, IMO.
-
Why would they say that?
I don't know, but I'll speculate as following: IF Joanna was killed in her flat, whoever moved her body would have had to do so in a vehicle. There was no forensic evidence in the cars taken away and examined by the police/forensic team apart from a tiny blood spot on a seal in the car used by VT. One would have expected there to be more: for a start, Joanna was bleeding quite a bit. So, there had to be an explanation for this, hence the bag/suitcase.
In court, VT said that he had used a cycle bag. I happen not to believe him, although most people would! I tend to think VT's story was concocted by his lawyers , and that he was too dispirited/devoid of hope by this time to challenge it. He might even have been suffering from "false memory syndrome"----who knows? Just my opinion.
Nobody considered the fact that Joanna might have been killed at Longwood Lane. As far as I can see, this is possible. Nobody considered that she might have been killed in a car other than the cars that were examined. Also possible, IMO.
Nice one mrswah, like your last two sentences.
-
Why would they say that?
I don't know, but I'll speculate as following: IF Joanna was killed in her flat, whoever moved her body would have had to do so in a vehicle. There was no forensic evidence in the cars taken away and examined by the police/forensic team apart from a tiny blood spot on a seal in the car used by VT. One would have expected there to be more: for a start, Joanna was bleeding quite a bit. So, there had to be an explanation for this, hence the bag/suitcase.
In court, VT said that he had used a cycle bag. I happen not to believe him, although most people would! I tend to think VT's story was concocted by his lawyers , and that he was too dispirited/devoid of hope by this time to challenge it. He might even have been suffering from "false memory syndrome"----who knows? Just my opinion.
Nobody considered the fact that Joanna might have been killed at Longwood Lane. As far as I can see, this is possible. Nobody considered that she might have been killed in a car other than the cars that were examined. Also possible, IMO.
Joanna's death certificate actually gives the place of death as "Longwood Lane" and the date of death as "25th December 2010". This would be sensational if it were intended to be taken literally. But even I don't believe that it is so intended.
Since we know that the arrest of Vincent Tabak was planned long beforehand, by Ann Reddrop, the erection of scaffolding and the hanging of tarpaulin by Bob the Builder could also have been ordered well in advance. The most likely function of the tarpaulin was to prevent Christopher Jefferies from being seen by the press and anyone else about whom his lawyer could have objected.
Vincent Tabak was neither dispirited nor devoid of hope. If he had been, his family would have sacked Mr Kelcey and Mr Clegg, and got him lawyers who would have advised him to deny the charges and challenged all of the evidence brought by the prosecution. Vincent Tabak did not cry out, "I can't go back to prison!" when he heard the sentence. Instead, he was impassive. He was putting on an act, and it is impossible for us to be sure what his role really was, or whether he had ever even met Joanna. What we can be sure of is that there was collusion between all the parties.
-
Joanna's death certificate actually gives the place of death as "Longwood Lane" and the date of death as "25th December 2010". This would be sensational if it were intended to be taken literally. But even I don't believe that it is so intended.
How do you know that for a fact leonora??? Why would they list the Place of death as Longwood Lane ???...
Is it normal in a Murder Inquiry to list the place that they are found as there place of Death??? If they do not know where the murder took place ???? (On a Death Certificate?)
Personally I would have thought the Location of the place a person was found... should be listed as The Place that the person was "FOUND"... And not the location of their DEATH!!!!!.... (IMO)..
Edit... I will repeat.... Is it normal practice to list the location of Death when someone has been Murdered on a Death Certificate... When the location may not be the place of the Murder ????.....
Double Edit..... Sometimes literal is the best place to start 8(0(*
-
How do you know that for a fact leonora??? Why would they list the Place of death as Longwood Lane ???...
Is it normal in a Murder Inquiry to list the place that they are found as there place of Death??? If they do not know where the murder took place ???? (On a Death Certificate?)
Personally I would have thought the Location of the place a person was found... should be listed as The Place that the person was "FOUND"... And not the location of their DEATH!!!!!.... (IMO)..
Edit... I will repeat.... Is it normal practice to list the location of Death when someone has been Murdered on a Death Certificate... When the location may not be the place of the Murder ????.....
You've got me thinking Nine. My family all died in hospitals & they were listed as the place plus town of death.
Had they died at home, that would be the address given.
-
Sorry Nine, didn't read you're post properly. None of my family was murdered!
-
You've got me thinking Nine. My family all died in hospitals & they were listed as the place plus town of death.
Had they died at home, that would be the address given.
Is there a different Death Certificate for Murder Victim's???
Does it have a section to write "Where The Body was Found"???
If you have a copy of Joanna Yeates Death Certificate leonora... how do you know that it is an exact copy of what The Coronor or Dr Delaney wrote as The Location of her Death.... (Or do they have Location of deposition??)
Just like the pdf from the Fire Brigade... did this too have "Missing" Information on it???
Were you given what you expected a death Certificate to look like.... Because I believe that it's possible a Murder victim might have more than One Type of Certificate... But I could be wrong!!
-
Is there a different Death Certificate for Murder Victim's???
Does it have a section to write "Where The Body was Found"???
If you have a copy of Joanna Yeates Death Certificate leonora... how do you know that it is an exact copy of what The Coronor or Dr Delaney wrote as The Location of her Death.... (Or do they have Location of deposition??)
Just like the pdf from the Fire Brigade... did this too have "Missing" Information on it???
Were you given what you expected a death Certificate to look like.... Because I believe that it's possible a Murder victim might have more than One Type of Certificate... But I could be wrong!!
Obviously I'm not Leonora & sorry for butting in on your conversation.
Wouldn't the certificate either state L/wood Lane or 44 Canynge Rd?
-
Obviously I'm not Leonora & sorry for butting in on your conversation.
Wouldn't the certificate either state L/wood Lane or 44 Canynge Rd?
Thats Ok Nina.... Anyone can step in at anytime.... It is A forum after all....
Back to your question...... Longwood Lane Or Canygne Road.... ?????
How about "UNKNOWN"..... as they had No Idea as to what had happened to Joanna Yeates...!!
I would also like to Know ...What was The Date of The Death Certificate Issue.... Was it Immediately after Dr Delaney completed the autopsy???
Did it state the location as 'Deposition Site"????
Or was the Certificate dated just before Joanna Yeates was released for her funeral and the Coronor signed off the Certificate????
Was The date of Issue... December 2010.. Or January/February 2011???
Who's name as "DOCTOR" is listed on The Death Certificate of Joanna Yeates...????
Leonora... do you have the answer to that ?????
Because I would have imagined that it was either Dr Delaney or Mr Forrest ??? (Who was sacked, then reinstated)....
Or did it happen to be The person who signed off "The Inquest Into Joanna Yeates Murder" ?????
(Which (IMO), leonora should have YOU questioning this Certificate if that is the case !!).....
-
Joanna's death certificate actually gives the place of death as "Longwood Lane" and the date of death as "25th December 2010". This would be sensational if it were intended to be taken literally. But even I don't believe that it is so intended.
Since we know that the arrest of Vincent Tabak was planned long beforehand, by Ann Reddrop, the erection of scaffolding and the hanging of tarpaulin by Bob the Builder could also have been ordered well in advance. The most likely function of the tarpaulin was to prevent Christopher Jefferies from being seen by the press and anyone else about whom his lawyer could have objected.
Vincent Tabak was neither dispirited nor devoid of hope. If he had been, his family would have sacked Mr Kelcey and Mr Clegg, and got him lawyers who would have advised him to deny the charges and challenged all of the evidence brought by the prosecution. Vincent Tabak did not cry out, "I can't go back to prison!" when he heard the sentence. Instead, he was impassive. He was putting on an act, and it is impossible for us to be sure what his role really was, or whether he had ever even met Joanna. What we can be sure of is that there was collusion between all the parties.
Not sure I agree with you on this one, Leonora. My gut feeling tells me that VT was not part of any collusion, rather that he was the victim of one. If he had no previous form, as we have been led to believe, and had spent several months in high security prisons, as seems to be the case, I feel that he would have been absolutely stunned at what was happening to him, and he could well have begun to go slightly mad in prison! We don't know how "sane" he was when he signed his final statement, or whether he had begun to believe he had killed Joanna even if he hadn't. Such scenarios do happen. There IS such a thing as false memory syndrome.
I (obviously) cannot say this definitely happened to him, but I see it as a distinct possibility. On the other hand, it is possible that he did know Joanna, and that we were never told, and he did kill her as a result of something that had gone on between them. If he did not know Jo, as he said, and as the court accepted, it makes no sense to me that he could have killed her. People with clean records and successful, happy lives do not normally return from work after a busy day, and a cycle ride through Bristol in bad weather, and decide to kill the girl next door. Alcohol and drugs could possibly play a part, but if he was under the influence of either, I doubt whether he would have been driving his car in bad weather and late at night.
Just my opinion of course, but it makes no sense to me that he would have killed anyone, or that he was colluding with his lawyers. He could well have been too lethargic and dispirited to sack them.
-
Everyone eventually dies, either at home, if they have one, or away from home. A death certificate therefore contains a box (No. 1) for the date and place of death, and another box (No. 6) for the occupation and the usual address of the deceased. The details in box 6 are exactly as you would expect, as are those in boxes 2, 3, 4 and 5, so I won't repeat them.
Box 7 contains the details of the informant, and may well merit your attention. The text reads: "Certificate on inquest adjourned received from M E Voisin H M Assistant Deputy Coroner for District of Avon, Inquest held 28th March 2011".
Box 8 is for the signature of the informant. It is empty.
Box 9 (a large one) is for the cause of death. The text reads: "I (a) Compression of the neck".
Box 10 is for the date of registration. The text reads: "Thirtieth March 2011".
Box 11 is for the signature of the registrar. There is no signature, but the name "S L Thomas" is given.
Until the Defence lawyers handed over Vincent Tabak's "Enhanced statement" towards the end of September, the Crown had no information that we know of that placed Joanna's death at 44 Canynge Road, nor anywhere else except where the body was found.
-
Not sure I agree with you on this one, Leonora. My gut feeling tells me that VT was not part of any collusion, rather that he was the victim of one. If he had no previous form, as we have been led to believe, and had spent several months in high security prisons, as seems to be the case, I feel that he would have been absolutely stunned at what was happening to him, and he could well have begun to go slightly mad in prison! We don't know how "sane" he was when he signed his final statement, or whether he had begun to believe he had killed Joanna even if he hadn't. Such scenarios do happen. There IS such a thing as false memory syndrome.
I (obviously) cannot say this definitely happened to him, but I see it as a distinct possibility. On the other hand, it is possible that he did know Joanna, and that we were never told, and he did kill her as a result of something that had gone on between them. If he did not know Jo, as he said, and as the court accepted, it makes no sense to me that he could have killed her. People with clean records and successful, happy lives do not normally return from work after a busy day, and a cycle ride through Bristol in bad weather, and decide to kill the girl next door. Alcohol and drugs could possibly play a part, but if he was under the influence of either, I doubt whether he would have been driving his car in bad weather and late at night.
Just my opinion of course, but it makes no sense to me that he would have killed anyone, or that he was colluding with his lawyers. He could well have been too lethargic and dispirited to sack them.
You don't have to be in prison for more than a couple of days before your hair loses its sheen and starts to fall out. After a few weeks, it starts to go grey, and other physiological changes make themselves apparent. Vincent Tabak certainly spent some time in prison, but I doubt if it was as long as nine months.
You seem to discount Clegg's behaviour. Clegg had not been in prison, nor become distressed and despairing. The only way to account for this barrister's behaviour is to ascribe a false flag to it. The only way to account for VT's failure to sack his defence team is to conclude that he endorsed this false flag.
If his behaviour during the trial was not an act, then he would certainly have reacted in court to Mr Clegg's astonishing behaviour from time to time, especially during the cross-examination of Peter Brotherton. He could have passed a lttle note to the barrister, or behaved demonstratively. If he was not putting on an act, then he would have sacked his defence team before the trial was over. The clincher is that he retained the same firm of solicitors and the same barristers' chambers for the second trial for possession of illegal images of child abuse - which was also undoubtedly a phoney trial.
The only sign of his discontent with Kelcey and Clegg was his failure to sign the "Enhanced Statement" in time for the deadline they had promised the judge. I interpret this as further evidence that the plea had been entered by an imposter. If he had already agreed with his lawyers to take part in the "show" prior to the date of the plea, then it is difficult to account for the hiccup in September.
-
Everyone eventually dies, either at home, if they have one, or away from home. A death certificate therefore contains a box (No. 1) for the date and place of death, and another box (No. 6) for the occupation and the usual address of the deceased. The details in box 6 are exactly as you would expect, as are those in boxes 2, 3, 4 and 5, so I won't repeat them.
Box 7 contains the details of the informant, and may well merit your attention. The text reads: "Certificate on inquest adjourned received from M E Voisin H M Assistant Deputy Coroner for District of Avon, Inquest held 28th March 2011".
Box 8 is for the signature of the informant. It is empty.
Box 9 (a large one) is for the cause of death. The text reads: "I (a) Compression of the neck".
Box 10 is for the date of registration. The text reads: "Thirtieth March 2011".
Box 11 is for the signature of the registrar. There is no signature, but the name "S L Thomas" is given.
Until the Defence lawyers handed over Vincent Tabak's "Enhanced statement" towards the end of September, the Crown had no information that we know of that placed Joanna's death at 44 Canynge Road, nor anywhere else except where the body was found.
Why does it not surprise me that a certain persons name is there...... I'll stick with my original conclusion as regards why Ann Reddrop charged Dr Vincent Tabak between the 16th December 2010 and the 26th December 2010... Unless Ann wants to tell me why....
Because they had NO idea..... !! (IMO)...
Are we really trusting the woman who signed off this death and didn't perform a proper inquest???..... Was Dr Vincent Tabak in court for something at this time???.....
Next and most important question... What did it say on the "Certificate that "Joanna Yeates family must have received, for Joanna Yeates body to be release for burial???? In February???.... (I am not asking them... I'm making a point)...
What had Mr Forester written on this Certificate..... because I believe that he was about at this time because he didn't resign until the end of February....... And it should be his name on the Certificate That Joanna Yeates family received (IMO)... (Or did Dr Delaney perform this task??)
So leonora... I am not happy with the Certificate to be honest.... But that is me..... I would like to see the forms that the certain someone filed out when filing Joanna Yeates death... And not what it says on A Death Certificate some 3 months later!!! (No disrespect intended )!
Edit.............. if there is NO SIGNATURE.... Anyone and I mean ANYONE could have filed out a Blank Death Certificate..... Doesn't make it accurate though does it... They are not putting Pen to paper and stating to everyone that this is fact..... (IMO)...
Well get her moniker on the Certificate... And whilst your at it ask her why she didn't have a PUBLIC INQUEST... Why didn't she wait till after the trial, which would be normal procedure...when it would state how Joanna Yeates came to her death after a fair trial???
Double Edit.... Oh I nearly forgot.... It wasn't a fair trial was it.........(IMO)!
Triple Edit... (This is a First).....
Is there another Death Certificate for Joanna Yeates ?????
And you...... Just like everything else receive the Certificate they want you to see...
Just like The Fire Brigade PDF????
Just asking... !
Box 9 (a large one) is for the cause of death. The text reads: "I (a) Compression of the neck".
So if an Inquest had been performed properly... Wouldn't the word 'Homicide Or Murder" have been Included????
People... And I am not talking about Joanna Yeates.....
People die from Compression of the neck through Erotic Asphyxiation..... So (IMO)... This certificate was incomplete... Or should I say this Inquest was incomplete..... (IMO)...
-
Everyone eventually dies, either at home, if they have one, or away from home. A death certificate therefore contains a box (No. 1) for the date and place of death, and another box (No. 6) for the occupation and the usual address of the deceased. The details in box 6 are exactly as you would expect, as are those in boxes 2, 3, 4 and 5, so I won't repeat them.
What would I expect in box 6....?????? Canygne Road?? leonora... I thought you said it gave Longwood lane..... where on the Certificate does it say Longwood lane....
Maybe just tell us what all the boxes say please .....
-
What would I expect in box 6....?????? Canygne Road?? leonora... I thought you said it gave Longwood lane..... where on the Certificate does it say Longwood lane....
Maybe just tell us what all the boxes say please .....
If you didn't expect to find that she lived at 44 Canynge Road and that her occupation was landscape architect in box 6, then you must be a newcomer to this case. If you had read what I posted yesterday, you wouldn't have to ask that Longwood Lane was given in box 1 as the place of death.
-
If you didn't expect to find that she lived at 44 Canynge Road and that her occupation was landscape architect in box 6, then you must be a newcomer to this case. If you had read what I posted yesterday, you wouldn't have to ask that Longwood Lane was given in box 1 as the place of death.
It is for exactly that reason why you need to explain..... Any newcomer would not know what you are talking about leonora....
I as you know .. Don't just accept anything... I like to see it for myself... Therefore I like links... Images ... video's..
And I will question...
I.... have learnt not to take anything for granted in this case... As we can see that nothing adds up!!!
Edit... I will link you to this post I have written today...... Showing how things change when someone feels the need too.....
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8056.msg421839#msg421839
-
This report from the news adds to my belief that the Bay Window was part of Joanna Yeates Flat...
The report is made on the 28th December 2010... We have a shot of the Bay Window... Notice how in the begining of the shot the left hand side curtain is opened... and then, later in the shot the curtain on the left hand side is closed....
On the 28th December 2010... Dr Vincent Tabak was in Holland.... So how could he close the curtain??
http://www.gettyimages.ca/detail/video/police-trailer-parked-outside-property-general-view-news-
Details
Restrictions: No use by regional TV or radio in UK and Ireland until 3 days after date of creation. Prior approval required if clip features ITN newsreader or reporter, please contact your local Getty Images representative.
Credit: ITN
Clip #: 659162852 SD
Collection: ITN
Date created: 28 December, 2010
Licence type: Rights-ready
Release info: Not released. More information
Clip length: 00:00:12:14
Mastered to: QuickTime 8-bit Photo-JPEG SD 720x576 25p More information
Originally shot on: 576 25i
Source: ITN
Object name: t28121006_2963.mov
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Transcript from News reporter..... On The 7th January 2010
I understand that amongst the theories Detectives are considering. Is the possibility that the Landscape Designer was killed on her own doorstep. Possibily as she welcomed someone into her own home. She had told several people she was going to be alone that weekend, as her partner had gone away.
Well... what can I say..... Here we have the welcoming in of a person.... Coincidental if you ask me.... But they obviously at this stage Do Not Know ...When and Where she was killed....
We are now in a the time scale without me trying to work it out of what DCI Phil Jones had said about him suspecting Dr Vincent Tabak within 10 days of Joanna Yeates being discovered ....
By the 7th January 2011... It is 13 days after Joanna Yeates has been discovered..... And we are doing what exactly???
Making suggestions as to how someone entered the Flat that belonged to Joanna Yeates.... The same way incidentally that Dr Vincent Tabak mirror's when his ridiculous story is told at trial.....
You couldn't make this stuff up could you.......
Well... somebody did..... (IMO).!!!!
Also where were the several people at court.... Did these several peoples DNA get taken seeing as they knew that she would be on her own?????
Question...... Why is this information being given to the public so early on in the Investigation?????
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/655295208
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
This next clip, I believe comes from what they would have used on The Crime watch Program... I say this because we have snow and sleet falling as the car is been driven following the steps the killer has made...
The truly puzzling part of the clip is which road the vehicle is on before it turns left at Longwood Lane....
How could they know the route that the killer supposidly took??? We had NO Evidence at the time of the filming of this particular video.. that Dr Vincent Tabak went which ever direction, so how comes they know that this is the route that the killer took?????
It's impossible... remember The Crime Watch Program was made before Dr Vincent Tabak was arrested.... And 8 months before Dr Vincent Tabak signed his statement.....
So how is it possible for them to have this footage.....
It was never stated in court which direction that Dr Vincent Tabak took to get from ASDA in Bedminster to Longwood Lane... So I conclude that piece of footage of someone retracing the footsteps of the killer had to come from The Crime watch program....
OMG.... I have just discovered something else .... Now this is NOT Possible!!!!! I will post it on my next post....
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/656411062
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/656411062
-
Well wasn't I just a giddy kipper when I discovered this next interesting piece of information..... I'll apologise now for all of the attachments... But I believe they are warranted !! (IMO)....
It was the Crime Watch Program..... I went back to look for something on my last post..... But I discovered something far more Interesting than a journey turning into Longwood Lane .....
Now here's a question that is a real brain teaser......
Crime Watch Program was made around the 17th/18th January 2011.... It was never aired until after the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak.....
Dr Vincent Tabak as we are all aware was staying at Aberdeen Road at this time..... Now this is the Interesting part...
How did the "Crime Watch Program " have footage of Dr Vincent Tabak's car pulling up to the main door at Canygne Road , then being directed by someone to park it lower down.??????
Come on DCI Phil Jones..... tell me how that one went!!!! You just happened upon Dr Vincent Tabak car pulling up and thought you'd use it in the clip......
Well I put it to you.... The Renault Megane Car Registration Number RY51 RDU.... Didn't actually belong to Tanja Morson.... The Car which you say Dr Vincent Tabak actually drove to LONGWOOD LANE with........ (We know this Registration Plate all too well.....) (IMO)..... How does it just so happen that you have footage of this illusive car ????? Long before the "Sobbing Girl" made that phone call .... You shouldn't have should you...... DCI Phil Jones !!!!!!! (IMO).....
I will link the Crime watch Program.... And Screen shot it of course..... The part where you see the car that Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have driven to dispose of Joanna Yeates can be seen at around 4:20... Play it from there ..... Amazing if you ask me !!!!! We have the lovely Karen Thomas talking about her gut feeling....
Well DC Karen Thomas... I too have had this Gut Feeling that something isn't right!!!
There's something else there too... I put the video on full screen... And there appears to be a man.. who directs the driver of the car to park it at the other end of the drive.... Now this man doesn't look to disimilar to the man we see in the ASDA Footage... even goes as far as looking like he has a Red top on.....
Now .. checking the car more closely... I'll even go to say that their is a "SUITCASE" on the left hand side of the ROOF"..... WOW...
Why is that there ???? Tanja Morson and Dr Vincent Tabak would have NO Need to put a Suitcase on the Roof Rack... As there's plenty of room in the car if there is just two of them......
Does this go with the suitcase that I posted on yestesterday ???????
If Dr Vincent Tabak wasn't supposed to be at Canygne road .... How comes the car is there.... And next why would the guy who looks like Dr Vincent Tabak... be pointing to what should be Tanja Morson... On where to park the car???
She lives there... she must have parked that car a thousand times.....
Now my next question is..... Is the man in the CCTV in ASDA.... really Dr Vincent Tabak ??????
So leonora... Did Dr Vincent Tabak have a Doppleganger ??????
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRDtLjPfdw0
Here's an image of the car once it was seized....
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-SL6Sd_75tsU/T-xICEjYQyI/AAAAAAAAAKY/PR9PqR0Lkc4/s1600/Renault+Megane.jpg)
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The person in these two images looks very similar if you ask me....
One is from the ASDA CCTV... The other from the Crime Watch Program.....
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I'll go so far as to say... The man in the ASDA Footage isn't Dr Vincent Tabak..... (IMO)...
(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/55944000/jpg/_55944354_55944353.jpg)
The first image is of him in ASDA
And the second being the CCTV... They don't even look like the same people to me ....
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/01/23/article-1349615-0CDF6F2A000005DC-371_634x431.jpg)
The Glasses are different (IMO)..... As is the hairline......
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Ok... Back to this post..... http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg421846#msg421846
This doesn't make sense this Journey......
The car is travelling on the B3129 Beggars Bush Lane to turn left on Longwood Lane.... So how do they explain that they are looking for evidence in Providence Lane... ??
If Dr Vincent Tabak was driving towards the Airport... Why would he go along Beggars Bush Lane ????
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I have been trying to find out from the Electoral Role using 192.com who lived at the same address as Tanja Morson... I thought that would be the better way around to go....
There are 4 people who live at that address between 2010/2012
Tanja Morson
Dr Vincent Tabak
Zeta Collett
Adrian P Derrick
Who are the other two???
Zeta Collett I found on LinkedIn... She worked at Interserve... 2010...
And I found her on twitter https://twitter.com/reet_petite31
Now I have attached screen shots of 192.com
using Adrian P Derrick and Zeta Collett's name I get Tanja Morson as still living at that address in 2012... How odd is that ???
What is going on ??????
I thought that Dr Vincent Tabak had lived their for 18 months..... How are these other two people there???
Was the Ground Floor basement Flat a communal flat????
On my last image it does say Flat 2 and 4 people living there ?????
-
I clicked on Adrian P Derrick at i92.com and it gave me a new and Interesting list...
I have attached it.....
Edit... I have attached a record of all the people at 44, Canygne Road since 2002
-
So leonora... Did Dr Vincent Tabak have a Doppleganger ??????
He certainly did! - the person who entered the plea in Court 2 at the Old Bailey, where measures had been taken to ensure that no one who knew Vincent Tabak personally would recognise the deceit.
I hate that "Crimewatch" episode, so I don't view it more than necessary, and never in a million years would I have spotted this brief shot, beside 44 Canynge Rd, of the VERY SAME RENAULT MEGANE on which minute traces of Joanna's blood were alleged to have been found, and which Vincent and Tanja allegedly drove backwards and forwards to the now hated Continent of Europe. Congratulations on your sharpness of eye!
-
Now I was looking at Zeta Collett.... Her twitter page, gives her father as Trevor Collett..
Now Trevor Collette is A Police officer who handles fire arms..... I believe... I could be wrong as mrswah would say...
But Trevor Collett does follow The Police Firearms Ass... On Twitter ....
He will be joined by PCs Trevor Collett and Terry Alcock, who are part of the Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire Firearms Support Unit, and Metropolitan police officer PC Ben Heath.
The event will take place on Saturday June 4 and Sunday June 5.
To sponsor the team, who call themselves the Herts Police Allstars, make a donation at http://uk.virginmoneygiving.com/team/hertspoliceallstars or email owen.davies@herts.pnn.police.uk.
Is it me are these connections just a little odd????
http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.uk/hertford-police-officer-trek-62-miles-charity/story-21978502-detail/story.html#xUdHWAuPF6G2gbWl.99
-
He certainly did! - the person who entered the plea in Court 2 at the Old Bailey, where measures had been taken to ensure that no one who knew Vincent Tabak personally would recognise the deceit.
I hate that "Crimewatch" episode, so I don't view it more than necessary, and never in a million years would I have spotted this brief shot, beside 44 Canynge Rd, of the VERY SAME RENAULT MEGANE on which minute traces of Joanna's blood were alleged to have been found, and which Vincent and Tanja allegedly drove backwards and forwards to the now hated Continent of Europe. Congratulations on your sharpness of eye!
I will watch it later! I had the impression that the Crimewatch episode was dropped as soon as VT was arrested???
-
Don't be too surprised at www.192.com
Last time I looked, it still listed my mother at being at her address, together with the people who bought her house after she died. My mother has been dead 10 years now!
-
Don't be too surprised at www.192.com
Last time I looked, it still listed my mother at being at her address, together with the people who bought her house after she died. My mother has been dead 10 years now!
Thanks for that mrswah..... ?{)(**
But I did notice even though people are listed it tends to be the year they lived there.... So Zeta Collette lived there at the time it says I believe....
-
I will watch it later! I had the impression that the Crimewatch episode was dropped as soon as VT was arrested???
Indeed it was mrswah... But they rejigged the program and it was available to see after the trial....
-
The "Console" has bugged me for ages.... Remember Dr Vincent Tabak being asked if he broke the console ....
The screams were heard 40 minutes before you texted Sonja.
No. I don’t know.
The apron dropped near to the door?
I don’t know?
Shhards of console- did you do that?
I don’t know.
POr of her knickers by the door. Did you put them there?
I don’t know.
The mark behind the Couch and in front of the red shelving unit has irritated me for ages....
(http://i3.dailyrecord.co.uk/incoming/article926836.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/inside-the-house-of-joanna-yeates-imahe-gallery-set-image-9-266914929.jpg)
But i think I may have an answer to what it is......
I believe it may be the outline of a handheld games console... we never saw anything of The Console... even though it had been mentioned....
I originally was thinking much bigger.... But No...... I believe it is smaller.... And The outline denotes where the console lay.....
So why didn't this games console come to court????
Maybe because it would have had to be explained why it was behind the couch....
That outline has to be important, or else it wouldn't be there....
There are so many handheld devices.. It would be difficult to say which one it could be... If as I believe it is possible that the outline is that of A HandHeld Device !!!
https://philpapers.org/archive/RAMTMT-4.pdf
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Indeed it was mrswah... But they rejigged the program and it was available to see after the trial....
Ah, that one! It's on You Tube under other names too: it shows bits and pieces of what would have been on Crimewatch, but it's really a documentary made after the trial, to be shown instead of the original Crimewatch programme, perhaps?? I think I wrote about it in another section of this thread.
Clever of you to have noticed the clip with the car. Is it the real VT, or an actor, do you think? If it is the real VT, I wonder when it was filmed-----as, yes, I think that's number 44, and VT was not living there at the time he was arrested. Odd!
-
What was the highly significant piece of evidence that was handed in???
Chief among them is a 'highly significant' piece of new evidence that has been handed to them and which is undergoing a series of forensic tests.
Now people just assume it's the Pizza because of this next quote
In keeping with the investigation so far, the police have not revealed details of what the item is, but it is understood that it is not the sock that was missing from her body when it was discovered on Christmas Day.
Now I wouldn't think it's the Pizza or Box... That's long gone.... So what could it be???
And more to the point who handed it in???
You have to think of what information was divulged to the media.... What the public knew about the case.... And as everything else is accounted for I believe... So what on earth could it be ??
Bernard... maybe it was something to do with The Cat.... Did it loose it's collar... Was it's collar taken??? That Cat has to be mentioned for a reason.... (IMO)... Not only do we have images of said cat... we have Rebecca Scott talking about it in her video with the Police....
So what is it about ""Bernard"....
Well I have discovered that it is neutered... And I deduced this from the cat food which is on the Floor next to the shelves where we can see the Intercom...
And I have also discovered what type of Catfood is there.... "Royal Canin Vet Care Nutrition Cat - Neutered Young Male"... A very specific type of Cat Food.... Don't know if it was put there for a reason or not!
Anyway... Back to Bernard we know from the photograph of Joanna Yeates holding a rather large Bernard that he wore a collar... The name receptacle and bell are visible.... Was it the collar handed in???
I don't know.... I have tried to rack my brains as to what it could be.... And where it came from..... Was it something to do with the "Sobbing Girl"???
I try to look at this logically.... And question myself.....
How can something be handed in that is significant, when nothing that we don't already now has been revealed...???
This I believe is why they jumped to the idea that it was the Pizza.... And I don't believe that it was.....
So the person who handed something in has to be known to Joanna Yeates.... Or connected to the Investigation somehow... I cannot think of another option.....
Is it something that came directly from the house ??? The only thing I can see Missing from the House is the Plant that should have been on the plate in the front room.... Is that what it is ???
The article then goes on to talk about pollen samples....
Soil and pollen tests are also expected to be carried out on the item and a police source said: 'This, along with the DNA analysis, is being treated extremely seriously as a credible piece of evidence.'
But if it isn't the plant ... Was the item buried???
Is this why we don't here about the Significant piece of evidence at trial... Because only someone close to the Investigation would know that it was Significant.....
Again casting doubt on Dr Vincent Tabak's conviction..... (IMO)...
The paragraph about Pollen Samples..... Now if it isn't the plant from the table... How would testing for pollen samples help????
What value on testing would that bring??? You would need to know the location of said Item... It would have to be directly linked to Joanna Yeates.... For it to yield any evidentiary value. The pollen tests would only give the location of where said item may have come from..... Was the same pollen found on Joanna Yeates ...????
I don't think this item was on Longwood Lane.... So were could it have been found????
My next option is that it was a bunch of flowers... Did someone find a bunch of flowers with Joanna Yeates name on ???
And the Police were letting someone know if they found them they could test their clothes for pollen????
Is that why we see so many images of flowers with her name????
If it isn't someone close to the Investigation who hands this significant piece of evidence in... And it was a member of the public... The only option I can think of is that it had to be something with 'Jo's" name on it....!!
And a bunch of flowers is the only thing I can imaging..... Where these flowers Yellow??
There is no pollen found on Dr Vincent Tabak.... And you would have imagined that to be the case if this significant piece of evidence was linked to him!!
In fact where did he put his coat when he took it off???
Should that have yielded some evidence linking him to Longwood lane ???
I am totally perplexed as to what this significant piece of evidence could be..... But for now I will stick with the idea that it was a bunch of flowers.... maybe daffodils.... (You can have them at Xmas if force grown)..
We have to remember we are constantly shown images of flowers.... There's an image of what is supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabak's window... That too has a bunch of daffodils in the window sill.... Maybe it's Roses..??
I will say that i believe that it is the significant piece of evidence that was handed in.. that should help to prove that Dr Vincent Tabak didn't commit this crime....
Because there is never any mention of Joanna Yeates having Dr Vincent Tabak as an admirer.... Is there ??
The only way that you could say that The Significant piece of evidence is linked to Dr Vincent Tabak, is that he actually knew Joanna Yeates.... And he came round with a bunch of flowers.... Changing everything about the case...(IMO)..
But if that had been the case.... why not just use it as evidence in court....
Did the Sobbing Girl know something about the flowers??? I don't know... Anything seems possible in this case.... (IMO)...
Another thing I have just thought of... If there was a label on said possible bunch of flowers... Was it a sticky note??
DCI Phil Jones... seeing as Dr Vincent Tabak is serving a life sentence... Could you now please tell us what the Significant piece of Evidence was??? Thank you!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1345938/Joanna-Yeates-murder-The-final-text-friend-replied-late.html#ixzz4rPm0XuYB
Edit.... Just thinking about it now... I'll go as far as to say that it was a bunch of flowers with a card and her name on it.....
The article was dated the 11th January 2011... Now some of you will remember the article about the Pizza and note that was in the papers I believe on the 10th January 2010.... And within some of the articles the Police said that they had the persons "Handwriting"....
Now... Is it the card or post it note with Joanna Yeates name on it that could have come with a bunch of flowers, from said admirer ??????
Why else would the Police says that they had the"Persons Handwriting"???? If they didn't know who killed her ????
It's a possibility!!
Double Edit....
The letter, written on a page from a notepad, included a pizza label but not that of the Tesco pizza purchased by Miss Yeates. Bristol Ram landlord Alex Major said: "I can confirm we received a letter via the post on Monday 27, the first Monday after Christmas. There was a pizza label inside, but it wasn't a Tesco label."
So is the note a Sticky Note ??
Read more at: http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/pizza-label-prank-in-yeates-case-1-3030995
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Sticking with the idea that The Significant piece of evidence was a bunch of flowers.... This article could lend to that possibility...
Stunned Rebecca Scott hit back at cruel gossips who say the tragic 25-year-old
could have been killed by a secret lover or admirer.
The article further goes on to say....
Rebecca spoke out after cops said they were investigating what could be a
“highly significant” piece of evidence handed in by a member of the public.
So... Was someone rejected and dumped a bunch of flowers????
It is possible.....
Just to digress slightly.... How would a missed phone call from the Police make Rebecca Scott know something was wrong with Joanna Yeates????
She revealed: “The next phone call I got was around 4am on Monday December 20,
it was a missed call from the police, I instantly knew something was wrong
so I called Jo’s phone and Greg answered, telling me what had happened.
Surely they wouldn't leave details about Joanna Yeates Missing on her phone ??? would they?? If this was the case thats another recording we should have heard... (IMO)... Why would she believe that something was immediatley wrong with her friend...?? Did she know something?? What would make someone immediately jump to that conclusion??
So back to the idea of an admirer.....
Was the Significant piece of evidence "Flowers" that had a card with Joanna Yeates name on it????? Because i can't think of anything else that it could be if it had been handed in by a member of the public as the article says !
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/304475/jo-wasnt-seeing-anyone-else/
-
It takes us mere mortals time to arrange for a scaffolding company to call. It may well be different for the police??
I was talking to a friend's hubby yesterday, he works for the police force. Without naming the murder of Joanna I asked him about the firms hired for scaffolding, building works ..... like digging patios etc., He said that the force had certain firms that they could call upon, who would drop everything and also be quiet about what and where they were.
Hope that helps a little bit.
-
On the subject of Flowers and a Card/Post it note.....
Why doesn't Dr Vincent Tabak look these items up in his search history... If he was really the killer????
Just a thought!!!
Edit.... Did the Police receive this Significant Piece of Evidence early on in the Investigation?????
Is that why when we see the Book Of Condolence, all the messages are made up of Post it Notes???
Because I always thought that the Post it notes were an odd way in which to sign a Book of Condolence.... (IMO).... Could easily be lost!!
(http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/post-it-notes-are-stuck-into-a-book-of-condolence-at-christ-church-picture-id839274330?s=612x612)
-
I found this remark by DI Joe Goff of Interest....
Breaking News
From
Live Blog: Reaction on verdict over Yeates' death
Detective Inspector Joe Goff said: "In the evidence that we received, we never got as far as contacting any of the girls. However, we looked at the pattern of internet use surrounding escorts."
by alison.chung October 28, 2011 at 5:12 PM
Noticed he say received!!!
My question has to be who "Implicated" Dr Vincent Tabak???? Was the Porn etc, found on the work computer? Where anyone could use it.... (i still don't believe in the porn story personally)....
That indicates to me, that the Porn wasn't on his home computer as Tanja had access to this computer and I'm sure she would have seen anything untoward...... (IMO)...
Who gave The Police, The information on Escorts and Porn??????
http://live-news.sky.com/Event/Reaction_on_verdict_over_Yeates_death/17869888
-
Now I think I like this as an admission......
4:42 PM - 28 Oct 2011Twitter
Jim Old
@SkyFixer69
Police say DNA took a while to process but once it started to look interesting the police started to build a case against him before arrest.
So... We have within 10 days of Joanna Yeates being found that DCI Phil Jones suspected Dr Vincent Tabak..... We have Lyndsey Lennen saying everything was turned around in 48 hrs... WE have CJ saying the Police already took samples from residents....
We have the Police releasing CJ on the 1st January 2011, because his DNA didn't match.... Why arrest CJ.. If you were building a case against Dr Vincent Tabk?? Was it you who Manipulated the Landlord ?????
We have Ann Reddrop wanting to build a case against Dr Vincent Tabak since late December 2010...
So I would take a rough guess and say by the 27th December 2010... DCI Phil Jones had started to build a case against Dr Vincent Tabak,... without any evidence whatsoever that he had any involvement with the death of Joanna Yeates.....
What possible reason could the police have been suspicious of Dr Vincent Tabak at this stage?????
I believe I may be correct that the scaffolding went up on the 29th December 2010... no one would notice it....
So if they were spending all of their time building a case against Dr vincent Tabak... what information did they just dismiss???
"Crime Watch" was never going to happen... It can't have been the case... If their suspect was Dr vincent Tabak...(IMO)....
They went to great expense wasting money pretending to be looking for Joanna Yeates killer when all the time they were busy trying to build a case against Dr Vincent Tabak!!!
How much money did you waste????? Come on DCI Phil Jones... tell us how much money you wasted on asking for information that you decided would be irrelevant because you were busy building a case against Dr vincent Tabak.....
How many Police Officers were pratting about for no reason????? You see... you can't have it both ways Phil... You can't be busy spending money that didn't need to be spent on items you didn't need to buy... If your suspect who you were busy building a case on was Dr Vincent Tabak...
This is December 2010 we are talking..... So why spend all that money ?????
What was it exactly Phil... you don't mind if I call you Phil do you???? What was it exactly that made you think in December 2010, before the Infamous Holland Interview that Dr vincent Tabak was your man????
Come On ... Tell Me.... I'd really like to understand..... Did you recieve a note with Jo's name on... and I am not talking the one that came with the pizza label.... What Information did you recieve to make you believe it was Dr Vincent Tabak that had killed Joanna Yeates ?????
He wasn't around for the majority of the time.... So what intelligence did you recieve on Dr Vincent Tabak..... Or did as I have believed... Did the Sobbing Girl ring much sooner, perhaps she said the man you were looking for was Dutch!!!
But I am sure there are plenty of Dutchmen who could also have fitted the description .... Did you check the whole of the UK to see how many Dutch National lived here or were visiting ???? Did the Sobbing Girl mention it was A Forgien National....
There had to be something concrete for you to build a case against Dr Vincent Tabak since late December 2010... Or you thought you had something to build a case against him, didn't you!!!
I say this because.... There was NO EVIDENCE.... That the prosecution brought to trial to substanciate that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates..... Nothing anyone said at trial came from what you say you built a case on him.......
The supposed Evidence was all of those ridiculous Internet searches, and a written statement that in my opinion was
concocted by people....
So If you were building a case.... Where is all the EVIDENCE you had...
(A): To arrest him
(B): To Charge him...
Because i do not remember any of it managing to hit the trial.... Low Copy DNA wouldn't have been enough to arrest him..... Or Charge him... And as He hadn't said anything.... How did you manage to do that ......!!!!!
Because what ever rubbish you ended up charging him with.... you didn't have when you apparently built your case against him..... Did you!!!!
I'll go back to the quote..... Police say DNA took a while to process but once it started to look interesting the police started to build a case against him before arrest.
So here you are admitting that you built an entire case against Dr Vincent Tabak, because of a minute sample of low copy DNA.. that no-one could test again because the sample was used up... And your telling me with your experience that a 1000/1 Low Copy DNA, was all it took for you to decide that "A Placid Dutchman " was your man!!!
Are you having a giggle???? Your entire case against a Forgien National who had no idea of British Law.. was built entirely from a Low Copy DNA sample...
I am Gobsmacked..... I knew you were no where with this case.... And you went to trial with NO EVIDENCE , But a Low Copy of DNA, that quite easily could have come from contamination.... And was about as much use as a Chocolate Teapot......!!!! Lord have Mercy !!!!
DCI Phil Jones... Or is it EX DCI Phil Jones..... Should I call you Mr Jones..... Or do you prefer Phil????
I would love for you to go on National TV an explain exactly what you did to The Placid Dutchman... and how you put him away based on NO EVIDENCE whatsoever..... (IMO)... And not only (IMO)... But it's what you have said apparently..... By the Police... And as you were In Charge... I hold you "Responsible"..!!
If this is an example of our British Police Force, then God help us.... Because your the one who's Frightening (IMO).....
Edit...... I didn't know that something looking "Interesting" was classed as Evidence....!!!!!
http://live-news.sky.com/Event/Reaction_on_verdict_over_Yeates_death?Page=2
-
I was talking to a friend's hubby yesterday, he works for the police force. Without naming the murder of Joanna I asked him about the firms hired for scaffolding, building works ..... like digging patios etc., He said that the force had certain firms that they could call upon, who would drop everything and also be quiet about what and where they were.
Hope that helps a little bit.
Thank you nina---I did wonder if that was the case.
-
We have more......
Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
Police say that getting Tabak's DNA sped up their investigation.
4:56 PM - 28 Oct 2011Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
Tabak's DNA has been given to police in The Netherlands.
So.... What are we saying here..... We already had a sample of his DNA,(according to CJ)... but we needed to have an Official sample... So we needed to go to Holland to take it.....
Phil..... As I keep saying..... what Evidence did you have to make you believe that it could be no one else other than Dr Vincent Tabak at that stage ?????
It had to be before Holland.... Is it correct, CJ saying you took finger prints and DNA sample's from the tenants ???? I can't see why he would need to tell an untruth at this stage of the game....
When it came to the Holland telephone call.... who rang who?????
Did DC Karen Thomas ring Dr Vincent Tabak again like she had done on Christmas Eve..... Because lets face it... That Phone Call never came to trial either.... The piece of Actual Evidence That Dr Vincent Tabak was trying to implicate CJ..... Where was this recording Phil?????
Now I believe that this is true....
Detective Chief Inspector Phil Jones, who led the murder inquiry, said Tabak lied about Miss Yeates inviting him into her flat.
by alison.chung October 28, 2011 at 5:17 PM
And you know that it's true also..... (IMO)...
Phil one last thing for now....... You might have built a case against Dr Vincent Tabak.... But..... Did Dr Vincent Tabak actually kill Joanna Yeates ?????
http://live-news.sky.com/Event/Reaction_on_verdict_over_Yeates_death?Page=2
-
There is nothing in this link that you haven't seen before, and discussed in great detail on the forum. When I looked at the captions, however, two of them struck me:
1. memorabilia from the cult sci-fi comedy Red Dwarf, including a picture montage with cast members and personal messages to "Jo and Greg".
2. There were obvious signs of police attempts to gather DNA evidence, with red dots and dust residue showing where detectives had found fingerprints.
How did the journalist know about these fingerprints? Whose were they? The jury was not told about any fingerprints.
Can you view these pictures on this link, as I can - or are they missing, blocked by your ip address?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/uknews/8822613/Inside-the-flat-where-Joanna-Yeates-was-killed-by-Vincent-Tabak.html
Why were the killer's DNA and fingerprints not found on Joanna's neck?
-
Yes, I am able to view the pictures on the link!
I, too, have asked the question re lack of fingerprints and DNA on Joanna's neck, and the reply was that VT must have been wearing gloves! I disagreed, as there was talk of finger marks on her neck.
The flat must have been full of various people's DNA and fingerprints, yet, as we know, there was no mention in court of any belonging to VT. Greg testified that the flat was in a mess when he arrived home on the Sunday night, so we cannot say that Joanna's killer did a good job at cleaning up.
So, I have to conclude (and I know I have said this before):
If Joanna was killed in her flat, it can't have been VT who killed her.
If VT did kill her, he did so elsewhere.
-
I suppose we should be slightly contented that at least tweets were allowed from this trial... Because alot of the apauling behaviour that took place could quite as easily have been hidden for ever...
Twitter
Jim Old
@SkyFixer69
Police asked if they believe #JoannaYeates flirted with VT. They believe she was killed v soon after getting home. A matter of mins.
Were back to Phil again....
Phil what did you actually know in this case that your not letting on about?????
Why are you so sure that Joanna Yeates was killed within a matter of minutes of getting home to her flat.... What tendencies did Dr Vincent Tabak present to have you believe that he woke up one morning and thought, at the first opportunity i am going to kill my neighbour????
The trouble with that statement Phil is it brings in to question other issues.....
If Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have killed Joanna Yeates within a matter of minutes of getting home.... Did he have time to take his coat off???
She must have been covered in fibres and his coat would have had DNA all over it Phil... surely!!
If you are so certain that Joanna Yeates was killed within a matter of minutes of getting home, do you know who really killed her ???? It's a fair question Phil...
You see... Dr Vincent Tabak would have had to have been in the flat waiting for her.... And as there was No signs of forced entry how did he get in????
What do you know about someone laying in wait for Joanna Yeates Phil????
Phil.... sounds like we're friends I might go back to calling you DCI Jones... Or maybe just Mr Jones..... Or should I call you Jones.... Just like Brotherton... He didn't deserve a title either ..... And we know why that is don't we Jones....
No....... I think just stick with Phil for now, even though you are #notmybuddy
Where were we... Oh yes... Joanna Yeates being murdered within minutes of getting home... Now someone she knows has to be in her flat Phil... That is obvious... Because The prosecution have stated that she had started to get comfortable, well that tends to tell me that either a stranger was lying in wait... Or someone she knew was already there.....
If the attack was immediate it tells me that who ever killed her knew her and was angry with her..... Wouldn't you agree??
Now if a stranger was lying in wait.... There had to be a "Motive".... (lets face it Dr Vincent Tabak didn't have one...)
And what possible motive was there Phil..... No robbery.... No sexual assault.... No nothing....!!
So unless you KNOW THE REAL MOTIVE Phil.... We as mere mortals just have to hazzard a guess....
Oddly I remember that at your press conferences you had No Idea when she was killed and no idea where she was killed .... So.. was that a bare faced untruth???? Did you know what happened to Joanna Yeates ????
And if that is the case... Why didn't the evidence against Dr Vincent Tabak support that ???? Why did you have to remove all the Time Stamps from all of the CCTV images ???? Why didn't you have phone signals putting Dr vincent Tabak in the vicinity of Longwood Lane?? Why was there NO REAL EVIDENCE Phil??
4:39 PM - 28 Oct 2011Twitter
Jim Old
@SkyFixer69
In other words, he fabricated much of what happened in the flat. #JoannaYeates #VincentTabak
That whole story that was told on the witness stand was one complete fabrication...(IMO)... wasn't it !!! Dr Vincent Tabak never entered that flat did he !! You know that is true don't you.... You know something about Joanna Yeates death that you are not letting on about... And it's not that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates either ...Is it...(IMO)..
What happened in late December to make you decide that Dr Vincent Tabak was going to be your man.... You had no real reason to believe that he killed her at that point.... Something took place that made you rush to put someone away for this crime.... (IMO)... And as you said your self Phil....
"Dr Vincent Tabak was a very Placid Individual , very easy to deal with...." Was it easy to confuse a Forgein National Phil?? A man that had trusted our system, a man that came to our country believing we were fair and just....
A man that had no connection to Joanna Yeates...... (or did he ??) Yet you decide that Low-Copy DNA will do the trick.....
I am amazed that most people haven't seen through this bag of tricks that was used for the public.... That slight of hand trick whilst appealing for information you weren't using....When all the time you were planning your case against Dr Vincent Tabak.... (IMO)....
Oh yes, before I forget.... That video clip from Crime watch... The one where Dr Vincent Tabak's car is seen arriving in the evening outside 44, Canygne Road.... Did you invite him around for something, so they could catch his car on video???? Because you didn't actually manage to catch that car anywhere else did you Phil.... No No No.... we have Camera's on so many roads... ASDA car park... yet Dr Vincent Tabak's car isn't there.....
Phil... Now..... I would even go so far as to say that car didn't even belong to Dr Vincent Tabak or Tanja Morson... Seeing as who ever was driving it didn't know where to park in their own car park..... But that might sound ridiculous to some...... But not quite as ridiculous as you building a case against a Dutch man on a tiny sample of Low-Copy DNA.....
What do you say Phil????
http://live-news.sky.com/Event/Reaction_on_verdict_over_Yeates_death?Page=2
-
Most of those video clips I only watched .. I don't put the sound on.... on my computer....( Maybe I should)..
In this clip.. The forensics Lady Is giving "Bob The Builder" Instructions..... She says something like....
Hey Ken... Or Decan.....
Then she says...
Another 15 minutes.....Is that alright..
So why is she telling them they have 15 Minutes???? Is that all they are paying them for???
Is that how long they need them around for the Cameras to capture them moving the door.... I didn't Know "Forensics" was on a timer!!!!!!!
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/685650006
Edit.... Is Forensic workers actually a term???
Liz Lowman, who lives on the opposite side of the road, said Mr Jefferies told her the three people were coming out of a shared entrance to the house. Pictured above- forensic workers remove the front door from the flat rented by Joanna Yeates and Greg Reardon
So you can employ anyone as a "Forensic Worker"....Even Bob The Builder....a.k.a D.R.A Maintenance..!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/uknews/8231244/Joanna-Yeates-murder-police-arrest-landlord-Chris-Jefferies.html?image=7
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Quite a while ago now... I had remarked that the catchment was a different colour on the door in the hallway...
I remarked it had been changed..... http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg385757#msg385757
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7613.0;attach=8025)
Whilst looking at Bob the Builder, I discovered that it has indeed been changed..... The original Yale lock was Silver just like the catchment... I have attached an image, and you can also see it in the clip at 1:32 as they struggle putting the door in the van once they have removed it....
Why was the LOCK changed on Joanna Yeates Door??? This could be Interesting, as "The Police say"!!!
Did Joanna Yeates Yale Lock actually work?? I am begining to question that very thought.... Never mind the Blind being Broken... Was the Yale Lock Broken????
I think it's a possibility....
If we go right back to CJ's arrest.... Part of the reason they arrested him was because he had keys to the Flats as Landlord.... And I nearly missed "A Trick " again.......
If Joanna Yeates was happy to let Dr Vincent Tabak in... she would have been more than happy to let CJ in.... So why all the song and dance about the keys???
I think The Yale Lock Was Broken....And they replaced it...... The Jury would have seen how the door was opened, when they came on their visit.. .. So the story about leaving it on the latch.. would ring true to them..... But if It didn't lock... Then how would Dr Vincent Tabak lock the door behind him????? Or if it wouldn't stay on the latch.. He would have needed to leave the door wide open....
That is why I believe they were convinced it was CJ... Because he would have the keys to the Deadlock..... Now I want to make it clear I am not suggesting it is CJ......
However.. The Police have maintained that she was killed in her flat...And they must Know something if they believe that....
So with her keys left in her flat, how would that be possible and the door being locked...???
You have three choices.... Someone had a key to that Flat..... Thats how they gained entry.... They had a key cut to return her belongings.. (meaning someone knew her )...(IMO).....Or... Once they had got inside the flat and removed Joanna Yeates... when they returned with her keys.... They left via the window???
Is that why we see them doing "Forensics on the Widow????
Dr Vincent Tabak doesn't mention leaving via The Window..... He apparently leaves via the door.... But how would that be possible if he needed to lock the door with the dead lock... And those keys were still in Joanna Yeates bag??
Is this the reason that DCI Jones knows that what Dr Vincent Tabak says on the stand is not true???? Because he knew someone couldn't lock the door unless they had a key???
There was no reason to take the whole door if they just wanted to have the latch for finger prints.. And as every Tom Dick and Harry had handled that door any finger prints would be contaminated, with others....
Did they add the door furniture??? Why have a door Knocker on a door when you have an Intercom????
Why have a letter box when there is No opening on the other side ???
If All the door furniture is of a brass finish... why have The viewer silver??
The Dead lock is of a silver colour too..... Image attached....
I think all the Brass Door Furniture.. detracts from the Silver Furniture taking your eye away and then you just see the brass furniture....(IMO)..
So Phil..... I put it to you that the latch on Joanna Yeates door was actually broken...And we know that you changed it!!
I'm sure that the Silver Yale lock is in Evidence somewhere isn't it Phil???
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/685650006
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Before they removed the door .. It actually looks like there is another keyhole....
I have circled it in the image attached.... They have also caused damage to the door when they have returned... also circled on second image....
There are 3 keys on the key ring.... The Yale key could quite simply have been for the main house!!
Edit..... The only reason I believe we get a view of the keys.. Is to tell us that 'The Yale Lock Works... when in reality I do not believe that it does Work....!!
Changing how Dr Vincent Tabak could manage to lock that Door..... (IMO)...!!
Edit.... Who had a set of keys for that door... Or made a set of keys ????
Did they keep a spare key under the Plant Pot or in the Hanging Ivy????
Or was it even kept in The letter box... that leads nowhere...
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I keep trying to identify the Policeman on the left hand side.... Here he is coming out of court with the person they say is "Brotherton"...
But we have the same Policeman on the right hand side with Rebecca Scott.... Does anyone know who he is????
Why would these two witness's need escorting????
Edit........Don't remember Daragh Bewell Getting escorted to court!!!
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Congratulations mrswah. I'm sure you will make a good moderator!
Yes I know I'm off topic!!
-
Congratulations mrswah. I'm sure you will make a good moderator!
Yes I know I'm off topic!!
Thank you: I will try!
-
On the entrance to the Hallway on this video... There is an ARROW pointing downwards...
Why if the ARROW denotes something did we not see evidence of this in court...
I have attached an image....
http://www.gettyimages.ca/detail/video/vincent-tabak-found-guilty-of-murder-lib-clifton-ext-int-news-footage/656483108
-
Look Nine, if we are to get anywhere with this case, can I ask you to pick a subject at the beginning of the Joanna Yeates or VT story and let's all run with that, at first.
Yes we will all go off on tangents, but we will have a subject to come back to, plus we have mrswah!
You never know, doing it this way may bring results.
-
Looking at the external part of the Building I believe that the building has an alarm system... And If I am correct There are sensors all around the flat....
I have circled the sensors and alarm on the images I have attached...... Is the alarm code panel in the little box in the kitchen????
Is this why they say NO FORCED ENTRY???
Is this why they tried to blame CJ.....
Someone who has been to that flat before knows about the system,... (IMO)... And they did believe that someone was there waiting for her.....
More things point to this being someone she knew ....(IMO).....
So No-one was lying in wait... If Joanna Yeates was so Security Conscious why would she let in a random neighbour she had never meet????
Why has the alarm system never been mentioned before ??? Not even to say it No Longer Worked... Like the blind being broken......
Who killed Joanna Yeates.... Because I do not believe it was Dr Vincent Tabak...!!!!
-
The Incident Vehicle is no longer located outside Canygne Road on the 30th December 2010... I was wonder what type of Vehicle it actually was...
I wondered what could make them so sure about the building and Dr Vincent Tabak being their man by late December??
Had the Police been listening in on conversations happening in the building??? Did they install something in Joanna Yeates Flat?? Did they believe they heard Dr Vincent Tabak say something??
I couldn't understand why they needed to have the vehicle parked outside 44,Canygne Road... It seems a little odd..
What is the vehicle outside Canygne Road really used for ???
My two options are:... It's there eavesdropping...
Or.... It's there to coordinate some kind of hostage situation....
After all her mum thought she had been abducted..... can anyone else shed some light on this vehicle...
I believe the major problem I have is that there are no identifying marks on this vehicle.... and normally there are....
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I would guess that the incident vehicle was there to encourage neighbours who might know something to talk to the police .
However, I don't know why it was gone by 30th December. Perhaps they thought they had solved the case!
-
I found this interview with William Clegg QC which fails to mention his most "High Profiled Public Media Case"...
He nearly convinced me with his verbal CV.... But William I know better!!
Leading Criminal Barrister | Top Criminal QC Bill Clegg
Leading Criminal-Barrister
Published on Jun 18, 2013
My work covers the full range of criminal work from cases that are perhaps more serious to come before the Criminal Courts. To cases that some people might regard as trivial.
But em... Those other case.. em may be trivial when compared with the em, serious cases that I have undertaken, but too the individuals involved they often represent the most important decisions in their lives.
Em.. I presume I have been instructed in a number of very high profile cases.Em.. over the years.. em those that have attracted, em.. national publicity would include probably, the defence of Barry george who was charged with the murder of Jill Dando television presenter.
And Colin stag who was charged with the murder of Rachel Nickell on Wimbeldon Common em,... also done all the war crimes cases in this country, prosecuted under the war crimes act... Em.. and numerous other high profile cases... Erm.. recently with the defence of SGT Nightingale, who was the S.A.S solider, erm, convicted of bringing back from Iraq in the form of a gun given to him by the Iraqi armed forces.
I presume most of my work is probably still conducted in the Crown Court, before a judge and jury... but erm, I also appear regularly in the Magistrates Court and er, increasingly in the Appeals Court and Supreme Court.
I think it very important when your preparing a case and defending somebody that you work together as a team. And prepare the case to go together, it's vital that the person your representing has confidence in you.
And trust your judgement and that can only be achieved by building up the trust in the weeks and months preparing for any case.
I am happy to have initial consultation with anybody. Em, nobody ought to be concerned contacting me.
Em.... you can't have worked for as long as I have in the Criminal Courts of this country, without, I hope being approachable to anybody from what ever background.
Does that sound like the same man as this:???????
1: his conduct after Yeates died when he hid the body was “frankly disgusting” and had caused untold anguish and agony to her family.
2: “I’m not going to ask you to like Vincent Tabak. There’s probably nothing to like.”
3: And Miss Morson seems to agree, having failed to make a single appearance at court.
4: He had told “lie after lie to the police.
5: “did everything he could to cover his tracks”.
6: He added that he would not try to justify Tabak’s actions after her death, saying his client was “living a lie” by attending dinner parties and attempting to carry on his life as normal.
7: “I’m not going to ask you to have any sympathy for him. He deserves none.
8: “I’m not going to ask you to excuse his conduct. There can be no excuse.
9: “If I was to set out to win a popularity contest I would lose.
10: He told the court: “Of course, afterwards his behaviour is utterly disgraceful. It’s not going to be justified by me
How did he manage NOT to mention Dr Vincent Tabak... A case that apparently went WORLD WIDE.... The huge case that has caused this thread to be made....
People who may think Dr Vincent Tabak Guilty... really need to look at this and ask themselves the question.... Why did William Clegg QC omit Dr Vincent Tabak from his Interview in Jun 2013 ???
Because for such a Hgh Profiled case and a High Profiled QC.... You would have thought it would have been top of his list.....
So Bill.......Why Not????? How can you fail to mention it?????
I am happy to have initial consultation with anybody. Em, nobody ought to be concerned contacting me.
Well Bill..... I would be afraid to contact you to be honest!!!
William Clegg's website
http://www.premierqc.co.uk/leading-murder-barrister-qc.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=30&v=AUOzGw8KpCs
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
How did he manage NOT to mention Dr Vincent Tabak... A case that apparently went WORLD WIDE.... The huge case that has caused this thread to be made....
It is a small point, but overseas coverage of this case was actually astonishingly limited. It has never been reported here. Obviously it received great attention in the Dutch media, but ONLY after the arrest of Vincent Tabak. This always makes me wonder how he and Tanja managed to see the arrest of the landlord on TV at the holiday centre where they were staying.
-
It is a small point, but overseas coverage of this case was actually astonishingly limited. It has never been reported here. Obviously it received great attention in the Dutch media, but ONLY after the arrest of Vincent Tabak. This always makes me wonder how he and Tanja managed to see the arrest of the landlord on TV at the holiday centre where they were staying.
I agree leonora..... It was poetic license on my part...
They made out that this case had coverage everywhere, when In reality i do not believe it did, and I too have often wondered whether it was possible for Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson to actually see the coverage of the arrest of the Landlord in Holland....
I don't believe they did... I think it was all a ruse....
-
I would guess that the incident vehicle was there to encourage neighbours who might know something to talk to the police .
However, I don't know why it was gone by 30th December. Perhaps they thought they had solved the case!
You're right mrswah, although the police were doing door to door/flat to flat enquiries, they had that vehicle there for people, who perhaps didn't want to talk in front of a partner, or who thought that they might have heard or seen something.
It actually used to vanish for a few hours and then reappear on quite a few days. We all assumed that they were off for lunch or something non-important.
-
I agree leonora..... It was poetic license on my part...
They made out that this case had coverage everywhere, when In reality i do not believe it did, and I too have often wondered whether it was possible for Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson to actually see the coverage of the arrest of the Landlord in Holland....
I don't believe they did... I think it was all a ruse....
I doubt they saw it on TV---but they might have seen it on their laptop.
-
I doubt they saw it on TV---but they might have seen it on their laptop.
Which answers Nine's question ...... did they take their laptop to the Netherlands.
Sorry I can't remember which post it was, but Nine did ask that.
-
Which answers Nine's question ...... did they take their laptop to the Netherlands.
Sorry I can't remember which post it was, but Nine did ask that.
I don't know, but I would speculate that they did take at least one laptop, since they would have wanted to follow what was happening re the disappearance of their next door neighbour, among other things (and no, I'm not suggesting that VT would have wanted to watch porn!!). Since they took their car over to Holland, it would have been easy enough to take a laptop.
-
You're right mrswah, although the police were doing door to door/flat to flat enquiries, they had that vehicle there for people, who perhaps didn't want to talk in front of a partner, or who thought that they might have heard or seen something.
It actually used to vanish for a few hours and then reappear on quite a few days. We all assumed that they were off for lunch or something non-important.
If you saw this vehicle keep moving Nina... Did you see them put up the scaffolding.... And when was it???
And it is important that they kept moving that vehicle....(IMO)... Was it there for show ???
-
If you saw this vehicle keep moving Nina... Did you see them put up the scaffolding.... And when was it???
And it is important that they kept moving that vehicle....(IMO)... Was it there for show ???
Well yes I do remember them putting scaffolding up, but I was just walking by and didn't take any notice of it. Heck it was seven years ago.
I don't honestly think that vehicle was for show. I did see two people go into it. Admittedly one was a slightly dotty person who had a plate of cakes, for the nice men.
It didn't move every day, as far as I know, bearing in mind I wasn't out every day in that weather. Just every so often myself and a friend would notice it had gone. And upon returning later we would notice it was back.
Sorry I can't be of more help.
-
We were not allowed on that side of the road, so looking down to see anything was a no no.
Also my friend said she saw three people and named names go into that vehicle. So some people did have something to say.
-
We were not allowed on that side of the road, so looking down to see anything was a no no.
Also my friend said she saw three people and named names go into that vehicle. So some people did have something to say.
Were these people The people who happened to make comments to the paper???
Or where they maybe the people who CJ saw at the gate ???
-
What Tabak did next said his own barrister Willian Clegg QC ,was frankly disgusting, he placed Joanna's
Now did William Clegg say any of this when he was defending people for war crime?
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/656497122
-
Were these people The people who happened to make comments to the paper???
Or where they maybe the people who CJ saw at the gate ???
I don't know which comments you are referring to, Nine.... but I do know that none of the people I know talked to the press, or so they say.
What I can tell you is that we learnt from the very beginning that a "No Comment" can mean to some of the media "We know something but are not talking to you".
Have you ever had to run the gauntlet of the press? They are aggressive, rude and downright single minded when it comes to the `story'..... and it's all quite awful.
You may also be interested in that right from the beginning, before Chris Jefferies was arrested the media were asking questions, not about Joanna, but Chris Jefferies. Just because he `looked different' from most people ..... therefore he must be an abductor or murderer.
People seen at the gate: I've never got a grip on this one. Up until mrswah started this, I'd always thought that it was a myth. Is it from Chris Jefferies' second statement which has not been leaked? Anyway again I don't know anything about this aspect.
-
I don't know which comments you are referring to, Nine.... but I do know that none of the people I know talked to the press, or so they say.
What I can tell you is that we learnt from the very beginning that a "No Comment" can mean to some of the media "We know something but are not talking to you".
Have you ever had to run the gauntlet of the press? They are aggressive, rude and downright single minded when it comes to the `story'..... and it's all quite awful.
You may also be interested in that right from the beginning, before Chris Jefferies was arrested the media were asking questions, not about Joanna, but Chris Jefferies. Just because he `looked different' from most people ..... therefore he must be an abductor or murderer.
People seen at the gate: I've never got a grip on this one. Up until mrswah started this, I'd always thought that it was a myth. Is it from Chris Jefferies' second statement which has not been leaked? Anyway again I don't know anything about this aspect.
Chris Jefferies said himself that he had seen or heard people at the gate, while he was parking his car at around 9pm.Apparently he told the same to some of his neighbours. This has been well documented. He did not say who the people were, and, according to him, he didn't know. The media got hold of it, and this is why they were pestering him shortly before he was arrested. He denied (to the media) that he had seen Joanna with two other people, and said that what he had told the police was "much much vaguer than that."
-
Chris Jefferies said himself that he had seen or heard people at the gate, while he was parking his car at around 9pm.Apparently he told the same to some of his neighbours. This has been well documented. He did not say who the people were, and, according to him, he didn't know. The media got hold of it, and this is why they were pestering him shortly before he was arrested. He denied (to the media) that he had seen Joanna with two other people, and said that what he had told the police was "much much vaguer than that."
Christopher Jefferies has never stated explicitly that the did not identify the people he saw. He implied it when he was doorstepped by journalists the day before his arrest, and made his much quoted remark about his sighting being "Very, very, very very, vague". He was angry, not least because he claimed that the press had a garbled version of what he had told the police.
You need to be clear that the landlord was deliberately set up by the police, and that both he and the police have always been economical with the truth. Both CJ and Chief Constable Colin Port testified to the Leveson Inquiry, and what they said was important.
Christopher Jefferies told Leveson that someone in the police had leaked parts of his 2nd witness statement to the press. Colin Port told Leveson that he knew of eight persons whom CJ had told about the persons he had seen on Joanna's front path, implying that the press could have got it from neighbour's gossip. Only the police, however, had a motive to "garble" the details of the landlord's sighting.
The leak took place during the late afternoon or evening of the day when DCI Phil Jones gave his first press conference. Therefore it can ONLY have come from the police, since the neighbours could have gossiped at any time. Christopher Jefferies was doorstepped the following morning, and by that time he was already aware of what the press was alleging he had seen.
The landlord was deliberately "groomed" to make him appear a suitable suspect. He was angry and he looked eccentric. The arrest of the landlord was certainly orchestrated so as to entrap Vincent Tabak, who fell for the bait because he and Tanja had heard the landlord's story from the horse's mouth, and it was a totally different story from the one the landlord admitted to when he was doorstepped. The young couple thought they were catching the landlord out incriminating himself. They could not know that CJ must have kept his other neighbours, who were still at home, abreast of what was going on, so they too did not at once reach for their telephones.
None of the "vilification" stories that the press published during CJ's arrest were attributed. The press would never have published these anonymously unless the ex-pupils, neighbours etc. had given their names to the journalist and the editor. Therefore these stories about CJ's eccentricities came from a trusted source - the police.
-
Christopher Jefferies has never stated explicitly that the did not identify the people he saw. He implied it when he was doorstepped by journalists the day before his arrest, and made his much quoted remark about his sighting being "Very, very, very very, vague". He was angry, not least because he claimed that the press had a garbled version of what he had told the police.
You need to be clear that the landlord was deliberately set up by the police, and that both he and the police have always been economical with the truth. Both CJ and Chief Constable Colin Port testified to the Leveson Inquiry, and what they said was important.
Christopher Jefferies told Leveson that someone in the police had leaked parts of his 2nd witness statement to the press. Colin Port told Leveson that he knew of eight persons whom CJ had told about the persons he had seen on Joanna's front path, implying that the press could have got it from neighbour's gossip. Only the police, however, had a motive to "garble" the details of the landlord's sighting.
The leak took place during the late afternoon or evening of the day when DCI Phil Jones gave his first press conference. Therefore it can ONLY have come from the police, since the neighbours could have gossiped at any time. Christopher Jefferies was doorstepped the following morning, and by that time he was already aware of what the press was alleging he had seen.
The landlord was deliberately "groomed" to make him appear a suitable suspect. He was angry and he looked eccentric. The arrest of the landlord was certainly orchestrated so as to entrap Vincent Tabak, who fell for the bait because he and Tanja had heard the landlord's story from the horse's mouth, and it was a totally different story from the one the landlord admitted to when he was doorstepped. The young couple thought they were catching the landlord out incriminating himself. They could not know that CJ must have kept his other neighbours, who were still at home, abreast of what was going on, so they too did not at once reach for their telephones.
None of the "vilification" stories that the press published during CJ's arrest were attributed. The press would never have published these anonymously unless the ex-pupils, neighbours etc. had given their names to the journalist and the editor. Therefore these stories about CJ's eccentricities came from a trusted source - the police.
I more or less agree with what you have posted Leonora.
Leaked it certainly was and as you say it could have only have come from the police.
Of course most of what I post is gossip or things I have seen myself. What else can you do when the press is making up silly stories and the police won't talk or we won't talk to the police.
From the beginning, locally, we had the now famous image of Chris Jefferies with his long, slightly tinted hair. Yes I believe that the police set him up, but right from the start the press were going all out to give the impression that something was weird.
And I am so glad he sued them.
But if I understand you all, why set up, in the most drastic way, Chris Jefferies .... to catch VT .... because?
Please don't anyone come back with `important people' .... we don't have any in Bristol!!
-
Chris Jefferies said himself that he had seen or heard people at the gate, while he was parking his car at around 9pm.Apparently he told the same to some of his neighbours. This has been well documented. He did not say who the people were, and, according to him, he didn't know. The media got hold of it, and this is why they were pestering him shortly before he was arrested. He denied (to the media) that he had seen Joanna with two other people, and said that what he had told the police was "much much vaguer than that."
Thanks for clearing that up mrswah.
I honestly had that filed under `stupid' media stories.
Isn't there a short cut of sorts that comes out at where Joanna's path/gate would have been?
I don't want to have to go a take a look myself!
-
Thanks for clearing that up mrswah.
I honestly had that filed under `stupid' media stories.
Isn't there a short cut of sorts that comes out at where Joanna's path/gate would have been?
I don't want to have to go a take a look myself!
I believe there were reports at the time referring to footprints in the snow suggesting that two people had walked diagonally across the front lawn of no 44. Or, someone saw Vincent and Tanja doing so, as a short cut from their flat at the back of the building to the front entrance. I believe that's probably what you are referring to .
-
I do wonder whether the police ever investigated the people supposedly seen by CJ.
-
I believe there were reports at the time referring to footprints in the snow suggesting that two people had walked diagonally across the front lawn of no 44. Or, someone saw Vincent and Tanja doing so, as a short cut from their flat at the back of the building to the front entrance. I believe that's probably what you are referring to .
After the trial, Mr & Mrs Yeates told a story about having gone out to bang on car boots. They claimed to have encountered a reticent Vincent together with a friendly helpful Tanja in the snow in the front garden. This completely contradicted the assertion they made at the time of Vincent's arrest that they had never met the people in the adjacent flat. This alleged meeting would have caused footprints in the snow if it had taken place.
-
I do wonder whether the police ever investigated the people supposedly seen by CJ.
Well stop wondering. Did you ever hear D.Sup. Mark Saunders, DC Gareth Bevan or CS Jon Straford appeal publicly for the persons the landlord told the police he had seen on her front path the day after Joanna was reported missing to come forward? - No you did not. What does that tell you? - That the police knew who the persons were, and didn't want their identities to be made public. Did their failure to appeal publicly shock Christopher Jefferies? - Not if he too knew who they were. Only the publication of the full text of his witness statement will reveal what he actually told the police. We can be SURE it was different from what he and they have told us, as it has remained secret through all the TV programmes made about him. We can be almost sure that the reason they arrested him and then kept him on bail underground for so long is that he was a witness whom they wanted silencing. If he didn't have important friends, they would just have kept him in prison for 5 months on a charge of wasting police time. As he had some very influential friends and ex-pupils, they were obliged to erect a tarpaulin so that he could return to his flat without being seen by prying eyes.
-
Well stop wondering. Did you ever hear D.Sup. Mark Saunders, DC Gareth Bevan or CS Jon Straford appeal publicly for the persons the landlord told the police he had seen on her front path the day after Joanna was reported missing to come forward? - No you did not. What does that tell you? - That the police knew who the persons were, and didn't want their identities to be made public. Did their failure to appeal publicly shock Christopher Jefferies? - Not if he too knew who they were. Only the publication of the full text of his witness statement will reveal what he actually told the police. We can be SURE it was different from what he and they have told us, as it has remained secret through all the TV programmes made about him. We can be almost sure that the reason they arrested him and then kept him on bail underground for so long is that he was a witness whom they wanted silencing. If he didn't have important friends, they would just have kept him in prison for 5 months on a charge of wasting police time. As he had some very influential friends and ex-pupils, they were obliged to erect a tarpaulin so that he could return to his flat without being seen by prying eyes.
Actually I haven't even considered this. It's a very valid point indeed. But, if the police knew who these people were, how would CJ necessarily know as well? It starts to become less likely that two people, who's identities needed to be kept covered up, were known to CJ, or could be identified by him.
-
Actually I haven't even considered this. It's a very valid point indeed. But, if the police knew who these people were, how would CJ necessarily know as well? It starts to become less likely that two people, who's identities needed to be kept covered up, were known to CJ, or could be identified by him.
How could the police know who the people were, unless CJ knew, and had told them?
Or, am I just being dim???
-
Please don't anyone come back with `important people' .... we don't have any in Bristol!!
Ha ha. Depends on what one means by "important people".
I reckon Bristol is a big enough place to have some!!!
-
Actually I haven't even considered this. It's a very valid point indeed. But, if the police knew who these people were, how would CJ necessarily know as well? It starts to become less likely that two people, who's identities needed to be kept covered up, were known to CJ, or could be identified by him.
The police knew far more about what went on that weekend than has ever beem revealed. They had Joanna's diary, computer, telephone records, a statement from Greg about what he really thought she was doing that weekend, and with whom, and ditto Rebecca Scott. They had forensics from the flat. They were not just dependant on Christopher Jefferies. He may or may not have identified those persons he saw, especially if they were Joanna herself, Greg and Vincent - or someone else whom he knew was accustomed to visit Flat 1. But even if CJ didn't identify any of them, the police may well already have known who they were, and may even have talked to them, so they didn't need to make a public appeal.
However, they couldn't have Chris Jefferies spilling the beans on their cover-up. And that is what I am sure he would have done, if he had not been frightened first and then arrested and then driven underground. Without the text of his 2nd statement, it has to be no more than a guess on my part, but I suggest there was more to what he saw than just 2 or 3 persons on her front path. I suggest also he saw signs of activity in Flat 1 at a time when the police want us to believe it was deserted.
-
Something has been bugging me since I started on this thread, I couldn't quite figure it out, it was the "something ain't quite right" thing in the background. Whilst out with friends last night, we'd arrived first so watched everyone else arrive. The first thing all the women did was take the mobile phones out and check them and put them where they could see them. Why was Yeates's phone still parked in her coat pocket when she was at home alone looking for contact with friends. At the very least it would have been within earshot if not next to where she was.
This goes along with my suspect returning to places and planting evidence to help his very best friends, the police. Who was he trying to set up? Reardon? Seems like the most likely candidate. If Yeates had been hit whilst walking home then he had everything he needed to access the flat, keys, and opportunity. Don't forget the police always said he stalked his victims for as long as took before he struck.
New line of thought. We are looking at it.
-
Something has been bugging me since I started on this thread, I couldn't quite figure it out, it was the "something ain't quite right" thing in the background. Whilst out with friends last night, we'd arrived first so watched everyone else arrive. The first thing all the women did was take the mobile phones out and check them and put them where they could see them. Why was Yeates's phone still parked in her coat pocket when she was at home alone looking for contact with friends. At the very least it would have been within earshot if not next to where she was.
This goes along with my suspect returning to places and planting evidence to help his very best friends, the police. Who was he trying to set up? Reardon? Seems like the most likely candidate. If Yeates had been hit whilst walking home then he had everything he needed to access the flat, keys, and opportunity. Don't forget the police always said he stalked his victims for as long as took before he struck.
New line of thought. We are looking at it.
I believe Joanna Yeates came into contact with someone and couldn't have reached her flat.... Both CrimeWatch and Colin Port both say that the last recorded image of Joanna Yeates was on 'The Hophouse" Pub CCTV... That very grainy black and white CCTV footage.... The footage that they not only downloaded the images from but removed entirely the whole system from "The Hophouse Pub".... Thats something that always puzzled me....
They actually went back several times trying to gain this system from the landlord.....
Why take the entire system from The Hophouse Pub, if the only image of Joanna yeates was her walking past on the main road???
Therefore she cannot have made it home to Canygne Road as DS Mark Saunders had viewed the Private CCTV from the residents at Canygne Road.... and if Joanna Yeates had appeared upon this footage... It should have been divulged ,especially at the Leveson....
So... who returned her items.... ???
Edit....
Mobile Phones.... Her mobile phone should have been on the table in the pub....
But where was her coat and where was her bag....??? We see her leaving with these items but they are nowhere to be seen at the table, so who gives her the plastic bag... and where is her handbag?? The one that goes across her body... So many people are sat at that table there doesn't appear to be enough room for all her stuff???
So where did she hang her coat???? Her Green Fleece and her bags??? Most women take their handbags to the toilet....
When she comes back from the bathroom, nobody moves anything that may be on the bench that they are sat on?? So where are all of her possessions ???? In fact nobody at that table has a winter coat with them....
I don't know the pub... so does someone know if people hang their coats up??
Another possibility... is the footage from more than one occasion???
-
I don't believe Joanna got home either-----but where does Father George Henwood fit in? I was always under the impression that she was very close to home when she met him, much closer to home than the Hophouse pub---which is , I think , a good 7-10 minutes walk from her flat.
We don't know that the person Fr Henwood saw was, in fact, Joanna, of course. He assumed it was, but he did not know her.
Interesting re the mobile phone. IMO, Joanna would have taken her phone out of her coat pocket, as she was awaiting replies to her texts---or, at least, one reply. Why text people to see if they are free, and then not bother looking for the reply?
It seems, to me, unlikely that Joanna would have been killed within minutes of arriving home---unless someone was already in her flat. There was, apparently, no sign of a break in, so who had keys, apart from Greg and CJ? Really doesn't seem very likely.
IF someone was being "set up", that person could have been Greg, but it could equally have been anyone from the house----IMO, of course.
-
I don't believe Joanna got home either-----but where does Father George Henwood fit in? I was always under the impression that she was very close to home when she met him, much closer to home than the Hophouse pub---which is , I think , a good 7-10 minutes walk from her flat.
We don't know that the person Fr Henwood saw was, in fact, Joanna, of course. He assumed it was, but he did not know her.
Interesting re the mobile phone. IMO, Joanna would have taken her phone out of her coat pocket, as she was awaiting replies to her texts---or, at least, one reply. Why text people to see if they are free, and then not bother looking for the reply?
It seems, to me, unlikely that Joanna would have been killed within minutes of arriving home---unless someone was already in her flat. There was, apparently, no sign of a break in, so who had keys, apart from Greg and CJ? Really doesn't seem very likely.
IF someone was being "set up", that person could have been Greg, but it could equally have been anyone from the house----IMO, of course.
I agree mrswah and AH...... Her phone should of been out on the side.. table where ever visible for her to see if she would get a reply to her requests...
So who put her phone in her pocket... ?? And which pocket was it in??
-
Coat pocket, I believe.
-
Coat pocket, I believe.
I meant left or right......
-
I think we need to go to the Ram and have a look around that table to see how much room there is to put stuff and check coathooks etc.. I think I ought to volunteer.. 8((()*/
-
I think we need to go to the Ram and have a look around that table to see how much room there is to put stuff and check coathooks etc.. I think I ought to volunteer.. 8((()*/
There were 9 camera's in the Ram.... And we get 2 poor shots....
See how close the toilets are to where they sit... 8)--)) 8((()*/
-
Never knew there was a Kite in Joanna Yeates flat??
In the hallway there were training shoes, a cycling helmet and a wrapped-up kite.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-15261783
-
Tabak and his girlfriend spent the New Year in Holland, where Miss Morson contacted police with information about their landlord Christopher Jefferies - who was arrested and later cleared.
So it was Tanja who contacted Police about CJ.....
I have to re-read it.... Did Tanja Morson contact the Police about CJ ... before he was arrested ???? They were in Holland on the 28th December 2010 if I remember correctly??
Was this the information ...plus CJ second witness statement that tipped the balance of CJ being arrested ???
So CrimeWatch... Dr Vincent Tabak didn't contact the Police within 3 hours of CJ's arrest..... Tut Tut Tut.... you telling Porkies?????
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-15240284
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8239.msg422594#msg422594
-
Didn't really know where to put this .... It's The Red dwarf
Now it was reported that the sentiment that was written was to Jo and Greg.... When in actual fact it was just for "JO"
On The video of Red Dwarf The message says...
To Jo with Love Richard ... I think his surname is O'Callaghan
I have attached images of the message ....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-15298038/trial-jury-shown-jo-yeates-flat
http://www.reddwarf.co.uk/news/2009/08/07/meet-the-creator/
Edit....On The Label it is typed....
"Scott Covers,
The Stamp Centre
79 The Strand
That information about the message which is written on the label is on the photo frame of Red Dwarf.
The framed images appear to be 5 postcard size images put together inside the frame ....
The website is an Auction site....
http://www.stamp-centre.co.uk/
This website also does The Stamp Centres merchandise
http://shop.scificollectorshop.co.uk/Lister-Painting-Commemorative-Stamp-Cover
The Stamp centre is near the Savoy and Theatres.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
So it was Tanja who contacted Police about CJ.....
I have to re-read it.... Did Tanja Morson contact the Police about CJ ... before he was arrested ???? They were in Holland on the 28th December 2010 if I remember correctly??
Was this the information ...plus CJ second witness statement that tipped the balance of CJ being arrested ???
So CrimeWatch... Dr Vincent Tabak didn't contact the Police within 3 hours of CJ's arrest..... Tut Tut Tut.... you telling Porkies?????
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-15240284
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8239.msg422594#msg422594
Not sure whether it was Tanja or Vincent who made the phone call, reports differ!
It was made after CJ's arrest, but I don't know how long after.
-
Why is the Telegraph saying the message was to Jo and Greg??
When we know it was only to JO!!
On the shelves in the couple's living room were puzzle games and memorabilia from the cult sci-fi comedy Red Dwarf, including a picture montage with cast members and personal messages to "Jo and Greg". There was a roll of unused wrapping paper under a table, an unopened box of Christmas crackers and shelves adorned with tinsel. Family pictures had been left at the flat but had been turned away from the jury's view.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/uknews/8822613/Inside-the-flat-where-Joanna-Yeates-was-killed-by-Vincent-Tabak.html?image=5
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I thought this was apt....
-
Ha ha. Depends on what one means by "important people".
I reckon Bristol is a big enough place to have some!!!
You've got me thinking mrswah. What is an `important person'?
Bristol has no royalty, politicians you don't need to kill, just vote them out of office. We do seem to have loads of presenters and actors ..... but not famous actors/actresses.
Perhaps the odd CEO of some company who's only claim to fame is the enormous bonus's that they get.
That leaves us with the likes of safe house for spies? I don't really believe that Bristol could be the hub for keeping these people.
So could someone please tell me what constitutes an `important person'.
-
Something has been bugging me since I started on this thread, I couldn't quite figure it out, it was the "something ain't quite right" thing in the background. Whilst out with friends last night, we'd arrived first so watched everyone else arrive. The first thing all the women did was take the mobile phones out and check them and put them where they could see them. Why was Yeates's phone still parked in her coat pocket when she was at home alone looking for contact with friends. At the very least it would have been within earshot if not next to where she was.
This goes along with my suspect returning to places and planting evidence to help his very best friends, the police. Who was he trying to set up? Reardon? Seems like the most likely candidate. If Yeates had been hit whilst walking home then he had everything he needed to access the flat, keys, and opportunity. Don't forget the police always said he stalked his victims for as long as took before he struck.
New line of thought. We are looking at it.
We know that Joanna Yeates was not welded to her mobile. She often didn't answer it, which seemed well known amongst friends and family.
So why would she immediately go for her mobile phone when she got home. Also if that was the case it would be in her bag, coat pocket etc.,
-
We know that Joanna Yeates was not welded to her mobile. She often didn't answer it, which seemed well known amongst friends and family.
So why would she immediately go for her mobile phone when she got home. Also if that was the case it would be in her bag, coat pocket etc.,
But that night she appeared pretty welded to it...(IMO)... She's looking at it in Bargain Booze.... her mum says this.. because she see's a message and goes back to get another bottle of cider...
She looks at it in Waitrose... I did a screen shot of her doing so....
And she rings Rebecca Scott on her way to get Pizza...
Now... If she was hoping that one of her friends whom she had asked what they were doing to reply.. The likely hood is that she would have it with her... And wouldn't leave it in her coat pocket...
Everyone is different when it comes to mobile phones... maybe she had different ring tones for different people, and maybe ignored certain sounds...
Maybe that is why they believed she was not good at answering her phone... Maybe she just would get around to these people when she was ready...
-
We know that Joanna Yeates was not welded to her mobile. She often didn't answer it, which seemed well known amongst friends and family.
So why would she immediately go for her mobile phone when she got home. Also if that was the case it would be in her bag, coat pocket etc.,
Fair point. Must admit to only checking my mobile phone once or twice a day.
AH
-
Fair point. Must admit to only checking my mobile phone once or twice a day.
AH
Well, that is one up on my OH, who has his turned off most of the time!
Not really possible to say how attached Joanna was to her phone. According to the "official version", she was not good at answering texts, yet we "know" that she was texting and phoning people while walking home. If she really was doing the latter, I would assume that she would have looked for the replies, but who knows. Who knows what to believe about this case any more!
-
He said that the body would not have been found had Tabak dumped her in a quarry on the other side of the wall as he had planned
Police do not know why the 6ft 4in Dutchman could not lift the 5ft 4in Miss Yeates over the wall, but in court he claimed he did not have the strength to lift the 9st woman.
Exactly.... I do NOT understand why everyone appears to be perfectly happy with "The Story" that Dr Vincent Tabak told in court....
How on earth did he manage to lift her up in the first place...
From:.... The Kitchen Floor , onto her bed... Carry her around to his flat , but her down... put her in a bicycle bag and then carry her out side and put her in his car...
A dead weight is just that.... It's difficult to mobilise... How was Dr Vincent Tabak supposed to have managed with ease, it appears to move Joanna Yeates between 2 flats ??
Not forgetting the ice and snow outside... it was extremely slippy outside... And even though The Prosecution claim that Dr Vincent Tabak bought rock salt... Having us believe it's for the purpose of clearing the pathway between the 2 properties.. We know that isn't the case as we have the video clip clearly showing days later that the snow is still there !!!
I'll come back to something I keep saying.... Did Dr Vincent Tabak live in the main house ????
Upon the image is written: Joanna Yeates murder: Vincent Tabak trial continues
Joanna Yeates murder: Vincent Tabak trial continues; December 2010 SNOW ON GROUND Entrance to flats where Joanna Yeates lived Police examining area outside flats where Joanna Yeates lived
Yet it shows what we know as Flat 2....
This footage is taken December 2010.. Before Dr Vincent Tabak was Interviewed in Holland...
Therefore, i believe it has to be Joanna Yeates flat... I cannot see how the Media would be allowed around the back of the building to what is supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabak's flat... this early on in the Investigation into a "Missing Person"...
The report is made in October 2011 by which time The Media have forgotten why they videoed that flat and talk as if it is Dr Vincent Tabak's flat... They would not have had a reason to video the outside of what we know as Flat 2 in December 2010, when Joanna Yeates was a Missing Person..
In the second image I have attached.. we can see that the snow continues around the Back of the building, making the purchase of Rock Salt ... "Pointless"... I do not believe that is what he bought, but in a juries mind it sounds like he was covering his tracks ...
Another thing to consider, is "WHY" by Rock Salt.... ?? Dr Vincent Tabak apparently purchased it after he apparently had Joanna Yeates in his car boot in ASDA??
The only use of Rock Salt would be to make it easier to get to his flat with her... Or cover up any body fluids that were present... And there is "NO" mention of body fluids... There were "NO" Forenics from Joanna Yeates flat brought to trial....
Outside Flat 1 we can see in image 3 an area outside the door that is a lot clearer whether it has been cleared or people have been walking about out there I am not sure..... The image information is vague, and I think deliberately "Vague" (IMO)...
All of the footage that has been shot by the media.. will be time stamped... they will have a date of each file that they have... So to say that they do not know when this was taken is total "TOSH"..... (IMO)..
Joanna Yeates murder: Vincent Tabak trial
Joanna Yeates murder: Vincent Tabak trial; DATE UNKNOWN Snow on ground outside flat where Joanna Yeates lived TRACK FORWARD to front door
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/656136426
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2055938/Vincent-Tabak-kept-sick-trophy-murder-Jo-Yeates-4ft-wall-helped-captured-killer.html#ixzz4sp0HFcfZ
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/656487136
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Think I have come across something.....
I want to go back to The Bay Window.. Some don't see it significance... But I believe it it extremely important, in showing how they "Crime Scene" was manipulated...(IMO)..
Missing woman Joanna Yeates: police find body; Missing woman Joanna Yeates: police find body
24.12.2010 Bristol: Clifton: Police forensic investigators (wearing protective suits) searching windows of flat where Joanna Yeates lived Police officers searching through rubbish in bins Back view forensic officer taking evidence from window
That quote is from the video... Image attached...
The second image is of The Red BookCase.... I did a post on the alarm system.... (Link below)...
You can clearly see above the bookcase the sensor for an alarm... And the more I think about it , the more I believe looking at it cold, it's a stupid place to put a sensor....
But... I believe the bookcase is there for a purpose... I believe it covers the doorway to the room with The Bay Window... There is NO other reason for it being there.. (IMO)... The one in the hallway is just above the door, so logic would dictate that other sensors are located above doorways... Therefore there must be a doorway between Joanna Yeates living room and The room at the front of the house with the bay window.. Otherwise, The alarm sensor would have been above the door in the front room ....
They spent weeks apparently doing forensics in that Flat... Well they didn't get any Forensics from that Flat.... I believe they spent weeks staging that flat (IMO)...
So were is Dr Vincent Tabak's spare room now ??? And why would they need to stage the flats anyway ????
what are they trying to hide ????
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/659120944
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg422078#msg422078
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
New Netflix Series Explores False Confessions
A new Netflix documentary series explores the issue of false confessions by delving into homicide cases in which an innocent person initially took responsibility for the crime.
Season one of The Confession Tapes features six cases in which the defendant falsely confessed after being interrogated, manipulated and threatened by police. Each episode is supplemented by video footage of the interrogations, archival photos and interviews with prosecutors, police, attorneys, family members and experts.
The series tackles the commonly held notion that a person would never confess to a crime he or she did not commit. In fact, 32 percent of people exonerated by DNA evidence in the United States falsely confessed to the crimes for which they were convicted.
The reasons why people falsely confess are complex and varied, but what they tend to have in common is a belief that cooperating with police will be more beneficial than continuing to maintain innocence. Often defendants are told that, in order to avoid a harsh sentence or the death penalty, he or she should confess. In many cases, the defendant is worn down after hours—sometimes days—of questioning, and signs a confession simply to put an end to the interrogations.
https://www.innocenceproject.org/new-netflix-documentary-series-explores-false-confessions/?platform=hootsuite
-
New Netflix Series Explores False Confessions
https://www.innocenceproject.org/new-netflix-documentary-series-explores-false-confessions/?platform=hootsuite
I don't find it difficult to believe this !
-
We're aware that Joanna Yeates had more than one receipt from her shopping trips, yet we only ever hear about the Tesco's Receipt..
We have been walked through Joanna Yeates journey home many times and we see visibly which stores she visits.. and it is not until we get to trial that the video is released of her trip to "Waitrose"...
Did Joanna Yeates buy something from "Waitrose"????
Waitrose May be of more significance than we believe... The Joanna Yeates Missing Person images, show her going into "Waitrose"... long before The Police release the CCTV footage of her shopping there...
We know the Polices reaction on the day of trial when they put this video up for the public to view and then promptly took it down 10 minutes later when various forums and forum members made comment that they thought that Joanna Yeates was being followed.. They trimmed the CCTV Footage clip so you could see what was going on properly... then put the footage back on the internet....
Forum members were speculating as to whether it was Dr Vincent Tabak in The CCTV Footage.... Which as he was on trial at this time should not have been a problem....
But .. I believe that there is more to the "Waitrose" trip than we probably know....
Why did she go into Waitrose to walk around and leave with apparently nothing????
Thinking about it it doesn't seem right... She deliberately visited this store, and there must have been purpose in her visit... Why does she nearly walk past it then go back into this store???? (I have linked both video's)
When she walks towards Waitrose she looks inside as if she is looking for someone...(IMO).. Then carries on walking past...And looks again at the doorway...She walks further along then turns around and walks into the store... Odd!!
If she was shopping for Pizza she'd have gone straight into Waitrose... But it's like she is checking for something first....(IMO)... As she comes up the stairs she looks right at ???? Don't know ...
What was she actually doing in Waitrose ???
For the "Police" to use the image of her in "Waitrose" yet not release the footage until October 2011, there has to be a reason??
We see her buying the Pizza early on in the Investigation on the 24th December 2010, this footage is released... And by the 29th December 2010, we see the "Bargain Booze " footage released....
So what was in the "CCTV Footage of Waitrose that was so important that the Police didn't release the footage until trial... yet released an image of her at Waitrose early on in the Investigation????
I'll go back to what forum members were saying at the time... They believed that the guy in the 'Black Coat was Dr Vincent Tabak... Obviously it can't be or else they would have used the fact it looked like he was following her at his trial...
I've gone back to the Original footage that was trimmed after 10 mins on the day of trial, so you couldn't see the movements of the man in the 'Black Coat"...
When Joanna Yeates enters Waitrose and walks towards us, we can see that she glimpses at her mobile phone in her hand, and promptly goes looking for something in the store..
Within seconds of her going up the aisle, the man in The Black Coat appears to dump his trolley.... This is what got people excited at the time... But I have just also noticed as he appears to leave , he too looks at his mobile phone and then walks toward the exit... (image attached )...(Is this why the Police trimmed the CCTV Footage ???)
Now if I was into Spy Novels .. I would say that it was Joanna Yeates who sent him the message... But that is fantasy and speculation... But it is odd that he looks at his phone just after Joanna Yeates walks past him.... (IMO)... Then he leaves the store...
Why is Waitorse Important.... I remember finding it quite odd that Joanna Yeates mum was a cashier at Waitrose And it was on the 23rd December 2010 that they show the image of Joanna Yeates going into Waitrose ....
UPDATED: 11:10, 23 December 2010
Miss Yeates’s mother Teresa, 58, a Waitrose cashier, said: ‘We just want her home. We just feel numb – the only thing we notice is when night turns into day.
Then after the trial 'Waitrose " is mentioned again....
2:45PM BST 29 Oct 2011
Miss Yeates’ mother Teresa, 58, a Waitrose supermarket cashier, said: “It is always about him and his turmoil. He is a liar. His ‘normal’ life was a facade.”
So what was Dr Vincent Tabak's life?? An odd statement from Mrs Yeates ... (IMO)... (I'll come back to that article)..
Why is the Waitrose trip important?? yet not really Investigated to our knowledge... Was something going on in Waitrose that the Police did not reveal ???
Why didn't Joanna Yeates buy "Pizza " from Waitrose??? I'm sure they would have sold pizza .....
Was there something going on in Joanna Yeates life other than her being a Landscape Architect??
Because when her mother arrives at the Flat at Canygne Road.. It is she who insists that Joanna Yeates has been abducted!!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1340586/Boyfriend-missing-architect-Jo-Yeates-sobs-I-want-Christmas.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8857351/Vincent-Tabak-was-destined-to-kill-says-Joanna-Yeatess-father.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U7WUtJIhb8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dX6jD5QiIw
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
...
Did Joanna Yeates buy something from "Waitrose"????
...
Some time ago, I came to the conclusion that the reason for Joanna Yeates's visit to Waitrose was to buy a pregnancy testing kit. I had already put a possible unwanted pregnancy with the wrong man high on the list of possible solid motives for her killing. Furthermore, the actress who played Joanna in the reconstruction was carrying a black bag, whose contents the police refused to reveal, on the grounds that they weren't relevant to the case. What could these be, I asked myself? The mind boggled, but a pregnancy testing kit is exactly the kind of purchase they wouldn't want the public to know about.
This theory became tarnished by the suggestion from a trusted source that sensible, modern young women, such as Joanna is believed to have been, stop drinking alcohol completely at the slightest sign that they might be pregnant. Furthermore, the mystery about the black bag seems to have arisen because the CCTV clips of Joanna may have been captured at times quite different from those that we have been told - hence the redacted timestamps. You have researched this in great depth.
So it seems very likely that there was much more to Vincent Tabak and Joanna Yeates than meets the eye. Maybe both of them were leading double lives as agents of different secret agencies?
-
So it seems very likely that there was much more to Vincent Tabak and Joanna Yeates than meets the eye. Maybe both of them were leading double lives as agents of different secret agencies?
I doubt whether either of them were leading "double lives", or that they belonged to any secret agencies ! However, I agree that there is plenty about both of them that we don't know: in fact, we know very little about them.
As I have said before, I am surprised that nobody who knew him has ever come on to this forum and told us that, EITHER Vincent was a strange bloke, had a reputation for "trying it on " with women, and that they are not surprised that he killed somebody, AND that we are all wasting our time wondering if he's innocent, OR that Vincent was a perfectly ordinary chappie, not at all likely to have ever killed anyone, and thank goodness some people are asking questions. He knew lots of people: why isn't anyone talking?
I can understand people not talking about Joanna---out of respect .
-
The Waitrose visit , IMO, may not be odd at all. People do go into shops and come out without buying anything: I have done it on many occasions. People do look at their phones in shops too: frequently!
There may not have been a Waitrose receipt: newspaper reports are not always accurate. Or, there might have been a receipt in her bag, but from another day. Yes, Waitrose does sell pizzas, IMO much better pizzas than Tesco's, but they might not have been to Joanna's taste, OR, perhaps she was buying the pizza for somebody else---who knows?
I actually think the "VT lookalike" does resemble VT, but I don't believe it is VT. The prosecution team would have used that CCTV as evidence that VT was possibly stalking Joanna, or lying about his whereabouts, had thy thought it was him. The fact that both of them appear to have been using their phones at the same time is, IMO, probably just coincidence: supermarkets are full of customers using their phones.
-
Well leonora.... Was this some kind of "Covert Operation" ??? One thing that always stuck in my head for NO reason at the time was I kept thinking about The ...
The Tesco Bombing Campaign
In August 2000, Tesco, the most popular supermarket chain in Great Britain, became the target of a truly bizarre extortion scheme. That month, the Dorset Police and the Bournemouth Daily Echo newspaper received letters from an unidentified writer named “Sally,” who was threatening to send letter bombs to Tesco customers. Instead of a cash ransom, Sally demanded Tesco Clubcards, which would be specifically coded to make constant cash withdrawals from ATMs.
Approximately one month later, an elderly couple was injured by a letter bomb after finding a package outside their Bournemouth home. For the next several months, Sally continued sending letters to the police, threatening to set off bombs throughout Bournemouth unless her demands were met. Amusingly enough, even though Sally mailed other packages containing letter bombs, they wound up intercepted because she put insufficient postage on them. To add to the incompetence, Sally left one of her letters in a newsagent photocopier. Since Sally had already mailed off a copy of the letter to the authorities, she tried to prevent them from receiving it by setting fire to the post box she used. The arson attempt was unsuccessful, and this prompted police to set up surveillance at the post box. In February 2001, a man named Robert Dyer was identified mailing a letter on the surveillance footage. After visiting Dyer’s home to question him, police found an extortion note typed up on his computer. Sure enough, at virtually the exact same time, police received another extortion note from “Sally,” and it was an exact match to the note on Dyer’s computer. Dyer was found guilty of nine counts of blackmail and one count of common assault and was sentenced to 16 years in prison.
The Talk of Joanna Yeates going to an ATM with Daragh Bewell.. The sums of money that houses cost that Joanna Yeates lived in....
It's possible that the Police were communicating with someone through the Newspapers.... They did it with The Tesco's Bombing Campaign"... (Image 1)....
Joanna Yeates mother sticking to the fact that she had been abducted.... Greg "Never" being a suspect But a witness....
All the Senior Police Officers being present from day one of a "Missing Persons Inquiry"!!!
And not forgetting Ann Reddrop.. Head of The South/West Complex Crime Unit... who saw this case through from the begining until Dr Vincent Tabak was convicted.. Then making her infamous speech outside Bristol Crown Court!!
What did they believe that Dr Vincent Tabak had done ????? Coz I don't believe they thought he killed Joanna Yeates .... (IMO)..
Did CJ stumble across something when he saw whoever at The Little gate on the night of 17th December 2010.. Is this why his 2nd witness statement is never revealed ????
Please watch the video attached to the "Sun" article .... It's only 2 mins long...
The images I have attached show the communication between the Police and "The Extortioner"... also the code they used ....
This may sound a little far fetched for some... Nut there "HAD" to be something going on for:
(1): A Defence lawyer to bury their client
(2):Ann Reddrop seeing it through to the bitter end
(3): A judge not intervening when Dr Vincent Tabak was unfairly treated ...
(4): A Judge adding extra tariff for no reason that didn't come legally under agravating factors
(5): DS Mark Saunders being the first to tell us of her disappearance
(6): Mrs Yeates convinced her daughter was abducted
(7): Court Room 2 at The Old Bailey being used on the 5th may 2011... when this court room is for 'Terrorists" and
other special cases ....
(8): The Holland Interview..
(9): The staged Crime Scene
(10): Bob the builder doing Forensics (D.R.A maintenance)
(11): Treating Flat 1 as a Crime Scene from day 1
(12): The operations vehicle parked outside Flat 1 from 22nd December 2010
(13): The arrest of CJ and his Bail being maintained until March 2011
(14): CJ never appearing as a witness at trial!!
(15): Dr Vincent Tabak being charged from the 16th December 2010
(16): The Police using the media to convey messages
(17): The media NEVER questioning the lack of evidence ...
(18): Crime Watch's involvement "AFTER" Dr Vincent Tabak is convicted
(19): The convieniant filming of Dr Vincent Tabak car outside Canygne Road, when he shouldn't have been there ....
(20): Many Many Officers from "Cold Cases" making appearances on TV and at LONGWOOD LANE
(21): No real witness's appearing in court...
(22): No-one being able to "Locate" Dr Vincent Tabak... Through The Prison Location Service..
(23): The many documentaries trying to prove to us it was indeed Dr Vincent Tabak...
(24): DCI phil Jones not being able to keep a story straight...
(25): DC Karen Thomas "NOT" cautioning him as a suspect.... hen they had Dr Vincent Tabak in their sights since December...
Did they originally charge or hold him under some kind of Terrorism act??? Because they had NO evidence to Charge him with Murder in January 2011
Because they do not allow anyone near him till February 2011... which in itself is strange... And "COOK" drops him quick sharp......
Was the Sobbing Girl Joanna Yeates ???? And they had this phone call from the begining???
This Phone Call is "NEVER" played to a Jury..... Was "Joanna Yeates abducted???
Because when she is eventually found Her parents and her friend Rebecca Scott talk of being relieved.
And in the words of Rebecca Scott...
it was a relief... to know that she was ..N N N.... No more harm could have come to her
So what does that tell us ???????
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8056.msg422287#msg422287
https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/2954216/inside-the-capture-of-robert-dyer-the-supermarket-blackmailer-who-threatened-to-bomb-tesco-customers/
https://listverse.com/2014/07/13/10-outrageous-extortion-schemes/
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The Waitrose visit , IMO, may not be odd at all. People do go into shops and come out without buying anything: I have done it on many occasions. People do look at their phones in shops too: frequently!
There may not have been a Waitrose receipt: newspaper reports are not always accurate. Or, there might have been a receipt in her bag, but from another day. Yes, Waitrose does sell pizzas, IMO much better pizzas than Tesco's, but they might not have been to Joanna's taste, OR, perhaps she was buying the pizza for somebody else---who knows?
I actually think the "VT lookalike" does resemble VT, but I don't believe it is VT. The prosecution team would have used that CCTV as evidence that VT was possibly stalking Joanna, or lying about his whereabouts, had thy thought it was him. The fact that both of them appear to have been using their phones at the same time is, IMO, probably just coincidence: supermarkets are full of customers using their phones.
Yes mrswah... But Joanna Yeates is supposed to be hopeless with her phone !
-
Yes mrswah... But Joanna Yeates is supposed to be hopeless with her phone !
I don't think hopeless, but just didn't bother with it much.
-
Joanna might have been "hopeless" regarding replying to text messages, but it seems that she did use her phone. It does look as if she was using it in Waitrose, and the police did say that she texted various friends and spoke to Rebecca.
I'm sure lots of other people are the same: they use their phones, but do not necessarily reply to texts immediately. I see nothing odd about it!
-
Operation Braid
For sometime I have been trying to understand why this name was chosen....
It has been suggested that it is to do with the Computer Game Braid, But I have another theory....
Braid Theory
In topology, a branch of mathematics, braid theory is an abstract geometric theory studying the everyday braid concept, and some generalizations. The idea is that braids can be organized into groups, in which the group operation is 'do the first braid on a set of strings, and then follow it with a second on the twisted strings'.[citation needed] Such groups may be described by explicit presentations, as was shown by Emil Artin (1947). For an elementary treatment along these lines, see the article on braid groups. Braid groups are also understood by a deeper mathematical interpretation: as the fundamental group of certain configuration spaces.
Stay with me.....
Braids refer to computing , maths and groups... And I believe that is exactly what Operation Braid is in relation too... A Group of people... And NOT A Computer Game..... (IMO)...
It was another Murder that made me realise this ..... "Operation Graduate" relate to this mans Murder...
Detectives said last night that the motive for killing of the man, who was a "well liked member of the community" remains unclear.
Following a post mortem examination, police announced a murder inquiry codenamed Operation Graduate.
Now The Police don't name Operations the same name.... They use various computer programs and have lists that they can pick "Operational names from so that no other Police Force uses the same Operational Name....
So I find Operation Graduate is already the name for a Police Operation....
Date: March 2014
Close to the Radford and The Park Ward is the University of Nottingham, and this area is where a number of the students of the University choose to live off-campus. Operation Graduate is the name that is given to the work conducted by Nottinghamshire Police and Partner Agencies in these areas to ensure that these communities are as crime-free as possible, and are a pleasant area for students and longer term residents to live, work and socialise. Operation Graduate has been conducted since the Autumn Term and has seen fantastic results for crime-reduction. Planning has already commenced for the Summer Term to ensure that this term can be as low in crime and incidents as previously. Crucial to this work has been the crime reduction initiatives generated by the University, in addition to the support by the Council and other Partner Agencies in noise reduction, environmental factors such as littering and enforcement of the DPPO which came into effect last year. Despite the success of Operation Graduate, there are still crimes being recorded where the premise or vehicle has been left insecure by the owner. Remember to leave all windows and doors locked at all times
The list is for all Police Forces:.... It is a UK-wide list and shared between all police forces to prevent operations in different parts of the country being given the same name. But that does not mean there is not occasional confusion with global police operations.
Question..... Is Operation Braid still in Operation???? What is Operation Braid???
Having Ann Reddrop head of The Complex Crime Unit involved in the arrest and Conviction of Dr Vincent Tabak makes me wonder if they were trying to connect Dr Vincent Tabak to a different Crime ??
Remeber what Dr Vincent Tabak is s upposed to have said to "Brotherton"...
February 8: Tabak confesses to Peter Brotherton, a voluntary Salvation Army prison chaplain, that he was 'going to plead guilty for the crime that I have done'.
What Crime had he done ????
Because I do not believe he is referring to killing Joanna Yeates ....
I believe that "Operation Braid" was probably already ongoing and Joanna Yeates was linked to that Operation in someway.... I believe that they were investigating something else that involved multiple agencies and need The Head of The Complex Crime Units assistance....
I believe the sort of questions we should be asking is What does Operation Braid really related to?? And how did this Operation involve Joanna Yeates ??? Maybe her mother talking about her abduction was true... And Dr Vincent Tabak's constant International flights were in question... Maybe Dr Vincent Tabak had flagged up for his constant travelling...
We do not know how many countries Dr Vincent Tabak visited in relation to his work.... Had the Police made a "Complete Boob"?? Had Dr Vincent Tabaks travel made alarm bells ring??? where they keeping an eye on Dr Vincent Tabak anyway???
Where they looking at Dr Vincent Tabak in relation to a different crime ????
Because there is NO REASON WHATSOEVER, why Dr Vincent Tabak came into ANN REDDROP'S sights in December 2010..... Unless he was on their radar for something else entirely??? (IMO)...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/joanna-yeates-murder-timeline-of-events-2377178.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7288489.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/07/murder-inquiry-launched-elderly-man-stabbed-death-whilst-walking/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braid_theory
http://www.nottinghamshire.police.uk/priority/neighbourhood-priority-operation-graduate-1
-
And just to prove a point....
Wednesday, 10 May 2017
Police and customs officers executed search warrants at the two addresses in March 2015 as part of an inquiry codenamed "Operation Braid "being carried out jointly in the island, the UK and Guernsey.
Is this why Ann Reddropp went over to Jersey... so she could be close to Guernsey ??? Not a million miles away from each other....
It is alleged that Mr Bell presided over a complex organised crime group suspected of being involved in an attack on the UK tax system. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs believe the group evaded some £21m in VAT.
Did Ann Reddrop believe that Dr Vincent Tabak was involved in some 'Complex Origainized Crime Group involved in TAX FRAUD!!!!!
So..... How many years has Operation Braid been looking at Organised Crime ??????
Amazing how quiet Operation Braid Has been kept quiet!!!! It seems to have only been published about in 'The Isle Of Man.... and the rest of the News agencies have avoided this "Massive" Fraud Case !!!!!
So..... DCI Phil Jones...... Was Operation Braid actually a "COMPLEX FRAUD CASE"!!!!!! ????????
Phil..... who actually killed Joanna Yeates ??? Because I DON'T believe that it was Dr Vincent Tabak !!! (IMO)....
being involved in an attack on the UK tax system. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs believe the group evaded some £21m in VAT.
Is this enough for Clegg to disown his own client???? Did Clegg think Dr Vincent Tabak was involved in defrauding Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs???
Ann was over in Jersey in 2014... Interestingly she wants to talk about:
Ann will present her emerging findings to the meeting – and looks forward to hearing your views. To whet your appetite, some of the big questions that the review seeks to answer include:
Is it time to abolish the right to silence?
Should an end be put to jury trials?
Should custody time limits be introduced?
Yes.. Ann... bet you didn't like the fact Dr Vincent Tabak was silent.. did you!
And how much easier would That Trial have been if you had got rid of The Jury!!!!!
http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=33538&headline=%C2%A3500%2C000%20confiscated%20in%20tax%20probe§ionIs=news&searchyear=2017
http://www.jerseylawsociety.je/news-room/forthcoming-events/reform-1864-loi-reglant-la-procedure-criminelle-presentation-30-september-2014/
-
Joanna might have been "hopeless" regarding replying to text messages, but it seems that she did use her phone. It does look as if she was using it in Waitrose, and the police did say that she texted various friends and spoke to Rebecca.
I'm sure lots of other people are the same: they use their phones, but do not necessarily reply to texts immediately. I see nothing odd about it!
Yes but even in 2010 people had the ability with mobiles to look at weather .... anxious about boyfriend driving to Sheffield? was it) and all sorts, it wasn't only telephone or text.
We know that Joanna did not want to particularly spend that night alone. She phoned various friends who unfortunately were otherwise occupied and quite honestly if Rebecca had said "yes come on over" Joanna would not have made it across the Severn bridge that night. (IMO)
-
Tax Havens
As of this January 1, the Netherlands holds the Presidency of the European Union. This is a good occasion to put the spotlight on a well-kept Dutch secret: The Netherlands is one of the largest tax havens in Europe, indeed the world.
The “British Virgin Islands tax haven” has come about through the creation of a very simple set of corporate taxation rules that offer a highly beneficial taxation system. The British Virgin Islands does not have any capital gains tax, gift taxes, sales tax, value added tax, profit tax, inheritance tax or corporation tax. Salaries paid to employees employed by an off-shore company established in the BVI tax haven are taxed at 8% for the employee the remaining percentage up to 12% or 14% for the employer for any salaries above $12,000.
Nevada, U.S.A.
Pros: No capital gains tax, no inheritance tax, no personal income tax, no gift tax.
Were The Complex Crime Unit chasing Tax Havens ????? And "Certain People" involved in "Fraud"???
Because I believe that is the real reason for Operation Braid... (IMO)..
http://www.slice.ca/money/photos/top-10-tax-havens-in-the-world/#!77e624a1388b1ecb68c225f8c28c473e
https://www.wis-international.com/british-virgin-islands-tax-haven.html
https://www.socialeurope.eu/what-europe-needs-to-know-about-the-dutch-tax-haven
-
Why did they have 2 Operational names for this fraud investigation ????
One of the firm’s directors was arrested at Heathrow airport last week as part of a joint HM Revenue & Customs and National Crime Agency investigation. Six other people were also arrested, 13 properties were raided and £1m in cash seized as part of Operation Bannock, an HMRC-led investigation involving police officers from across the UK, as well as investigators on the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.
Operation Braid and Operation Bannock
We're talking "HUGE"FRAUD".....
Edit.... Did they think by 2017 we would have forgotten about Operation Braid and Dr Vincent Tabak ?????
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/online-gambling-companys-director-arrested-in-21m-fraud-investigation-10141491.html
-
I never would have thought I'd mention Dr Vincent Tabak in connection with the Royal Family... But we have our trusty Defence Lawyer representing Prince Andrew... The same Trusty Defence Lawyer Doesn't admit to representing a wife beater Lord Edward Somerset who lives on his Badminton Estate in Gloucestershire.
Mr Clegg, whose website says he is a specialist in 'white collar fraud', represented Vincent Tabak, who was jailed for life for killing Joanna Yeates in Bristol in December 2010. He also acted for Lord Edward Somerset, the Duke of Beaufort's son, who admitted beating his wife.
Lord Somerset got 2 years and did 7 months... I'd have loved to have seen Clegg in court on that one..... I bet he didn't insult his client that time !!!!! And looking at the picture i have attached some may find it hard to see that this is what Lord Edward Somerset looks like... (I myself was shocked... )
There would have been plenty ammunition for Clegg to rip this client apart...
How did Clegg not stand tall with this case ?? Lord Edward Somersets friend Taki Theodoracopulos talks of his Drug addiction:
My drug-addict friend needs medical help, not a prison sentence
We all know unfortunates who succumbed to weakness and can only focus on their next fix. Eddie Somerset was one of them
Heroin??
He admitted everything, like an innocent man would.
So I ask you, dear readers. Violence fuelled by heroin and alcohol, and a judge who threw the book at someone who is as big a threat to society as I am to a transsexual hooker.
So what did Clegg say about this man??? he had plenty to say about the Placid Dutchman... Yet he is mysteriously Silent.... About this Drug taking Wife beater ....
I have never understood why William Clegg QC stood up in court and called Dr Vincent Tabak all the names under the sun....
1: his conduct after Yeates died when he hid the body was “frankly disgusting” and had caused untold anguish and agony to her family.
2: “I’m not going to ask you to like Vincent Tabak. There’s probably nothing to like.”
3: And Miss Morson seems to agree, having failed to make a single appearance at court.
4: He had told “lie after lie to the police.
5: “did everything he could to cover his tracks”.
6: He added that he would not try to justify Tabak’s actions after her death, saying his client was “living a lie” by attending dinner parties and attempting to carry on his life as normal.
7: “I’m not going to ask you to have any sympathy for him. He deserves none.
8: “I’m not going to ask you to excuse his conduct. There can be no excuse.
9: “If I was to set out to win a popularity contest I would lose.
10: He told the court: “Of course, afterwards his behaviour is utterly disgraceful. It’s not going to be justified by me
William I don't get it.....
When here you talk of your Client of Privilege in sympathetic tones..
Representing Somerset, William Clegg QC said his client estimated there were two or three periods of domestic violence in the 30-year marriage.
"He is not pleading guilty on the basis that he hit his wife every day, every week, every month or even every year," Mr Clegg said.
"For quite long periods of the marriage they were happy and were both living alternative lifestyles.
"Lord Somerset has not asked for special treatment because of his background."
Speaking after the case, Rob Allen, the senior crown prosecutor for CPS south-west, said the investigation into Somerset's actions had been complex.
OMG... nearly fell off my chair.... Thats the poorest defence reason I have ever heard... Didn't do it every day of the year...
But when Dr Vincent Tabak claimed he was Innocent you did everything BUT support him.... When he refused to comment on these charges you had him at The Old Bailey.... You didn't do ONE THING to defend Dr Vincent Tabak whatsoever..
Is it because he was "A Placid Dutchman and very easy to deal with as DCI Phil Jones said???
What was it about the Dutchman that you felt like he wasn't worth defending ???? WHY did everyone help to put the DUTCHMAN AWAY?? He had no help whatsoever...
"William".... When you've a minute, would you like to explain how your Defence tactics differ for "A Privliged Drug Addict Wife Beater" and "A Placid Foreign National."..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915934/Andrew-hires-lawyer-fight-age-sex-claims-Prince-hires-grandfather-bar-help-fight-allegations-prepares-make-public-appearance.html#ixzz4tCIiMBwT
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3012133/SEBASTIAN-SHAKESPEARE-Jailbird-Somerset-busts-lover.html
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/02/taki-the-last-thing-my-friend-eddie-somerset-deserves-is-jail/
-
May I remind my learned friend that Vincent Tabak never used any such phrase as "for the crime that I have done". Nor did Peter Brotherton ever use this phrase while he was in the witness box. It was William Clegg QC alone who used the phrase in the course of the rhetorical questions he put to this witness. The witness replied, "If you say so, then I would agree with you". Mr Clegg referred to a statement that he alleged the witness had signed a few days after the prison conversations - but this witness statement was evidently not included in the judge's or the jury's bundle, as no one attempted to refer to it to ascertain whether the witness remembered correctly or not.
This sort of trickery by the lawyers in court needs to be borne in mind when suspecting Vincent Tabak of all sorts of dark deeds.
-
May I remind my learned friend that Vincent Tabak never used any such phrase as "for the crime that I have done". Nor did Peter Brotherton ever use this phrase while he was in the witness box. It was William Clegg QC alone who used the phrase in the course of the rhetorical questions he put to this witness. The witness replied, "If you say so, then I would agree with you". Mr Clegg referred to a statement that he alleged the witness had signed a few days after the prison conversations - but this witness statement was evidently not included in the judge's or the jury's bundle, as no one attempted to refer to it to ascertain whether the witness remembered correctly or not.
This sort of trickery by the lawyers in court needs to be borne in mind when suspecting Vincent Tabak of all sorts of dark deeds.
leonora.... Clegg allowed the jury to believe plenty that wasn't true introducing the blind being broken for instance... Not defending his client whatsoever...
Yet. he's happy to defend a smackhead as long as he's got a title and give the most strange defence known to man for this Heroin Addict....
Did his bad character reference come to trial..... I doubt it.....
leornora... I want to know who stitched Dr Vincent Tabak up??? Because they have gone along way to put him in prison without any evidence whatsoever....
-
This I found on another site.... It appears that the forum member has copied the original article....
Vincent Tabak 'viewed violent web porn'
By Chris Kelly - BBC News - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-15534053
Tabak viewed violent internet porn before and after he strangled Jo Yeates
Vincent Tabak viewed violent internet pornography depicting men holding women by the neck in the weeks after he killed his Bristol neighbour Jo Yeates, it has emerged.
During legal arguments in his trial, prosecutors revealed videos and pictures found on his laptop and work computer depicted a man holding a woman's neck during sex and images of other women tied up in car boots.
Prosecutors believed that the pornographic films showed why Tabak held Miss Yeates by the neck - which led to her death.
Nigel Lickley QC wanted Tabak's internet usage to be included in the Crown's case against him but this was blocked by Mr Justice Field and the jury was not told about it.
Tabak admitted Miss Yeates's manslaughter but denied murdering her and during his trial at Bristol Crown Court he insisted he had not meant to kill the 25-year-old landscape architect.
In legal arguments without the jury present, Mr Lickley said the pornographic films and images depicted "violent images of women being held by the neck".
He added: "We submit that these images explain why he held Miss Yeates by the neck."
Tabak, the prosecution claimed, favoured films showing submissive women and others being bound and gagged and watched some more than once.
But on the eve of the trial, the judge agreed with defence QC William Clegg that the disclosure of Tabak's internet use following Miss Yeates's death could not prove the killing was premeditated.
Escort agency
While Tabak's defence team had said the killing was "a few seconds of madness" and portrayed Tabak as a quiet man who had only had one girlfriend - the police had a different view.
During a business trip in Los Angeles during autumn 2010, the Dutch national contacted an escort agency shortly before withdrawing $200 from a cash machine. He then checked into a different hotel where he was staying under the name of Francis Tabak.
Jo Yeates's disappearance led to a search which ended with her body being found on Christmas Day
On his return to a snow-covered England it was a chance encounter - a glance through a kitchen window - which would ultimately lead to Miss Yeates's death.
She and boyfriend Greg Reardon had only recently moved into the neighbouring Clifton flat to Tabak and did not know the Dutch national.
On the night of 17 December, Greg Reardon had gone to visit family in Sheffield while Tabak's girlfriend Tanja Morson had left for a Christmas party in Malmesbury.
Miss Yeates visited the Bristol Ram pub and went home early to bake cakes. Next door, a "bored" Tabak decided he would go to Asda to buy treats.
As he walked from his flat he passed Miss Yeates's window, where the pair caught each other's eye. Tabak claimed in court that Miss Yeates invited him in.
In the witness box, Tabak claimed a "flirty comment" led to him attempting to kiss Miss Yeates, which caused her to scream. Tabak held his hand over her mouth but when she screamed a second time he strangled her.
Prosecutors told Tabak's trial there was a struggle - a pathologist found 43 separate injuries on Miss Yeates's body.
After strangling Miss Yeates, Tabak put her body in the boot of his car and drove first to Asda and then to remote Longwood Lane where he left her body.
That night, much of the UK had been blanketed in heavy snow and Bristol was no exception. A huge search was launched after Mr Reardon returned and reported Miss Yeates missing but her body went unnoticed under the snow for eight days.
Tabak claimed he caught Jo Yeates's eye through her kitchen window
In the following days police arrested Miss Yeates' landlord Christopher Jefferies but he was soon released and was never charged.
And DNA evidence soon led them to Tabak.
Microscopic splatters of blood in the back of the Dutchman's car would go some way towards trapping him but, crucially, DNA on his victim's body would also link the pair.
Tabak had gone on holiday with his girlfriend to the Netherlands over Christmas and - amid the media storm surrounding the story - she had called Avon and Somerset Police to tell them where they had gone.
Officers visited the pair in Holland where both voluntarily gave DNA samples. They returned to the UK a few days later.
But on the morning of 7 January - weeks after Miss Yeates's body had been found - Tabak searched for "Jo Yeates" on Google, minutes before moving on to the violent pornographic sites.
'Top pulled up'
"Some of those films contained images of a woman again being held by the throat," Mr Lickley told Bristol Crown Court.
And some recovered images showed a petite blonde woman with her top pulled up in a similar fashion to how Miss Yeates was found.
"That suggests he derived sexual pleasure from them," said Mr Lickley.
"He received a text message from his girlfriend but continued watching the pornography."
Jo Yeates and Vincent Tabak lived in two garden flats in Canynge Road, Clifton
Tabak's arrest, on 20 January, took place not in Clifton but a few miles away at the flat of a friend in Cotham.
The weight of evidence had stacked up against him and led to charges and an admission he had killed her.
Under arrest Tabak told police he did not know Miss Yeates and kept replying "no comment" under interview.
His silence even extended to his own defence lawyers.
He accepted during the trial he should have called police but after his arrest, according to Ann Redrop from the Crown Prosecution Service, he gave no reasons for the killing.
"We heard nothing more following his guilty plea to manslaughter until we received a defence case statement which very briefly said 'yes, I was invited in, I killed her, I moved her body'."
"But the why and the wherefore was completely lacking."
It's this that was of Interest...
He accepted during the trial he should have called police but after his arrest, according to Ann Redrop from the Crown Prosecution Service, he gave no reasons for the killing.
"We heard nothing more following his guilty plea to manslaughter until we received a defence case statement which very briefly said 'yes, I was invited in, I killed her, I moved her body'."
"But the why and the wherefore was completely lacking.
So.... Dr Vincent Tabak's statement said... 'yes, I was invited in, I killed her, I moved her body'."
WOW... And they went to trial on that!!!!! For God sake.....
Ann Reddrop.... where was your EVIDENCE!!!!!!!!!
This is why I believe it is important to link and quote everything.... And screenshot if needed... They have removed so much information from the Internet and there has to be a reason Why..... (IMO)...
Thanks to Tony Gosling of 9/11 forum
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=169461
-
From the above quote:
Tabak had gone on holiday with his girlfriend to the Netherlands over Christmas and - amid the media storm surrounding the story - she had called Avon and Somerset Police to tell them where they had gone.
So was the story about CJ's car a pile of crap too??????? DC Karen Thomas, would you like to comment????
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8194.msg424571#msg424571
Since I believe I uncovered Andrew Motts Role in The Joanna Yeates murder case, it had me wondering.....
DC Karen Thomas.... Is she a civilian Officer too????
The murder team sent DC Karen Thomas to Amsterdam and on New Year's Eve she spoke to Tabak at a hotel near Schiphol airport for six hours.
On Christmas Eve, Detective Constable Karen Thomas, a member of the police's major crime investigation team, spoke to Tabak by telephone about his movements on the night of Yeates's disappearance. He told her he was in all evening before driving in the early hours of the morning to pick up Morson after a work party.
She like Andrew Mott is taking statements... answering the telephone... just what a Civilian Officer does
Is this what it is.... They are not real Policemen/women????
The real Investigating Officer accompanied her... But their name never gets mentioned..... Nor do they appear at trial....
If I think about it... Where are all the "Police officers" at the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak ?????
Going back to the first quote...... The murder team sent DC Karen Thomas to Amsterdam and on New Year's Eve she spoke to Tabak at a hotel near Schiphol airport for six hours.
Yes... they sent a civilian..... (IMO).... to take notes....
The major crime team are made up of 8 Officers I believe and the rest are help.... So who are the Officers for this Crime team??
DCI Mike Carter is The head... But he never gets mentioned in The Joanna Yeates case.... (oddly enough).. But every tom dick and harry does....
So... Is the so called named DC Karen Thomas actually a Civilian just like Andrew Mott?? And what about Joe Goff???
Which Police Officers stood up in court... Because we know the man we believe to be DCI Phil Jones didn't.... He lines up in queue with the rest of the public when he goes to Bristol Crown Court...
Is this man a 'Civilian Officer too??? Because when we went to LinkedIn... we had an image of another man who was DCI Phil Jones
https://www.linkedin.com/in/philjones488/?ppe=1
Edit.... Is she this Karen Thomas ?? https://www.linkedin.com/in/karen-thomas-13663846/
So again I will ask..... who appeared on Crimewatch that were real Police Officers??/ because I am starting to wonder if these people were !!!
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/vincent-tabak-trial-court-arrivals-england-bristol-ext-news-footage/692151396
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/28/joanna-yeates-case-vincent-tabak
Double Edit... The image I have found of the LinkedIn Karen Thomas isn't the one we know from The Crimewatch Program..
Image attached
-
I'm going to stick with this idea that many so called 'Police Officers" are actually just civilians....
When I talked of "Operation Jupiter" http://slidegur.com/doc/5830427/presentation
It has Tracey Hayler down as Chief Superintendent Tracy Hayler ... yet her LinkedIn profile doesn't ever mention such a role within Avon and Somerset Constabulary.....
Head of Strategic Alliances
Company NameAvon and Somerset Constabulary
Dates EmployedJun 2010 – Jan 2015 Employment Duration4 yrs 8 mos
LocationBristol, United Kingdom
Directed and delivered a large, complex programme of change within a significant public sector service provider. The interdisciplinary programme delivered new infrastructure to support and enable excellent services to the communities of Avon and Somerset in the context of reducing finances.
Delivered a more mobile and flexible workforce, operating within communities, in fewer, and more sustainable buildings through underpinning technology and streamlined processes.
Developed, negotiated and managed strategic partnerships involving public and private sector. Exploring every opportunity for integration of services, or co-location with partners.
Responsible for ensuring the successful delivery of services and transformation, leading the client side team of multi disciplinary subject matter experts in. Finance, HR, IT, Estates, infrastructure and logistics.
Leadership, coaching, mentoring, strategic development, partnership engagement and problem solving.
Ensuring delivery of excellent services by and to the organisation, leading commercial negotiations and financial management.
Providing consultancy services and advice and actively engaged in supporting and advising other public sector organisations at local, regional and national level, including the HMIC, Home Office and Cabinet Office.
So I believe they allow the public to think that these people are "Real Police Officers".... when in actual fact they aren't...
So how many real "Policemen" were involved in "The Joanna Yeates Murder case "????
https://www.linkedin.com/in/tracyhayler/?ppe=1
-
I'm coming back to these facebook posts of Greg's...
Greg Beardon
28 October 2010
Greg Reardon The Free stuff extravaganza continues!
07919 593206
Hit me up if you fancy any of this....
- Lange Comp 120 ski boots. Stiff and Size 9, seen some action but wearable.
- Scott Worldcup poles. 130cm, Missmatching pair from different years but same weight, length and handle shape. Matching black Spyder 'cut down' pole guards for serious racey types.
- Scott slalom helmet. Mens large. Need a free helmet for racing in? This is it! Blue and red with chin guard and again, seen some action but perfectly good.
Pick up from Canynge Road in Clifton.
Cans of booze would be appreciated to secure the deal as interest will indeed be high!
Greg
And the earlier one ...
Greg Beardon
16 October 2010
Anybody want free skis?
I've got two pairs of knackered-but-good-for-dryslope twintips.
175cm 2005? Dynastar Troublemakers with Salomon 914 bindings on lifters.
(Big gouge in base of one ski, bindings work but show their age considerably. Skis still have stiffness to them and have been used for uni dryslope racing recently).
179cm 2006? K2 Fujatives with factory salomon 916 race bindings.
(Skis are in decent nick but have lost a lot of stiffness. Bindings on last legs. Skis still useful for UK trips and for trashing on brandon hill. Last used by Hickman in the Redbull Peak in the Park big air.)
Free to a good home, pick up from Clifton. Call 07919 593206.
Cheers,
g
It's the name of the group... UWE Snowsports Racers I never took much notice of it before to be honest... But it's what the UWE stands for that's important....
University of the West of England, Bristol....
Which brings more questions... was Greg attending the University??
How many people at Bristol University knew about Greg and Joanna Yeates... Did someone from the University come to there home at 44, Canygne Road ???
Is this the reason that the Police where interested in The University ???
Maybe Bristol University does have a connection to this case... Just not in the way the media published in Dec?Jan 2010/2011..
-
The University of the West of England, Bristol is a public university located in and around Bristol, United Kingdom. Wikipedia
Address: Coldharbour Ln, Stoke Gifford, Bristol BS16 1QY
Phone: 0117 965 6261
Total enrollment: 28,679 (2015)
Chancellor: Ian Carruthers
Vice-chancellor: Steven West
Undergraduate tuition and fees: 9,000 GBP (2016), International tuition: 11,750 GBP (2016)
Colors: Black, White, Red
Just noticed it.... The colours "Black , White and Red"
I knew that Joanna Yeates flat had been staged... couldn't get the colour association... I think it stares us in the face, the Front room says it all..
They're the colours of the University...!!!
So what had the University have to do with Joanna Yeates ???
I am now wondering about the choice of wall paint... Yellow is used a lot in the University student rooms ...
Is the staging of Joanna Yeates flat supposed to represent a flat in The University???
Because I do not believe that the images we know of the flat are true....(IMO)...
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Bristol University and the UWE are actually two different universities, both in Bristol------which explains why Bristol is full of students, halls of residence, and uni buildings!!
-
Bristol University and the UWE are actually two different universities, both in Bristol------which explains why Bristol is full of students, halls of residence, and uni buildings!!
yes mrswah UWE is in Filton I believe.. So do you think there a connection to Joanna Yeates ??
-
UWE do their training at Gloucester Ski and Snowboard centre ..
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/12/23/article-1340586-0C8F7193000005DC-156_306x565.jpg)
This centre opens till late at night... They have sessions till 9:45pm
Did Joanna Yeates frequent this place ???
-
I presume the Birches must have called the emergency services when they discovered what they say was Joanna Yeates on Longwood Lane ...
Why didn't they touch the body??
Why didn't the person on the other side of the telephone go through the normal questions??
When you ring 999 they ask which service you want... If they found a body surely the ambulance would have turned up first, to see if they could do anything.... But they don't.... why ????
How did they know she was dead???
We had No ambulance turn up immediately after she was discovered...
If the Birches couldn't see her how did they know that it was her ???
It could have been anyone in the snow... They might have been suffering from hypothermia... Why didn't the emergency services turn up immediately... Instead of waiting till 5:00pm to remove her to the mortuary..
Why didn't they turn up to see if this person was alive ???
They all acted like they knew that it was her and she was already dead.... when they couldn't possibly have known that without checking the body first.... (IMO)
Edit.... No one could know at the moment she was found how long she had been there for... So why didn't the ambulance turn up when the Birches called the Emergency Services ???
She might have been there a couple of hours if she had been abducted... How would the Birches know that !!??
Or more to the point... How would the person who took the call know NOT to send an Ambulance ????
-
Thinking about Procedure....
Recovery of the deceased and human remains
If there are deceased people at the scene, a medical doctor, pathologist or appropriately qualified paramedic should attend to pronounce life extinct. Deceased persons and human remains should not be removed from the scene until authorised by the coroner.
A written audit account must be made of:
the person(s) who undertook the examination
the actions they took
who pronounced life extinct
when this was done.
Managers must monitor the physical, emotional and psychological welfare of their staff when attending an incident.
If nobody touched Joanna yeates when they found her how did they know she was dead when Dr Delaney didn't turn up till later ??
Who pronounced life EXTINCT????
Again I will say... why wasn't an ambulance called straight away ????
Operational plan (SERM plan)
The SERM develops an operational plan for the recovery of the deceased, human remains, property and evidence. The plan should be approved by the SIM and senior investigating officer (SIO).
It contains:
a risk assessment of the scene
the health and safety procedures to be adopted (including personal protective equipment)
details for establishing a holding audit area (HAA) for the deceased persons and human remains
a property and evidence audit area.
They could only do this if they knew she was already dead !!!
The Role of The Fire and Rescue
Fire and rescue service
The role of the fire and rescue service in an emergency or major incident is to rescue those trapped by fire, wreckage or debris. They may also support the recovery of deceased persons and human remains. The fire and rescue service has an urban search and rescue capability. They can assist in recovering the deceased and human remains from constricted sites, collapsed buildings or from the wreckage of transport incidents.
What constricted site was Joanna Yeates located ????
https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/civil-emergencies/disaster-victim-identification/recovery-of-the-deceased-and-human-remains/
https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/civil-emergencies/disaster-victim-identification/#fire-and-rescue-service
-
yes mrswah UWE is in Filton I believe.. So do you think there a connection to Joanna Yeates ??
I don't know.
However, I can tell you why yellow is often used in classrooms (and, from what you suggest), in university rooms. It is supposed to be a colour that is conducive to learning. I was told that during my teaching days!
-
Why does the Polices Nick Gargan say that the Joanna Yeates case was "Not " an Ordinary case"...
It's not ordinary Police practice to release details and press release to say somebody isn't a suspect anymore. But then again this wasn't an ordinary case.
Quote from video...
What was so out of the ordinary for this Case ???
Was it an abduction ??
The statement made by Nick Gargan is made in 2013... So why is this case 'NOT ORDINARY"??????
It seemed Ordinary enough at trial.... So it wasn't Dr Vincent Tabak!
Come on Avon and Somerset police.... it's time to tell us the truth about The Joanna Yeates Case.....(IMO)...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/video/2013/sep/16/chris-jefferies-joanna-yeates-landlord-police-letter-video
-
Bristol Post Archived Article
He held his head in his hands as Miss Yeates' boyfriend, Greg Reardon, told jurors how he went to Sheffield to visit his brother on the night of Friday, December 17.
Mr Reardon, who met Miss Yeates when both worked for Bristol-based Building Design Partnership, said the plan was that while he spent the weekend away his girlfriend was going to relax, do some baking and look after their cat, Bernard.
He was set to arrive back on Sunday, December 19, so that he and Miss Yeates could watch the final of TV show The Apprentice together, he said.
Mr Reardon, dressed in a dark suit and tie, described how he last saw Miss Yeates at work just before 5pm on the Friday.
He told the court: "We met in the lobby to say goodbye. We had a kiss and a cuddle."
Mr Reardon said he grabbed a bite to eat on his walk home and had to get help starting Miss Yeates' Ford Ka car for the trip to Sheffield from his landlord, Chris Jefferies, and a neighbour.
Mr Reardon said he tried phoning both Miss Yeates' mobile phone and landline at 10.35pm, after he arrived in Sheffield.
He then texted her, saying he had to jump start the car but it was OK, and asking her if she had a good night in the pub.
The court heard Mr Reardon tried calling her twice on the Saturday, at lunchtime and in the evening, but got no reply.
He said he returned to Bristol on Sunday, arriving in Clifton just after 8pm. Miss Yeates' boots were in the middle of the hallway and several coats were strewn on the floor. One of the lounge lights and the hall light were on.
He told the jury: "I immediately thought she had been quite lazy or been and gone in a rush and not tidied up."
Mr Reardon said he went around the flat, tidying up, ate an Asda frozen pizza and drank an opened bottle of cider in the kitchen. He said Miss Yeates would sometimes open drinks and leave them.
At 9pm he rang her mobile, only to hear it ringing in the flat.
He said: "I found it in the pocket of her white jacket. I had a certain level of stress. I really didn't know what was going on. I tried to justify it to keep myself calm and thought she had gone out for the evening and forgot her phone.
"I was worried because it was cold and she wasn't wearing her warm jacket. I thought it was quite possible she had gone to a friend's house to watch The Apprentice in different clothes."
Mr Reardon said he continued tidying up when he found Miss Yeates' blue rucksack and, rummaging through it, discovered it contained her spectacles, sunglasses, wallet and keys as well as her stripy top.
"I panicked," he said. "It was a realisation something was wrong. At the very best she had been locked out with all her stuff in the flat. I rang round her friends and my friends in Bristol to try and find out where she was."
The court heard Mr Reardon also became aware the cat was affectionate to him, his cat litter was old and he was hungry.
Rubbish in the bin had not been added to since the Friday.
Mr Reardon also found one of Miss Yeates' earrings, which she normally put on her bedside table, on the floor of the bedroom and another under the duvet.
After calling Miss Yeates' parents at 12.36am on the Monday, he called police nine minutes later and reported Jo missing. The court heard that, in those early hours, he accompanied police to Tabak's flat next door but didn't join in the police's conversation with him.
Here Greg Mentions he thought that Joanna yeates had different clothing on
"I was worried because it was cold and she wasn't wearing her warm jacket. I thought it was quite possible she had gone to a friend's house to watch The Apprentice in different clothes."
He obviously knew she had been wearing a different jacket, seeing as he thought she had gone to friends to watch the apprentice ...
Why haven't we heard of this jacket or outer clothing?? were was it if she was found without a coat??
The court heard Mr Reardon also became aware the cat was affectionate to him, his cat litter was old and he was hungry.
Rubbish in the bin had not been added to since the Friday.
Now I'd of thought that the litter would be humming.. Would you really notce if there had been more rubbish added to the bin??
Rebecca Scott
Rebecca Scott, a PHD student described as Miss Yeates' best friend, told the jury Miss Yeates and Mr Reardon were "the perfect couple".
Miss Scott said she had been conversing with Miss Yeates via social networking website Facebook, and they had arranged to meet on Christmas Eve in Romsey, Hampshire, where both their parents lived.
It was at 8.13pm on December 17, Miss Scott said, when Miss Yeates called her and said how she would like to see her in Swansea.
Miss Scott said the winter snow had left buses and trains cancelled, and she was staying in that night.
She told the court: "We had a laugh and a joke about the previous time we had seen each other.
I'm sure originally it was reported that Rebecca Scott had arranged to meet Joanna Yeates on Chritmas Eve when she phoned... Here it's saying it was via "Facebook".. That has never been mentioned before, that I am aware of ...
On her way home she rang her best friend Rebecca Scott to arrange to meet on Christmas Eve.
So what about Bernard??? why would Joanna Yeates want to go to Swansea, when she had a young cat to take care of and Greg was away?? did they have someone who would house sit??
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8227155/Joanna-Yeates-parents-of-the-architect-visit-the-site-where-their-daughters-body-was-found.html
http://archive.li/txs8x
-
More from skylive tweets
2:31 PM - 21 Oct 2011Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
Dr Carey agrees that marks on Joanna's wrists were caused by them being gripped.
2:35 PM - 21 Oct 2011Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
"It's unlikely that this sort if thing happens with two people bolt upright with them not moving." says Dr Carey.
I believe that Dr Carey is suggesting that Joanna Yeates was unconscious at this time and not dead... Which bring in to question were there finger marks on Joanna Yeates wrists and ankles ???
I believe it a possibility... I have to keep going back to why the Police kept with the fact that there was more than one killer ...
Did someone grab her wrists whilst someone held the lower part of her body by the ankles perhaps?? she wasn't dragged and lifting a dead weight is not easy.....
There was evidence that Joanna Yeates ankles bore marks upon them, but Dr Carey explains them away with this odd statement...
2:11 PM - 21 Oct 2011Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
Dr Carey says some of the marks on Joanna's ankle could have come from when her body froze and then thawed.
But did the rest of the marks come from her being carried by someone else ???
I don't know but how do you get marks on skin from thawing????
Is this the reason we have civilian Andrew Mott claiming he and PC `Martin Faithful tried to stop a body from thawing??? Why would they need to do that????
If her ankles were damage due to thawing... what other damage was done due to thawing???
I put it to The Defence and The Prosecution... That Joanna Yeates was carried by 2 people, lifting her by carrying her by the wrists and the ankles whilst she was unconscious....
This would support Ann Reddrops insistence that it was a deliberate act (IMO)..... because I summise that Joanna Yeates body was moved by 2 people whilst she was alive an unconscious and then someone deliberately strangled her...
The evidence that they fail to tell us truthfully would support this idea ... Why else would Ann Reddrop insist it was a deliberate act... ???
She would not accept a "Manslaughter Plea".. she had to know something, for her to be 100 percent sure the act was deliberate.... She had to know that Joanna Yeates was alive when the marks on her ankles and wrists were made, meaning (IMO), she was being transported by more than one person..
Meaning once she was carried away someone killed her intentionally....
Meaning that Dr Vincent Tabak's statement that was made in court was a complete fabrication, which his Lawyers wrote....
Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
Clegg:" Whose decision about the amount of detail in the statement. Yours or the lawyers?." " The lawyers," says Tabak.
When the statement was written they didn't have a clue how Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have done this... They knew he couldn't have possibly done this... And if it was supposed to be him he needed help... But they go with the ridiculous story he did this all on his own... In a time frame that I do not believe possible...
So Ann... did you know that Joanna Yeates was unconscious when she was moved, leaving the marks upon her wrists and ankles ???
Did you know that was the reason why the act of strangling her was deliberate ???
And Ann if this was the case... How long after Joanna Yeates being unconscious did someone strangle her whilst she was on a roughened surface ....
"Other injuries showed contact with a roughened surface while she was alive - a floor, the ground or a rough surface. Apart from the fear the attack caused her, it would have been painful. She would have resisted and struggled.
Yet there is no evidence that she fought her attacker ....
I get the impression that she was unconscious when she was strangled.... There is no evidence of her fighting off her attacker....
So if she was on a roughened surface when she was strangled she wasn't upright...(IMO)... And she wasn't in her Flat... as there was carpets virtually everywhere... No forensics from that Flat came to court to support a fight had taken place there ...
The attack upon Joanna Yeates I believe happened elsewhere and not in Flat 1.... Again meaning that Dr Vincent Tabak did not commit this crime ... (IMO)....
Edit... I'll go further... If the prosecution can make suggestions so can I...
I suggest that Joanna Yeates sock came off when she was being carried by 2 people, when she was gripped by the wrists and ankles, her sock slipped off as it was a large sock... I suggest the person whom held Joanna Yeates by the ankles put this sock in his/her pocket, then regained his/her grip on the bare ankle... and then not redressing Joanna Yeates foot with the sock... It is possible they forgot in the middle of this crime .... I do not believe the sock was taken as a trophy... more likely an over site of someone whom had committed this act....!!!! (IMO)...
Double Edit... If there were marks on Joanna Yeates body to suggest that she was on a roughened surface... That to me tell me that Joanna Yeates top had already ridden up when whoever tried to transport her first tried to grab hold of her... She (IMO).. wouldn't sustain injuries that suggest a roughened surface if the skin was covered with her clothing....(IMO)
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/joanna-yeates-suffered-43-injuries-in-desperate-fight-against-strangler-6452369.html
http://live-news.sky.com/Event/Live_Updates_Tabak_Cross-Examination?Page=1
http://live-news.sky.com/Event/Live_Updates_Tabak_Cross-Examination?Page=2
-
I have managed to get an image of the corner of the flat ..The area where the fridge is located... There's a small alcove and an ironing board and an 8 gallon drum of something, I'm not sure...
Next to the fridge on the right, I cannot see the continuation of the pipe just above the skirting board, going towards the radiator in the alcove.
I can clearly see the feed going to the right valve from the bathroom radiator which is located on the other side of the wall..(image 2)
I have the belief that the possibility the red shelving unit conceals a door way to the bay windowed room... Which also has an alarm sensor above it....
At first I thought that the pipes continued all the way down that wall to the radiator... but now i am not sure as the feed to the radiator in the alcove can come from the bathroom.
I do not understand why the fridge is stuck there??? It's difficult to determine whether or not there is a plug source behind it, but I believe it is placed there for a different purpose...
To say that Joanna Yeates and Greg Reardon had so much equipment where would they store it in that tiny flat...
Where do you store such things as ,
(1):The Hoover,
(2):The Ironing Board ,
(3):The mop bucket,
(4):The basket for wet washing,
(5):Towels for the bathroom...
(6): Cat Litter
(7): Clothes airer
(8): Ski's
(9): Surfboards
(10): Bicycles
With so many things in this case being hidden or obscured, having an opening behind the red shelving unit is a very real possibility...(IMO)
https://www.musicjinni.com/8CB3OdnwMQq/Joanna-Yeates-Trial-Vincent-Tabak-Found-Guilty-Of-Murder.html
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Back to Tweets
And this rather curious tweet from the Police Press Conference after the trial...
Twitter
Jim Old
@SkyFixer69
#JoannaYeates Police found that VT had researched extradition. Evidence he was planning to flee? No, say cops.
4:50pm 28th October 2011
Why would the Police say that Dr Vincent Tabak wasn't planning to flee??
If Dr Vincent Tabak was looking up extradition... In what context was it???
If we have been looking at motives as to why, Dr Vincent Tabak has kept silent, maybe the extradition is the key.. The question prior to that was"
4:46 PM - 28 Oct 2011Twitter
Jim Old
@SkyFixer69
#JoannaYeates police asked why VTs girlfriend was not a witness in the trial. They haven't spoken to her since the day after his arrest...
Is there some connection to Tanja in some way??
Was someone Dr Vincent Tabak knew being extradited or had the threat of being extradited ???
What is the relevance of Dr Vincent Tabak supposidly looking up "Extradition"???
The other odd thing concerning Tanja Morson... right up until I spoke to mrswah, I was of the impression that Tanja Morson was American...
But mrswah assures me she is english with the research she has done...
Maybe we need to see Tanja Morson birth certificate to find out whats what... The media from start to finish called her American!!
Why didn't the Police speak to Tanja Morson after the 21st January 2011???
Maybe the answer is here in those tweets... For the Police not to have reinterviewed Tanja Morson since the 21st January 2011 is extremely odd considering the circumstances of this investigation...(IMO)...
They only have Dr Vincent Tabak in custody at this time.... They have "NO" Evidence whatsoever... He hasn't even been charged... Yet they do not speak to Tanja Morson again, to check any alibi that Dr Vincent Tabak may have... Not even to check one small tiny detail??
They haven't seen all of the CCTV footage of what they did or did not do that weekend... They didn't check where she went or what she did?? They didn't ask her anything about Dr Vincent Tabak since the day after his arrest???
Why Not??
I do not know if Tanja has anything to do with 'extradition"... But I feel extradition has more importance than maybe I have given it credit for before ...
http://live-news.sky.com/Event/Reaction_on_verdict_over_Yeates_death?Page=2
-
If CJ was on bail until March 2011, how did he manage to put his Flat on the market???
The article that I have been viewing, states that his Flat has been on the market for 6 weeks... The date of the article is: 8:00AM GMT 07 Mar 2011
Christopher Jefferies, the retired English master and landlord of murdered Joanna Yeates, has put his flat on the market for £245,000
The 66-year-old, who was arrested over the murder before being released on bail, put his first floor apartment in 44 Canynge Road, Clifton, Bristol up for sale six weeks ago.
In a listing on a property website, the apartment is described as a “particularly large one bedroom apartment" in an "imposing detached Victorian property”.
The blurb continues: “The subject property is excellently located on a quiet residential road within easy walking distance of Clifton Village, which has a wide range of shops, boutiques and restaurants.
“Other benefits include a very spacious lounge (23'2'' by 17'2'') and bedroom and the potential, subject to necessary consents to convert in to a two bedroom apartment.
“The property also benefits from a dedicated off streetcar parking space."
The link in the telegraph article was originally for a website called findaproperty.com, but it's now powered by Zoopla
Now this article was written a month before i found the for sale advert of this Property... The advert i found for the property was on Right move dated April 16th 2011
So,... back to my question... If CJ is on bail and the Police still have his property, how does the flat look like it hasn't been touched by the Police ????
All his books are there.... It doesn't look like it has been searched ... And the amount of CJ's belonging that were removed from the Flat would have been in a queue for testing along with all of the property from Joanna Yeates flat...
Remember DCI Phil Jones at The Leveson Inquiry saying that they didn't let CJ free from bail until they had finished testing the trainer that they found under the sink behind the kick board... and we know that it is March 2011 when CJ is freed from bail......
So how is it ok for him to put this property on the market on a coincidental date of 24th January 2011?? Thats 6 weeks before the 7th March 2011 ....
I thought CJ didn't go back to the property for weeks .... How has he got all of his property back from the Police and his Flat up for sale the day Dr Vincent Tabak's is in court???
When he said himself on video that the Police thought that he had colluded with Dr Vincent Tabak...
What does CJ know about this case.... leonora we need that 2nd witness statement, plus I believe we need another statement from CJ about how he managed to put his Flat up for sale by the 24th January 2011...!!!
The article clearly states before he was released from bail
The 66-year-old, who was arrested over the murder before being released on bail, put his first floor apartment in 44 Canynge Road, Clifton, Bristol up for sale six weeks ago.
I don't know about anyone else... but I am floored by this information ... That house is well off (IMO)... I don't quite know what it is at the moment, but i think it needs Investigating....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/news/8365548/Joanna-Yeates-murder-landlord-Chris-Jefferies-puts-Bristol-flat-on-the-market.html
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
From The Leveson Inquiry... CJ
From the period when I was released on bail on 1 January
2011 to when Vincent Tabak was arrested on suspicion of
murder on 22 January 2011, I was effectively under house
arCest. Within a few days of being released, 1 had to make
the decision to change my appearance, including cutting
short my hair and dying it brown.
Documents
referred to
During this time I only went out after dark to occasionally
walk my friends’ dog. I could not go out during the day for
fear of being recognised.
This was all a result of the media frenzy created about my
arrest.
After staying with friends in Bristol for a while, I moved on
to stay with friends elsewhere. The day after I changed
addresses, I walked down the road to my friend’s
neighbour to use their computer (my friend did not have
email access) and t recall someone turning around to look
at me sharply in the street.
The following day I received a
telephone call from the friend whom ~ had just left to say
that a number of reporters had turned up in the street.
Apparently they stayed for about 2 days although they did
not knowwhich house to survey. I assume the person I
saw in the street informed the newspapers of my
whereabouts.
It was not until 4 March 2011 that the Police lifted my bail
conditions and formally confirmed that I was no longer a
suspect.
However, I was not able to return to my home until April
2011, 3 months after my arrest; I had to wait for the Police
to release it to me and until the Police had officially
confirmed i was not a suspect so that it was safe to
return.
When I did go back to the house it was not in a
state to be lived in. Everything had been turned upside
down as part of the Police investigations.
All my clothes
had been removed and a number of other items had also
been taken which meant that I really only had the clothes I
had acquired since my release. When I returned to my
home I had to sort through and rearrange everything. The
period from 1 January 2011 to early April 2011 was the
most difficult and harrowing of my life.
So from my above post... If CJ flat was in such a state .. How did it end up on the market on the 24th January 2011, according to the Telegraph article...
CJ himself says he wasn't able to return to his address until April 2011..
However, 1 was not able to return to my home until April
2011,
So if he returns in April 2011, to a house that is upside down...
When I did go back to the house it was not in a
state to be lived in. Everything had been turned upside
down as part of the Police investigations.
How did the advert for the sale of the Property being spick and span appear on the property market????
Even if we say the 7th march 2011, it still should have been upside down, according to CJ's own statement to The Leveson!!
He even says he had to wait for the 'Police to release it to him....
However, I was not able to return to my home until April
2011, 3 months after my arrest; I had to wait for the Police
to release it to me and until the Police had officially
confirmed i was not a suspect so that it was safe to
return.
So how did this house end up on the Property market?????
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122175126/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Christopher-Jefferies.pdf
-
From The Leveson....
On or about 1 January 2011, Greg Reardon, Ms Yeates’
partner, issued a statement as a personal tribute to his
girlfriend, which contained the following:
"Jo’s life was cut short tragically but the finger-pointing
and character assassination by social and news media
of as yet innocent men has been shameful tt has made
me lose a tot of faith in the morality of the British press
and those who spend their time fixed to the internet in
this modem age.. ,I hope in the future they wilt show a
more sensitive and impartial view to those involved in
such heartbreaking events and especially in the lead-up
to potentially high-profile court cases"
The Financial Times says the same thing in their article on The 8th October 2011
The statement which I believe is the version CJ is referring too...It was made in The Guardian Newspaper... Sunday 2 January 2011 14.02 GMT
It was the Police whom issued the statement from Greg ....
In a statement released by police yesterday, Reardon said: "Jo's life was cut short tragically but the finger-pointing and character assassination by social and news media of as yet innocent men has been shameful. It has made me lose a lot of faith in the morality of the British press and those that spend their time fixed to the internet in this modern age.
"I hope in the future they will show a more sensitive and impartial view to those involved in such heartbreaking events and especially in the lead-up to potentially high-profile court cases."
Reardon's statement focused for the main part on Yeates, whom he described as "a beautiful woman, beautiful in mind, body and soul". He said he would always love her.
Yet this article does not cover what else was supposed to have been said in Greg Reardon's statement about his beautiful Girlfriend....
Why have the Police released a statement from Greg Reardon??
The Guardian refers to this statement being made by Greg the day before.. which was in The Telegraph... 3:45PM GMT 01 Jan 2011
But apparently referring to reports about murder suspect Chris Jefferies, the couple's landlord, he went on: "Jo's life was cut short tragically but the finger-pointing and character assassination by social and news media of as yet innocent men has been shameful."
Shouldn't it have been an Innocent Man.... And not men....
The statement released on The 1st January 2011 at 3:45pm was even before they released CJ on Bail....
From The Independent: Sunday 2 January 2011 00:00 GMT
The retired schoolteacher arrested in connection with the murder of Joanna Yeates was let go last night after being questioned by police for three days. Christopher Jefferies, 65, was released on police bail, pending further inquiries, more than 60 hours after his arrest on Thursday morning at his flat in the Clifton area of Bristol.
More than 60 hours is after 7:00pm on the Saturday night of 1st January 2011
It doesn't make sense... Why would The Police release a statement from Greg about CJ before he was released on bail?? For all Greg Reardon knew at that time CJ was their Prime Suspect as he was still in custody....
I wouldn't have looked for this article had CJ not mentioned this in The Leveson Inquiry..
Edit... Again I am not being funny, but Greg Reardon didn't know CJ well enough to make such a public statement about him, according to Greg Reardon's court testimony, he and Joanna Yeates had only moved in on the 25th October 2010... A little over 6 weeks is hardly long enough for him to get to know his landlord well enough to speak about him in such terms...
And why would you call a "Prime Suspect" in a Murder Inquiry as yet an Innocent men??
Odd very odd indeed.... I have lived on my street for over 15 years and would not make such a statement about my neighbours..
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jan/02/joanna-yeates-police-reassure-public
https://www.ft.com/content/22eac290-eee2-11e0-959a-00144feab49a?mhq5j=e7
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122175126/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Christopher-Jefferies.pdf
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8235055/Joanna-Yeates-was-stolen-from-us-say-family.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/joanna-murder-landlord-released-on-police-bail-2174155.html
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
With my above post relating to CJ's Flat being on the market we have one of possibly two options....
CJ says that he didn't return to his Flat for weeks and long after he was released from bail... Yet we have his Flat clearly for sale... CJ also said he didn't read the tabloids....
If CJ didn't put his Flat up for sale 24th January 2011, then it had to be a stunt by The Police ...(IMO)
CJ says in The Leveson Report that he didn't get his property returned until after he was released from bail... Well it can't of been him then... CJ also states that his property was in a state on his return... That too suggests that it cannot have been him...
We do not know how long this advert was on the market... we also do not know who told the Telegraph that it had been on the market for 6 weeks....
So if CJ didn't put his property on the market in January 2011, I think it possibly is the Polices doing... Which brings me back to the other 2 adverts for the renting of Flats 1 & 2 44,Canygne Road..
Why would CJ refurbish Dr Vincent Tabaks Flat??? ... You have to think about the timing of these sales/ rentals.... Was it the Polices attempt to find a different way to incriminate CJ....
Why would CJ refurbish Dr Vincent Tabak's flat.... If CJ couldn't afford Train Fare.. were was he getting the money to refurbish Flat 2??? Did flat 2 really get refurbished ???
If you look at the Sale advert and then you look at the Rent advert, they both happened on significant days .....
(1): The For Sale advert was 24th January 2011
(2): The For Rent advert of Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat was on The 4th May 2011
Now no-one knew that Dr Vincent Tabak was going to plead guilty to Manslaughter when he appeared at 'The Old Bailey" and even right up until the day, everyone thought it would be at Bristol Crown Court....
I think this plan with the Police backfired.... The date got changed at the last minute and it wasn't until the 5th May 2011 that Dr Vincent Tabak appeared at "The Old Bailey"..
CJ cannot possibly know when these 2 events in Dr Vincent Tabak's life would occur.... So I think it was the Police's advertisement, to imply something improper about CJ....
Now I want to continue this with Flat 1.... That advert has no date... But I put it to everyone that it was around similar times that Joanna Yeates flat had been put up for rent..... And this is where the important detail lie....
I am going to attach the poor images of Flat 1....
I am going to suggest that the pictures of Joanna Yeates flat are taken around the same sort of time frame.... And the interior as we see it is how Joanna Yeates Flat actually looked....
The advert for Joanna Yeates flat says unfurnished... Yet it is well and truly lived in... We can see that the blind works... We can see that the furniture actually fits the flat.... we can see The brown bean Bags... The very same Brown bean bags we seen behind Greg Reardons head on The Halloween picture.... (images attached )..
Another interesting point... these 2 images : One is for CJ's Flat .. The other for Dr Vincent Tabalk's flat, they are of the exterior of the building...
Images 4 and 5
They are identical.... Now if CJ didn't put his Flat on The market... How would they selling agent use the same exterior shot for both properties ???? Why not a rear view of Dr Vincent Tabak's flat showing the garden???
When we come to Joanna Yeates exterior shot we get a slightly different image....Image 6... The Shutters on the ground/first floor of the building are closed... Now the only time I remember these shutters being closed was when the Police were there and CJ was in custody...
When where the images for this advert taken??? When did this advert for the property appear??
I do think this is a real possibility this was how Joanna Yeates flat actually looked ... Who takes a photograph of a kitchen sink with dishes on the drainer, when you are renting a property??
Also, why would a tenant let a landord into their home to advertise it for rent when their tenancy wouldn't be up???
They would make him wait until after they had vacated the property... If this property had been up for rent prior when Joanna Yeates rented it, I believe the stock photographs would have shown an empty flat.... The advert says unfurnished.... So why show a lived in property???
These adverts just throw up more questions... But you either have to think that CJ lied to The Leveson Inquiry Or The Police had some involvement with the advertising of these flats....
Which one will you choose ?????
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-27696067.html (Flat 1)
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-29859883.html (Flat 2)
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-29702791.html (CJ's)
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I agree, it is weird. I can't see how CJ would have been able to put his flat up for sale in January 2011.
Unless it was not CJ's flat that was up for sale, but that of someone else who lived on the first floor, and the newspapers got it wrong!
-
I agree, it is weird. I can't see how CJ would have been able to put his flat up for sale in January 2011.
Unless it was not CJ's flat that was up for sale, but that of someone else who lived on the first floor, and the newspapers got it wrong!
CJ's Flat is advertised twice... In January 2011 and on the 16th April 2011.... Was the 16th April 2011 or round about that time significant for Dr Vincent Tabak??? Did he appear at court in at this time for any hearings ???
I want to go back to this that was in the paper on the 1st January 2011 at 3:45pm, before CJ was released from custody.... From the Telegraph....
But apparently referring to reports about murder suspect Chris Jefferies, the couple's landlord, he went on: "Jo's life was cut short tragically but the finger-pointing and character assassination by social and news media of as yet innocent men has been shameful."
It's the bit that says.... Innocent Men
I do not think this was something that Greg Reardon said... Why would he say his Landlord is Innocent when he had been arrested on suspicion of Murdering his Girlfriend??? He wouldn't (IMO)...
Again I believe that it is something that the Police had manufactured....
Innocent Men... That doesn't make sense.....
But it does if you think that a lot of what was prepared for the media was done in advance....
This from Channel 4 on 31st December 2010:
Police have said they are not investigating links between Joanna Yeates’s death and the unsolved murder of Glenis Carruthers who was found strangled outside Bristol Zoo in January 1974.
Everyone knew that Hardyman another resident of 44, Canygne Road was connected to that case by being at the party I believe...
We then have .... From The Telegraph on the 31st December 2010 10:28pm
They spent more than an hour speaking to the owner of the property, Peter Stanley, and his tenant, Laurence Penney, 41, and later left carrying a small number of items in a brown forensic bag.
We have the story that Peter from The Telegraph on 30th December 2010
“Chris went next door and asked his neighbour Peter Stanley for some jump leads. Peter has an American jeep and is rather mechanical minded. They managed to get the car started and off Greg went.”
I believe the Police expected loads of speculation about Peter Stanley helping CJ and 44, Canygne Roads loose connection to Glenis Caruthers..
In reality.. It should have been rife.. On social media maybe.. But In the Newspapers "NO".. They concentrated on CJ...
So if you look at the statement made on the 1st January 2011 saying:.. but the finger-pointing and character assassination by social and news media of as yet innocent men has been shameful."
Then the talk of Innocent Men makes sense...
Greg Reardon did not say those words ..(IMO).... Why would he contemplate such a statement when it has been 7 days since the body of his Murdered Girlfriend was discovered on Longwood Lane ...
He is not going to get involved with such statements... (IMO)... He Certainly at that time would not know if CJ was Innocent or not... seeing as the statement was released whilst CJ was in custody being questioned....
And as far as anyone was concerned at that time... The Police had got there man..... Then why would Greg be jumping to The Defence of CJ at this time???
Another reason I believe it was prepared by the Police is that it is not until the 5th january 2011 that they talk about killers in the plural...
This from The Telegraph 6:54AM GMT 05 Jan 2011
Police admit that they do not know where or when Miss Yeates was murdered and have not ruled out multiple killers.
Why would Greg Reardon be talking of Innocent Men when only the Police knew that they were looking at the possibility of more than 1 killer on the 1st January 2011??
I believe that the statement made in Greg Reardon's name .. was a complete fabrication by The Police ....(IMO)...
https://www.channel4.com/news/joanna-yeates-murder-landlord-still-being-questioned
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8232573/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Christopher-Jefferies-helped-fix-car-for-boyfriends-trip-away.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8240260/Joanna-Yeates-murder-architect-told-friends-she-would-be-alone.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8235055/Joanna-Yeates-was-stolen-from-us-say-family.html
-
I agree, it is weird. I can't see how CJ would have been able to put his flat up for sale in January 2011.
Unless it was not CJ's flat that was up for sale, but that of someone else who lived on the first floor, and the newspapers got it wrong!
I don't think anyone else sold their Flat around that time, and CJ didn't get his property released to him until after he was released from Police bail in March 2011...
The other properties in the building are owned.. The same owners still own those properties.. So they cannot have put their properties up for sale... The image that leonora put up of the name plate outside the Main Door of 44, Canygne Road is testament to that....
If you click on the link for companies house there is no change of Directorship by August 2011
We still have
Denise Spence
CJ
Peter Rendle
Maria Clark
Geoffrey Hardyman
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/02526918/filing-history
-
Nigel Lickley
Nigel Lickley is the one.... He is the person who indicated that Dr Vincent Tabak was even more unsavoury after the trial.
With every person who followed this trial waiting to see what would be said at the press conference, Nigel Lickley got the boot in before and allowed everyones imagination to run wild...
But Nigel Lickley QC, prosecuting, told the court it was necessary for Tabak to be questioned about other matters, speaking cryptically to prevent the full details being disclosed to the jury.
Extremely cryptic... That's the point... they poison every man, woman, and child with the idea that Dr Vincent Tabak, solicited prostitutes and watch porn, when this evidence was never brought to trial... The Prostitutes were never spoken too... DCI Joe Goff says that, they never got around to contacting these ladies...
But the damage is already done... Nigel Lickley has told a packed court room, of Dr Vincent Tabak's supposed habits
and with the national demanding Justice for Joanna Yeates Murder, he played his fiddle to perfection..
Slight of hand.... smoke and mirrors... we were not looking... Frankly nobody was interested, they were happy for the details that were given to the media in relation to the porn.... This kept the public satisfied that a monster was behind bars... And justified the sentence he was given, in many people minds..
But we missed what Nigel Lickley meant... and were were meant to miss it... with media reports such as this..
Jurors were not told how videos found on Tabak’s laptops had chilling parallels with the way he killed landscape architect Joanna. His pornography depicted blonde women being throttled during sex or bundled into car boots.
However, Avon and Somerset Police have not confirmed what Tabak might be questioned about.
It only kept the public guessing....
Nigel Lickley says that it was necessary to talk to Dr Vincent Tabak on other matters... So after poisoning our minds as to what Dr Vincent Tabak's sexual preferences were purported to be , people just assumed that it was sex related.. And Nigel Lickley wanted us all to think that.... It had worked like a charm..
Within days the talk of child porn, flooded the media, the task was complete... People felt justified in their opinions that Dr Vincent Tabak was a revolting man who had an obsession with strangulation porn, had Murdered Joanna Yeates and now his depravity shows no bounds, he is also into child porn...
Case closed... lets throw away the key... no-one will look twice at a paedophile... no one will put there head above the wall in fear of loosing it... This cemented Dr Vincent Tabak's fate completely... I believe this was the final nail in Dr Vincent Tabak's coffin as far as the public were concerned, and they would never look back to see if a injustice had been done....
Articles in newspapers are skimmed by us all... we miss the finer detail, most are not bothered, by the finer detail, they are satisfied that the juicy gossip has added to their belief that Dr Vincent Tabak is a "Monster"...!!!
So why do I know that Nigel Lickley deliberately mislead the public... Because in the same article we have this from DCI Phil Jones.
At a press conference on Friday Det Chief Insp Phil Jones, who led the investigation said there was no indication that Tabak is linked to any other offences.
Those few little words... No indication that Tabak is linked to ANY OTHER OFFENCES
This article is written on 09:25, 30 OCT 2011 ( Friday being 28th October 2011)
It is not until 1st November 2011 when they have had the whole weekend to think about it that the child porn is mentioned in the papers....
Hold your horses lets go back.... No indication that Tabak is linked to ANY OTHER OFFENCES So DCI Phil Jones at this point washes his hands of this sordid affair... He has states that Dr Vincent Tabak is NOT LINKED TO ANY OTHER OFFENCES.... yet, we have the child porn suddenly thrown into the arena.....
We need to go back to Nigel Lickley... But Nigel Lickley QC, prosecuting, told the court it was necessary for Tabak to be questioned about other matters,
Well the other matters could NOT have been The Child Porn... that was the beauty of how he conveyed his message... The minute the child porn was dished up everyone looked away....
Some of us here have long thought that another agenda was in play, but what that agenda is we do not know as yet... The use of Court Room 2 at The Old Bailey, a special court room for Terrorists and The like, was used for Dr Vincent Tabak's apparent admission to manslaughter... The evidence that doesn't support Dr Vincent Tabak being the perpetrator (IMO)...
The Twin Track Investigation taking place.. The Complex Crime Units Involvement from start to finish... What was it that they were trying to connect Dr Vincent Tabak too??? What did he know... And i do not think it had anything to do with him Murdering Joanna Yeates ... or any type of porn....
Why were they looking at Dr Vincent Tabak since late December 2010, when there was No indication at that time of his involvement with Joanna Yeates murder... He was away whilst she was still Missing... he stayed away till the 2nd January 2011 visiting both Tanja's and his own family for the Christmas period...
What was Ann Reddrop actually looking at...at this time ...?? Maybe it was more to do with what Joanna yeates knew ?? I don't know... But it took them over 4 years to take Dr Vincent Tabak to court over the Child Porn, which if so many children were being exploited by Dr Vincent Tabak, they would have moved a lot sooner...
I believe they wanted to make sure no-one would want to touch him with a barge pole .. No -one would want to associate themselves with a paedophile... And it works... everyone runs away...
What information... or what was it... that Dr Vincent Tabak knew or that they felt he knew, that they needed to put him away for Joanna Yeates murder for over 20 years... It has to be of some importance... But I cannot imagine what it could be ....
Why have they all gone to such great lengths???
Nigel what Other matter did you need to speak to Dr Vincent Tabak about??? Because i know it was nothing to do with Child porn!!!
And in the words of DCI Phil Jones... No indication that Tabak is linked to any other offences clearly telling us that "The Child Porn was made up...!!
So who invented the child Porn ??? Come on hold your hands up don't be shy... You were happy to tell the world this untruth .. So i think it's time we find out what really happened in this case ....(IMO)....
http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/court-hears-vincent-tabaks-visit-1406422
-
The Intercom System
We know Joanna Yeates had one.... Question is , why did they remove the Panel for it on 29th December 2010???
Is there more to this system than meets the eye??
(http://legacymedia.localworld.co.uk/275775/Article/images/13540011/3247412.png)
This system doesn't even get a mention... I think the only person who has mentioned it is me....
What type of system was it??
It's a tiny little Flat.. yet it has this system fitted... The door is yards from the front room , There's even a spy hole... So why is this system installed??
Is it connected to the main house ???
Most Intercoms systems can release the door lock.... And we know that they changed the Yale lock fitting... But the lower lock we do not know much about....
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/01/06/article-1344610-0C99CD95000005DC-914_306x423.jpg)
Did Joanna Yeates Intercom system release the door lock?? Did Joanna yeates know who was at the door and let them in???
If they are saying she arrived home,.. which I am not 100 percent convinced of,.. then did she let someone in using the intercom system??
They wouldn't therefore need the keys to lock the door behind them....
Going back to CJ's Documentary... and before we get excited i know it actors... But when the guy who plays CJ goes around to Dr Vincent Tabak Flat... He knocks on the door... Why didn't he use the Intercom?? It's there to the left of the door...
What is the purpose of this intercom on both flats?? When Joanna Yeates has a spy hole and Dr Vincent Tabak's front door has glass panels??
So I believe it is possible, that the Intercom system released the door lock... Giving a killer access to the flat without any forced entry...
Think about it.... all the door furniture is Brass... yet the lower lock isn't, it's the same colour as the Intercom Panel...
If we think about everyone else in the main building.. I don't believe that they walk from the top floor to open the main door.... I believe they too have an intercom system that releases the lock to the main door....
I don't know enough about intercom systems... but someone must....
It's an interesting proposal I would say....
Edit... The Intercom System must do something other than say who's at the door.... why else is there a Brass Door Knock there?????
-
This look very similar to the system that Joanna Yeates and Dr Vincent Tabak had installed on their flats ...
(https://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Images/Products/size_3/DE902.JPG)
I am more than sure that the system on Joanna Yeates door was a door release system....!!! That was why they removed the panel.....(IMO)...!!!!!
https://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Products/DE902.html?source=adwords&ad_position=1o3&ad_id=45425533757&placement=&kw=&network=g&matchtype=&ad_type=pla&product_id=DE902&product_partition_id=174054132067&test=finalurl_v2&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI7Yypq6TX1gIV0jLTCh2iuQ9vEAQYAyABEgLIR_D_BwE
-
Did this system have a trade entry added ???
Trade Facility including TS2000 time clock for 900 series audio kits
Trade Facility for SPA panels - ONLY
This should only be ordered with a 900 series kit or an SPA panel. The TR900 is the additional cost of an extra push button on the panel and the time clock. If you only require the TS2000 time clock, Click Here.
This product is ordered when including a tradesman button for the 900 series of Bell's audio panels. A tradesman button is used to gain direct access to, for example, a delivery area, or simply to call for access.
The included automatically adjusting time-clock is easy to program and will adjust to European or British time settings once programmed. The timer uses a supply voltage of 12 V AC/DC. It is commonly used in conjunction with a tradesman button for a door entry panel to set specific access times.
Features:
15 repeat options: day, week, weekend, odd weekdays etc
Automatic European time adjustment
Quartz crystal timing with reserve
Daily and weekly programs.
7 day programming
Manual override
8 on/off periods
LCD display
Technical Data:
12V AC/DC operating voltage
Switching capacity 10A/30V DC
Dimensions: 98 (H) x 66 (W) x 40 (D) mm
For more information, please visit this product's webpage.
Is that what it was... Tradesmen had access to these Flats... people were at work... Did the System have a timer on it to allow someone in????
Is it the timer that is in the little cupboard in the kitchen??
If this is the case... It would make sense why the article about The Ikea delivery guys happened How did they access Joanna Yeates property to deliver her furniture ?????
https://doorentrydirect.com/bell-tr900
-
This is possibly one of the most astute observations so far. If someone outside had a delivery letting them into the hallway might just be a reflex action, the door to the flat being the accepted barrier as another “front” door. You can almost see it happening, what other choice is there?
If Yeates had been followed home, it could have been less than a minute, and that accounts for why her phone was still in her coat pocket.
Very interesting input this, very interesting indeed.
-
Hadn't the plumber been to the Flat on the Thursday also?????
-
I was trying to adjust a post and i got this ....
We have noticed an unusual activity from your IP ********* and blocked access to this website.
Please confirm that you are not a robot
-
Is that the real reason that Joanna Yeates didn't stay at The Ram with her friends that evening... They said she left at 8:00pm every friday night ... But then said it was to go and see her boyfriend, normally...
But that weekend Greg was away...
I thought it odd her work colleagues saying that.... seeing as they lived together and couldn't imagine an active person like Greg sat at home waiting for her... maybe they both normally did different things on a Friday night till 8:00pm... Greg knew them all at the Office... he worked there ....
If the door was put on a timer then Joanna Yeates would need to be home for a certain time....
Thinking about it , it is a possibility... 30 minutes to get home, but she detoured...
Didn't Greg arrive home on the Sunday Evening around 8:30pm.... Maybe that was to do with the lock timer...
I wondered why he knew the time he arrived home ...... He wouldn't forget if the lock was on a timer....!!!!
Edit.... Is this the reason that the Police concentrated on THAT building... believing someone would know that you could put the lock on a timer??? And maybe they were privvy to that info???
Double Edit... The Tesco's CCTV.... The one with the dodgy time stamp... We do not know what time Joanna Yeates went into Tesco's.. The timestamp has been fiddled with... But the original Missing posters of her last known sighting were earlier... Was Joanna Yeates home by 8:30pm?? did she forget about the timer??? Didn't she reply to one of the texts saying she was at home on her tod
I still think it can't have been Dr Vincent Tabak letting himself in with this timer system... They would have mentioned it at trial...(IMO)
-
The last sighting of Joanna Yeates originally was in "The Ram Pub".... everything else came later...
(http://images2.corriereobjects.it/methode_image/2017/08/04/Interni/Foto%20Gallery/4%20joanna-yeates-poster_MGTHUMB-INTERNA.jpg)
This is before it is called "Operation Braid"
Anyone who has seen her or knows of her whereabouts is asked to call the Police on 0845 456 700 or the Bristol CID on 0117 9455355
The Tesco's reciept was the first thing that was found... But no mention of it here ....
-
I have pointed out the red stickers on the wall in the hallway, that are at the exact same height and distance, it looks like something has been removed rather than that they are Forensic marks...
With me talking about The Access system for Joanna Yeates Flat... and AH... saying that it would be possibly seperate and a place to leave parcels etc...
Did the end of the hallway where these marks are have some kind of Braid System
BRAID
A special braid holds the roller door together at each end, preventing sideways slat travel. This means that a potential thief cannot break in through attempting to slide out slats.
This braid is fixed to both ends on the reverse of the door and the guides are brush lined. Not only do these two very important features help to prevent slats becoming scratched as they roll up and down, they also ensure smoother, quieter operation. The braid also separates one surface of the slat from another, eliminating thousands of hairline abrasions. The surface of our doors therefore stays in pristine condition.
Some other type of internal door ?? I'm not saying roller blind... But Braid Is the Operative word in this case !!!
http://www.progressive-systems.co.uk/products/roller-garage-doors/key-features.aspx
-
From very early on in the Investigation .. They have the Forensic Officers doing Forensic work on the windows... They always say that there was no forced entry...
With there omission of This Tradesmens Access with the Intercom System Bell (BSTL) / Model: 906 plus a TR900 timer kit that would go with it...
Where the Police deliberately misleading the public that the only way to enter Joanna Yeates front door was if someone had a key.. Or she opened it for them....
Because I now believe that there is certainly another form of access to Flat 1
-
If Joanna Yeates flat was supposed to be a time capsule... Why are there no bottles of beer in the kitchen???
I have an image of what appears to be possibly a bottle of wine you can see through the kitchen window ...
Does that bottle go with the Tattinger Reims Cork that is in the front room????
-
If Joanna Yeates flat was supposed to be a time capsule... Why are there no bottles of beer in the kitchen???
I have an image of what appears to be possibly a bottle of wine you can see through the kitchen window ...
Does that bottle go with the Tattinger Reims Cork that is in the front room????
I know they said the flat was a time capsule, but how could it have been, as Greg was still living there after Joanna went missing. He came home and tidied up; also Joanna's parents were there. In addition, by the time the jury visited the flat, Greg had moved all his belongings out, the forensic team had been in, etc etc.
We cannot know what the flat looked like at the time of Joanna's disappearance.
-
I know they said the flat was a time capsule, but how could it have been, as Greg was still living there after Joanna went missing. He came home and tidied up; also Joanna's parents were there. In addition, by the time the jury visited the flat, Greg had moved all his belongings out, the forensic team had been in, etc etc.
We cannot know what the flat looked like at the time of Joanna's disappearance.
As far as I can remember Greg R spent just the one night at the flat, Mr & Mrs Yeates were in a local hotel. It is assumed that Greg R went to a friend's house to stay at.
One thing we can be sure of is that the jury didn't see what we see, a blackened bathroom and a flat not decked out for Christmas.
-
As far as I can remember Greg R spent just the one night at the flat, Mr & Mrs Yeates were in a local hotel. It is assumed that Greg R went to a friend's house to stay at.
One thing we can be sure of is that the jury didn't see what we see, a blackened bathroom and a flat not decked out for Christmas.
How was Greg allowed to stay in the flat? That crazy... If that was supposed to be the crime scene, then it was well and truly contaminated...
The Police reacted straight away to Greg,s phone call apparently..... If they saw it as that serious why leave him in the flat? Did the Yeates contact anyone?
The flats supposed Christmas decor is wrong... that's obvious.. The Christmas tree with presents around it is missing for starters...
Nina how do you know Greg was allowed to stay at the flat?
-
How was Greg allowed to stay in the flat? That crazy... If that was supposed to be the crime scene, then it was well and truly contaminated...
The Police reacted straight away to Greg,s phone call apparently..... If they saw it as that serious why leave him in the flat? Did the Yeates contact anyone?
The flats supposed Christmas decor is wrong... that's obvious.. The Christmas tree with presents around it is missing for starters...
Nina how do you know Greg was allowed to stay at the flat?
Well put it this way, if Greg R 'phoned the police at approx. 1 am'ish, also that the parents were there, the police asking all their questions which must have taken some time. Then they knocked VT plus girlfriend awake and talked to them. They also (from rumour) knocked up the rest of the house.
You have Mrs Yeates setting off car alarms, looking for her daughter and most of the neighbourhood awake. So when I said that Greg R spent one night at the flat, it was probably about 6'ish by the time things were dying down a bit. So I suppose technically he didn't spend a night there after Joanna went missing, but he was there on his feet not sleeping.
Yes I agree that what's been posted on the web of images of Flat 1 was not what the jury saw. If it was, what was the point of them going there? Apart from a bit of police PR.
-
This is possibly one of the most astute observations so far. If someone outside had a delivery letting them into the hallway might just be a reflex action, the door to the flat being the accepted barrier as another “front” door. You can almost see it happening, what other choice is there?
If Yeates had been followed home, it could have been less than a minute, and that accounts for why her phone was still in her coat pocket.
Very interesting input this, very interesting indeed.
Gosh you couldn't even get food delivered on that night AH, it was -4 and snowing, heavily later on. Quite honestly the idea that Ikea might have been delivering, no way IMO.
Her phone might have still been in her coat pocket, but she had the time to change socks, put on the oven and tv.
-
Yes I agree that what's been posted on the web of images of Flat 1 was not what the jury saw. If it was, what was the point of them going there? Apart from a bit of police PR.
So the fact that the Flat is staged isn't a problem???
How legally can they stage a Flat when it's supposed to be the crime scene... A powerful tool for a jury to consider the evidence that has been put before them...
Nice that you agree on some levels...
Ikea didn't deliver in December Nina I believe it was 5 weeks before she disappeared that they delivered...
The second, on 17 January, concerned the fact that two delivery men working for Ikea were to be questioned by police. Again, detectives were astonished by its publication.
TWO IKEA delivery men are set to be quizzed by cops investigating the murder
of Joanna Yeates, it was revealed yesterday.
Detectives will speak to the pair this week after discovering Jo, 25, received
a purchase from the Swedish home store the month before she was killed.
IKEA vehicles have tracking devices and it is believed data logs confirmed the
two men had been at Jo’s flat around 2.43pm on November 9.
It is understood they are to be questioned as a matter of routine and police
said there had been no further arrests.
A source said: “These two men came to the attention of police because they’d
made a delivery to Jo’s flat on November 9.
“Detectives must have found a receipt or perhaps an email on Jo’s computer
confirming the delivery. They checked the vehicle records and found that
these were the two who did the job on the day.”
Her phone records should have shown her delivery slot....
I cannot imagine Jo and Greg being off work to receive the delivery... They must have used the "Tradesman Entry" on the Access Panel... or maybe they did have a "Key Box"... The delivery times from Ikea can be anywhere from 7:00am to 6:00pm with a 4 hour time slot for truck deliveries.
I have a question.... Do you think that there might have been someone within the Police not happy with how things were going???
The Ikea delivery is not relevant at the time it is released.. We already know that they are about to arrest Dr Vincent Tabak.. So why was this story leaked ??
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/312830/joanna-ikea-pair-in-police-quiz/
https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2012/mar/16/sun-joanna-yeates
-
So the fact that the Flat is staged isn't a problem???
How legally can they stage a Flat when it's supposed to be the crime scene... A powerful tool for a jury to consider the evidence that has been put before them...
Nice that you agree on some levels...
Ikea didn't deliver in December Nina I believe it was 5 weeks before she disappeared that they delivered...
Her phone records should have shown her delivery slot....
I cannot imagine Jo and Greg being off work to receive the delivery... They must have used the "Tradesman Entry" on the Access Panel... or maybe they did have a "Key Box"... The delivery times from Ikea can be anywhere from 7:00am to 6:00pm with a 4 hour time slot for truck deliveries.
I have a question.... Do you think that there might have been someone within the Police not happy with how things were going???
The Ikea delivery is not relevant at the time it is released.. We already know that they are about to arrest Dr Vincent Tabak.. So why was this story leaked ??
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/312830/joanna-ikea-pair-in-police-quiz/
https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2012/mar/16/sun-joanna-yeates
Ah thanks for putting me right re: Ikea Nine and my apologies to AH. I had totally read/skimmed the subject.
I'm sure that a few of the police must have been feeling uneasy, after Chris Jefferies was arrested, it would have been very clear immediately that the man was eccentric looking, but not a murderer. Just MO.
-
ok... why was my post removed.... Did I show you the evidence you needed???? in fact 2 posts...
-
Just look at what I have attached .... You'll need to click on the images to see it properly..
Ive done more... The second image shows more....
-
Don't think there's architrave around the windows... look at the kitchen window.. The reveals are plastered... no architrave.. the other windows look the same ... I have attached kitchen window ....
-
But if you believe it is a window..... Then it's the bay window... There are no curtains visible.. But you can see the reveals ...
Edit....But you still would have the problem of what looks like a door that is open... Because I cannot see any shutters in the reveals of the bay window ....
Image attached an circled .....
-
Going back to the image of what is supposed to be the window of Dr Vincent Tabaks....
(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/1234866.main_image.jpg?strip=all)
Now... How did they manage this image ????
Look at the window casing ..... They are flush.... you can see the sash windows .... who allowed the media in at this time ????
If Dr Vincent Tabak had not been there since around the 24th December 2010... How comes there a bunch of fresh daffodils in a vase in the window ....
This is from the article in the sun... its on the 22nd January 2011....
Even the image of Dr Vincent Tabak in the garden isn't taken at Canygne road.... the pavement in front of him doesn't go into the garden at Canygne Road... but it does on this image ..
(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/1234867.main_image.jpg?strip=all)
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/324139/weeping-girl-tipped-off-jo-police/
-
That report from the Sun contains at least two inaccuracies: it is not true that VT went off to Holland for Christmas two days after Joanna went missing, and there is no evidence that he and Joanna knew each other, or had ever worked together. If they had, I'm sure that would have come out in court, as it would have bolstered the prosecution's case.
As for the pictures, if the baby is a relative of VT's, they were probably taken in Holland. In any case, there is no reason to think they were taken in Canynge Road.
-
I posted from the trial that Rebecca Scott had been communicating with Joanna Yeates via Facebook on her way home.. Then Joanna Yeates had called her...
Rebecca Scott, a PHD student described as Miss Yeates' best friend, told the jury Miss Yeates and Mr Reardon were "the perfect couple".
Miss Scott said she had been conversing with Miss Yeates via social networking website Facebook, and they had arranged to meet on Christmas Eve in Romsey, Hampshire, where both their parents lived.It was at 8.13pm on December 17, Miss Scott said, when Miss Yeates called her and said how she would like to see her in Swansea.
Miss Scott said the winter snow had left buses and trains cancelled, and she was staying in that night.
She told the court: "We had a laugh and a joke about the previous time we had seen each other.
Originally Rebecca Scott had said that they talked about Christmas when Joanna Yeates had phoned her... But I hadn't ,until i read about the facebook communication, even considered that Joanna Yeates phone had that capability... So in essence they had talked that night about Christmas... But it was via Facebook...
8.30pm: She used her mobile phone to ring her best friend Rebecca Scott and arranged to meet on Christmas Eve.
Now i do remember writing about the other text message that she sent to "Mathew Wood"... and how he had said it was odd that he had recieved a text message from Joanna Yeates and she ordinarily contacted him via facebook...
Soon afterwards she would have passed the row of pubs and bars known as the Clifton Triangle where Mr Wood was attending his work Christmas party.
Mr Wood, who knew Miss Yeates through her older brother Chris, said he did not see the message until 9.20pm when he replied, telling her he was ‘busy’ at the party.
Why didn't the fact that Joanna yeates sent Mathew Wood a text rather than contact him through facebook cause concern??
I hadn't realised that Rebecca Scott had been contacted by Joanna Yeates via facebook on her way home until I read it from the trial.... So Joanna Yeates phone had the ability to do Facebook... yet she does something out of the ordinary and sends Mathew Wood a text message...!!!!
Mr Wood said it was rare for him and Miss Yeates to contact each other by text message as they usually communicated by Facebook.
Why didn't this cause concern???
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/joanna-yeates-murder-trial-victim-274748
http://archive.li/txs8x
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1345938/Joanna-Yeates-murder-The-final-text-friend-replied-late.html#ixzz4uiCbN2zB
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8230065/Joanna-Yeates-murder-timeline.html
-
I think Joanna Yeates was possibly redressed.....
I'll set out why I believe this......
I'll start with Dr Carey.....
2:31 PM - 21 Oct 2011Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
Dr Carey agrees that marks on Joanna's wrists were caused by them being gripped.
Then goes on further to say:
Dr Carey says it is very difficult to redress a dead body.
We also remember Dr delaney
There were apparent blood stains on her flower patterned pink top but no signs of injuries to her genitalia, Dr Delaney said.
Now I want to add something else ...
When Joanna Yeates was found she was wearing....
She had been wearing a chunky white watch with a silver necklace and pendant.
Now I starting thinking if this watch had stopped at a particular time and trying to work things out that way.... Then it dawned on me....
How could Joanna Yeates have grab marks on both wrists if she was wearing this chunky white watch... we can see it in the images of her in The Ram...
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ksb2-G5gTXc/UOfpXCsl3EI/AAAAAAAAAXA/b34mcg4ARms/s200/Joanna%2BYeates%2Bin%2BBristol%2BRam.JPG)
The image is small but you can see the watch clearly on her left wrist on this image....
So back to Joanna Yeates wrists being grabbed!! How did Joanna Yeates have grab marks on both wrists??????
This suggests that she didn't have her watch on at the time just before her death....(IMO)
Also why is Dr Carey dropping in the redressed idea, if it is not relevant....
If Joanna Yeates didn't change her own clothes, it suggests that someone else did... Her wearing a different outfit from the one in the pub and her watch having been replaced ...(IMO)..
So who killed Joanna Yeates??? Because I still don't believe that it was Dr Vincent Tabak!!!!
Edit...
2:17 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Dr Delaney says marks on #Joannayeates arms are consistent with 'grip marks from finger tip pressure'
Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
No suggestion says Delaney that wrists were bound but there were grip marks
If Dr Delaney describes finger tip pressure on Joanna Yeates wrists.. There could not have been a watch on her wrist at the time someone grabbed them.... That watch is very broad....(IMO)...
Please wait for the livenews to load.. it takes a while ...
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/joanna-yeates-killer-cries-in-dock-274852
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/killer-weeps-over-images-of-joanna-yeates-body-2370602.html
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg425334#msg425334
http://live-news.sky.com/Event/Live_Updates_Tabak_Cross-Examination?Page=2
http://live-news.sky.com/Event/Live_Updates_Tabak_Cross-Examination?Page=0
-
Post-mortem examination pictures showed her lying on her right side with her jeans still intact but her pink top pulled up over her head, exposing her navel and her grey bra.
I have said before that people who cover someones head after they have killed them tend to know the victim....
With the above post suggesting that Joanna yeates was redressed and her watch replaced on her wrist.. That too suggests that it was someone who knew her.... They would have to know she always wore the watch and was last seen with it on....(IMO)...
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/joanna-yeates-killer-cries-in-dock-274852
-
2:17 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Dr Delaney says marks on #Joannayeates arms are consistent with 'grip marks from finger tip pressure'
These marks were never really explained how they related to Dr Vincent Tabak...
If they were finger tip marks, where there any nail marks... where these finger tip marks the same size as Dr Vincent Tabaks finger tips... Did Dr Vincent Tabak have nails ???
There were many probing questions that the Defence failed to ask.... (IMO)...
Question... Was the killer a nail biter ????
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8057.msg416851;topicseen#msg416851
Staying with the idea that she was redressed...
The above link is the tweets regards Dr Carey....
Now in that post i had a theory on how there must have been two killers... DCI Phil Jones and Ann Reddrop have talked of killers...
If Joanna Yeates ankles and wrists were grabbed to carry her.. there has to be 2 people.... If she was redressed, which is a posibility I would say that was also 2 people...
Dr Carey talks of how difficult it is to redress a dead body... Is he trying to say that she was redressed ????
Morticians redress dead people... It is not that impossible... And if other signs are that there were two killers... maybe Joanna Yeates had been redressed... Another reason for Ann Reddrop to insist that this was a deliberate act....
Because Ann Reddrop had to know more than she let us all know... for her not to accept Dr Vincent Tabak's apparent Manslaughter Plea...
At that stage they didn't have any written statement from Dr Vincent Tabak to say how events unfolded... So there had to be Forensic Evidence to suggest that 2 people carried out this crime... And if Joanna Yeates had been redressed as I have suggested... with the knowledge that both her wrists had finger tip marks on them, then that shows her watch was replaced on her wrist afterwards...
Ann Reddrop didn't bring anything to court that supported here belief that Dr Vincent Tabak deliberatly and intentionally meant to kill Joanna Yeates there was NO motive to support this either...
What did Ann Reddrop know that she completely ignored by the time Dr Vincent Tabak was on the stand in October 2011??
-
Going back to the adverts... sorry but my hubby just gave me some interesting info... (very rare)
Flat 2
Full description
We are pleased to offer this newly refurbished lower ground floor flat in this imposing period property located on one of Clifton s most sought after residential roads. The flat offers two well proportioned double bedrooms, a very spacious living/dining room with a bay window and feature fireplace, a newly installed bathroom with a shower over the bath, galley style kicthen and an adjoining utility room with the appliances. The flat is newly carpeted and decorated throughout, is offered on an unfurnished basis and further benefits from use of the rear garden and an allocated off street parking space.
Flat 1
Full description
Lovely 1 BEDROOM FLAT on one of the most DESIRABLE ROADS in CLIFTON. Situated on the ground floor of this MAGNIFICENT HOUSE this flat benefits from its OWN ENTRANCE and a SMALL PATIO in front of the living room. The living room is light and airy and has a separate dining area. The kitchen and bathroom are modern and there is a large bedroom. This flat comes with the bonus of an ALLOCATED PARKING SPACE.
The difference wasn't obvious to start with... But then it is staring me in the face.... Flat 1 has it own entrance... Flat 2 doesn't have it's own entrance....
But more importantly where is the Emergency Exit from this block of Flats... the poor sod at the top of the building only having the main entrance to be evacuated from... I don't think so... CJ wouldn't be able to rent these properties if they didn't have a fire exit....(IMO)...
So is the Glass panelled door the back fire exit for the building???????
I do not believe it is Dr Vincent Tabak's door to his flat... He may use it i don't know...... But I believe so can anyone in that building....
The configuration of that building is different to what we have been lead to believe.. I am almost positive about that ....
So if Dr Vincent Tabak didn't have a seperate entrance.. why would he risk moving a body into his flat??? why didn't he just drive his car to the side of the building and put her in his car???
Is the back entrance where all the deliveries get made ???? Is that the Trades Mans Entrance????
Because I do not believe that it what they said it was ...Dr Vincent Tabak own private entrance to his Flat...(IMO)
Which having seen all of the news clips from early on when they showed what we believed to be Dr Vincent Tabak's door... I can now understand why the media got access to the back of the building around the 22nd/23rd December 2010... It didn't make sense before... but it does now....
The Glass panelled back door is a trades mans entrance and Fire Escape......
IMO..
And if that is the case.... Anyone from that building could have gone past Joanna Yeates kitchen window ......
Edit..... So does that mean that the room with the bay window was actually Joanna Yeates, and she could also get to the Fire Exit at the back of the property???
Double Edit... The advert still doesn't say that Flat 2 has it's OWN ENTRANCE!!!!!!
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-29859883.html
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-27696067.html
-
Going back to the adverts... sorry but my hubby just gave me some interesting info... (very rare)
Flat 2
Flat 1
The difference wasn't obvious to start with... But then it is staring me in the face.... Flat 1 has it own entrance... Flat 2 doesn't have it's own entrance....
But more importantly where is the Emergency Exit from this block of Flats... the poor sod at the top of the building only having the main entrance to be evacuated from... I don't think so... CJ wouldn't be able to rent these properties if they didn't have a fire exit....(IMO)...
So is the Glass panelled door the back fire exit for the building???????
I do not believe it is Dr Vincent Tabak's door to his flat... He may use it i don't know...... But I believe so can anyone in that building....
The configuration of that building is different to what we have been lead to believe.. I am almost positive about that ....
So if Dr Vincent Tabak didn't have a seperate entrance.. why would he risk moving a body into his flat??? why didn't he just drive his car to the side of the building and put her in his car???
Is the back entrance where all the deliveries get made ???? Is that the Trades Mans Entrance????
Because I do not believe that it what they said it was ...Dr Vincent Tabak own private entrance to his Flat...(IMO)
Which having seen all of the news clips from early on when they showed what we believed to be Dr Vincent Tabak's door... I can now understand why the media got access to the back of the building around the 22nd/23rd December 2010... It didn't make sense before... but it does now....
The Glass panelled back door is a trades mans entrance and Fire Escape......
IMO..
And if that is the case.... Anyone from that building could have gone past Joanna Yeates kitchen window ......
Edit..... So does that mean that the room with the bay window was actually Joanna Yeates, and she could also get to the Fire Exit at the back of the property???
Double Edit... The advert still doesn't say that Flat 2 has it's OWN ENTRANCE!!!!!!
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-29859883.html
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-27696067.html
Nine, ages ago and quite recently you posted a floor plan of both flats, I can't find them! Could you please re-post that image because I want to know where Flat 2's front door is.
I looked it up on google when you first posted it and it seems to have disappeared! As you have said before a lot of this stuff has disappeared.
-
The Floor plans don't show Flat 2's doorway... There are the newspapers floor plans and there are images of the back of the building.. I will post them and the floor plan that just shows Joanna Yeates flat on it.....
(1): Image 1 is floor plan of only Joanna yeates Flat, it shows a tiny bit of what is supposed to be next door..
(2): Image 2 is what the papers did
(3) Image 3 is the back of 44, Canygne Road
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The Floor plans don't show Flat 2's doorway... There are the newspapers floor plans and there are images of the back of the building.. I will post them and the floor plan that just shows Joanna Yeates flat on it.....
(1): Image 1 is floor plan of only Joanna yeates Flat, it shows a tiny bit of what is supposed to be next door..
(2): Image 2 is what the papers did
(3) Image 3 is the back of 44, Canygne Road
Thanks Nine. So we actually don't know where Flat 2's front door is. Tell you what I'll ask the postman where he posts that flat's mail. Unfortunately he's off with flu at the moment but if he's around I'll probably see him Wednesday.
This would also answer your question about VT going to the main house for mail wouldn't it.
-
Thanks Nine. So we actually don't know where Flat 2's front door is. Tell you what I'll ask the postman where he posts that flat's mail. Unfortunately he's off with flu at the moment but if he's around I'll probably see him Wednesday.
This would also answer your question about VT going to the main house for mail wouldn't it.
I cannot see the post box for what is supposed to be Flat 2... So he would go to the main house seeing as Joanna Yeates didn't have a working post box too....
But i appreciate you going to talk to the postman.... Thank you...
-
I cannot see the post box for what is supposed to be Flat 2... So he would go to the main house seeing as Joanna Yeates didn't have a working post box too....
But i appreciate you going to talk to the postman.... Thank you...
But Flat 1 does/did have a working post box. I mean what would be the point of having it on the outside but blocked on the inside? All you need on the inside is nothing ..... gravity will do its work and it will all fall to the floor.
-
I cannot see the post box for what is supposed to be Flat 2... So he would go to the main house seeing as Joanna Yeates didn't have a working post box too....
But i appreciate you going to talk to the postman.... Thank you...
None of that makes sense to me. If you have to Basement Flats which are designed to be independent of the main house, why on earth would the letter boxes on both Basement Flats be blocked?
I know that Chris Jefferies was/is a bit eccentric but .......
-
But Flat 1 does/did have a working post box. I mean what would be the point of having it on the outside but blocked on the inside? All you need on the inside is nothing ..... gravity will do its work and it will all fall to the floor.
i have attached images of Joanna Yeates door from both sides....
Did they add the door furniture ????
Spy Hole silver
Door lock Silver
Panel Silver....
Letter box Brass
Yale Brass
Door Knock Brass
So.. why have a letter box on a door that can't receive letters?????
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/01/06/article-1344610-0C99CD95000005DC-914_306x423.jpg)
No Letter opening...
(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/1390286.main_image.jpg?strip=all&w=682&h=455&crop=1)
Now here's a puzzler.... The image of the closed front door outside was in the Daily Mail on the 6th January 2011
Headlines:...
Joanna Yeates 'may have been snatched by her killer lying in wait as she went to check her post'
Detectives are looking into whether the 25-year-old's killer could have been lying in wait on the dark approach to the communal hall where the mail is kept.
So is the "Communal Hallway at the back of the building????
Also ... How would the Daily Mail know that the letter box was just for show and you couldn't get any mail through it on the 6th January 2011???
Apparently the images for inside were not see until the trial in October 2011...
The ex-tenant, who lived in the flat next to Jo's but did not want to be named, told the Mirror: 'Jo could easily have popped out to get her post that night and I told the police this theory. My wife and I used to do it all the time at all times of day or night.
'If someone was hanging around they could have grabbed her, it's very dark. Alternatively, in the time it took Jo to leave her flat to reach the communal area, a prowler could have sneaked in her unlocked flat and laid in wait.'
Now I could imagine the back of the building being dark... But NOT the Front of the building... It is always shown lit up...!!!!
So why didn't the Daily Mail question the letter box being on Joanna Yeates front door??
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1344610/Joanna-Yeates-snatched-killer-went-check-post.html
-
i have attached images of Joanna Yeates door from both sides....
Did they add the door furniture ????
Spy Hole silver
Door lock Silver
Panel Silver....
Letter box Brass
Yale Brass
Door Knock Brass
So.. why have a letter box on a door that can't receive letters?????
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/01/06/article-1344610-0C99CD95000005DC-914_306x423.jpg)
No Letter opening...
(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/1390286.main_image.jpg?strip=all&w=682&h=455&crop=1)
Now here's a puzzler.... The image of the closed front door outside was in the Daily Mail on the 6th January 2011
Headlines:...
Joanna Yeates 'may have been snatched by her killer lying in wait as she went to check her post'
So is the "Communal Hallway at the back of the building????
Also ... How would the Daily Mail know that the letter box was just for show and you couldn't get any mail through it on the 6th January 2011???
Apparently the images for inside were not see until the trial in October 2011...
Now I could imagine the back of the building being dark... But NOT the Front of the building... It is always shown lit up...!!!!
So why didn't the Daily Mail question the letter box being on Joanna Yeates front door??
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1344610/Joanna-Yeates-snatched-killer-went-check-post.html
Well how insane, unless the inside of the mail box is the same colour as the door and therefore concealed, which I don't believe, its blocked. You're right Nine and to me that's insane!! Not that you're right but the mail box.
Those pictures I've always thought were police photos given out to the press. Yes I know that there are no markers everywhere, but you can't have the press walking all over a crime scene. Mind you A & S finest did make a right pig's ear of this case so perhaps they did.
-
Isn't that a security light top left?
-
Thanks Nine. So we actually don't know where Flat 2's front door is. Tell you what I'll ask the postman where he posts that flat's mail. Unfortunately he's off with flu at the moment but if he's around I'll probably see him Wednesday.
This would also answer your question about VT going to the main house for mail wouldn't it.
Thanks nina----that would be helpful!
-
Going back to CJ's Flat..... If the kitchen window is above Joanna Yeates kitchen Window... Then what is the Window above Joanna Yeates Front Door???
I believe it's the landing window for the stair case to exit the building out the back......
Image attached.....
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
This I have read I don't know how many times... But it makes more sense now that I believe that The glass Panel Door was a shared entrance...
Mrs Liz Lowman who lives opposite CJ said this on: 13:50 Wednesday 29 December 2010
Neighbour Liz Lowman, who lives on the opposite side of the road from Miss Yeates' flat with her husband Ray, said Mr Jefferies told her the three people were coming out of a communal entrance to the mansion house.
"These people were leaving through the communal entrance," she said.
"Unfortunately, we didn't hear or see anything.
So somebody/persons, came out of A Communal Entrance.... Not Thee Communal Entrance we believe to be the front door....
Towards the Mansion House... I believe they came out of the Back Entrance towards the Main Door... that is why we had DCI Phil Jones say that CJ saw them in the drive ...
At 25:00 of The Judge Rinder Program about Joanna Yeates... DCI Phil Jones talking about CJ says..
He described seeing some people walking down the driveway.. At the relevant time we knew Joanna had returned home...
CJ says at : 23:37 of the video...
I'd been to the gym around about 9:00 o'clock in the evening, which is the time Jo herself, it is thought had returned home... And as I had parked my car and been going up the drive I'd been vaguely aware of somebody or perhaps more than one person, leaving the premises by the side path..
So I believe we just assumed CJ meant the little gate... But he didn't..(IMO)... There a little path on the same side of the house as the drive.... (Image attached)...
Liz Lowman talks of A Communal Entrance.... DCI Phil Jones talks of people coming up the drive... And CJ mentions people on the little path....
They were never on Joanna Yeates Path... The brain washing has made us think that.... He doesn't mention the little gate !!!!
CJ's second witness statement..... I think we don't know about it, because it is where he saw these people... whether we know who they are... Where they are is just as important.... And they were on the little path at the left side of the main entrance, leading up to the Main Entrance... As described by Liz Lowman....
It isn't Dr Vincent Tabak he sees.... But some people leaving A Communal Entrance, which I believe to be at the back of the building....
If CJ had been on the stand, he would have witnessed people on the opposite side of the building.... So I would say we must rethink what we believe CJ actually said.....
If CJ is talking just after 9:00pm... Dr Vincent Tabak was in his Flat at this time... The Prosecution have him there....
So CJ was at the Gym or left the Gym around 9:00pm, (I would say at the Gym)..drove home, what time did he arrive ?? He saw people leaving up the side of the building... maybe he did see Joanna Yeates leave... he saw someone leaving!! And if it was at this time it cannot have been Dr Vincent Tabak .... (IMO)..
Question.... Why didn't the Police have CJ tell us in court that he saw people at that side of the building after he had been to the Gym... because realistically he should have seen Dr Vincent Tabak getting his car and put a dead body in it.... And if it was Dr vincent Tabak on the path... why wasn't CJ called as a witness!!
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4htq8y
http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/murdered-joanna-left-flat-with-two-people-1-3016959
-
How can Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat be lived in on the 10th October 2011???
The light is on in The Bay window...
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/656115498http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/656115498
I know there was the advert for his Flat in May 2011... But I cannot see how some NEW Tenant is going to let a jury in to look around their Flat....!!!
-
From The early video of the Glass panelled Door, when the snow is all about... There is a Triangle shaped Green sticker on one of the Glass panels... By the time Dr Vincent Tabak's in court.. This sticker has been removed ...
Image 1.. With Sticker
Image 2... Removed Sticker..
What does the Green triangular sticker indicate... ?? Is it some sort of safety Sticker ??? And why remove it???
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/656385638
-
The image I have attached is the side of Joanna Yeates Flat leading to the back of the building... The image is taken after it has snowed...
The lack of Foot prints coming from the back of the building where Dr Vincent Tabak is supposed to live surprises me... He and Tanja apparently used that route as their exit from their Flat...
The only foot prints I can see... Are ones leading from Joanna Yeates Flat to the back of the building and None coming the other way...
Now we have Police and The Yeates using that route to see Dr vincent Tabak and Tanja... We also have Tanja and Dr Vincent Tabak apparently using that route... But there is a distinct lack of Footprints coming from what is supposed to be Flat 2 for that to be the case ....(IMO).. of course ...
Image attached....
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
From The early video of the Glass panelled Door, when the snow is all about... There is a Triangle shaped Green sticker on one of the Glass panels... By the time Dr Vincent Tabak's in court.. This sticker has been removed ...
Image 1.. With Sticker
Image 2... Removed Sticker..
What does the Green triangular sticker indicate... ?? Is it some sort of Safety Sticker ??? And why remove it???
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/656385638
I have just had a thought about the possibility of what that sticker denotes... It was whilst looking at another clip that it gave me an idea...
Is the sticker for the Police??? Is it to say "DO NOT ENTER" ??
Is it some type of Hazzard Sticker??
Because there is No need for this sticker to be removed from the door, unless it was something Police related..
Therefore supporting my theory that Dr Vincent Tabak didn't live in the Basement Flat... And as I have come to suspect that the "ground Floor was Joanna Yeates Flat....
Forensic Testing was being carried out extremely early in the basement Flat... I have posted about them Forensically Testing The Bay window at the front of the building, and that being the basement, around the 23rd December 2010.. This is well before Dr Vincent Tabak is a suspect... And before any DNA is taken or his interview in Holland...
I believe it is possible that the sticker denotes Forensic work taking Place in that area...And possibly that room as I do not believe the window opens as it has bars across it.....
Does this Sticker denote something Toxic??
The Sticker could even be diamond shaped it's not a clear image....!
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I have just had a thought about the possibility of what that sticker denotes... It was whilst looking at another clip that it gave me an idea...
Is the sticker for the Police??? Is it to say "DO NOT ENTER" ??
Is it some type of Hazzard Sticker??
Because there is No need for this sticker to be removed from the door, unless it was something Police related..
Therefore supporting my theory that Dr Vincent Tabak didn't live in the Basement Flat... And as I have come to suspect that the "ground Floor was Joanna Yeates Flat....
Forensic Testing was being carried out extremely early in the basement Flat... I have posted about them Forensically Testing The Bay window at the front of the building, and that being the basement, around the 23rd December 2010.. This is well before Dr Vincent Tabak is a suspect... And before any DNA is taken or his interview in Holland...
I believe it is possible that the sticker denotes Forensic work taking Place in that area...And possibly that room as I do not believe the window opens as it has bars across it.....
Does this Sticker denote something Toxic??
The Sticker could even be diamond shaped it's not a clear image....!
No I'm sorry Nine, you just cannot alter the layout of the Basement Flats to suit your theory.
There were two separate flats in the Basement.
-
I'm sticking with The Door,.... And The Lost Honour of CJ...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8239.msg426209#msg426209
We have always been lead to believe that Flat 2's layout is like we have seen in the papers, with the blocked door way.. and the room shapes and sizes of Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat we see windows and openings...
We have our view based on these layouts...
With the advent of the Docu-drama we have an opportunity to gleen what is inside Dr Vincent Tabak's hallway...
And it is easy to see that the layout and the hallway don't match....
In the layout the entrance hall has no openings along it's length , apart from the doorways...
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/12/article-0-0E57C11900000578-74_634x536.jpg)
I have attached an image of the guy playing Dr Vincent Tabak opening the door to CJ... we can see that there is an arched opening to the left part way down the hallway...
This is not shown on the layout... So is the small bedroom to the left of the door some type of communal room???
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
No I'm sorry Nine, you just cannot alter the layout of the Basement Flats to suit your theory.
There were two separate flats in the Basement.
You seem to know this for certain Nina.... Is there a connection between upstairs and the basements via a stairway???
-
No I'm sorry Nine, you just cannot alter the layout of the Basement Flats to suit your theory.
There were two separate flats in the Basement.
If they are two seperate Flats.. did Dr Vincent Tabak actually live in The basement Flat???
If that is Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat... why are the "Police doing Forensics on The Bay Window at the front of his Flat on the 23rd December 2010.. before he is even a suspect... Did they have a warrant to carry out these forensic test on Dr Vincent Tabak's Bay Window ???
Again Nina... How do you know that between 17th December 2010 and 29th December 2010 that there were 2 basement flats at 44, Canygne road that were occupied by Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson... And Joanna Yeates and Greg Reardon??
Were there 2 Flats between those dates in the basement Nina... and were those 4 people the occupiers ???
I'd like to stress that I wouldn't have to try and work this out if everyone had been honest in the first place.....!!!!
-
Nina... Do you not think that this case does not add up at all???
The lack of Defending William Clegg did for his Client??
The lack of Forensics after spending weeks in that building...
The lack of evidence supporting Dr vincent Tabak's guilt..
The Police changing the length of time Joanna yeates was on Longwood Lane ...
The use of 7 Fire Appliances..
Nurse Ruth Booth-Pearson, not appearing in court in person as is expected as part of a Custody Nurse's duties...
20 statements read out in court as witness statements ...
No CJ who saw people leave the building as DCI phil Jones states in the Judge Rinder program
No Tanja Morson who lived with Dr Vincent Tabak
No time stamps on the CCTV..
I could go on but we have "The Hundred Question.. topic for that ...
Nina... Do you believe that Dr Vincent Tabak is guilty????
-
If they are two seperate Flats.. did Dr Vincent Tabak actually live in The basement Flat???
If that is Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat... why are the "Police doing Forensics on The Bay Window at the front of his Flat on the 23rd December 2010.. before he is even a suspect... Did they have a warrant to carry out these forensic test on Dr Vincent Tabak's Bay Window ???
Again Nina... How do you know that between 17th December 2010 and 29th December 2010 that there were 2 basement flats at 44, Canygne road that were occupied by Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson... And Joanna Yeates and Greg Reardon??
Were there 2 Flats between those dates in the basement Nina... and were those 4 people the occupiers ???
I'd like to stress that I wouldn't have to try and work this out if everyone had been honest in the first place.....!!!!
Yes ...... to both questions.
-
There is more than 2 questions there Nina ... Yes to them having a warrant for Dr Vincent Tabak's Bay Window ??
-
This is me...
(https://cdn2.iconfinder.com/data/icons/flat-ui-free/200/Infinity-Loop.png)
And I go around and around and around ..... 8)><(
-
There is more than 2 questions there Nina ... Yes to them having a warrant for Dr Vincent Tabak's Bay Window ??
Would they need warrants for separate parts of the building? I'm assuming that they couldn't get a warrant for just 44 Canynge Rd, but would need to get one for each Flat. Then they wouldn't need to state a bay window on one warrant, or am I missing something ...... again?
-
This is me...
(https://cdn2.iconfinder.com/data/icons/flat-ui-free/200/Infinity-Loop.png)
And I go around and around and around ..... 8)><(
Oddly enough Nine, for the last few days I've had the child's rhyme floating around in my head ......
Round and round in circles we go
Where we end up no one knows
Apart from we are on the same page here Nine!!
-
You seem to know this for certain Nina.... Is there a connection between upstairs and the basements via a stairway???
This I can't answer Nine, because I have never been inside no.44, but I will ask the postman.
Police or posties know all!!
-
Oddly enough Nine, for the last few days I've had the child's rhyme floating around in my head ......
Round and round in circles we go
Where we end up no one knows
Apart from we are on the same page here Nine!!
Yes Nina... page 56
-
Yes Nina... page 56
Very droll!!
-
Some questions a user on webslueths had: dated... 01-13-2011 12:47 PM (I myself am not a member)
Nausicaa said:( From webslueths...
1. Why did the police come out so swiftly to a missing person call on Sunday night ? Did the call by any chance tie in with some other fact they were already aware of ?
2. Why have the police expressed absolute certainty that Joanna arrived safely home on Friday night ?
3. What were the details about the flat which enabled Mr and Mrs Yeates to conclude, in about half an hour, that Joanna had been abducted, but which Mrs Yeates specifically states that the police have asked her not to reveal ? (We know about the presence of Joanna’s coat, footwear, phone, purse, key, but Mrs Yeates implies that there was something which she and her husband saw but which the public do not yet know and the police prefer them not to know.)
4. Given that the Yeates parents were already convinced that Joanna had been abducted, why did the police go further and warn them to be “prepared for the worst” ? Why was everyone speaking of Joanna in the past tense before the discovery of the body ? (Abduction without murder does exist.)
5. Why was the police warning to other Bristol women to take care rather late and rather soft ? Had the police some grounds for thinking that this was a one-off, or that the culprit would not be willing or able to strike again at present ?
6. Why did the police arrest CJ as suspect of murder ? Is the fact of having apparently softened his story of what he saw on Friday night sufficient explanation or was there something else ?
7. Why did the police reveal from the start the existence of the CCTV footage, the till receipt, the mystery of the missing pizza, etc., but not the missing sock ?
8. The police yesterday announced that a member of the public had handed in an important piece of evidence and the forensic team thereupon returned to 44 Canynge Road. What might it have been ?
9. Why did the police take away the front door of the flat for forensic examination elsewhere, but not the internal doors ?
10. Is there a reason why the police have created an artificial memorial site some fifty yards away from where the body was in fact discovered ?
11. Is it possible that some single fact provides the answer to several of the questions on this list ?
Question (10) I have said that the site was moved and the pictures with the wall are taken from too different area's
Question (8): We know that something was handed in and it was of significance... But I didn't realise it prompted them to return to Canygne Road..
So what was handed in ????
Edit..... Here's a possible answer from the same site to Question 3.... The reason they believe she hadn't been at the Flat since Friday... or that she was abducted on the Friday, was because she was on The Pill.. and hadn't taken, Saturday and Sundays Pill...
That's a possibility... But it doesn't explain why her parents thought she was abducted.. But would give us a date for her disappearance ....
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?125150-UK-Joanna-Yeates-25-Clifton-Bristol-17-Dec-2010-5/page8
-
Here's another question...
Why isn't there any Cat Hair anywhere in the flat?? Bernard would leave plenty of his own DNA all over the place, so why didn't they find any in the Flat...
And why didn't Dr Vincent Tabak pick up any Cat hair on his own clothing or transfer any Cat Hair Into his house or into his car???
There is no mention of Cat hair anywhere in this Investigation and that would have been on the sock of Joanna Yeates and between both Flats...
We manage to get an apparent Coat Fibre of Dr Vincent Tabak's Coat.. yet we are sadly lacking Big Bernards contribution to this Crime Scene!!!
Dr Vincent Tabak never mentions Bernard.... You would have thought he'd have been busy hoovering and then cleaning his clothes to make sure that Bernard hadn't left any traces anywhere..
Remember all of the rooms that Dr Vincent Tabak went into just in his own Flat... You would have thought if he was so Forensically minded and was concerned enough to take the Pizza and The sock... turn off the Oven and the TV... He'd of been feverishly cleaning his own Flat... But we do not here anything about that... And nothing of Bernard is found in his Flat.... Or anyone else's by the looks of the Forensics... DCI Phil Jones never mentions Bernard The Cat... and his transfer...
Edit.... The Black Couch should have remnants of Bernard all over it...!!!
Just another note... As Bernard was such a young Cat .. where are the Cat toys and Scratching post????
-
Yes ...... to both questions.
www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?125150-UK-Joanna-Yeates-25-Clifton-bristol-17-Dec-2010-5/page41
On these pages, a man called Lawrence, who cleaned the windows at number 44, is said to be fairly sure that both basement flats had their own entrance, and were independent of the main house.
It is quite possible, IMO, that the residents of the basement flats did have to collect their post from elsewhere in the house, of course.
The Websleuths pages here, written before VT was arrested, make interesting reading. Once VT was arrested and charged, people seem to have stopped asking the kind of pertinent questions being asked on these pages----IMO.
-
www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?125150-UK-Joanna-Yeates-25-Clifton-bristol-17-Dec-2010-5/page41
On these pages, a man called Lawrence, who cleaned the windows at number 44, is said to be fairly sure that both basement flats had their own entrance, and were independent of the main house.
It is quite possible, IMO, that the residents of the basement flats did have to collect their post from elsewhere in the house, of course.
The Websleuths pages here, written before VT was arrested, make interesting reading. Once VT was arrested and charged, people seem to have stopped asking the kind of pertinent questions being asked on these pages----IMO.
Thanks mrswah... Yes most people stopped looking once they made an arrest, and never questioned anything after the trial... There were so many unanswered questions and so many people missing from this trial...
I did notice that the facebook page has been removed..
How can you be independent if you can't receive your own mail?? Unless that Access Panel has got something to do with how the post gets delivered to the basement Flats.... There must be more to the Access Panel, it has to have a trades mans entrance on it...
They didn't remove it for nothing... They were trying to hide it... (IMO)..
-
Lots of people living in flats collect their mail from a central area used by the inhabitants of all the flats. There would be a group of post boxes with flat numbers and/or names on them, and you would have your own key to it.
-
This is a curious statement from the Police on the 30th December 2010
Women attending the party have been asked by officers to describe what they were wearing in case it was similar to Miss Yeates’s clothing.
So did the CCTV Footage of Canygne Road show Joanna Yeates arriving home ??? Or did it show her leaving??
What was she wearing??
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1342427/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Landlord-Chris-Jefferies-hold-key.html#ixzz4vBszCunZ
-
Just found an Interesting snippet from The Papers.... Article dated 1st January 2011
Two members of Long Ashton Golf Club in Failand were about to drive home when they saw the car pull into the entrance at 11.20pm on December 17.
The driver noticed the key-code operated barriers and hastily did a U-turn.
It then sped off towards Longwood Lane.
Now until the other day I wouldn't have known the significance of The Key Code when I discovered the Access Panel probably had a trade mans access to it....
Did the Police believe that someone had entered via the trades mans access???
Did Peter Stanley have a similar trades mans access ??? Or did someone leave something in Peter Stanleys Car boot... It could have been left unlocked.... when my Postie comes he leaves things anywhere he feels is ok...
Yesterday he left a parcel in the Barbie... Other times he leaves it behind the bin... He has left stuff in the neighbours garden before now ....
I certainly believe that the access Panel at the side of Joanna Yeates door is of significance and possibly the means of entrance to that Flat....(IMO).. Because i cannot see reason why the Police would talk about the key code to the Golf Club, other than let someone know how they had managed access... (IMO)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1343233/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Landlord-Chris-Jefferies-Prof-Strange-quizzed-police.html#ixzz4vC5pXP3Z
-
This is possibly one of the most astute observations so far. If someone outside had a delivery letting them into the hallway might just be a reflex action, the door to the flat being the accepted barrier as another “front” door. You can almost see it happening, what other choice is there?
If Yeates had been followed home, it could have been less than a minute, and that accounts for why her phone was still in her coat pocket.
Very interesting input this, very interesting indeed.
Well... I think you are on to something there also... as in Barrier...
I was going over the clips for the umpteenth time when I spotted marks on the underlay....
I'll go back to the Red Stickers... I had mentioned before how they appeared to be at equal angles in the Hallway...
There must have been something attached there...(IMO)..
But going back to the image that struck me... Is from a clip, it shows that the area directly in front of the bathroom door on the underlay has a mark that resembles a door being opened.... (Image attached).
It looks like a wear mark, of something being regularly used ...(IMO)
Then I remembered on the Judge Rinder Program at around 11:50 into the video... They show a reconstruction of Tanaj Morson and Dr Vincent Tabak going around to the Flat of Joanna Yeates and Joanna Yeates parents are at the door... Behind then quite close..Is another wrought Iron door/gate behind them...(image attached )..
Was there another Barrier in the Hallway of Flat 1 .. 44,Canygne Road????
Did they remove the carpet so that you couldn't see wear patterns ?????
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/license/656360150
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
By the time we see the Coat Stand it has No Coats upon it...... Now Coat Stand ,Coat Pegs?? Is there a difference ... I believe that there is ....
Here's the quote...
Like a moment frozen in time, her home has been poignantly preserved with personal belongings and Christmas decorations since the day she was killed in December.
The 25-year-old landscape architect's size five running shoes and snow boots are in the yellow painted entrance hall.
There were also two litter trays for her cat Bernard, coats are hung up on the pegs - everything is spotless.
This was the sight which greeted the Bristol crown court jury as, for 22 minutes, they examined every part of the Bristol flat she shared with boyfriend Greg Reardon.
What did these coats look like ????
Was there somewhere else that there was coat pegs??? There has to be .... If it is frozen in time... where did these coats magically disappear too, that the jury saw??? Were were the coat pegs????
(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/1390286.main_image.jpg?strip=all)
What was changed in the Hallway by the time the media went round after the Jury???
Another thing I noticed in the Hallway is plug sockets.. There a double plug socket next to the radiator and something resembling a plug socket just under the long mirror next to the bathroom...
Also on Joanna Yeates bedroom door there is a hole in the centre frame that resembles a spy hole... not only that at the side of the door along the edging there are two marks that make me think that there was some type of lock on the other side of that door ... (Images attached ...)
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/frozen-in-time-the-flat-where-joanna-yeates-died-6452522.html
-
Has... Rubbish ?? Bins... Collections.... Got anything to do with Joanna Yeates disappearance and I don't just mean the Pizza...??
There as so many shots of the Brown Small refuse Bin outside .. It ends up inside when the jury go around...
We see a bin in the bathroom... Yet there a empty toilet roll holder on the cistern and toilet paper on the holder..
We see the kitchen Bin... We see Black Bin liners left on the side when the Jury have been round.....
The Brown Bins are Recycling bins for food and Garden waste... You can have large Brown Bins, but the black bin Liners for them you have to supply yourself, I believe...
There is a connection between Recycling and Durnford Quarry....
REUSING WASTE BUILDING MATERIALS
Recycling of locally sourced construction and demolition materials has been undertaken at Durnford since 2005. The recycled aggregate products supplement the primary stone from the quarry and also helps to reduce demand on primary resources. The production of recycled aggregates depends on the supply of suitable materials and has been in the order of 75,000 tonnes per year.
So what is the connection to Joanna Yeates Recycling and The Quarry????
Recycling is mentioned at trial with regards Dr Vincent Tabak... But Dr Vincent Tabak could not know the significance of the word Recycling.. But whoever got him to say that must have !!! ...(IMO)
He gathered the bicycle cover and the pizza and sock from his flat and dumped them at a recycling centre.
Joanna Yeates mum mentions that her daughter is dumped like rubbish....
(IMO)..It's not the Pizza that is important.. But The Rubbish
on The 8th January 2011 it was even reported in the papers about The Quarry and recycling.... Just think we missed it....
It lay beside a dry-stone wall, behind which is a deep former quarry now used to recycle building materials.
So with that quote in mind... Did someone come to collect items that could be recycled from Joanna Yeates Flat on the 17th December 2010... Was it some kind of building materials ???
So what is it to do with Recycling???
The only thing I can find which incorporates Sita as well is...
This marks the first development to reach the planning stages as part of SITAs exclusive agreement with Irish plastic-to-diesel specialists Cynar. The deal, which was signed in November 2010, aims to deliver 10 waste plastic-to-fuel plants across the UK
I mention Sita because we got a good glimps of their vehicles cleaning the drains .... I found it odd at the time that the Police involved Sita...
I believe I have found the connection why Joann Yeates was left by the Quarry and the person who killed her knew the connection between recycling and Longwood Lane ... Because I do not believe that Dr vincent Tabak did!!!!
https://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/sita-reveals-plans-for-waste-plastic-to-diesel-plant/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1345194/Joanna-Yeates-Murder-Did-Jo-buy-dinner-killer.html#ixzz4vCqFJ03m
http://www.tarmac.com/durnford-quarry/about/
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/20/joanna-yeates-killer-speaks-crime
-
Question is twofold...
What Recycling Centre would be open at that time of NIGHT???
Which Recycling Centre was Dr Vincent Tabak supposed to have dumped these items ???
He collected the bicycle bag, pizza and sock and dumped them at a recycling centre. Later, he went and picked his girlfriend up and tried to carry on with life as normal.
We even have this at trial....
Prosecuting counsel related to
the witness and she confirmed that her analysis shows that Tabak researched ‘police’,
‘missing persons’, ‘recycling’, etc.
then At Line 368 of the prosecution chart
Tabak searched for the Press release about
‘domestic rubbish’
‘Yeates’
‘architect’s killer’
‘maps for Clifton Road’
‘Clifton Road rubbish’
‘393 tons of rubbish trawled through’
‘household collections- Bristol City Council’
‘recycling’
And....At Line 422 of the prosecution chart
At 9.10 am (at work)
Tabak searched for press articles on the murder.
Then he Googled the words
‘DNA test’
‘Waste recycling’
‘rubbish collection’
Lets be serious here.... Dr Vincent Tabak has apparently just killed his neighbour, The first time he has ever killed anyone.. And.... He's bothered about dumping the rubbish in the proper recycle bins.... Is someone having a laugh...
First bin you come to I would have thought... Why would he think I must find a Recycling Bin.....???? He would not... He did not....(IMO)....
The Recycling has to do with the killer quite possibly... but NOT Dr Vincent Tabak....
Also when you really think about it... If he took it to A Recycling Centre There would be NO Information about this Centre available on the Internet as to when they reuse or sort out this rubbish.... So for Dr Vincent Tabak to apparently look for "Rubbish and Recycling "collections is Pointless (IMO)...
I keep telling you I do not believe that those searches are Dr Vincent Tabaks!!!! Whoever knows that recycling is important... made those searches up (IMO)...
Because I do not believe Dr Vincent Tabak knew what the importance of 'Recycling" was...!!!! But somebody did!!(IMO)..
Another report says he dumped them in a Recycling Bin in Victoria Square Clifton.....
After leaving Yeates’ body on a grass verge and covering her body with leaves, he texted his girlfriend and returned home. When he realised he still had the bicycle cover, pizza and Yeates’ sock, he disposed of them in a recycle bin near Victoria Square in Clifton.
Well there's no Recycling bins on Clifton Square.. Just ordinary rubbish Bins.. and we know the recycling bins are small... someone would have noticed the Pizza and The Sock...(IMO)..
The only large bins I can see near there are "Clifton Delivery Office".. (image attached ...) which the back of the building is on Clifton Road...
So we are back to Post men... and There is No way...(IMO).. Dr Vincent Tabak knew the significance of 'Recycling"..!!!
A lot of Post Offices have Recycling... But Dr Vincent Tabak doesn't mention the Post Office.... But we know Joanna Yeates went to buy her Cider from Bargain Booze which is a Post Office as well...
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/20/vincent-tabak-apologises-joanna-yeates-parents
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Another thing that bugs me...
Why would Waitrose have 2 Fire Extinguishers at the top of the steps on entering and exiting... It seems a dangerous place for them to be ..... (Health and safety)...
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/17/article-2050063-0E6A6A5C00000578-929_634x427.jpg)
There also a Fire Extinguisher in the Kitchen Of Joanna yeates ...
(http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/an-interior-view-of-the-kitchen-of-the-flat-of-joanna-yeates-on-12-picture-id129063060?s=612x612)
-
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/12/article-0-0E57C11900000578-74_634x536.jpg)
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/01/18/article-1348132-0CCD1F7A000005DC-597_306x630.jpg)
We do not know what Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat really looks like inside.... And from the CJ Docudrama there is an arched opening on the left hand side of the hallway, which would lead to the area of the supposed second bedroom...
The First image is whilst the trial is taking place....
The Second image is on the 18th January 2011
The actual drawing plan that is on the 18th January 2011, shows, (imo) that they were getting ready to set Dr Vincent Tabak up....
We can see The supposed second bedroom of Dr Vincent Tabaks Flat, we can see the BLOCKED Doorway that they tell us was at that point... They have clearly fixed in our minds what these Flats should look like, well before the trial...
Yet it apparently wasn't until the 19th December that "The Sobbing Girl" called the Police.... So why even show us a glimps of Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat at this time ????
It shows us where the door apparently is to this second bedroom, now I do not believe that is the doorway as the opening to that room is in the hallway and is an arched opening, and Dr Vincent Tabak doesn't refer to it as a bedroom he says 'Little" room ....
Defence Counsel: When at home, where was the phone kept?
Tabak: In a little room.
I believe it is just "that" and not a "Bedroom"...
I have attached an image from the docudrama that show the man playing Dr Vincent Tabak at his front door, and in the background you can see the open archway that lead to the second supposed bedroom
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
Edit... Made some errors have corrected them... No excuses, been at this too long...
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The hallway of Flat 2... I have attached 2 of the same image.. on one of them I have circled them numbered 1-3
The image is not crystal clear but you can still see the Hallway...
Circle 1... The archway to the Left of the Hallway past the mirror near the radiator..
Circle2... The Doorway at the bottom of the Hallway
Circle 3... Something above Doorway..
When the people playing Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja come to the front door, they come from an opening which is opposite the archway..
The Drawing doesn't show either the opening or the bedroom door, but a continuation of walls....
On the third image I have attached you can see the edge of the wall then it opens to another area .... The bedroom door for the Bay window is directly next to the Front door... Image 4, being vaguely disguised with the coat that is hung up.....
So nothing on the lay out drawing about Flat 2 is accurate....(IMO)...
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Looking at the Drawing again which shows part of Dr Vincent Tabaks Flat, the area where it should be the bathroom and where on the other image it shows us a bath sink and toilet in that room... on the drawn image, you can see that that area says shower!
Image attached...
The Blocked off doorway to that Basement is... the little alcove on the opposite side of the bathroom, to the left of the front room door... That would make more sense , than going through one bedroom or room to get to another room.. (imo), And the bathroom would have lead to the other side of the basement originally...
-
Oh what a tangle web they weaved,
When first they practiced to deceive....
-
Joanna Yeates was found on Christmas Morning on Longwood Lane... So we have been informed.. I constantly question that scenario, there's something all together wrong..
The insistence that her body was frozen but thawing.. That it had been on Longwood Lane for 8 days, that Dr Delaney had to wait days, to do the Post Mortem and until the Post Mortem was completed a cause of death could not be established..
I have always felt that there was something off with the waiting for the Post Mortem... The amount of Police on Longwood Lane on the day of the discovery of Joanna Yeates body leads me to believe that there was far more to this case, than the public would ever be told.
There was such a great show of strength and force from the Police that day ,along with the Fire Service.. But why the big show ??
Why The song and dance on Christmas Morning when for all intense and purposes ,Joanna Yeates was a Missing person.. The show that was put on for the publics gaze, was just that... To let us know that this was now incredibly serious... But how could the Police already know ???
Was Joanna Yeates abducted ??? were her parents right all along?? Had The Police received information as to her whereabouts??? Where there notes tied to the trees over the wall on the land above the tunnel??
I believe the Police knew she was dead... I believe the Police already knew that she was murdered before the Post Mortem had started... I believe they used the media for all it was worth, whilst hiding the fact that they already were aware of what happened to Joanna Yeates, well before we did...
I don't think she was on Longwood Lane for 8 days... They didn't apparently know that either... But did they find her on Longwood Lane... Did they find her sooner than the 25th December 2010...
It may appear odd that I am saying this.. But the reports that we have all seen and not really taken any great heed of, tell us a different tale than on the 27th December when DCI Phil Jones introduced himself to the public and made the claim that this was NOW a Murder inquiry... making the 27th December 2010 The day that this Murder Investigation became live....
So how do you explain this ???? Channel 4 News 5th January 2011 The day ITV were banned...
A live murder investigation has been under way now for just twelve days and the media have played an important role in helping us to appeal for witnesses. While we appreciate the support we have received so far from most of the media we must step in if we feel coverage will hamper the investigation. Our primary aim will always be to secure justice for Joanna.
How was that possible?? 12 days... If we include the day she is found on Longwood Lane that gives us exactly 12 days to the 5th January 2011..
How did this Murder Investigation Go Live on the 25th December 2010?? How when at this time nobody knew or should have known that Joanna Yeates had been 'Murdered"...
Channel 4 were not the only media to report this... "The Guardian"... "The Daily Mail" also reported the same story...
So how did they know that she had been Murdered by Christmas Day??? Her body cannot have been Frozen to the solid state that they lead us to believe if they already knew this... Therefore she had either been Murdered later and held or had been kept somewhere and dumped nearer the time...
So what of the Forensics ??? The Frozen DNA This important piece of evidence that put Dr Vincent Tabak away... They told us that the Freezing conditions preserved this minute sample of DNA... But how can that be possible??
If Joanna Yeates body was in a condition where they decided that the "Murder Investigation" went Live, then Dr Delaney must have been able to do a lot more with Joanna Yeates body on Christmas Day, because he must have informed the Police that Joanna Yeates had indeed been Murdered and the 'Investigation Into her Murder ' went Live..
Maybe you all think I am mistaken... Well it wouldn't be the first time people have said that.. But we always have to remember the odd things in this case that we can never quite understand and there is no rhyme or reason for them.. like Dr Vincent Tabak being charged with Murder from the 16th December 2010 to the 19th December 2010.. When Joanna Yeates apparently didn't go missing until the 17th December 2010 at the earliest... So why the charge from the day before ???
So yes..... I do believe that it is very likely that this Murder Investigation went live on the 25th December 2010.. we were just not really made aware of it... That would also explain the amount of Police Presence on Longwood Lane from Detectives who shouldn't have been milling around.. There where hoards of these detectives, all with their own files.. all making phone calls... So Yes I do believe that this "Murder Investigation went live on Christmas Day....
Therefore what does it say about the DNA... was it even on Joanna Yeates ?? Is this the reason for the low copy DNA?? Because they had to say something...
To be honest there should have been tons of samples of Low Copy DNA on Joanna Yeates ... The transfer of DNA is easy... she had been in The Ram.. she had sat down on seats people had touched ...she had been to the toilet and sat on the seat there ... She had been at work all day... So the amount of transfer of Low Copy DNA should quite honestly be enormous... But they managed to capture a couple of tiny amounts that they let us believe belonged to Dr Vincent Tabak..
I don't think the DNA could be linked to anyone to be honest, and the sloppy protocol that the Forensics outside Joanna Yeates Flat have show, would make anyone question whether the spot of blood was in fact transfer and an error on their part....
So.. we were live on the 25th December 2010 How do you explain that one DCI Phil Jones ?????
Edit.... Is that the reason ITV were banned?? They might have questioned when this "Murder Investigation became Live????
https://www.channel4.com/news/police-search-for-joanna-yeates-missing-socks
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/jan/05/itv-news-joanna-yeates-investigation
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1344366/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Detectives-ban-ITV-News-press-conference.html
-
The Keys
Looking at the early clips where we still see the snow on the ground and it's in the first couple of days of the Investigation, there is a short clip that goes down the path and stops right outside Joanna Yeates door...
We then see finger print dust upon this door and we see a bunch of keys with 3 keys on it..
Who's keys do these belong to??
(1): Joanna Yeates Keys
(2): Gregs Keys
(3): CJ's Keys
I always assumed that they were Joanna Yeates keys... But they can't have been, i presume that they must have been taken away with her other possesions, then i wondered if they were Greg's.. But the same reason I thought that the keys couldn't be Greg Reardon's of Joanna yeates Flat keys was because a key was missing....
Where is the key for the car???? If the keys belonged to either one then the car key should have been there ....
So the keys must have been CJ's keys.... That then make me ask.. why have they got the keys to Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat, this early on in the Investigation????
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/656487136
-
Andrew Mott....Civilian possible Volunteer...
He was given a title in the media, but we know he's a civilian..
This I believe is the crux of this case... Who that were working on the Joanna Yeates case were volunteers???
I believe Avon and Somerset Police force employ a great deal of volunteers in their fight against crime ... Are the Polices faces volunteers?? DI Joe Goff.. is he a real Policeman or a Volunteer??
I'm quite surprised at the wide use of volunteers by Avon and Somerset Police.....
‘HOME GUARD’ OF POLICE
SUPPORT VOLUNTEERS TO FILL
IN FOR POLICE CUTS
We have a home Guard, which has been in operation for Years.... I want to establish, who these people are and what there roles were ... Was PC Martin Faithful an actual Police Officer when the Joanna Yeates case first happened... We know that he is a PC now in Nailsea... But did he start out as a Volunteer and was he still a volunteer when he attended Longwood Lane ???
A new ‘Home Guard’ of 9,000 police support volunteers has been quietly recruited by police
forces in England and Wales to replace the 15,000 police staff job cuts made by the
Conservative-led Government.
New research by UNISON, the biggest union for police staff, shows the alarming extent of
this growth in the use of volunteers. The research also highlights the ambition of some police
leaders to recruit volunteers into some of the most sensitive and demanding police staff
roles, despite assurances from the Home Office and from the College of Policing that none
of these volunteers is replacing a fully employed member of police staff.
I'm amazed....
Police Staff
The Role:
There are many interesting and varied police staff roles that play a direct or an
indirect critical part in keeping people safe. You could work as a Call Handler
taking 101 and 999 calls, provide the crucial Finance, Human Resources and IT
support to keep the business running, or support Investigation teams with media
appeals and briefings as a press officer in Corporate Communications. Whether
you’re looking for a career or a job to pay the bills, the opportunities are endless.
And...
Training:
Specialist training is provided as required. For example a Call Handler will have six
weeks training.
Is that what the roles of Martin faithful ,Andrew Mott and Joe Goff... where they just Police Staff???
Because we never really saw Joe Goff do anything but he had a role at the last Press Briefing... He didn't appear in court, yet he was on Crime Watch telling the world that The screams that were heard were the reason that they knew what time Joanna Yeates had been attacked and died.
Is this why the colleague that accompanied DC Karen Thomas to Holland was never named... because he/she was a volunteer??
If we have many Volunteer citizens who were used in this case, how do we know what they record is accurate...
Just like Peter Brotherton assumed the role of Chaplain.. How many Volunteers assumed the role of DI or Forensics Officer or any other role for that matter... Is this the reason the witness's are made up of written statements... Is this the reason 'Nurse Ruth Booth Pearson didn't appear in person in court because she wasn't trained for such a duty, but she was another of Avon and Somersets Volunteers... I couldn't understand why she didn't turn up at court , but a statement was read out instead, when Custody Nurses roles, are to attend court for trials...
Could we apply this possibility to many people ...Tanja Nickson... is she a volunteer??
Lyndsey Farmer, Is she a volunteer??
Who were these people on this case ???? What about the people playing at being Forensic Officers at Canygne Road??? Were they Volunteers ??? They may have donned a white suit but many didn't have their hair covered or their shoes....
Who are these people who collected evidence ???? The CCTV?? The items from Canygne Road??? Is this the reason their names don't get mentioned in the Leveson Report, because when they refer to sending an Officer round somewhere, they might be an actual volunteer???
I've attached a pdf with some roles of Volunteers... The Role of Police Viper is Interesting.. Is that what we see when we see the image of Dr Vincent Tabak upon his arrest???
Volunteering
VIPER® replaced the old style live “line up” Identification parade with a simple video process that uses volunteer video clips as “stand-ins” and is used all over the UK to help the Police bring criminals to justice.
A video identification parade is a short film shown to a witness as part of a Police investigation into an incident. The film shows the suspect and a number of volunteers moving their head from left to right, appearing against a similar grey background.
To provide a database of volunteer images, it is important to represent all age ranges, gender and ethnic appearance. Thousands of people need to be recorded to make this possible and this is why VIPER® asks the public to assist by volunteering.
Without the help of ordinary members of the general public VIPER® would not be able to assist the Criminal Justice System and more importantly victims of crime.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/28/article-2053178-0E9304A400000578-984_306x448.jpg)
This is NOT Dr Vincent Tabak..imo. It has never really looked like him to me... Is this an image from the Viper data base ???
That image has never looked quite right.. but I could never put my finger on it.... But now I think I may have ....
We have seen many images that have been doctored which have Dr Vincent Tabak in them when he can't have been.. Like the image of Tanja Morson at her half way point of a run she is doing and someone has added Dr Vincent Tabak to the image as if he is running along side her, when she is totally on her own in the original image...
So why should we believe this image of Dr Vincent Tabak that I have attached...
I think the role of Volunteer in The Joanna Yeates case needs proper scrutiny....(imo)
http://www.viper.police.uk/pages/volunteer.html
https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/media/23925/2270-335-13%20Table.pdf
https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/media/29280993/rep-workforce-booklet.pdf
-
Viper
What does this actually mean... It's a broad brush...
Does that mean they can use it in CCTV ?? What way can they use these peoples images ???
http://www.viper.police.uk/resources/PrivacyNotice_V1_1_roomprocess.pdf
VIPER stands for "Video Identification Parade by Electronic Recording". So therefore the information or statement is already recorded so why are you asking about CCTV?
-
......................
-
This from Sky News...
Dr Tanya Nickson, who analysed blood found on a wall beside Miss Yeates, said she believed an attempt had been made to deposit her body in a quarry.
Apart from the fact that I had no idea that she was a DR... If Tanja Nickson is saying that the blood was on the wall and was where someone had attempted to deposit Joanna Yeates into The Quarry... is she actually agreeing that Joanna Yeates was over the wall and the wall area she is talking of is the wall above the tunnel???
It's just as likely...
Edit... Seeing as over the wall where they say Joanna Yeates was located , isn't into the quarry, but the land above the tunnel of the quarry....
http://news.sky.com/story/killer-confessed-to-chaplain-10484853
-
Again on re-reading
Ann Reddrop, head of the CPS South West Complex Casework Unit, added: ”The CPS has been asked for initial guidance about other material.”
The unnamed officer said he and colleagues wanted to clear up speculation surrounding ”other matters” in the Tabak inquiry which were alluded to by the prosecution in his trial.
They included the alleged Category Four images.
He also said he believed police could have better investigated Tabak’s use of prostitutes when he was working away in Los Angeles – less than one month before he murdered Jo.
The source said: ”A number of escort girls were potentially identified, from analysis of pay-as-you-go mobile phones.
”This was never progressed as it should have been. One could have said he was suggesting strangulation to them. It wasn’t progressed.”
In a press conference following Tabak’s conviction Detective Inspector Joe Goff, one of the senior detectives in the case, was asked if police visited sex workers Tabak had used.
He said: ”We never got as far as tracking any of the escorts down.
”What we had in the USA and other times he was working away was that he would be seeking to make contact with escort girls.
It's this little nugget....
The source said: ”A number of escort girls were potentially identified, from analysis of pay-as-you-go mobile phones.
Who's Pay As You Go Mobile Phones???? If they are trying to say that Dr Vincent Tabak had more than one phone and that these phones were 'payandgo'... were these phones brought to court?? What other information was on these Payandgo Mobile phones???
Are the texts that Tanja recieved from a Payandgo Phone?? Why would Dr Vincent Tabak need a Payandgo mobile phone???
”This was never progressed as it should have been. One could have said he was suggesting strangulation to them. It wasn’t progressed.”
I'm would be surprised if Dr Vincent Tabak had a "Payandgo phone".. I would have thought being the professional that he is, he would have had a contract phone and more than likely a works phone... And there would be NO Point in him having a payandgo Phone in America.. If he didn't want it to show up on his phone bill, he could have just used the hotel phone...
What 'Evidence" did the Police have against Dr Vincent Tabak , from these "Payandgo Mobile Phones ??? Where are these "payandgo' mobile phones ???
Now if there were messages on these 'payandgo mobile Phones' that Dr Vincent Tabak was suggesting strangulation then surely that would have been evidence that he had a propensity for such behaviour..
Why were these Payasyougo mobile phones not brought to trial?? And how do we now know where the information of said texts that Dr Vincent Tabak made came from one phone ???
Is there any other evidence on these "payandgo" mobile phones that might support a different timeline for Dr Vincent Tabak??
If the Police/ source are suggesting that Dr Vincent Tabak used payandgo mobile phones as in plural, what other evidence is missing from the time that Tanja went to her party?? If Dr Vincent Tabak is in to prostitutes as the Police have suggested .. Did Dr Vincent Tabak spend time on one of these "Payasyougo" mobile phones on Friday 17th December 2010, Did Dr Vincent Tabak spend time talking to these ladies between 9:00pm and 12;00pm on that Friday night....
I am not convinced about these mobile phones... But if these sources that have been used throughout this case are telling the world that there were many payandgo mobile phones that Dr Vincent Tabak used, then their analysis should have been checked by the Defence...
Where these "payandgo phone' provided by Buro Happold?? Did Anyone at Buro Happold use these phones... Or is it just a figment of someones imagination, making us question even more things that were said about Dr Vincent Tabak??
http://stories.swns.com/news/indecent-child-images-found-on-vincent-tabaks-computer-21419/
-
Flat 1
The Flat that has always concerned me, is Flat 1... The layout that has something not quite right....
I keep looking at Joanna Yeates bedroom, and it doesn't appear right....
The video we see of the Flat tour takes us around the flat into each room... The living Room which is crammed full of furniture, making it difficult to quite work out how wide it is...
But the bedroom width is all wrong... We just get a quick look around this bedroom... But know I think I have seen it...
There is a large piece of bedroom missing ...(imo), you may think I am incorrect, but i don't think so...
On the right hand side as we go into that bedroom, we see the fireplace opening and a white wardrobe, there is a black tall chest of draws in the fireplace opening....
The wall is out.... Either side of the fireplace opening, there should be an alcove... The width of that room appears to have been shortened... The Alcove is narrow....
The curtains being shut are what tricks our eye... We forget that this room has a single window and not a double window like the front room has, therefore to the right of the window as we look into the room that wall next to the window should be a lot longer....
But it just fits the wardrobe in sideways, the wardrobe should fit there flat against the wall or into the missing alcove....
When we look at the back of the flats we can see how wide it is from Joanna Yeates bedroom window to the edge of the house, but inside that area is missing... And i think it is quite possible that area is where the stairs are...
When you come into the hallway just above the electric fuse box there is a solid looking lintel.. It has been bugging me.. But I believe it is a step....
Meaning that the stairway is in the bedroom.....
I'll attach images to show the discrepencies....
Image 1.. Circled the step above the fuse box
Image 2... The narrow width of wall next to the right side of the window of Joanna Yeates bedroom (looking head on)
Image 3... outside Joanna Yeates bedroom clearly showing a longer wall....
Image 4... The for rent image of the bedroom
The long window above Joanna Yeates bedroom window I believe is the landing area for the stairs that must come from Joanna Yeates Flat.....
There has (imo) been a lot of staging of that property....
So I'll go back to the rent advert... That has to have been taken after Joanna Yeates went Missing...(IMO).. because that too has virtually no wall at the right side of that bedroom window as you look into the room....
There has got to be a staircase that they are hiding (IMO)... The wall should be longer!!!!!
This throws up many questions.. the blind did work we can see it in the for rent advert working... The furniture in the advert looks more fitting for that Flat... was that Joanna Yeates furniture??? We have to remember that Greg Reardon also owned that furniture....
So I believe that there must have been a staircase in that flat and that is probably where they stored the likes of ironing boards and the hoover under neath it....
Stairways in old Victorian houses are narrow, so it is very possible that what I am saying is correct, and that the area we see in Joanna yeates bedroom being the wall that should be the outside wall.... Is in fact a partition that has been put up....(IMO)
Remember they collect there Mail from the main house.. There has to be a way to get to it from inside.. Because I do not believe that they use The main Door to get there mail.... (IMO)
Edit... Another problem I have noticed... When we are in the Hallway looking at the bathroom door head on, we see that it is on the same level as the edge of Joanna Yeates bedroom door.... Yet when we look into the bedroom there is only just enough room for the door to open... There is not a lot of space behind the bedroom door.... There should be... Because on the other side of that wall there is a Full sized bath in the bathroom... Where is that amount of room behind Joanna Yeates bedroom door????
The amount of Room behind that Bedroom Door is the width of the wall on the left hand side of the bedroom window....And it should be at least the length of a Bath.... (IMO)..
Double edit.. So we have a Window width at least Missing from that bedroom.. Which roughly is the size of a narrow victorian stair case....(IMO)...
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-27696067.html
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/656480836
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Again I have attached an image...
To The right of the bookcase is where I believe that the entrance to the staircase is to the main house..... You can see a faint outline of what looks like an opening ,I have attached images of the opening marked out and one without it being marked...
All the corners in the Flat are smooth corners, apart from that one, it waves slightly part way down.....
Is this why we have different coloured underlay by the door... because they added it??? Joanna Yeates bedroom had no need for brand new underlay without a carpet....(IMO)...
-
Going back to the image of Greg and Emma in The Hallway at Halloween,... looking in the reflection in the mirror there is a dark area, which you can see just to the right of greg's neck... that really should be a light area because it is supposed to be the other yellow wall...
But something else I noticed Missing from this picture.. is the coat stand.... It should be where Greg and Emma are stood....
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/29/article-2053178-0E936C4800000578-475_634x478.jpg)
-
I have attached an images of Joanna Yeates bedroom, One which comes from the video tour of the bedroom and one which are a still image of the bedroom... The third image is the two images side by side which I have circled differences...
Behind the bedroom door in the video image is the small black chest of draws and what looks like to me a fire surround, but in the still image there is a massive wardrobe next to the small black chest of draws which are next to the fire place.....
Where did the big wardrobe appear from??? Why would you put a Big Wardrobe in front of a Fire surround??
Also if you can fit another double wardrobe into that space, why isn't there the same amount of space behind the bedroom door??
Image 4... Is at Greg's side of the bed... There's only enough room for a small chest of draws and a laundry basket... Yet on the opposite side of the room... At the edge of the bed theres is enough room for a small chest of draws and a Big Double wardrobe... ??? How comes????
What is going on in that room ?????
If you look at image 1... there enough depth to fit a large chest of draws into the fire place... Yet the wardrobe to the lefthand side of the fireplace, juts right out... Wardrobes are not that deep it should be alot further back into the Alcove...!!....(IMO)....
Edit... Image 5 I have circled what looks like a fire surround and the edge of the wardrobe next to it.....
Double Edit... In image 2 The alcove where the mirrored wardrobe is, is not that deep.... you can clearly see.... It should be deeper! (IMO)...
Sorry to keep Editing.... Image 6 shows the back of the wardrobe virtually level with the skirting board of the chimney breast...
http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/656480836
-
I don't think that there is even a fire place in that bedroom of Joanna Yeates I may be wrong....... And believe that the what looks like the Fire surround behind the door between the little black chest of draws and behind the white wardrobe, is also a faux fire surround.... (IMO)
I'm going to use the advert for CJ's Flat to demonstrate....
Image 1... The Living Room
Image 2... The Bedroom
Image 3 The floor plan...
The living room has a Fire place on the right side of that room..... The bedroom has a Fireplace on the left hand side of the room...
The Floor plan shows that the rooms go front to back.. straight through the building... If those rooms are behind each other why is the fireplace on different walls in the same side of the building... The Chimneys are either on the left or the right side of the building....... They should be on the same side of the building if the floor plan has anything to go by...
So one must be a faux Fire place.... (IMO)... (using the images for clarification..)
Image 4... is an aerial view of 44, Canygne Road showing where the chimney stacks are placed ....
Image 5... I have marked where I believe the stairway is possibly situated, as CJ was supposed to live directly above Joanna Yeates that area that is void of anything, is quite possibly the stairway...
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-32871173.html
-
On the outside of the building on the left hand side, running down from the chimney stack at the back of the building appears to be the chimney stack support.. There is a lintel running along the bottom, which doesn't go to the Basement Floor... I believe this is where the Fire places start in the back of the building.. And No fire places are in the basement at the back....
On image two you can clearly see the support for the Chimney Breast at the back of the building... It doesnt go to the basement...!!! (IMO)...
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I cannot see the support for the chimney stack on the other side of the building where Joanna yeates bedroom is, even though there is a chimney stack on the roof in that area....
Image attached ...
But there are bands of stone that encircle the building on each floor level there,s a double band of stone just above the tall window with the orange curtain....
-
Question.... How big are the paving slabs outside Joanna Yeates house???
They look bigger than a foot wide each to me, but what do other people think??
-
According to a drawing that someone put up on Webslueths... The House at Canygne Road is 42 foot wide at the front , by 50 ft wide at the back and 50 ft long down the side... The extra bit to the left hand side of the building makes the building square about half way down....
The photobucket page isn't working now , but I screenshot the image last week..
The guy who's image it is, has got the interior set out... Now I don't know if the interior was that way at anytime... Or The guy has designed the interior...
50 ft down the side of Joanna Yeates Flat is a lot of footage .... I've tried to fit everything into the space, but it's not correct....
Is the length of the building longer than the width at the front of the building?? Because I believe it is... Then you would have 50ft of wallage of Joanna Yeates Flat exterior Wall... There seems less inside...
The bedroom is around 12ft long by the looks of it... The Hallway around 6 ft wide.... So the front room would need to be over 30ft long with the kitchen incorporated... And that room doesn't look that long...
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Odd things I notice ,with the work that has been done in that flat 1
The Mirror in The Bathroom... It is not central... There is a gap to the left of the mirror and on the right side the mirror is attached to the tiles, when there is enough room on the wall to house this mirror..
Why would you install a mirror in that way???
I also noticed what looked like a coat peg rack where the Bath Brush is hung, I have attached an image and circled the areas..
The Coat rack with the brush attached?? Just made me think about when the jury saw coats on coat pegs and thats exactly what is in the bathroom...
I don't understand the shower screen.. it encases nearly all of the bath, but it has been installed on the wrong side of the bath (IMO)... You would want it to start near the taps, but it starts near the bottom of the bath... There's a gap at the bottom of the shower screen and the wall..
What is the point in tiling that part of the wall if the shower screen goes across the edge of the bath to the wall??
You can see this in image 2... There are shampoo etc at the bottom of the bath, yet you wouldn't be able to reach them as the screen is in the way.... Something isn't right with that bathroom...
Why would you install a shower screen back to front???
Down the edge of the bath next to the mirror is a long piece of metal?? or something... I thought that was for the shower screen.. normally you would have a hinge similar to that for a shower door... why would you install a glass cubical???
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I was looking at the files in Joanna Yeates front room... The green file on the desk appears to have been written in 2 people handwriting...
Now I know I am not a handwritting expert, but when the capital 'T" looks markidly different on this file then anyone would see the difference..
"Method's of Enquiry and Post Grad" are written in one handwriting..
"Jo Yeates Landscape Architect are written in another handwriting... On this the letter 'T" is shaped more like a number 7... where as the other handwriting the "T" looks clearly a letter "T"
The other notable thing is the letter "H" in Architecture... it looks like a backwards "N"... that is some distinctive Handwriting...
The other difference is one set of handwriting is spaced out, where as the other handwriting is more compact... That has got to be two different people writing that.... (IMO)..
image attached /...
Has someone added writing to the File ?? Is it really Joanna yeates file ?? I don't know any more... so much doesn't add up....
-
On this image I have attached , we have seen it before, showing a few tiles not yet painted... Which i will come back too...
You can see into the window and the cupboards with Forensic Powder upon them, But I noticed that the OVEN had some metal looking objects lying on top of it... What are they,, because they are not in any photograph of the crime scene that we have seen..
I want to got back to the painting of the tiles... That must have all happened at the same time... This is unusual.. I know I have said they shouldn't be painting tiles... But it helps me in a way...
If this is the time they painted the tiles,.. Then the advert for Joanna Yeates Flat has to be after the tiles are painted... And the furniture inside should be what was originally there... Without a fridge stuffed into the front room... Or that massive furniture....
But then I stumble... Because of the photo of Greg and Emma in the Hallway showing the Black and white bed.... But on the rent adverts the bed is wooden...
But the question goes back to why is the window sill in the kitchen not painted fully??? But when the jury go around it is???? And on The For Rent Advert these kitchen tiles are painted grey???
Your not going to leave a couple of tiles white then paint them later ..... Either all the tiles would have been painted in the kitchen when Joanna Yeates rented it or they were not... I cannot see CJ having a job half done...
So I don't know what to make of these different images....
(1): Kitchen with a few tiles not painted
(2): Kitchen Advert with tiles Painted
(3): Bedroom advert with wooden furniture
(4): Greg and Emma with Black and white bed behind them...
(5): Kitchen tiles in window painted for jury??
It doesn't make any sense to me .... Oh yes... Blind obviously working... And not a Cat in Hell's chance of seeing anyone through that window !!! (IMO)...
Just another point... That wardrobe next to the fireplace , doesn't fit in the alcove either... why would you put a wardrobe there????
Edit... Why hasn't this rightmove advert got a listings history, when the other 2 adverts for 44, Canynge Road properties have a listings history... One says 4th May 2011 and one says 16th April 2011.. So why does the one for Joanna Yeates Flat not have a date ???
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-27696067.html
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Some questions a user on webslueths had: dated... 01-13-2011 12:47 PM (I myself am not a member)
Nausicaa said:( From webslueths...
Question (10) I have said that the site was moved and the pictures with the wall are taken from too different area's
Question (8): We know that something was handed in and it was of significance... But I didn't realise it prompted them to return to Canygne Road..
So what was handed in ????
Edit..... Here's a possible answer from the same site to Question 3.... The reason they believe she hadn't been at the Flat since Friday... or that she was abducted on the Friday, was because she was on The Pill.. and hadn't taken, Saturday and Sundays Pill...
That's a possibility... But it doesn't explain why her parents thought she was abducted.. But would give us a date for her disappearance ....
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?125150-UK-Joanna-Yeates-25-Clifton-Bristol-17-Dec-2010-5/page8
Your suggestion that her pill usage may have provided the police with evidence for the time of her abduction and/or death is brilliant. But your interpretation of the motivation of the parties is obviously wrong. The police always maintained that nobody had heard from her after Friday evening. So the police would have no reason to suppress the news that her Friday, Saturday and Sunday pills were still in the package. On the other hand, the absence of the Saturday pill wouldn't suit the police at all. It would show that she was still alive on the Saturday and still able to enter the flat. This is a candidate for information that her parents might have been asked not to divulge, but then I cannot see them wanting to do so in any case. I see it more as a Rebecca Scott issue.
-
Going back to the kitchen window...
Attached to the kitchen window is a device... I cannot work out whether it is a microphone or a camera... I tend to think camera because of the yellow Jack plug, but I may be wrong... either way why would they want to record someone??
The Air Vent on the kitchen window is also opened....
The Camera/Microphone object is connected to the tool box on the side, it's obviously hidden for a reason... I have a few questions again...
If this device belonged to Joanna Yeates there would have been a recording of her arriving home on the Friday Night...
But I think it may have something to do with the Police...
So where the Police expecting someone to return to the scene of crime ??? That in itself is strange seeing as they had already got Dr Vincent Tabak in Prison...
What would be the purpose for this device ???
I have attached images which show it clearer... if anyone can shed any light on it that would be great....
Another image I have attached is to do with me querying if the Access Panel had a trade mans entrance timer... You can see what looks like a control box for the central heating, But 2 wires comes out of it and one goes into the little cupboard under the boiler??
Edit.. Another observation for that air vent, is the centre piece is missing , which tends to hold it together, it looks like a single side... would that be possible to remove from the outside ????
Image 5 .. I'll add showing the Air vent as a whole, at the time they did the painting of the tiles and the Air vent looking like it could be easily removed ...
I thought that this Crime Scene was untouched and Frozen ... A time Capsule ?????
Double Edit... The recording device, what ever it is, was in place when they were painting the kitchen tiles you can see it at the window..... It's very odd... Did the Police have an informant that recorded things at this window and they removed the vent because the recording was poor????
Might sound like a crazy idea.... But why would you paint kitchen tiles in a Crime Scene:????
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Your suggestion that her pill usage may have provided the police with evidence for the time of her abduction and/or death is brilliant. But your interpretation of the motivation of the parties is obviously wrong. The police always maintained that nobody had heard from her after Friday evening. So the police would have no reason to suppress the news that her Friday, Saturday and Sunday pills were still in the package. On the other hand, the absence of the Saturday pill wouldn't suit the police at all. It would show that she was still alive on the Saturday and still able to enter the flat. This is a candidate for information that her parents might have been asked not to divulge, but then I cannot see them wanting to do so in any case. I see it more as a Rebecca Scott issue.
I think I had read something along those lines leonora.. So I won't take the credit for that one ... But it is a way of suggesting a timeline for her... She could have had an injection of contraception for all we know to be honest... I was just trying to assertain, how without a shadow of a doubt they could say that she was Missing on Friday Night...
They had to know something to be so sure... There has to be information in there possession that says she was "Missing" on Friday 17th December 2010... And it can't be her not replying to her phone because apparently that was normal....And that information they had in their possession has to be well before they even think.... Dr Vincent Tabak... (IMO)
The Missing posters all say last seen... Friday 17th December 2010... So that still tells me she didn't arrive home.. because the last CCTV image of her is the Hophouse Pub CCTV.. But we know DS Mark Saunders saw Private CCTV footage of the comings and goings on Canygne Road....
So nothing really tells us she got home... Basically anyone who knew her could have returned her belongings...
The real problem is that they all have the idea that someone come waltzing along Canygne Road..... But isn't there a way to squeeze through from the Flats around the back of the building???
It very possible no-one was seen doing anything...
Just because Joe Goff thinks screams = Joanna Yeates being attacked ..doesn't make it so...
And her items being home when Greg returned= her arriving home.... doesn't make it so..
Where was she on the CCTV on Canygne Road!!!! That is the simple question.. Because as sure as eggs is eggs ... Dr Vincent Tabak should be all over that CCTV as well... Timed to perfection.... But that CCTV was never brought to court as far as I know... So how did they get away with that one ????
No image of Joanna Yeates on Private CCTV = Joanna Yeates didn't arrive home..
Or if she was on this private CCTV Colin Port must have been hugely mistaken in his replies to The Leveson Inquiry!!!!
Edit.. The only other possibility I can think that they knew she was 'Missing" from Friday 17th December 2010, was that she had actually been abducted and there was some type of communication to say so.... (IMO)..
-
Another reason I don't think Flat 1 wasn't how we have come to know it, is the supply to the boiler...
Flat 1 is supposed to be independent of the main house, yet the supply to the boiler comes from upstairs, does Flat 1 have part of upstairs ??
You can also see the boxed in pipes in the hallway near the doorway.. I have added an image
I have often wondered whether there were stairs or even and upstairs to this Flat.. many of the
Documentries/Dramas depict Greg getting the coat from the bottom of the stairs.. Or there are stairs in the Flat...
So... did/does this Flat have access to upstairs or have part of upstairs, when Joanna Yeates lived there ??
-
The image of Dr Vincent Tabak apparently driving around Park Street, has eluded me for ages... I was trying to look for the placing of the CCTV Traffic camera, that caught this image of the car...
I was looking for christmas lights near where the car was, and hoped that would give me a correct day, as I have found trusting these images to be a problem....
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02036/vincent-tabak-car_2036972i.jpg)
So the info we have is either :
Camera 03 Bristol 99
Or 13/Camera
Here is a list of Camera's that operate in Bristol, their camera Number and there Location.... Some I believe may be missing as there relevance for traffic control is not needed..
I did notice that there was one near ASDA in Bedminster.... I wonder what happened to Dr Vincent Tabak driving to ASDA in Bedminster ???? (271 Bedminster Parade – Outside Asda)
From FOI Bristol Traffic Control Centre has access to 285 CCTV cameras under a
partnership agreement with Bristol City Council’s Emergency Control team.
Not all of these cameras are in locations that are useful for traffic
management. There are around 80 cameras which are used extensively by
Traffic Control Centre staff. This partnership agreement is a cost saving
measure, as it removes the need for multiple cameras at the same location.
A list of these camera locations is attached.
I would have thought the Junction of Queens Road and Park street , would be a good location
NO: Location
1 The Centre/ Colston Tower
4 Baldwin Street/ Marsh Street
31 Bristol Bridge/ Baldwin Street
40 Jacobs Wells/ Anchor Road Roundabout
41 Jacobs Wells Road (By VMS)
50 St James Barton Roundabout
59 Cheltenham Road/ Arley Hill
60 A38/ Winsley Rd
61 Cheltenham Rd/ Cotham Brow
75 Bond Street/ Temple Way (By Cabot Circus Car Park)
76 Newfoundland Way/ Bond Street North & South
77 Newfoundland Way/ Houlton Street (By Staples)
78 M32, Junct 3 (Easton Way)
79 M32, Junct 3 (North)
84 Old Market Roundabout (High Level)
90 Bedminster Bridge Roundabout
91 St Mary Redcliffe Roundabout/ Redcliffe Hill
92 Bath Bridge Roundabout
93 Temple Circus Gyratory (Temple Meads Roundabout)
94 Victoria St/ Counterslip
106 Westbury Rd/ Redland Hill
107 Cheltenham Road/ Gloucester Road
108 Gloucester Rd/ Overton Rd
109 Gloucester Road/ Ashley Down Road
110 Gloucester Road/ Filton Avenue
111 Muller Road/ Filton Avenue
112 Gloucester Road/ Muller Road
113 Gloucester Road/ Dorian Road
114 Filton Road/ Monks Park Avenue/ Toronto Road
116 Clarence Road/ Trinity Road
117 Lawrence Hill RAB North (Easton Way/ St Philips Causeway)
118 Lawrence Hill Roundabout South (Clarence Road End)
119 Easton Way/ Stapleton Road Junction
120 Bath Road – Three Lamps Junction
121 Bath Road – Totterdown Bridge
122 Bath Road/ Spine Road
123 Bath Road/ Sandy Park Road
124 Bath Road/ Tramway Road (Between PDSA & Triangle)
125 Bath Road/ Eagle Road (Top end of triangle by Midland Bank)
126 Bath Road/ Hollywood Road (By Kings Arms)
127 Callington Road/ West Town Lane Junction
128 Bath Road/ West Town Lane Junction
129 Bath Road/ Emery Road (By Brislington Park & Ride)
130 Hicks Gate Roundabout
131 Church Road/ Russell Town Ave
132 Church Road/ Chalks Road
133 Church Road/ Clouds Hill Road
134 Summerhill Road/ Bethel Road
155 Junction 2, M32 East
156 Junction 2, M32 West
157 Muller Rd/ Glenfrome Rd
247 Gloucester Rd/ Sommerville Rd
250 Church Rd/ Byron St
251 Church Rd/ Weight Rd
252 Church Rd/ Lypiatt Rd (Tesco)
253 Bath Rd/ Brislington Hill
254 Hotwell Rd/ Mardyke Inn
255 Hotwell Rd/ Spar
257 Wells Rd/ St Johns Lane
258 Wells Rd/ Broadwalk
259 Wells Rd/ Ponsford Rd (Near Airport Rd)
263 Hengrove Roundabout – Imperial Way approach
264 Hengrove Roundabout – Cineworld approach
265 Hengrove Roundabout – Somerfield site approach
266 Whitchurch Lane
267 Hengrove Roundabout – Bishopsworth approach
270 Bedminster Parade (Rope Walk Pub) – By Bedminster Bridges Roundabout
271 Bedminster Parade – Outside Asda
272 Bedminster Parade – Dalby Avenue end
280 Bedminster Road/ St Johns Lane (Parson Street Gyratory South)
281 Bedminster Road/ Bedminster Down Road (Parson St Gty West)
282 Bedminster Down Road/ Winterstoke Road
283 Bedminster Down Road/ West Street
284 B-Bond South (Cumberland Basin)
285 B-Bond North (Cumberland Basin – Plimsoll Bridge)
297 Portway/ Bridge Valley Rd
298 Portway/ Pumping Station
300 Portway Park & Ride/ M5
Where did the image of what is supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabak on the Junction of Queens Road and Park Street, come from????
I have been all around on google maps/street view trying to see if I can find a CCTV traffic camera that might not be in that list.. But I cannot find one .... I have wandered all over that location..
There is one object that I have found on a Lamp post, but it doesn't look like a camera to me.. I could be mistaken... I have attached an image of this object,.. Plus an image with Park Street and the lamppost in... But this object could have been put on the lamppost after 2010, seeing as I am looking in 2017
The image of Dr Vincent Tabak's car seems to have been taken at some distance and zoomed in on... And if it was taken by the object on the lammpost it should be nearer.. I don't think that object has anything to do with anything, but i didn't want to exclude it... I believe the angle of the photograph of Dr Vincent Tabak's car was taken from the Left side of Park street looking up to the University.. That would discount the object...
But again I could be mistaken.... If it is taken at the distance I believe it to have been taken, then that would have been further down Park Street... And maybe it was located outside a shop and their own CCTV... But the image of Dr Vincent Tabak's car, has a Number and location, so I am puzzled....
Edit.... How was that image of the silver looking car on park Street used at trial, when you cannot identify that car from any other silver looking car, you cannot see the Number Plate... It could be anybody...!!
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/199419/response/489089/attach/html/3/CameraList.doc.html
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/traffic_management_by_cctv
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The Dutchman was captured on CCTV, shown to the court, driving his Renault Megan around Bristol after the killing at 10pm.
This next quote is new...
CCTV pictures again showed Tabak driving up and down roads in Bristol, including roads that lead out towards Longwood, Lane, in Failand, North Somerset – where Jo’s body was found.
Where are these CCTV Images of Dr Vincent Tabak driving up and down roads in Bristol, and roads on the way to Longwood Lane ????
http://stories.swns.com/news/vincent-tabak-strangled-jo-yeates-before-going-shopping-with-her-body-in-his-car-boot-21306/
Edit This is After the killing at 10:00pm... But it's the wrong day!!!!! 18th is the day after.... I thought Dr Vincent Tabak was in in house at 10:00pm..
[Doube Edit If this image of what is supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabak's car around Park Street on the 18th December 2010 at 10:00pm in the evening, then why is there only one person in the car... shouldn't Tanja be sat next to him seeing as they were together on the 18th December 2010... Didn't they go to Dinner or a party on that day, if i remember correctly!!
-
This is transcript from a News TV with Rupert Evelyn outside Bristol Crown Court... Link at bottom..
Jo Yeates' murder trial: Vincent Tabak's defence
The trial began again this morning... With questions of Dr Russell Delaney. He is a pathologist who carried out the first post mortem.In this examination. Now during that questioning we heard, A paragraph was read to the court, that comes from Vincent Tabak's defence case statement. It is a statement that has been signed by him and it said..
The two were facing each other, he had one arm around here back, his hand in the small of her back and she screamed. He put his other hand over her mouth and the screaming stopped. He removed his hand from her mouth and the screaming continued. He then held his hand around her throat and held it there for about 20 seconds, he applied no more than moderate force on a scale of 1 to 3 He did not intend death or serious injury and Vincent Tabak accepts that his actions , were unlawful.
Rupert Evelyn goes on to say...
Well towards the end of of er, this mornings court hearing we heard from Rebecca Scott, Joanna Yeates's best friend.Now during that evidence Rebecca said that she was very happy for Greg and Jo, she said that she knew that their relationship was the real deal.And that Greg and her were in it for the long term. She said that in speaking to Joanna Yeates the night she walked home, Joanna said that she had left the pub because she was bored and she was wanting to come to Swansea.
We have also heard from Greg Reardon, a few questions about his relationship with Jo and he is due to continue giving evidence this afternoon
The Defence Case Statement... Now if it was the words and the information that Dr Vincent Tabak gave, shouldn't the statement start with.... I was facing Joanna Yeates??
That is a story written and not by Dr Vincent Tabak in my opinion..
All the way through that statement the words I and My should be prevalent??
That sounds like a statement from a witness who saw what was happening in a room... Not the defendant, who was supposed to have committed the act.....
Going onto Rebecca Scotts statement... Why was Joanna Yeates so bored, when she had company at The Ram and also she had Mince Pies to bake and shopping to do????
It gets stranger .....
https://www.musicjinni.com/Ounz3S6TiiN/Jo-Yeates-murder-trial-Vincent-Tabak-s-defence.html
-
This News Clip titled.. Joanna Yeates Trial Vincent Tabak Found Guilty Of Murder shows a short video of The Silver Car going down Park Street... The timing on this clip is at: 1:54
https://www.musicjinni.com/8CB3OdnwMQq/Joanna-Yeates-Trial-Vincent-Tabak-Found-Guilty-Of-Murder.html
There were two things i wanted to see if I could find on the video clip:
(1): Was it snowing
(2): Were there any Christmas lights..
I couldn't see any Christmas lights and I couldn't see any signs of snow either......
I did notice that I could see lights from another source moving across the CCTV image.. It looks like a reflection you would get of glass??? Would that happen on a CCTV Camera ?? I'll attach stills so you can see the green looking lights moving across the video..
They actually appear to be the reflection from The Silver Car ????
I don't know anything about photography, but would you get that effect as if it was reflecting off glass??
Watching the people in the road you can see that there is a woman swinging her coat around and a man in a pair of shorts... Thought it was below zero??
-
Trying to find out when Joanna Yeates was reported "Missing"...
Originally it was stated , that Joanna Yeates was reported "Missing" on the 19th December 2010, there are many articles around the time that reported this...
(http://www.channel4.com/media/images/Channel4/c4-news/JAN/05/Yeates_Bristol_Timeline_new.jpg)
:: December 19
Mr Reardon reports Miss Yeates missing when he returns to Bristol from a weekend away visiting relatives in Sheffield.
:: December 20
Avon and Somerset Police make their first appeal for information over Miss Yeates' disappearance. Officers said they were concerned for her safety because it was out of character.
Even from The Leveson Inquiry CJ's Statement says the same:
As I have said, Ms Yeates went missing on Friday 17
December 2010. She was reported to the Police as
missing on Sunday 19 December 2010.
And December 19: Mr Reardon reports Miss Yeates missing when he returns to Bristol from a weekend away visiting relatives in Sheffield.
The Guardian..
19 December
Reardon reports Yeates missing when he returns to Bristol from a weekend away visiting relatives in Sheffield.
20 December
Avon and Somerset police make their first appeal for information over Yeates's disappearance. Officers say they are concerned for her safety because it is out of character.
It is not until the trial that it appears to have change to Monday 20th December 2010 that Greg Reardon reported Joanna Yeates "Missing"
Even the Police's first appeal is on Monday 20th December 2010, but apart from these articles I cannot find one dated the 20th December.. I don't know if they have been removed.
The constant shifting timeline, is very disconcerting.. It always brings me back to the Police having charged Dr Vincent Tabak between 16th December 2010 and 19th December 2010, that he killed Joanna Yeates...
How is it possible to change the day she was reported "Missing"??? In court it was said that Greg Reardon reported her "Missing" on Monday 20th December 2010... The information the papers had at the time must have come from The Police themselves...
And the fact that CJ clearly states in The Leveson Inquiry that Joanna Yeates was reported ""Missing" on the Sunday 19th December 2010 adds weight to that timeline...
The 25-year-old has not been seen or heard from since Friday, Dec 17. Her boyfriend Greg Reardon, 27, reported her missing last Sunday night when he returned home to the flat they shared in the Clifton area of Bristol.
The we get to the trial....
He reported Miss
Yeates as a missing person to Avon and Somerset police. He made the ‘missing person’
report at 1:00 hours on Monday morning, 20 December 2010.
I have searched for reports of the date being Monday in the papers and none say this...
They all say....
She was reported missing on Sunday 19 December by her boyfriend, Greg Reardon, when he returned from a weekend in Sheffield with family and found her gone but her coat, keys, purse and bankcards still at the flat they shared.
At lunchtime the following day police launched a public appeal for help in finding Yeates.
The Police didn't arrive at Joanna Yeates Flat until about 4:00 in the morning,
Monday 20 December
At 4.15am a police officer, accompanied by Reardon, knocks on the door of Tabak's home, Flat two, 44, Canynge Road. He appears "vague and confused" and says he knows nothing of Yeates's disappearance.
Why are they banging on Dr Vincent Tabak's house early in the morning?? What evidence was in the flat to make them start waking up the neighbours for a Missing person... Ordinarily they wait 48 hours, but they are making appeals by Lunch time on the 20th December 2010.. That is 11 hours after she is reported "Missing"..
There were initially 2 Officers in charge of the investigation..
What began as a missing persons inquiry headed by two officers in charge of policing in Bristol has become a murder hunt led by Detective Chief Inspector Phil Jones, one of the most experienced members of Avon and Somerset police's major crime investigation unit.
So 2 Officers have gone from a Missing Persons Report at 1:00am on Monday 20th December 2010.. To Launching an appeal in 11 hours... They haven't had time to go through Joanna Yeates phone and Facebook account to see if she had been in contact with anyone... Yet we have an immediate response from Avon and Somerset Police...
They in this 11 hours need to contact everyone that she may have been in contact with over that period, check that she hadn't pre -arranged to see someone, weeks or days before she is reported Missing"....
But No... They launch a full investigation Immediately.. That tells me something else was going on,
"Was Joanna Yeates Abducted?????
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/28/joanna-yeates-killing-timeline
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8225615/Police-confirm-they-have-found-the-body-of-missing-architect-Joanna-Yeates.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1341520/Missing-architect-Jo-Yeates-Police-womans-body.html#ixzz4vvOpa2hz
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122175126/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Christopher-Jefferies.pdf
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8230065/Joanna-Yeates-murder-timeline.html
https://www.channel4.com/news/police-search-for-joanna-yeates-missing-socks
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/dec/28/joanna-yeates-may-have-known-killer
-
Reports as to when the Police arrived at Dr Vincent Tabak's house on Monday 20th December 2010
Monday 20 December
At 4.15am a police officer, accompanied by Reardon, knocks on the door of Tabak's home, Flat two, 44, Canynge Road. He appears "vague and confused" and says he knows nothing of Yeates's disappearance.
Anyone would feel vague and confused being banged up at 4:15am... Seeing as they hadn't been to bed for that long....
Why would Greg Reardon go with the Police to Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat if he didn't know him... Why are they not in the rest of the building or banging up CJ...
CJ.... says from Joanna Yeates: Murder at Christmas Part 1
I got up on the Monday morning and noticed that I had a missed call on my phone from Greg at about half past 12 on the Sunday
We have a report that this inquiry was lead by 2 Officers...
What began as a missing persons inquiry headed by two officers in charge of policing in Bristol has become a murder hunt led by Detective Chief Inspector Phil Jones,
Again... This is from after the trial.....
Friday 28 October 2011 16.11 BST
Monday 20 December
At 4.15am a police officer, accompanied by Reardon, knocks on the door of Tabak's home, Flat two, 44, Canynge Road. He appears "vague and confused" and says he knows nothing of Yeates's disappearance.
This next quote is From The Judge Rinder 9:20 mins.. David Yeates says..
We drove down to Bristol,we arrived there at 1:00 O'clock.. 1:00 .. 2:00 O'clock in the morning, Jo's keys phone and money was in the flat, all of Jo's external Clothes and shoes were still in the flat
DCI Phil Jones ... 11:00mins
It was the early hours of December the 20th ,a Monday morning, around about 1:00 O'clock in the morning, er.. when Police received a telephone Call, from Joanna 's Boyfriend Greg Reardon. He rang 999 a call went through and an assessment is made that we need to send Police Officers to the address
Shouldn't that be an assessment was made??
So how long did it take to make this assessment for them to be knocking on Dr Vincent Tabak's door at 4:15am on Monday 20th December 2010...
We have 3 hours 15 minutes and in this time the Police have talked to Greg Reardon ...Talked to Mr and Mrs Yeates, checked Joanna Yeates phone... Checked Joanna Yeates Facebook messages, left a message on Rebecca Scott's phone before she woke at 4:00 am on Monday the 20th December..
Shouldn't they have contacted the people she was last known to be drinking with...
They must have contacted the people she messaged for a drink...
I believe it was DC Karen Thomas who first went around to Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat.. And we have DS mark Saunders making appeals.. So are these the two officers who were first put in charge ???
“The next phone call I got was around 4am on Monday December 20,
it was a missed call from the police, I instantly knew something was wrong
so I called Jo’s phone and Greg answered, telling me what had happened.
In around 3 hours we have Rebecca Scott receiving a call.. Is 3 hours long enough to assess the situation??
Rebecca Scott, ??..... You would think that Greg would say she's not likely to have seen Joanna Yeates as she was in Swansea.. As he knew the most likely people to have seen Joanna Yeates were her colleagues she had been for drinks with on that Friday evening....
This is from the transcript of the Police video that Rebecca Scott did...
(Big Pause).. She phoned me on the Friday ... erm.. I travelled home for Christmas on the Sunday..(gulp).. Erm... It was about 4 O'clock in the morning I woke up. Erm.. (licks lips) And saw that there was a message, on my phone from the police... Er... Informing me that she had gone missing...
We have according to the trial... Greg Reardon calling the Police at 1:00 am on Monday 20th December 2010
We Have Joanna Yeates parents saying arrived around 1:00.. 2'O'clock to Flat 1 Canygne Road..
We have Mrs Yeates going out and about banging on car boots when they have arrived there ...
And We have Rebecca Scott saying she received a phone message from the Police before 4'Oclock in the Morning....
How is that possible??
There has to be more to Joanna Yeates disappearance than the tale that Dr Vincent Tabak decided to pop around to his neighbour he didn't know and kill her within minutes of her opening the door ...
Does this go back to the idea that something happened on the 16th December 2010, because that is the date that Dr Vincent Tabak was charged from...
I did post that BDP had contacted there employees and a woman called Jess Siggers posted on facebook that she wanted to start looking for Joanna Yeates on the weekend of the 17th- 19th December 2010 And this is even before anyone apparently knew Joanna Yeates was Missing....
Jessica Siggers to JOANNA YEATES, MISSING SINCE 17/12/10
27 December 2010 ·
Travelling back to my home in Clifton today which will never feel the same again. Jo, I never knew you but our paths may have crossed many times. You, your family & Greg have not left my thoughts since last weekend when we received a message from BDP. I wanted to go out and search there & then. No-one should be taken the way you were. It's a cruel world but for what it's worth, you will get justice. RIP beautiful girl. X
She can't mean the weekend that had just gone.. The 25th December -26th December, because Joanna Yeates had already been found and she wants to go and look for her......
So what really happened to Joanna Yeates ??? Because they obviously knew and know more about her disappearance than they had let on.... The dates must be different... And if the dates are different Dr Vincent Tabak could not be responsible ..(imo)
Had Joanna Yeates gone Missing on the 16th December ??? It's the only thing that would make sense... Making it impossible for Dr Vincent Tabak to go around to her flat on Friday 17th December 2010 and strangle her ....
What made the "POLICE" go straight around to Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat at 4:15 am on Monday 20th December 2010??
Greg would have told them that they didn't know there neighbours and never met them... So why are they knocking on Dr Vincent Tabak's and Tanja Morson's door at 4:15am ??
That doesn't make sense..
The Police do not normally start house to house inquiries that soon... They (imo) would normally check every possible scenario, before they start asking the neighbours questions,. And NOT within 3 hours of receiving a "Missing Persons" report!!!
Why had they immediately gone to Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat.. when there were so many lines of Inquiry to pursue and only two Officers assigned to the Case .... Why haven't they banged up CJ?? But they allowed him to wake up, yet they are banging on Dr Vincent Tabak's door at 4:15am in the morning of Monday the 20th December 2010
CJ.. The landlord whom Greg and Joanna Yeates knew better and would possibly see any comings and goings is left to sleep till he naturally awakes in the morning....
Why did the Police immediately focus on Dr Vincent Tabak as early as 4:15 am Monday 20th December 2010, when Dr Vincent Tabak had not met his neighbours and had also been in America until the 14th December 2010, so no-one would have seen him around at all.. yet they go straight to his Flat before they talk to CJ, who would have been the most likely person in That building to possibly have seen Joanna Yeates....
Back to Rebecca Scott for a minute...
(Big Pause).. She phoned me on the Friday ... erm.. I travelled home for Christmas on the Sunday..(gulp).. Erm... It was about 4 O'clock in the morning I woke up. Erm.. (licks lips) And saw that there was a message, on my phone from the police... Er... Informing me that she had gone missing...
Er... Obviously they'd seen on the phone that she'd phoned me. And.. obviously wanted me to get in touch... Erm.... I immediately sort of panicked and phoned Jo...
And Greg... Greg answered the phone.... I knew something was wrong... er I think, we all did.
Erm.. (pause)(licks lips) As soon as I found out her were in the flat, you know , that was it.. I knew that hadn't left the house of her own intention.
So Rebecca Scott rings Greg after 4'O'clock in The morning and the Police immediately go round to Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat within 15 minutes of Rebecca Scott waking up....
This conversation with Greg took how long??? Enough time for him to ask if she had seen her ... heard from hear... that he'd been away for the weekend and when he returned she wasn't there... Then go on to describe what was left in the Flat, for Rebecca Scott to know....
Then convey to the Police what Rebecca Scott had said... Or did the police then talk to her....
Did they not then pause and think... Is there anyone else you might believe that Joanna might have visited??
No... we go running around to Dr Vincent Tabak's flat and Wake him up a neighbour who really shouldn't know anything... They get him out of bed without any reason to believe that Dr Vincent Tabak may have known or even seen Joanna Yeates that weekend.....
I don't get it.... What possible reason could the Police have to disturb neighbours that early in the morning... I say neighbours I mean neighbour.. Because they don't appear to have knocked up anyone else !!!!
Was there something left in the Flat that suggested Dr Vincent Tabak??? Because if there was it wasn't brought to trial.... The Police had NO NEED to be banging on Dr Vincent Tabak's door at 4:15am on Monday 20th December 2010 within about 3 hours of Joanna Yeates being reported Missing....And within 15 minutes of Rebecca Scott waking up!! (imo)...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/28/joanna-yeates-killing-timeline
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_5Kt94oXos
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8056.msg422287#msg422287
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8168.msg426128#msg426128
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/dec/28/joanna-yeates-may-have-known-killer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4X5I4eOKIBs
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4htq8y
-
I've just posted this about the word dead on the arm of the glasses of the woman playing Mrs Yeates in The Judge Rinder program..
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8239.msg426833#msg426833
The Word "DEAD" which is printed on the arm looks like it has been done with one of those punch machine things you had as a kid in the 70's.. That were Black tap and punched raised letters....Think they were called Dymo..
When looking for this machine.. Dymo machine I came across the real thing... These machine are used for labels and receipts...
It made me think about the white outline that is behind the couch... Could that be an outline of one of these machines???
So are we back to the access panel and a trades mans access???
Are all the talk of receipts more to do with this machine ?? There are receipts and Barcodes littered all around Joanna Yeates Flat...
There is a model that prints labels ... Image 5.. It comes in a tool case... made me think about the one in the kitchen..
Description
Simplify labeling with the DYMO XTL 300. Prints durable labels including continuous length tape, laminated wire/cable wraps, heat-shrink tubes and pre-sized labels. Life-like label preview and color display shows exactly how labels will look when applied to cables, pipes, panels, and more. Built-in label applications make getting started from the home screen easy. Pre-loaded templates ensure perfect formatting to save time. • Prints 6mm up to 24mm durable labels. • Pre-set layouts for almost 100 patch panel models eliminate size and spacing guesswork. Kit contents: DYMO XTL 300 Label Maker, Carrying Case, AC Charging Adapter USB Cable, Rechargeable Lithium Polymer Battery, 24 mm x 7 m All-Purpose Vinyl, Black on White Cartridge, 21 mm x 39 mm Laminated Wire / Cable Wrap, Black on White, 150 labels, Lanyard, Quick Start Guide, Software Download Card.
So is the outline that is behind the couch possibly imitating a Dymo.DYMO XTL 300 TAPES 6-24mm LABEL MAKER KIT??? because nothing about that Forensic outline came to court...
Has the Pizza got something to do with POS?? (Point of Sale)
Or did she order something else via a restaurant or take away???
Just thinking about other ways to have deliveries ....
Anyone could then pay with anyones bank card as it can be done online... Or by phone...
Or is it really to do with the 70's style Dymo tape punch label name maker???
https://www.cromwell.co.uk/shop/office-supplies-and-stationery/labelling-machines/dymo-xtl-300-tapes-6-24mm-label-maker-kit/p/DYM8219853D
-
Nine, your research is frighteningly thorough!!
Unfortunately your posts are so long ...
So #880:
The reason they went to the next door flat was to probably make sure that Joanna wasn't visiting and relaxing next door with her neighbours.
The police did start door to door straight away. Well not within three hours but the next morning, quite early.
Sorry recovering from a local bug and still not feeling well, so I will leave my answers to post 880 as the above.
-
Nine, your research is frighteningly thorough!!
Unfortunately your posts are so long ...
So #880:
The reason they went to the next door flat was to probably make sure that Joanna wasn't visiting and relaxing next door with her neighbours.
The police did start door to door straight away. Well not within three hours but the next morning, quite early.
Sorry recovering from a local bug and still not feeling well, so I will leave my answers to post 880 as the above.
Yes i must apologise for the length of my posts... But I like to make sure that I can back up what I say with links and video clips.. The trouble I have found when looking at other peoples posts on forums from the past, Is they don't always have links, so you don't know what they say is accurate or where they obtained their information from....
So I try to be as accurate as I can... In the hope that if someone ever looks into Dr Vincent Tabak's Case and the things I have uncovered, they can see where I have got my material from.. and it is not something from the top of my head....
I'll keep this post short and sweet...
Sorry to hear not not well.. get better soon ?{)(**
-
I knew that Dr Vincent Tabak had originally been charged between those dates.. This TV News Report is on The Judge Rinder Program....
At 41:53 .A TV News reporter says:
He was charged with the Murder Of Joanna Yeates,sometime between the 16th and the 26th December last year.
So what evidence did they have when they charged him???? Somewhere between What does that say????
It says they didn't have a clue!!!
But another interesting thing i noticed was the board with images on behind the detectives in the Office.. Now they could be actors I don't know... But the board behind them should be correct... They flash up images of Dr Vincent Tabak so it shouldn't be a problem having hm on the board like they did in the Crime Watch Program..
Now the images are not that clear... You can see them on the program around at 36:10
I have enlarged and attached...
So on the board , there is what looks like an Oldish Bloke and below that is an image of a heavy set younger man in a pink shirt... The guy in the pink shirt looks like he is in an Office... No pictures of Dr Vincent Tabak, were distributed of him in his office....
Even from a distance that doesn't look like Dr Vincent Tabak....
Where these the people they were actually looking for ????
Also on the board is a picture of 3 people together... don't know if Joanna Yeates is one of them... But thaat board behind them should relate to Joanna Yeates... So who are the "MEN" featured on the board ?????
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4htq8y
-
Nine, your research is frighteningly thorough!!
Unfortunately your posts are so long ...
So #880:
The reason they went to the next door flat was to probably make sure that Joanna wasn't visiting and relaxing next door with her neighbours.
The police did start door to door straight away. Well not within three hours but the next morning, quite early.
Sorry recovering from a local bug and still not feeling well, so I will leave my answers to post 880 as the above.
Nina... Have I made an error somewhere on that post??? You have got me think now ????
-
Nina... Have I made an error somewhere on that post??? You have got me think now ????
I don't know which part of your post you're referring to Nine.
-
I don't know which part of your post you're referring to Nine.
8)--)) No worries
-
The Pizza..
Det Chief Ins Gareth Bevan, from Avon and Somerset Police, said: "We believe Jo reached her home address shortly after 8.30pm on Friday evening."From CCTV, we know she bought a pizza at Tesco Express in Clifton Village and there is no evidence of the pizza, the wrappings or the box in the flat.
I never really looked at this statement before, I've seen it so many times..
When we came to trial, Dr Vincent Tabak apparently had Pizza for his tea and also Greg Reardon had Pizza when he returned from Sheffield...
Mr Reardon said he had eaten a pizza from the freezer for his dinner and drank the open
bottle of cider he had found in the flat when he got home.
The Oven was on Dr Vincent Tabak apparently switched it off, so I assume the Pizza was out of the box, I only say this because DCI Gareth Bevan talks about the Pizza as 3 seperate articles.. The Pizza, it's wrappings or the box...
Mr Reardon noticed two broken pieces of plastic on a green pedestal in the hallway, with a pair of Jo's briefs on top.
He told the court that this was not the normal place they would be kept. The bin had not had any extra rubbish put into it since he left on December 17 and he spotted Jo's work bag on the dining room table. In it, he found her keys and wallet.
This is why I'm confused... No sign of this Pizza what so ever.. Now I'll explain why the confusion... If Dr Vincent Tabak took the Pizza away plus the wrappings and the box, did the Police check the contents of Joanna Yeates Kitchen bin????
Did they check the contents of Dr Vincent Tabak's bin?? Did they test the contents of Dr Vincent Tabak's bin??
Greg had a Pizza when he got home, and finished the cider... He must have put the wrappings and box in the kitchen bin... So did the Police take the contents of Joanna Yeates kitchen bin away to test what ever was in there...
When they went around to Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat did they look in his bin?? or did they look in the outside bins??
Even though we know Greg had a Pizza, how would they know that the wrappings from Greg's Pizza was any different from the wrappings of Joanna Yeates Pizza....
Greg tells us in court that the bin didn't have any extra rubbish put in it since the 17th December 2010, does that mean the bin was full or empty?? If it was full then it must have stunk to high heaven... So did Greg Reardon empty the bin??
If he meant it was empty.. then the wrappings and box from his Pizza, must have been in the bin when the Police arrived on Monday 20th December 2010...
So did the Police test the rubbish in the bin after Greg had put his Pizza wrappings in it or not.. Because I cannot tell how they would be able to know one wrapping from another...
They never mention testing Joanna Yeates bin contents so I just wondered...
Did Greg empty the bin...we know he tidied up so did he empty the bin??? Did the Police test the contents of Joanna Yeates bin?? As well as Dr Vincent Tabak's bin?? And the other residents bins??
Did they take away the contents of the outside bins.... Because there should have been at least 2 pizza wrappings and boxes in those Bins to test as Greg and Dr Vincent Tabak both had Pizza that weekend... maybe someone else in the house had pizza too..
Was all this talk of Pizza just a smoke screen??? Because it makes No sense to me ....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2050063/Vincent-Tabak-strangled-Jo-Yeates-20-seconds-stifle-scream-arm-her.html#ixzz4w1Q0f3Yf
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/missing-joanna-yeates-pizza-may-hold-793506
-
Where's The Microwave in The kitchen of Joanna Yeates??? Why have the Police removed this Microwave?
'I noticed an open bottle of cider on the right by the microwave.
'It was a bad habit of Jo to open drinks and leave them. I came in and I was slightly annoyed. It looked like she had done it again and left a bottle of cider. I consumed it.'
Dr Vincent Tabak turns off the oven... He doesn't mention the Microwave??? Why wasn't the Microwave tested for finger prints??
Joanna Yeates could have defrosted her Pizza in the Microwave oven... Even cooked it in The Microwave oven... Dr Vincent Tabak's finger prints could have been on it??
But he never mentions this Micro wave, and to be honest it's the first i have heard of it....
If the Microwave had nothing to do with Dr Vincent Tabak.. why isn't it in the photographs of Joanna Yeates kitchen???
Where on the right are there plugs??? There are some near the sink, but I personally wouldn't plug it in near there.... maybe there's more plugs near that big tall cupboard that I think the Fridge is in....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2050063/Vincent-Tabak-strangled-Jo-Yeates-20-seconds-stifle-scream-arm-her.html#ixzz4w1kTOZIz
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Joanna Yeates Bag
We never see the bag that she takes money out of when she is in Bargain Booze, and we know that she had more than her rucksack with her and the plastic bags....
He told the court that this was not the normal place they would be kept. The bin had not had any extra rubbish put into it since he left on December 17 and he spotted Jo's work bag on the dining room table. In it, he found her keys and wallet.
So Joanna Yeates had a work bag... That would male sense.. most woman don't want to take their favourie bag to work... Notice it doesn't say Rucksack.... So where is this work bag???
He told the court that this was not the normal place they would be kept. The bin had not had any extra rubbish put into it since he left on December 17 and he spotted Jo's work bag on the dining room table. In it, he found her keys and wallet.
This is weird.
Later he found the amethyst earrings Yeates had been wearing the previous week. One was on the bedroom floor, the other under the duvet. She normally put them on a bedside table when she took them off, he said.
Shouldn't that be the Amethyst Earrings she was wearing that night??? And not previous week...
What day is Greg Reardon supposed to have found them...???
Ok, I'm following it now.. It was the Monday Morning he found them... That's correct because it was when Mr and Mrs Yeates had arrived at the flat and Mr Yeates said he found one of her earrings under a pile of clothes ... Because Greg and he were searching for any sign of Joanna Yeates...
back to the bag... This next quote is from 2012
“I went through her rucksack, that was packed full and sitting on the table,
and found her glasses, purse and keys.
What else was in that rucksack?? For it to be packed full, A sweater, keys, glasses, purse...
Was there something in the rucksack that connected the killer to Joanna Yeates ?? Was anything in the Rucksack to connect Dr Vincent Tabak to it???
“I had a certain level of anxiety as I had not been in contact with her all
weekend.
I thought he had tried to ring ?? text etc?? That sounds weird... maybe I am reading it wrong...
The talk of the bag/ work bag// rucksack... Why wasn't this Rucksack brought to trial as Evidence??
Or even her Work Bag....
If Joanna Yeates Flat keys are in this bag, then Dr Vincent Tabak would have had to put them there after he locked the door, because there are more than one lock on Joanna Yeates front door... There are about 3 keys on the key ring for the door... There should have been a Car key attached also....
Were her keys checked for Finger Prints????
Greg would have realised something was amiss if all the locks were not locked when he got home, nut he doesn't mention the locks.. Why didn't the Police bring this Rucksack to trial????
The one tangible thing we have all seen and it didn't arrive at trial?? Why Not???
Where was the "Physical Evidence" in this trial... All the materials they removed fro that Flat until it was stripped bare, and NOT ONE piece of it came to trial.....
Joanna Yeates coat??? Now that would have got a sympathy vote from the jury.. But I do Not remember that ever coming to trial either....
Was The Sock ever held up in trial as Evidence??? did it have an exhibit number??? I don't ever remember that being said... In fact like I have always said... we have a man sat there telling us a story... Without any Evidence...
This is barking...!!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2050063/Vincent-Tabak-strangled-Jo-Yeates-20-seconds-stifle-scream-arm-her.html#ixzz4w2KXL557
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2050063/Vincent-Tabak-strangled-Jo-Yeates-20-seconds-stifle-scream-arm-her.html#ixzz4w2KXL557
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/17/vincent-tabak-held-jo-yeates-throat
-
This Post.... http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg426792#msg426792
I wanted originally to see If I could see any Christmas lights, But I don't know if they had them outside the University... .
But The Car turns down to Park Street... Shouldn't there be a reflection of the Christmas lights in The Wind Screen of the Silver Car as it turns on to Park Street as there are lamp post at the top of that road??
Now I do know Park street always has Christmas Lights......
So why can I not see the Christmas lights in the reflection of The Silver car coming on to Park Street???
There should be Snow also.. which bugs me... because there isn't...
What is the real date of this footage of this silver car on Park Street???
https://www.musicjinni.com/8CB3OdnwMQq/Joanna-Yeates-Trial-Vincent-Tabak-Found-Guilty-Of-Murder.html
Silver Car going down Park Street... The timing on this clip is at: 1:54
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I want to go back to Dr Vincent Tabak moving Joanna Yeates body on his own....
He had to carry her to her bedroom.
He had to put her on her bed..
He had to carry her out of her bedroom
He had to carry her down the hall
He had to carry her down the side of the house
He had to carry her across the back of the house
He had to carry her to the spare room
He had to carry her to his car
He had 2 attempts at putting her in the boot
He had to lift her out of the boot
He had to try and lift her over the wall....
All these actions without any drag marks... How is that possible...
I've just been watching about Gemma McCluskie, an Eastenders actress who was Murdered by her brother, he dismembers her and puts just her torso in a suitcase...
There is CCTV footage of him struggling to lift this suitcase with just a Torso in..... He drags this suitcase to the boot of a taxi and then heaves the suitcase into the boot.. When he gets to the canal... he drags the suitcase along the towpath... Because it is obviously too heavy to lift....
So how did Dr Vincent Tabak manage on his own to carry Joanna Yeates, so many times in such a short time??
I believe it's impossible for him to do it....
If we have this actresses brother struggling with just a torso.. Then how did Dr Vincent Tabak manage to carry Joanna Yeates without any signs of her being dragged ????
Why did the jury believe that he could manage to carry her ???
It would take two people to carry Joanna Yeates to dispose of her... And there was never any signs that Dr vincent Tabak had an accomplice....
So what happened??? He suddenly became ten men???
It's ridiculous to think that he could carry her in such a way as to get DNA on the back of her jeans knee...
I've said many times before ...someone needs to do an experiment and see if it is even possible to carry such a dead weight on ones own.... Because I do not believe it is .....
And I do not believe that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates .... !!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Im2cK_55uYk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoU5gYGDS2A
-
From this small clip which shows the exterior of The Ram Pub and Park Streets Christmas Lights which go to the top of the street..
The Ram Pub itself has Christmas Lights in the window, which I then realised I hadn't seen any Christmas decorations or lights on The CCTV Footage of Joanna Yeates in The Ram Pub.. But I do not know The extent of their decorations...
The Other observation, was The 'A" Board out side The Ram Pub, which states that there is Live music there every Friday and Saturday Night... There is even a Joanna Yeates Missing poster on this Board
If Joanna Yeates was so bored, why didn't she stay in The Ram Pub on the Friday Night and enjoy the live music that happened there ?
The Musicians Play in The Bar, I have found an image on trip advisor of a band playing and you can clearly see the window at the front of the bar..
When Joanna Yeates leaves the Ram pub on the CCTV, she walks past the bar which is on the left hand side and a group of men leaning against the wall... With No Decorations near them...
I have said I do not know how The Christmas Decor in The Ram Pub was like on that Christmas, but they did have lights in the window. There are no reflections of twinkling Christmas lights anywhere on the CCTV footage of Joanna Yeates inside The Ram Pub...I would have thought there would have been more evidence of that being at Christmas Time and it being visible inside The Ram.
The only evidence that it is Christmas.. Is a man you can see in The right hand corner wearing a paper hat... With these CCTV video's showing signs of being tampered with it wouldn't surprise me if The Ram one hadn't been tampered with also...
So where is evidence of Christmas?? None really... Is the CCTV of Joanna Yeates in The Ram on the 17th December 2010.. ??
How could Joanna Yeates have complained to Rebecca Scott that she was bored if she had stayed a little longer for The Live Music whilst Greg's away She would have had an evening of entertainment right there.... There is nothing stopping her staying and having a good evening in The Ram pub with her work Colleagues... (imo) But she leaves at her regular time of 8:00pm... Which strikes me as odd...
I accidentley ended up in Culver House in Bristol when trying to look around Park Street on Google Street View... I must have landed in The middle of a Virtual tour type of thing...
Anyhow.. Where I landed was of Interest, which happened to be The Laundry Room... Now I do not know if people can get access to this laundry room, or as Joanna Yeates having been a student could get access I do not know ... But it made me wonder if it was possible that Joanna Yeates could have got her laundry from there... As there is no evidence of a washing machine in the Flat.... I thought if this was possible maybe she drops her laundry off has a drink and then picks it up...
I just wondered if her Rucksack actually had laundry in it???? Because it brought me back to Greg saying he found knickers in The hallway of Flat 1.... And if someone had rummaged through Joanna Yeates Rucksack and laundry was actually in there.. Then that could explain why the knickers where in The Hallway.... Someone may have pulled them out whilst looking for keys??
Dr Vincent Tabak never mentions any Knickers in The Hallway... I would have thought he would have , if he rummaged for the keys....
But as I say... I don't know If Joanna Yeates could have got access to the Launderette on Park Street.. But I thought I would share just incase it was relevant...
I did find that there is a Laundrette near Richmond Hill which from the review I have found in 2009 opened until 10:00pm at night.. Could Joanna Yeates have been to a launderette?? And that was what was in her Rucksack?? Her Smalls??
Couldn't find anything about Park launderette when I found myself in need of one recently, so may as well add my thoughts bog standard launderette near the triangle with 6 'small' (standard size) washing machines, a couple of medium ones and a large one for duvets etc. Prices are £2.60 for the small machines, £4 for medium and £5 for large. There are also several dryers. All coin operated so bring plenty of change. A standard 'small' wash takes about 25 mins with the others taking approx 35mins.
Sadly the last time I went the trashy magazines had gone so you might also want to bring some reading material! Open til 10pm with the last wash at 9pm.
I don't know how many more Laundrettes there are on Joanna Yeates Journey home... But is that what Joanna Yeates regularly did on a Friday night... A little bit of washing on her way home ????
One last thing... Why do we not see Joanna Yeates on The street outside The Ram Pub as there is a CCTV Camera right outside???
Edit.... I just remembered that Greg had said that her rucksack was stuffed full.... Was is stuffed full of "Washing"??????
I went through her rucksack, that was packed full and sitting on the table,
and found her glasses, purse and keys.
The images of Joanna Yeates carrying this Rucksack, it doesn't look packed full to me... Didn't her Rucksack originally contain her stripy Jumper ?? What were in the contents of Joanna Yeates Rucksack????
Double Edit... Didn't one of Joanna Yeates friends say that she always left The Ram pub on a friday Night at 8:00pm to go home to Greg... I always found that statement odd.. But If Joanna Yeates always went to the Ram Pub on a Friday Night.. Did she get a service wash done , have a drink and pick up her washing on her way home???? Or did she sit in the laundrette herself.. And that was why Greg went home ever Friday Night instead of joining her for a drink with colleagues... He probably wouldn't have fancied, sitting in a launderette for ages twiddling his thumbs.....(imo) just a thought....
I did notice that Joanna Yeates never puts any of her shopping into her Rucksack, that she gets from any of the shops... She always carries extra bags... And it would make sense if her Rucksack contained her washing.....
Is this where Joanna Yeates rings Rebecca Scott from... ??? A launderette??
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/vincent-tabak-trial-continues-lib-bristol-ext-night-news-footage/656407720
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxJwSkKu4IY
https://www.yelp.co.uk/biz/park-laundrette-bristol
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/968556/jo-yeates-boyfriend-tells-of-heartbreak-at-christmas/
-
Not to make the above post any longer...
If Joanna Yeates did her washing on her way home... Did she arrive home later???? We have always had the CCTV footage of her journey home... But until now I had not even thought about her doing her Laundry...
The image of what is supposed to be her outside the Hophouse pub, could quite frankly be anyone in a white coat..
So did Joanna Yeates Journey home take a lot longer than we first thought to reach home... Because i believe it is very possible that she could have done some Laundry on her way home... Making the time she arrived back at Canygne Road later than we first were lead to believe????
Edit.... I did wonder if this was where Joanna Yeates text and rang everybody, from the laundrette, which would make perfect sense , because she would be waiting for her washing to finish and would be Bored... Just a thought!!!!
Double Edit
Joanna Yeates was first said to be last seen at 8:30pm I took it that she was in Tesco's... But the Time Stamp on there says different... But we can tell that it has been interfered with....
Now originally Rebecca Scott said that she spoke to Joanna Yeates for 15 minutes on her way home... And the call was at 8:30pm....
Now if Joanna Yeates had left Tesco's earlier then, it would make sense that Joanna Yeates rang Rebecca Scott at 8:30pm and they spoke for the 15 minutes Rebecca Scott originally said....
Was Joanna Yeates going to the launderette when she was chatting to Rebecca Scott....??
Because there is 'NO EVIDENCE" of this 15 Minute phone call in the CCTV Footage of Joanna Yeates in Tesco's... as we see the time stamp running when this phone call should be taking place !!!!!
So not to repeat myself.. But I will...
Was Joanna Yeates sat in a Launderette texting and talking on the phone to pass the time whist waiting for her washing??? That indeed would explain the boredom!! (imo)
-
Just another little thought... Is the reason Joanna Yeates journey goes back and forth because , she had been checking her washing in the launderette??
Because it never made sense to me before that she didn't follow a straight route home... But maybe I have stumbled upon the answer!!
-
Using your diagram on post #848 Nine.
I spoke to the postman the other week. Here's what he said about no.44.
Yes ALL mail is delivered to upstairs, the main front door.
Yes the letter boxes aren't real.
There is no communal space in the basements. There is the front door for Flat 1 at the side of the building and the front door for Flat 2 is round the back.
This matches with your post and diagram of the basements.
Apparently two reasons for the mail boxes not working:
Students urinating through the boxes.
Eccentricity.
Quite a lot of house are blocked like no.44. All these years and I never realized!
-
Just another little thought... Is the reason Joanna Yeates journey goes back and forth because , she had been checking her washing in the launderette??
Because it never made sense to me before that she didn't follow a straight route home... But maybe I have stumbled upon the answer!!
Sorry to burst this bubble Nine, but there are no laundrettes from Park St to Canynge Rd, in fact I'm hard pressed to think of anywhere in Bristol that has a laundrette. I don't know all of Bristol though.
-
Sorry to burst this bubble Nine, but there are no laundrettes from Park St to Canynge Rd, in fact I'm hard pressed to think of anywhere in Bristol that has a laundrette. I don't know all of Bristol though.
You haven't burst my bubble Nina... It's an idea....
Maybe you have a washing machine at home Nina and you are not in need for a laundrette...
There Is a laundrette on Park Place... images attached... And a map of the distance... From Park Street..
Also here is a list of Laundrettes in Bristol....
https://www.yell.com/s/launderettes-clifton-bristol.html
I have also attached a map from Park Place to Canygne Road...
-
Well I stand corrected Nine.
I can't imagine anyone taking dirty washing to work for the day and doing it on the way back home though.
If she and Greg could afford the rent in Canynge Rd they would have had a washing machine. Have you seen one in any of the images, I just can't remember.
I do feel we are all going off piste again, laundrettes!!
-
As I have commented before Nine, your research is frighteningly thorough.
I don't know about the one in Park Place, the next one on google is PV st (Princess Victoria) and that is just a dry cleaners.
Yes like most people nowadays I do have a washing machine, this is why I can't imagine Joanna taking dirty washing to work. Didn't the flat have a machine in it?
-
Well I stand corrected Nine.
I can't imagine anyone taking dirty washing to work for the day and doing it on the way back home though.
If she and Greg could afford the rent in Canynge Rd they would have had a washing machine. Have you seen one in any of the images, I just can't remember.
I do feel we are all going off piste again, laundrettes!!
You would have thought this but.... I hadn't seen any evidence of a washing machine inside Flat 1... As you know I have been over that Flat with a fine toothed comb... No washing Machine... Kitchen doesn't appear to have one.... As I said the fridge was in the front room opposite the kitchen door...
That was one of the reasons i thought that the flat was bigger than we have been lead to believe because of the lack of laundry facilities.... Plus nowhere to put the fridge !
But... If her laundry is in a plastic bag inside her rucksack.. There is no reason "not" to take it to work with her... It would kill two birds with one stone... a little winding down with colleagues after work... washing done on way home... freeing up the weekend for other leisure activities...
It was just an idea Nina... Something that I thought about.. because nothing has been straight forward in this case ....!
-
As I have commented before Nine, your research is frighteningly thorough.
I don't know about the one in Park Place, the next one on google is PV st (Princess Victoria) and that is just a dry cleaners.
Yes like most people nowadays I do have a washing machine, this is why I can't imagine Joanna taking dirty washing to work. Didn't the flat have a machine in it?
I hope I am being thorough... There's no point not checking possibilities.... It made more sense that this could actually be possible for her to do... As she never actually opens This Rucksack to put any of her shopping inside it....
There has to be a reason for that....
-
As I have commented before Nine, your research is frighteningly thorough.
I don't know about the one in Park Place, the next one on google is PV st (Princess Victoria) and that is just a dry cleaners.
Yes like most people nowadays I do have a washing machine, this is why I can't imagine Joanna taking dirty washing to work. Didn't the flat have a machine in it?
A Dry cleaners is just as Possible... She could have delicate items in her Rucksack.... But I'll stick with Laundrette for now...
Remember not that long ago I posted an image of The Ironing Board stood next to the fridge by the little alcove... Maybe she did do her laundry and was ironing it when she was home ????
Give me a mo and I'll find the image of the ironing Board next to the fridge by the little alcove....
There had to be a reason that the Ironing Board was sat there... That Flat has been staged as I have said before...(IMO)...
Edit..... Found the image and attached it..... Here's the post I originally said about the ironing board...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg425429#msg425429
-
You're right it does seem a bit odd.
Are you sure that this is the corner of the lounge? It's just that the table doesn't show a radiator but in other ones a table has a radiator behind it.
The `sensor' on top of the red thing, are you sure that is not just one of those deodorisers?
-
You're right it does seem a bit odd.
Are you sure that this is the corner of the lounge? It's just that the table doesn't show a radiator but in other ones a table has a radiator behind it.
The `sensor' on top of the red thing, are you sure that is not just one of those deodorisers?
I'll look for the clip which shows the fridge and the room... It's a quick glimps you get of the ironing board...
Don't think it's a deodorisor as there is one above the bathroom door on the architrave also....
-
Just a thought from me, could there have been a utility room on the ground floor?
It does seem mad to me that an expensive flat in that expensive/exclusive area did not come with a washing machine or the use of a utility room!
-
Just a thought from me, could there have been a utility room on the ground floor?
It does seem mad to me that an expensive flat in that expensive/exclusive area did not come with a washing machine or the use of a utility room!
Thats what I thought Nina.. That her flat was bigger... But The Flat the jury appear to have seen doesn't appear that big at all...
Here a clip with the fridge in it...still looking for the one where you get to see the Ironing board..
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/joanna-yeates-murder-trial-defendant-vincent-tabak-gives-news-footage/656342798
-
Thats what I thought Nina.. That her flat was bigger... But The Flat the jury appear to have seen doesn't appear that big at all...
Here a clip with the fridge in it...still looking for the one where you get to see the Ironing board..
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/joanna-yeates-murder-trial-defendant-vincent-tabak-gives-news-footage/656342798
No, I meant upstairs. They went up there to collect mail so why not a utility room on that floor too?
Thanks for that, I can start and stop it! A first for me 'cause I'm a div.
I take it that the bedroom is to the right of the mirror in the hallway?
-
Just a quick distraction whilst I look for the clip...
Thursday Evening was Cocktail Night... Friday and Saturday was Live Music...
This little clip shows the flashing lights in the window of The Ram Pub...
No reflections of Flashing lights in the CCTV of Joanna Yeates in The Ram Pub????
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/exterior-of-bristol-ran-pub-news-footage/659294258
-
A reply to another one of your posts that I can't find now.
My friends and I were questioned on the Monday morning, me around 11 am. Just "did you see or hear anything last night" questions. By the demeanor of the police we knew straight away it was serious.
-
Just before I answer your other statement....
Why did you say that my research is frighteningly thorough.??
-
Still looking for that clip, but come across other clips.....
On this clip It shows the outside shed and you can clearly see that there is some type of drainage pipe coming out from The shed at the side ....
Maybe The Washing Machine is in there ..I don't know..... But Maybe that is where the Freezer is kept.....
Just a thought....
I don't know the set up of the rest of the house...I can only use what I see....
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/vincent-tabak-trial-jury-visits-flat-england-bristol-ext-news-footage/656473260
-
Just before I answer your other statement....
Why did you say that my research is frighteningly thorough.??
Because it is.
Most people I am supposing wouldn't go to the lengths re: research that you do, therefore I tend to believe what you post that is FACT not IMO. It was a compliment.
-
Because it is.
Most people I am supposing wouldn't go to the lengths re: research that you do, therefore I tend to believe what you post that is FACT not IMO. It was a compliment.
Aw... Thank you Nina... I'm not good at accepting compliments... But I take it.. 8(>((
I would say that the facts speak for themselves... I just see what I find that is there .....
And there no point in not trying to research it to the fullest point that I can... Some things I will miss... And obviously somethings I will just happen upon and follow that trail....
Still having trouble locating that clip... But the other one shows the fridge.. and the image I screen shot from the other video shows the Ironing Board next to it....
I've hundreds of clips to scan through thats why I'm having trouble locating it...
-
Still looking for that clip, but come across other clips.....
On this clip It shows the outside shed and you can clearly see that there is some type of drainage pipe coming out from The shed at the side ....
Maybe The Washing Machine is in there ..I don't know..... But Maybe that is where the Freezer is kept.....
Just a thought....
I don't know the set up of the rest of the house...I can only use what I see....
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/vincent-tabak-trial-jury-visits-flat-england-bristol-ext-news-footage/656473260
Well it would make sense, a shed outside maybe = a utility room.
Because a flat without a washing machine is like a flat without a cooker or bath IMO.
-
Did they have a freezer? The pizza could have come from the small freezer bit at the top of the fridge, don't you think?
Did Greg R make any comments about going out to the shed to get a pizza, on the night he returned, Sunday?
-
Like happening upon this clip that shows Joanna Yeates chest of Draws, and Joanna Yeates belongings on it....
There is a packet of wipes that are there that are from ASDA and some Pink nail varnish who's colour is Flamingo...
The packet of wipes made me smile actually, because it brought back to mind when Ann Reddrop says on The Murder at Christmas documentary... I think thats the one Ann is in..... She said that Dr Vincent Tabak shouldn't have gone to ASDA to purchase his shopping as there were many shops in Clifton he could have bought those item from....
And in Ann's own words...
"I find that frankly weird"... !!
So what she saying???... Joanna Yeates is weird too because she shops at ASDA....
Think Ann needs to put her brain in gear before she opens her mouth....(imo)
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/interior-shots-around-the-bedroom-belonging-to-murdered-news-footage/129277929
-
Did they have a freezer? The pizza could have come from the small freezer bit at the top of the fridge, don't you think?
Did Greg R make any comments about going out to the shed to get a pizza, on the night he returned, Sunday?
That too is a possibility... I don't know how much freezer shopping they did??
No comments about where he got the Pizza from... Could be anywhere... No small details have been clarified in this case... Which Clegg should have done (imo)...
Then I wouldn't have to be doing his job for him, looking for The Evidence he obviously couldn't be bothered to check!! (imo)..
-
Like happening upon this clip that shows Joanna Yeates chest of Draws, and Joanna Yeates belongings on it....
There is a packet of wipes that are there that are from ASDA and some Pink nail varnish who's colour is Flamingo...
The packet of wipes made me smile actually, because it brought back to mind when Ann Reddrop says on The Murder at Christmas documentary... I think that the one Ann is in..... She said that Dr Vincent Tabak shouldn't have gone to ASDA to purchase his shopping as there were many shops in Clifton he could have bought those item from....
And in Ann's own words...
"I find that frankly weird"... !!
So what she saying Joanna Yeates is weird too because she shops at ASDA....
Think Ann needs to put her brain in gear before she opens her mouth....(imo)
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/interior-shots-around-the-bedroom-belonging-to-murdered-news-footage/129277929
Again that does seem a very odd thing to say about shopping at ASDA, yes he could have gone to Tesco's, but it's out of context. Just a few lines of what she said.
I'm afraid I haven't seen the documentary or read whatever she said.
Thanks for all the clips you have posted today. I'll be taking a good look at them in my own time. Again thanks.
-
Again that does seem a very odd thing to say about shopping at ASDA, yes he could have gone to Tesco's, but it's out of context. Just a few lines of what she said.
I'm afraid I haven't seen the documentary or read whatever she said.
Thanks for all the clips you have posted today. I'll be taking a good look at them in my own time. Again thanks.
You're welcome... And I'll find the clip of what Ann says and link it on here... you will see it in the context it is meant... Also i'll put the time it is on the clip which will save you watching the whole documentary... ?{)(**
-
You're welcome... And I'll find the clip of what Ann says and link it on here... you will see it in the context it is meant... Also i'll put the time it is on the clip which will save you watching the whole documentary... ?{)(**
Sorry if my last post sounded like I was logging off, I wasn't. Just going to make another lemsip.
You have helped me a lot with what you have posted and as I have said I shall think about it all. Why the heck doesn't someone know Greg R?
But we couldn't ask questions. When I was talking to the postman in the Mall he nodded to Chris Jefferies as he went past us and said to me "Why don't you ask Mr Jefferies?"
Absolutely no chance, the same I guess would be the same if Greg R was known to someone on this forum.
-
From....Joanna Yeates: Murder at Christmas Part 1 at 8:50 of the video
He formed an intention at some stage of that evening to go out to Asda. I Frankly found that a bit weird. And he bought one or two items and some Rock Salt . Asda was in Bedminster, it's a car drive away from the Flat. There are plenty of shops in Clifton. If he needed to pop out for something. I would have expected somebody to go locally. Especially given the weather conditions.
Was it ever really established that Dr Vincent Tabak actually purchased Rock Salt???? because There are no signs of Salt being used outside his Flat... When it had snowed !!
You could say there is slight usage outside Joanna yeates Flat as it appears that some snow has melted... But Following The direction from Joanna yeates Flat at the side of the building to What is supposed to be Dr vincent Tabak's Flat, There is no usage of any salt there... Now if Ann is suggesting he was trying to cover his tracks... Why doesn't the snow have salt on it all around the outside of the building between Joanna yeates Flat and Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat???
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/vincent-tabak-trial-date-unknown-snow-on-ground-outside-news-footage/656487136
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/joanna-yeates-murder-trial-defendant-vincent-tabak-gives-news-footage/656385638
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4X5I4eOKIBs
Edit... Why Does The Head of The Complex Case Unit feel the need to play a starring role in a documentary to bury Dr Vincent Tabak right up to his neck...??
Why has she agreed to be apart of this documentary?? You would think her starring role outside of Bristol Crown court was enough giddyness for someone who's role in life is The Prosecution of criminals in Complex Cases...
But No... She obviously thinks we want to see more of her talents and as I said.. Completely bury Dr Vincent Tabak in S***
Is that normal for The Head of The Complex Case Unit to take part in documentaries??? Has she ever starred in a documentary before???? Or was Dr Vincent Tabak such a special case ,she felt the need to let the world know just what a horrible person he really was in her opinion!!!!!
-
Sorry if my last post sounded like I was logging off, I wasn't. Just going to make another lemsip.
You have helped me a lot with what you have posted and as I have said I shall think about it all. Why the heck doesn't someone know Greg R?
But we couldn't ask questions. When I was talking to the postman in the Mall he nodded to Chris Jefferies as he went past us and said to me "Why don't you ask Mr Jefferies?"
Absolutely no chance, the same I guess would be the same if Greg R was known to someone on this forum.
yes you did sound like you were logging off...lol... Hope the lemsip helps.... ?{)(**
I am sure that many people know Greg.. But who quite frankly is going to go up to him and start quizzing him..... ??
I would because I do that kind of thing... But I'm not likely to bump into Greg am I.... They're would be plenty of question I could ask him... And CJ for that matter.... That would make a whole heap of long posts..... @)(++(*
I hope that i am helping you in a positive way... And in Positive i mean for Dr Vincent Tabak... But I won't push you to explain to me what you are doing... That would appear rude... ?{)(**
-
From....Joanna Yeates: Murder at Christmas Part 1 at 8:50 of the video
Was it ever really established that Dr Vincent Tabak actually purchased Rock Salt???? because There are no signs of Salt being used outside his Flat... When it had snowed !!
You could say there is slight usage outside Joanna yeates Flat as it appears that some snow has melted... But Following The direction from Joanna yeates Flat at the side of the building to What is supposed to be Dr vincent Tabak's Flat, There is no usage of any salt there... Now if Ann is suggesting he was trying to cover his tracks... Why doesn't the snow have salt on it all around the outside of the building between Joanna yeates Flat and Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat???
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/vincent-tabak-trial-date-unknown-snow-on-ground-outside-news-footage/656487136
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/joanna-yeates-murder-trial-defendant-vincent-tabak-gives-news-footage/656385638
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4X5I4eOKIBs
Maybe ASDA were clean out of Rock Salt. I know that I had bought some at the end of November from Tesco's and that was a tad difficult. There again the Tesco's that I'm talking about in Regent St is useless at the best of times, maybe that's why VT went to ASDA.
Maybe by Monday the whole of no.44 were asked/told by the police not to put salt anywhere.
-
yes you did sound like you were logging off...lol... Hope the lemsip helps.... ?{)(**
I am sure that many people know Greg.. But who quite frankly is going to go up to him and start quizzing him..... ??
I would because I do that kind of thing... But I'm not likely to bump into Greg am I.... They're would be plenty of question I could ask him... And CJ for that matter.... That would make a whole heap of long posts..... @)(++(*
I hope that i am helping you in a positive way... And in Positive i mean for Dr Vincent Tabak... But I won't push you to explain to me what you are doing... That would appear rude... ?{)(**
No I'm couldn't Nine, I'm not made of that stern stuff you need to ask those sort of questions, like where was the washing machine? To anyone not Greg R or Chris Jefferies, but heck it would make for some wonderful posts/debates wouldn't it?
-
Just one thing, ages ago I suggested that VT might have returned from work by the no.8 or 9 bus, which goes from Temple Meads to the village and back again. They have CCTV onboard, did anyone follow that one up? Like perhaps getting in touch with First Bus?
-
Just one thing, ages ago I suggested that VT might have returned from work by the no.8 or 9 bus, which goes from Temple Meads to the village and back again. They have CCTV onboard, did anyone follow that one up? Like perhaps getting in touch with First Bus?
I had thought he probably caught the bus too Nina... But I don't know if anyone followed that line of Inquiry... They did how ever have some CCTV of Dr Vincent Tabak on Lawrence Hill... I believe ... That footage could be from a bus CCTV.. unless theres a CCTV Traffic camera at that area... There maybe, I have to check my list of Traffic cams....
But I do not know anyone checking bus CCTV..... If you think about looking at it... try and see if he caught the Bus to Asda... There is a bus that goes to the airport, and it will let you off at ADSA if you ask.....
-
I had thought he probably caught the bus too Nina... But I don't know if anyone followed that line of Inquiry... They did how ever have some CCTV of Dr Vincent Tabak on Lawrence Hill... I believe ... That footage could be from a bus CCTV.. unless theres a CCTV Traffic camera at that area... There maybe, I have to check my list of Traffic cams....
But I do not know anyone checking bus CCTV..... If you think about looking at it... try and see if he caught the Bus to Asda... There is a bus that goes to the airport, and it will let you off at ADSA if you ask.....
Just looking to check about Lawerence hill because that was what I remember as I am sat here typing... But I will come back to that one....
Now I thought that BDP was just aroungd the corner from The Ram pub... I didn't know that it was down a Hill???
So this quote from an article is odd., to me... i'll have to run around street view to check.. but here's the quote...
CCTV footage showed Miss Yeates and Mr Bellew leaving their office on Park Street, using a cashpoint, then walking up the hill to the Ram.
So where abouts is the cashpoint machine that Joanna yeates used??? Is there one near work just beofre The Ram.. Or did she trot off somewhere to go to The cashpoint.... why haven't we seen the cash Point CCTV images?????
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2048622/Vincent-Tabak-trial-Pictures-Joanna-Yeates-drinking-night-died.html#ixzz4w9JUHTny
here's a list of 65 cash machines in Bristol... It could have changed since 2010
http://www.nearestcashpoint.co.uk/search/cash-points-in-clifton-bristol
-
Just looking to check about Lawerence hill because that was what I remember as I am sat here typing... But I will come back to that one....
Now I thought that BDP was just aroungd the corner from The Ram pub... I didn't know that it was down a Hill???
So this quote from an article is odd., to me... i'll have to run around street view to check.. but here's the quote...
So where abouts is the cashpoint machine that Joanna yeates used??? Is there one near work just beofre The Ram.. Or did she trot off somewhere to go to The cashpoint.... why haven't we seen the cash Point CCTV images?????
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2048622/Vincent-Tabak-trial-Pictures-Joanna-Yeates-drinking-night-died.html#ixzz4w9JUHTny
here's a list of 65 cash machines in Bristol... It could have changed since 2010
http://www.nearestcashpoint.co.uk/search/cash-points-in-clifton-bristol
CCTV footage showed Miss Yeates and Mr Bellew leaving their office on Park Street, using a cashpoint, then walking up the hill to the Ram.
OMG... I think I have found why she went to little Waitrose and didn't do anything.... There's a cash Point there .. Image attached...
So did Darragh Bewell wait outside ???? What is this crap about her shopping trip ... It doesn't make sense....
Did Joanna Yeates go to Waitrose to the Cash point????
Making it what time that she went home ??????
Because apparently she went to The Ram Pub after the cash point!!!
Edit.... What really was Joanna Yeates journey home??? Because they are making me believe that what they said was a bag of TOSH!!!!
Double Edit I got giddy then... You'd need to check whether waitrose has always had a cash point...
Sorry to keep editing... But on the video of Joanna Yeates trip to waitrose , she nearly passes by it out side... Then she stops and turns and then we see her enter the shop...
I wondered why she went passed , then changed her mind... If she went to A cashpoint that would make sense....
But there is NO sign of Darragh Bewell being with her !!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dX6jD5QiIw
-
OMG... I think I have found why she went to little Waitrose and didn't do anything.... There's a cash Point there .. Image attached...
So did Darragh Bewell wait outside ???? What is this crap about her shopping trip ... It doesn't make sense....
Did Joanna Yeates go to Waitrose to the Cash point????
Making it what time that she went home ??????
Because apparently she went to The Ram Pub after the cash point!!!
Edit.... What really was Joanna Yeates journey home??? Because they are making me believe that what they said was a bag of TOSH!!!!
Well yes makes sense I had just done a post about cash machines but somehow it disappeared.
There's one in Waitrose inside and over the road at the, I believe, Nat.West bank there's one outside.
I would not as a lone female use an outdoors cash machine, perhaps Joanna had the same savvy as me.
There is not another cash machine on the route Joanna took until opposite Tesco's at the HSBC bank (not there now). After that nothing.
Why do you reckon that Joanna did not take the route stated, and I must say that in those conditions, the route I would use?
Which street did Joanna work in, I know that there were cash machines on the centre, just round the bend from Park St. Nowadays they are rare, as idiots keep blowing them up and are mostly inside supermarkets, pubs etc.
-
Beg your pardon there may be a cash machine inside the students union.
-
Come to think of it, years ago, the student's union used to have a large laundrette downstairs.
-
Well yes makes sense I had just done a post about cash machines but somehow it disappeared.
There's one in Waitrose inside and over the road at the, I believe, Nat.West bank there's one outside.
I would not as a lone female use an outdoors cash machine, perhaps Joanna had the same savvy as me.
There is not another cash machine on the route Joanna took until opposite Tesco's at the HSBC bank (not there now). After that nothing.
Why do you reckon that Joanna did not take the route stated, and I must say that in those conditions, the route I would use?
Which street did Joanna work in, I know that there were cash machines on the centre, just round the bend from Park St. Nowadays they are rare, as idiots keep blowing them up and are mostly inside supermarkets, pubs etc.
Route Stated from The Guardian..
17 December
6pm: Joanna Yeates, 25, left the architectural firm where she worked with her boyfriend, Greg Reardon, 27, and joined colleagues in the Ram pub in Park Street for a drink.
8pm: She left the Ram to walk the 20-minute journey home from the city centre to Clifton.
8.10pm: Yeates was caught on CCTV popping into a Waitrose supermarket in the Clifton Triangle.
Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you
Read more
8.30pm: She used her mobile phone to ring her friend Rebecca Scott and arranged to meet on Christmas Eve.
8.40pm: At a Tesco Express on Regent Street in Clifton Village, about a quarter-of-a-mile from her flat, Yeates bought a pizza, which is missing. She then visits a nearby off-licence to buy cider.
Police believe she returned home to her flat in Canynge Road, which she shared with Reardon. A receipt from Tesco was found in the flat, along with a cream-coloured coat she had been wearing and her mobile phone and keys.
The visit to The Cash Machine is not mentioned at all... And it should be ....
If she went to "Waitrose to get Cash from The ATM in side... Was tHe trip to Waitrose Earlier??? Or did she go to Waitrose at the time they said and go back to The Ram????
There's a problem with fitting in her Cash withdrawal.... But The CCTV Footage of Waitrose makes sense now , if you think that was the reason she went in side.... because she was not shopping, but getting some money...
And she also pays for her purchase with cash... We can see she goes into her bag at Bargain Booze....
So we have to question ...What was the order of shops that Joanna yeates visited from leaving Work on Friday 17th December 2010... And leave the time she arrived at The Ram pub till later....
I thought that they must work till 6:00pm ish when it first said she had gone for drinks... Because Greg saw her in the lobby I believe for a quick kiss and Cuddle before he went to Sheffield....
Now I'm questioning what time they actually finished work????
Just re-reading what I have written and that article says she left work with Greg at 6:00pm.. I'll have to find the article that talks about them having a kiss and a cuddle in the lobby or Office before he leaves ....
Anyway... I think it's important to establish which ATM she actually used... But I believe it is very possible that it is the one in The Little Waitrose... making perfect sense why she didn't purchase a Pizza or Cider there...
But then went to the Ram and bought her shopping after....
If we can now believe about her journey home ????
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/dec/30/joanna-yeates-disappearance-murder-timeline
Edit That always might account for the reason that there are not any TIMESTAMPS on these CCTV Footage of Joanna yeates and Dr Vincent Tabak... For all we know Dr Vincent Tabak might have been in ASDA at 9:00pm!!
Double Edit What footage did the jury see with Darragh Bewell in it????
Sorry to keep editing... But I found the article about the Kiss and cuddle in The lobby at 5:00pm... Date of Article ..
UPDATED: 11:54, 18 October 2011
'We met just before 5pm downstairs in the lobby area. We had a bit of a kiss and a cuddle, said goodbye and I left.
See I thought Greg had said he left at 5:00pm... That's what threw me with Joanna Yeates taking 1 hour to get to The Ram Pub when it was just around the corner ??
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2050063/Vincent-Tabak-strangled-Jo-Yeates-20-seconds-stifle-scream-arm-her.html#ixzz4w9VqAd7J
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
By JOHN COLES
14th December 2011, 12:00 am Updated: 5th April 2016, 11:10 am
“But I thought there would be a perfectly good explanation and she would be
back soon. So I sat and relaxed in front of the TV and waited for her. As
the evening went on I rang her mobile again and faintly heard it ringing in
her coat pocket.
“It was then I felt panicked. I started pacing round the flat trying to
find out what was going on, trying to justify the situation and keep myself
calm.
Is this when Greg Reardon had his tea of Pizza and stale cider ??? Whilst relaxing watching TV.... I don't remember him telling The Court he was watching TV... But I am not privvy to all that was said at trial...!!!
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/968556/jo-yeates-boyfriend-tells-of-heartbreak-at-christmas/
-
Route Stated from The Guardian..
The visit to The Cash Machine is not mentioned at all... And it should be ....
If she went to "Waitrose to get Cash from The ATM in side... Was tHe trip to Waitrose Earlier??? Or did she go to Waitrose at the time they said and go back to The Ram????
There's a problem with fitting in her Cash withdrawal.... But The CCTV Footage of Waitrose makes sense now , if you think that was the reason she went in side.... because she was not shopping, but getting some money...
And she also pays for her purchase with cash... We can see she goes into her bag at Bargain Booze....
So we have to question ...What was the order of shops that Joanna yeates visited from leaving Work on Friday 17th December 2010... And leave the time she arrived at The Ram pub till later....
I thought that they must work till 6:00pm ish when it first said she had gone for drinks... Because Greg saw her in the lobby I believe for a quick kiss and Cuddle before he went to Sheffield....
Now I'm questioning what time they actually finished work????
Just re-reading what I have written and that article says she left work with Greg at 6:00pm.. I'll have to find the article that talks about them having a kiss and a cuddle in the lobby or Office before he leaves ....
Anyway... I think it's important to establish which ATM she actually used... But I believe it is very possible that it is the one in The Little Waitrose... making perfect sense why she didn't purchase a Pizza or Cider there...
But then went to the Ram and bought her shopping after....
If we can now believe about her journey home ????
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/dec/30/joanna-yeates-disappearance-murder-timeline
Edit That always might account for the reason that there are not any TIMESTAMPS on these CCTV Footage of Joanna yeates and Dr Vincent Tabak... For all we know Dr Vincent Tabak might have been in ASDA at 9:00pm!!
Double Edit What footage did the jury see with Darragh Bewell in it????
I don't think that they both left work at 6pm. I was under the impression that after their lunch at the Hope & Anchor, they both went back to work, but he left at sometime mid afternoon? Purely because of the drive to Sheffield. Joanna left work later with friends and went to the Ram pub for a drink. I'm probably wrong as this is so elementary that I'm sure you will have researched thoroughly.
As far as the cash machines, you have the choice of the Centre, Waitrose, Nat. West, maybe Student's Union and the HSBC one. Quite a selection. If alone as I have said, the outside ones, which are all but Waitrose and maybe the Student's Union of course Tesco's don't have one, I would not use at night as a lone female. Bristol isn't that bad, but its best to beware.
Gotta go and feed the cat.
-
Beg your pardon there may be a cash machine inside the students union.
Along with a Washing Machine ... 8(0(*
Don't know where The students Union is Nina.. But either way.. Where is the CCTV of her at the ATM accompanied by Darragh Bewell??
-
Along with a Washing Machine ... 8(0(*
Don't know where The students Union is Nina.. But either way.. Where is the CCTV of her at the ATM accompanied by Darragh Bewell??
Don't know who Darragh Bewell is so don't know to what you are referring.
So what route do you think that Joanna walked home?
All I was saying that there maybe an ATM in the Student's Union and that decades ago they did have a large laundrette in the place. Makes sense that they would still have one in 2010.
-
Anyway Joanna walked up Park St, round Queens Square, along the road that has the Union in (can't remember name), at the end just past Victoria Park she turned left for Bargain Booze, coming out she turned right for Tesco's and home.
At least that's what I have always thought. Given the conditions, lumps of ice on pavements etc., she took exactly the same route I would have taken had I had to walk home from the bottom of Park St.
-
Don't know who Darragh Bewell is so don't know to what you are referring.
So what route do you think that Joanna walked home?
All I was saying that there maybe an ATM in the Student's Union and that decades ago they did have a large laundrette in the place. Makes sense that they would still have one in 2010.
105 Queens Rd. What would we do without google?
-
Actually that's another thought, if Joanna did go into the student's union there would be CCTV, unfortunately not still around now.
If she did pop into the Union to do washing or ATM she would have been on film.
If she did get money at the Union its nearer Bargain Booze than any of the other ATMs.
-
Don't know who Darragh Bewell is so don't know to what you are referring.
So what route do you think that Joanna walked home?
All I was saying that there maybe an ATM in the Student's Union and that decades ago they did have a large laundrette in the place. Makes sense that they would still have one in 2010.
Darragh Bewell is The Friend that appeared at trial saying he went for a drink with Joanna Yeates after work...
The CCTV footage shows Joanna Yeates sitting and chatting with work colleagues before putting her coat on and leaving the Ram pub.
Friends of Miss Yeates who were also at the pub on December 17 2010 have given evidence to the court.
Darragh Bellew, a landscape architect colleague of Miss Yeates, said she bought him a pint during post-work festive drinks.
Another Article ...
On the night she died, Irishman Mr Bellew, a colleague of Miss Yeates, said the young woman had been in good spirits.
When prosecution barrister Nicholas Rowland asked him whether she was drunk, Mr Bellew told the jury: 'Not at all, just jovial, her usual self.'
CCTV footage showed Miss Yeates and Mr Bellew leaving their office on Park Street, using a cashpoint, then walking up the hill to the Ram.
Mr Bellew told how colleagues and friends from an Irish Gaelic football team were joining them in the pub, which was packed with Christmas revellers.
When asked whether she left before other drinkers, Mr Bellew said: 'She would always leave before most of us - when we would go on drinking she would go to be with Greg (Reardon, her boyfriend) really.'
But Darragh you didn't answer the question... You'd make a good politician!!
Did Joanna Yeates leave before friends from an Irish Gaelic football team arrived or any other drinkers ???... A simple yes or No will suffice........
When did these friends of Darragh Bewell's arrive at The Ram Pub???? where they the ones sat at the table ?? Or did they arrive later ??
So if Joanna Yeates was expecting to meet with your football friends.. why did she leave early and become bored and start looking for company????
That doesn't make sense if Joanna Yeates had the opportunity to meet more people and different people why didn't she stay... Did Joanna Yeates Know any of these football friends ????
If these football friends were sat at The Table in The Ram pub with Joanna Yeates and Darragh Bewell...Then where are their statements from the last evening of Joanna Yeates life ???? Because I originally thought she was only sat with work colleagues..!!
As for her journey home I don't know what it would be ...and I'd need a little time to assess it.. And I need to do a few things now ....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2048622/Vincent-Tabak-trial-Pictures-Joanna-Yeates-drinking-night-died.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8825277/Court-shown-Joanna-Yeates-bar-CCTV.html
-
Actually that's another thought, if Joanna did go into the student's union there would be CCTV, unfortunately not still around now.
If she did pop into the Union to do washing or ATM she would have been on film.
If she did get money at the Union its nearer Bargain Booze than any of the other ATMs.
Until anyone sees the footage of the visit to the ATM we cannot be sure, which ATM she used ... But there must be some footage as it was mentioned in court...
CCTV footage showed Miss Yeates and Mr Bellew leaving their office on Park Street, using a cashpoint, then walking up the hill to the Ram.
I was suggesting that Waitrose was just as likely an option and would explain her hesitation on entering the store and turning back on herself... .. Also the lack of purchases she made there.... THAT....Being Zero purchases !!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2048622/Vincent-Tabak-trial-Pictures-Joanna-Yeates-drinking-night-died.html#ixzz4w9ggHaqH
Edit... What was the Time and Date on The ATM CCTV footage that captured The Visit by Joanna Yeates and Darragh Bewell???
Because.. we never have a time stamp on anything... And That visit could have been anytime whatsoever with Darragh Bewell...
So it could be quite possible she did visit an ATM to withdraw cash.... And that ATM might have been at Waitrose...
I think you will need Joanna Yeates bank records to verify that withdrawal..... It would be a verifiable transaction with the bank!!!
-
Until anyone sees the footage of the visit to the ATM we cannot be sure, which ATM she used ... But there must be some footage as it was mentioned in court...
I was suggesting that Waitrose was just as likely an option and would explain her hesitation on entering the store and turning back on herself... .. Also the lack of purchases she made there.... THAT....Being Zero purchases !!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2048622/Vincent-Tabak-trial-Pictures-Joanna-Yeates-drinking-night-died.html#ixzz4w9ggHaqH
Maybe Waitrose didn't have the flavour pizza that she wanted ..... I'm not being flippant.
The only other reason is ATM, money.
This Darragh did not say that he walked out of the Ram with Joanna, just that they left work together, visited an ATM and went to the Ram pub. Zilch nothing else. So I think you can write him off. Joanna left the Ram alone .... unfortunately ..... and walked home alone.
-
Maybe Waitrose didn't have the flavour pizza that she wanted ..... I'm not being flippant.
The only other reason is ATM, money.
This Darragh did not say that he walked out of the Ram with Joanna, just that they left work together, visited an ATM and went to the Ram pub. Zilch nothing else. So I think you can write him off. Joanna left the Ram alone .... unfortunately ..... and walked home alone.
Yes I can see that on the CCTV footage... But how much of this footage is an accurate account of what Joanna Yeates did on Friday 17th December 2010?? Seeing as there are NO TIMESTAMPS upon these CCTV images ??? And the Tesco's one has been tampered with??
And therefore I will repeat,... where is the CCTV footage of Joanna Yeates going to an ATM with Darragh Bewell some where around the bottom of the hill before she went to the Ram Pub??
Giving a Timeline of when she left her work, to be a different time altogether... And if she left work at 5:00pm like Greg had done... What did she do for an hour before she arrived at The Ram Pub???
Edit.. CCTV footage showed Miss Yeates and Mr Bellew leaving their office on Park Street, using a cashpoint, then walking up the hill to the Ram.
It doesn't actually say she was at the ATM with Darragh Bewell...
It first of all says... CCTV footage showed Miss Yeates amd Mr Bewell leaving their Office on Park street....
Now that could be from CCTV from inside BDP Building....
Then it goes on to say.....
Using a Cashpoint and then walking up the hill....
It doesn't say walked down the Hill to the cashpoint.... So they left their Office...
Is that when Joanna Yeates walked to Waitrose maybe to use their cash machine on her own????
Because we would either need the CCTV of Joanna yeates and Darragh Bewell walking to the cash machine and being there together... Or the CCTV footage of them walking together back up the hill.
But I don't know where the CCTV camera's maybe located on Park Street... They could be from shops....
So I still believe it is very possible that Joanna Yeates went to Waitrose to withdraw money.... That to me makes sense...
That sentence about leaving the Office ... reminded me of the way in which Andrew Mott described the ground being frozen and Joanna Yeates being frozen... He was taking about 2 seperate things....
Is this what the article means... They were seperate events????
Leave Office... And then Joanna Yeates went to the cash Point on her own????? making Waitrose a good place to get cash, whether or not they stocked the correct flavour of Pizza ??
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2048622/Vincent-Tabak-trial-Pictures-Joanna-Yeates-drinking-night-died.html#ixzz4w9n69G1I
-
Yes I can see that on the CCTV footage... But how much of this footage is an accurate account of what Joanna Yeates did on Friday 17th December 2010?? Seeing as there are NO TIMESTAMPS upon these CCTV images ??? And the Tesco's one has been tampered with??
And therefore I will repeat,... where is the CCTV footage of Joanna Yeates going to an ATM with Darragh Bewell some where around the bottom of the hill before she went to the Ram Pub??
Giving a Timeline of when she left her work, to be a different time altogether... And if she left work at 5:00pm like Greg had done... What did she do for an hour before she arrived at The Ram Pub???
But she didn't leave work at 5pm with or without Greg, so we don't have to worry about what she was doing, do we?
As for CCTV I suggest you ask the police, our finest, they could help you, you never know.
-
But she didn't leave work at 5pm with or without Greg, so we don't have to worry about what she was doing, do we?
As for CCTV I suggest you ask the police, our finest, they could help you, you never know.
Are you having a giraffe Nina... lol 8(0(* (excuse my sense of humour)..
I don't think the Police really want to divulge what really happened in The Joanna yeates Case .... Do you??
But how do we know that she left work at around 6:00pm unless there is Footage to support this ???
I think it's important to establish whether she left work with or without Greg and the time this event happened ....(imo)..
-
Are you having a giraffe Nina... lol 8(0(* (excuse my sense of humour)..
I don't think the Police really want to divulge what really happened in The Joanna yeates Case .... Do you??
But how do we know that she left work at around 6:00pm unless there is Footage to support this ???
I think it's important to establish whether she left work with or without Greg and the time this event happened ....(imo)..
No Nine, but I always get the impression that you think that all of the police statements etc., should be online, like the McCann case and you get cross when it isn't. I too would have liked it online, but that's just not the way the law works in the uk. If it was different they would get no witness statements at all. IMO.
At the end of the day, no we don't know anything. The only person that does is VT, those that think they know the police again IMO.
We know from the neighbours that Greg R was long gone, en route for Sheffield.
No I don't really think that the police want people to know how badly handled this case was, but if you don't ask ....
-
No Nine, but I always get the impression that you think that all of the police statements etc., should be online, like the McCann case and you get cross when it isn't. I too would have liked it online, but that's just not the way the law works in the uk. If it was different they would get no witness statements at all. IMO.
At the end of the day, no we don't know anything. The only person that does is VT, those that think they know the police again IMO.
We know from the neighbours that Greg R was long gone, en route for Sheffield.
No I don't really think that the police want people to know how badly handled this case was, but if you don't ask ....
I don't expect everything online to be honest Nina.. I know that is not possible... And I have tried to show the discrepencies with the information that is available to me....
As for Greg being long gone en route to Sheffield... How was that established????
CJ nor Peter Stanley stood up in Court to verify this apparent fact!! And I like things on record personally... It stops people back tracking later on...(imo)...
wouldn't you agree... ?{)(**
-
A reply to another one of your posts that I can't find now.
My friends and I were questioned on the Monday morning, me around 11 am. Just "did you see or hear anything last night" questions. By the demeanor of the police we knew straight away it was serious.
I forgot to come back to this Nina ..... And It is an interesting comment that you make... You obviously live in the vicinity....
So if the Police asked you if you heard anything last Night... And last night obviously being Sunday 19th December 2010 as another Sunday would be irrelevant...
Then they must have been of the persuasion that an event could have occurred at The Flat on that Sunday.... And Joanna Yeates being killed on the Friday wasn't the only possibility that was feasible...
Meaning they didn't know when she was killed... ? Or "Missing"!!
Did they ask a time that you may have heard anything???
What other questions did they ask???? Did they ask any direct questions as to whether you had seen Joanna Yeates on that weekend or whether you had seen Greg Reardon that weekend???
What other questions were posed to you Nina ??
-
You're right it does seem a bit odd.
Are you sure that this is the corner of the lounge? It's just that the table doesn't show a radiator but in other ones a table has a radiator behind it.
The `sensor' on top of the red thing, are you sure that is not just one of those deodorisers?
Where have you seen the table without the radiator on the little alcove wall??? Have I missed that one ????
could you point me to it please ...
-
From This video clip.... at 12 seconds...
Joanna's father said her Flat had been left in a state, which indicated that she had been abducted
Which leaves me to question, why Greg didn't think she had been abducted, when he had arrived home... What had happened to the Flat for her father to believe that was the case???
In my mind there can be only one possible reason... But that is me !!!
Edit... Didn't Greg say he had been tidying up?? Can't have done a very good job if her father said that.....
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/police-officers-searching-at-site-where-body-was-news-footage/659100672
-
The image of the fire place in the Front room shows a tube that look like there is a braided rope wrapped around it... But when I look at the video of the tour of the Flat, this tube looks like it is just bare cardboard....
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/vincent-tabak-trial-jury-visits-flat-england-bristol-ext-news-footage/656473260
-
From the same video there is a Police Officer with an emblem on his bobble hat.. It looks like some kind of crest...
What Rank would that indicate as an Officer... seeing as the other Police in attendance do not appear to have this emblem on their bobble hats... They are just plain black???
Images attached
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/police-officers-searching-at-site-where-body-was-news-footage/659100672
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I forgot to come back to this Nina ..... And It is an interesting comment that you make... You obviously live in the vicinity....
So if the Police asked you if you heard anything last Night... And last night obviously being Sunday 19th December 2010 as another Sunday would be irrelevant...
Then they must have been of the persuasion that an event could have occurred at The Flat on that Sunday.... And Joanna Yeates being killed on the Friday wasn't the only possibility that was feasible...
Meaning they didn't know when she was killed... ? Or "Missing"!!
Did they ask a time that you may have heard anything???
What other questions did they ask???? Did they ask any direct questions as to whether you had seen Joanna Yeates on that weekend or whether you had seen Greg Reardon that weekend???
What other questions were posed to you Nina ??
Not the immediate vicinity no, but near enough.
Questions were did I hear or see anything on Friday, Saturday and Sunday.
Any car/s that weren't usually around. Likewise people.
Did we have anything we would like to tell them.
I mean this was just on the doorstep of all the vicinity.
-
No Joanna wasn't mentioned to me by name, just that a person was "Missing", but as I've said the demeanor of the police led us to believe it was more serious.
I would think that this would be one of the first things the police would have done, door stepping.
No time was mentioned just the week end from Friday.
I couldn't tell them anything I'm afraid.
-
Not the immediate vicinity no, but near enough.
Questions were did I hear or see anything on Friday, Saturday and Sunday.
Any car/s that weren't usually around. Likewise people.
Did we have anything we would like to tell them.
I mean this was just on the doorstep of all the vicinity.
Well they only became Interested in Friday when it came to Dr Vincent Tabak... Because I have posted before that a forum member on Bowland Central called Kingdom I believe... Stated that he heard someone cry "help me" on the Saturday.. Mid- Morning....
He corrected the newspapers account that he heard it on the Friday which wasn't true....
That is why DI Joe Goff saying it was the screams that told him when Joanna Yeates was attacked , I did not believe,, he only seems to have taken into consideration what went with The only Timeline for Dr Vincent Tabak... And ruled out anyone else....
How many witness's in the vicinity gave an account for that weekend that was ignored ????
-
No Joanna wasn't mentioned to me by name, just that a person was "Missing", but as I've said the demeanor of the police led us to believe it was more serious.
I would think that this would be one of the first things the police would have done, door stepping.
No time was mentioned just the week end from Friday.
I couldn't tell them anything I'm afraid.
Well that sounds correct...
What doesn't sound right... Is the need to bang up Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson at 4:15am on Monday the 20th December 2010... when they obviously didn't bang up anyone else in the vicinity!
-
Well that sounds correct...
What doesn't sound right... Is the need to bang up Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson at 4:15am on Monday the 20th December 2010... when they obviously didn't bang up anyone else in the vicinity!
I was under the impression, from local gossip, that the whole house was knocked up.
Anyway with the racket going on I expect most people were awake.
I can only tell you what they asked, they didn't say Friday evening & Sunday evening being of interest, or the daytimes. Just the whole week end, and if that includes Friday in police speak, who am I to argue.
Anyway I couldn't help them.
-
No Joanna wasn't mentioned to me by name, just that a person was "Missing", but as I've said the demeanor of the police led us to believe it was more serious.
I would think that this would be one of the first things the police would have done, door stepping.
No time was mentioned just the week end from Friday.
I couldn't tell them anything I'm afraid.
Well it was obviously more serious as they had the incident Van parked outside Canygne Road... And all of the media attention from the get go said that to anyone who cared to pay attention...
But what was it about the circumstances in that Flat... Or what information they already gathered ... that lead them to believe that she could have come to harm???
Again.. I have my own ideas on that probability...
-
I was under the impression, from local gossip, that the whole house was knocked up.
Anyway with the racket going on I expect most people were awake.
I can only tell you what they asked, they didn't say Friday evening & Sunday evening being of interest, or the daytimes. Just the whole week end, and if that includes Friday in police speak, who am I to argue.
Anyway I couldn't help them.
Did the whole house get knocked up at 4:15am Nina ???
Or was Dr Vincent Tabak singled out for such treatment...
What did that Flat actually look like , for the Police to respond in that manner...
And again I will say... why didn't it make Greg respond the same way too???
Well.. that says volumes Nina....
I'm surprised we haven't heard about the noise before... Because those supposed screams, I am not 100% sure of...
Or was the Racket The Police ????? And if it was ... What the hell happened ... Because our time capsule don't give away any kind of indication that there was a problem in that flat whatsoever !!!
Which also tells us that the Flat was staged...(imo)...
So what did that Flat really look like ??? Coz it was in no-way what The Jury and we , have been lead to believe !!!!
Unless the jury saw something completely different to what the tour says the jury saw ???
Edit They can't have knocked up CJ... He said that when he woke he saw he had a missed call from Greg on the Sunday at 12:30...
I have always questioned what CJ meant... was CJ napping?? and Sunday at 12:30 was lunch time ???
If they were all woken up by the Police making a racket??
And if CJ means the lunchtime on Sunday.......It changes the timelines and much more....
-
Did the whole house get knocked up at 4:15am Nina ???
Or was Dr Vincent Tabak singled out for such treatment...
What did that Flat actually look like , for the Police to respond in that manner...
And again I will say... why didn't it make Greg respond the same way too???
Well.. that says volumes Nina....
I'm surprised we haven't heard about the noise before... Because those supposed screams, I am not 100% sure of...
Or was the Racket The Police ????? And if it was ... What the hell happened ... Because our time capsule don't give away any kind of indication that there was a problem in that flat whatsoever !!!
Which also tells us that the Flat was staged...(imo)...
So what did that Flat really look like ??? Coz it was in no-way what The Jury and we , have been lead to believe !!!!
Unless the jury saw something completely different to what the tour says the jury saw ???
Edit They can't have knocked up CJ... He said that when he woke he saw he had a missed call from Greg on the Sunday at 12:30...
I have always questioned what CJ meant... was CJ napping?? and Sunday at 12:30 was lunch time ???
If they were all woken up by the Police making a racket??
And if CJ means the lunchtime on Sunday.......It changes the timelines and much more....
Nine you really do have more questions than answers.
Car alarms were going off, people coming and going, people opening windows, doors etc to see what's going on, cars at that time of the morning.
That sort of racket.
I honestly don't know what the flat looked like. Probably like the rest covered with snow. You gotta remember the snow Saturday morning and Monday.
Doesn't heavy snow muffle noise to a certain extent?
As far as the rest of the house being knocked up, goes, I did say it was from local gossip.
-
Nine you really do have more questions than answers.
Car alarms were going off, people coming and going, people opening windows, doors etc to see what's going on, cars at that time of the morning.
That sort of racket.
I honestly don't know what the flat looked like. Probably like the rest covered with snow. You gotta remember the snow Saturday morning and Monday.
Doesn't heavy snow muffle noise to a certain extent?
As far as the rest of the house being knocked up, goes, I did say it was from local gossip.
My My.... I presume you are talking about when Mrs Yeates went banging on car boots trying to see if Joanna was inside....
So that would have been around 2:00- 2:30 am Monday morning.. Or was it a lot later ????
-
Again The Leveson Inquiry.... CJ
As I have said, Ms Yeates went missing on Friday 17
December 2010. She was reported to the Police as
missing on Sunday 19 December 2010.
From Joanna Yeates Murder at christmas part 1.. at 11:54
I got up on the Monday Morning and noticed I had a Missed call on my phone from Greg at about half past 12 on the Sunday, so that was .. very very unusual...
Then from Judge Rinder at:12:30 CJ says..
As I got up and noticed that my phone had a missed call from Greg, very late on the Sunday Night which I hadn't picked up,Er, so I gave him a ring back.. Em.. It was obviously very unusual, for to.. Get such a phone call so late on a sunday evening, from one of the tenants. Erm, that's when I discovered that he'd got back found Jo Missing, er and had tried to ring me to see, whether I had any idea at all as to where she might have gone or what had happened....When I went down to the Flat on that Monday morning... Jo's parents had already arrived..
With the 3 statements from CJ.. he has changed slightly what he says on this matter... But one thing I find is unusual... Why didn't Greg go round to CJ's to ask him...
And why would CJ know what might have happened to Joanna Yeates ????
So what time did CJ go down to Flat 1 on Monday morning, because he doesn't mention that the Police had arrived....
Simplest way to work out the time correctly is phone records..
Edit... Did CJ speak to anyone at Flat 1 on the Monday morning?? because her parents never mention CJ arriving at The Flat when they are there .... They mention seeing Tanja and Dr Vincent Tabak....
CJ.. could have gone to the Flat then returned back to his without speaking to anyone...
Think I'll refer back to my avatar.....
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122175126/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Christopher-Jefferies.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4X5I4eOKIBs
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4htq8y
-
Following the possible routes that Joann Yeates and Darragh Bewell took from there Office on Hill Street to arrive at Park Street and The Bristol Ram..
(1): Outside Building on Hill Street, turn right down Hill Street. Then at the junction turn left on St Georges Road up a slight incline. You are on Park Street.. Turn left and walk up Park Street, The Ram is on The right hand side.
(2): Outside Building on Hill Street, turn left up Hill street,Then turn right onto Great George Street, go down Great George Street and at the junction turn right, onto Park Street, Go down the Hill and The Bristol Ram is on your left hand side..
Now Either direction I cannot see where an ATM is located... Their journey would have to go in a different Direction I believe, to find an ATM.. Other wise it's round the block left or right...
Journey one would mean that, when they get to Park Street they would need to turn right and walk down Park Street to what I believe is the nearest ATM, which is on the corner of Unity Street and Park Street and is the HSBC Bank... which has 3 ATM's outside..
There is a CCTV camera on their wall...
This would be the only way to see Joanna Yeates with Darragh Bewell at the bottom of Park Street..
Don't know how long the bank has been there.
It still does make it possible that Joanna Yeates went into Waitrose to use their Cash machine as to buy here purchases on her way home....
I think The Time That Joanna Yeates left work is still important, and with conflicting stories that her and Greg left together, and Greg leaving possibily as early as 5:00pm.. That would leave an hour of unaccounted time for Joanna Yeates,....
-
Darragh Bewell
He was alerted that something might have happened to Miss Yeates when Mr Reardon called him at midnight on the Sunday.
Mr Bellew added: 'He said he had got back to the flat and found it strange that all Jo's belongings were there.'
He was subsequently called by police at 3am on Monday, the court heard.
CJ I got up on the Monday Morning and noticed I had a Missed call on my phone from Greg at about half past 12 on the Sunday, so that was .. very very unusual...
Mr and Mrs Yeates
The mobile phone went... quite near midnight and Greg's name flashed up on it, which i thought was unusual, and erm.. Then he said is Jo with you? And we said why would she be with us?? And then he said that all her belongings are here, her purse her keys and things like that.
Rebecca Scott Big Pause).. She phoned me on the Friday ... erm.. I travelled home for Christmas on the Sunday..(gulp).. Erm... It was about 4 O'clock in the morning I woke up. Erm.. (licks lips) And saw that there was a message, on my phone from the police... Er... Informing me that she had gone missing...
DCI Phil Jones It was the early hours of December the 20th ,a Monday morning, around about 1:00 O'clock in the morning, er.. when Police received a telephone Call, from Joanna 's Boyfriend Greg Reardon. He rang 999 a call went through and an assessment is made that we need to send Police Officers to the address
(1): Darragh Bewell Midnight
(2): CJ 12:30
(3): Mr and Mrs Yeates Around Midnight
(4): Rebecca Scott before 4:00am
(5): The Police 1:00 am Monday Morning..
(6): Police Call Darragh Bewell at 3:00am
So there are 5 people that we know of that have received a phone call... 4 receive a phone call from Greg
Nothing really before Midnight... Mr and Mrs Yeates, you could say ten to twelve or it could be nearer twelve
Rebecca Scott .... At first I thought that Maybe Greg couldn't access Joanna Yeates phone to call her and he didn't have her number in his phone to be able to ring her,... But realised he must if the Police were able to leave a message on Rebecca Scotts phone... They would have had to look through the phone to know she had been in contact with Rebecca Scott to even consider ringing her .....
Er... Obviously they'd seen on the phone that she'd phoned me. And.. obviously wanted me to get in touch... Erm.... I immediately sort of panicked and phoned Jo...
I'm Flummoxed... From 9:00pm when he rang Joanna Yeates phone there is no Official record of him contacting anyone.. And for someone who is so concerned as to her whereabouts, I would have thought the phones calls to friends would have started sooner... (IMO)
He doesn't actually ring Rebecca Scott... It's the Police who have left the message and she doesn't say she had a Missed Call from Greg... Yet he must have looked through her phone to see the last time she used it to know that nobody had heard or seen anything of Joanna Yeates since Friday 17th December 2010.. (imo)
He would have seen that her last phone call was to Rebecca Scott and started there ..(imo) But he doesn't and I don't understand why...
Looking at Darragh Bewell's quote... The Police ring him at 3:00am so they must already be at Flat 1 44, Canygne Road by this time... I still do not know the exact time they arrived , but we are getting nearer....
We know that Rebecca Scott calls Greg after 4:00am on Monday 20th December 2010 and the Police are banging on Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat at 4:15am on Monday 20th December 2010.
We have The Yeates arriving around 2:00am.. and they went outside banging on car boots., probably before the Police have arrived..
So between 2:00am and 3:00am The Police arrive at Canygne Road... As we know from The Yeates arrival and The Phone Call to Darragh Bewell by the Police at 3:00am on Monday 20th December 2010.
What happened between 9:00pm and midnight?? I am amazed that Clegg hadn't gone over this time line.. Because I believe he should have.. That Flat is tiny... And for 3 hours no calls were made to find out where Joanna Yeates maybe...
If the Flat was in disarray when he arrived, why didn't he call someone sooner ? why when he realised that all of her belonging were still in the Flat and her phone was in her coat pocket at 9:00pm did he not react....
I know everyone is different ...
Reardon told the court Yeates had planned to get on with Christmas shopping and do some baking that weekend. He was due back in Bristol on Sunday evening and they had agreed to watch the final of the TV reality show The Apprentice together.
Reardon said he had tried to contact Yeates four times over the weekend but failed. "I was worried but I didn't think there was a real problem," he said.
When he returned to the flat on Sunday night the lights in the hall and lounge were on. The flat was untidy and Reardon found Yeates's boots, coat and mobile phone. There was no sign of her.
Reardon said he began pacing around the flat, feeling "a buzzing level of stress". Then he discovered Yeates's rucksack containing her spectacles, wallet and keys. "I panicked," he said.
Tabak did not look at Reardon as the boyfriend recalled ringing round their friends, then reluctantly calling Yeates's parents and finally alerting the emergency services at 12.45am on the Monday.
Advertisement
Later he found the amethyst earrings Yeates had been wearing the previous week. One was on the bedroom floor, the other under the duvet. She normally put them on a bedside table when she took them off, he said.
And....
Greg Reardon told how annoyance at returning to a messy flat turned to "buzzing stress" as he realised she had disappeared.
I don't get it... Buzzing levels of stress..... It must have been through the roof by Midnight.....
He hasn't called Rebecca Scott and he has called Darragh Bewell, the last person he knew Joanna Yeates was going for a drink with after work......
Woah... hang on a minute.... If Greg had left for Sheffield at 5:00pm how did he know that Joanna Yeates was with Darragh Bewell after work??? He couldn't (imo)... She could have changed her plans or anything once he had left... He realistically could make a guess, But he wouldn't or shouldn't know that Darragh Bewell was with Joanna yeates on Friday 17th December at 6:00pm, if he was on Canygne Road have his car jump started...
It would have to be Greg that had to inform the Police that Joanna Yeates was with Darragh Bewell last, as there had been no phone calls from Joanna Yeates phone to Darragh Bewell... But how would Greg know who the last person Joanna Yeates was with???
He has left the Office at 5:00pm has a kiss and cuddle in the lobby and gone to start his Journey to Sheffield... At this point Joanna Yeates could have decided to do anything... Her boyfriend is away for the weekend... Greg shouldn't have been aware of when she was leaving The Office...
Once Greg had left for Sheffield... Joanna Yeates literally could have done anything that weekend.... She could have been doing the Fandango on Park Street for all Greg knew... He shouldn't know that she went to The Ram Pub with Darragh Bewell, because he wasn't there to witness that event....
(The next time Greg tries to contact Joanna Yeates is when he arrives in Sheffield, and he texts to say that he has arrived...)
Joanna Yeates could have bumped into Tom ,Dick or Harry on her way out of work and decided to go hang-gliding with them... All Greg knew was that she was doing some Shopping and baking mince pies whilst he was away... So when she left the Office she might have popped into shops to do a little christmas shopping...
So why would Greg Reardon ring Darragh Bewell??? And not Rebecca Scott seeing as she was the last person to speak to Joanna Yeates.... he doesn't ring Rebecca Scott.... he leaves it for the Police to ring her.. Yet they had to get into Joanna Yeates phone somehow whilst they were at the Flat... They arrived there between 2:00am and 3:00am, not enough time to request logs from any phone company ..Which means they could get into Joanna Yeates phone.. And Greg must have been able to do the same... for them to be able to access the content.... As we know from Rebecca scotts transcript, she had worked out that the Police must have looked at Joanna Yeates phone and realised Rebecca Scott was the last person to speak to her.
So... He makes no calls to any of the people that Joanna Yeates might have been in contact with over that weekend after feeling increasing buzzing stress levels... And rings the only person, who he can't have known that Joanna Yeates might have had for company, on Friday 17th December 2010.. That being Darragh Bewell...
And (IMO).. There is no way on earth that Greg Reardon should have known that Joanna Yeates was last with Darragh Bewell as he had already left the office and he was on his way to Sheffield...
And Joanna Yeates could have done anything that weekend and no-one would have known.... (IMO)
Edit..
Elisabeth Chandler, the office manager at BDP, the firm where Miss Yeates and Mr Reardon worked, told Bristol Crown Court in a written statement: “Jo told me that she was dreading the weekend because it was the first time she was going to be left on her own. Her partner Greg, who I know, was going away.”Despite her concerns, other colleagues said she was her usual “jovial” self on the night she was killed.
So carrying on... Why Did Greg Reardon Just ring Darragh Bewell, when there were lots of Joanna Yeates colleagues at The Ram in Bristol on the 17th December 2010..
Greg should have known all of these other people, he possibly had there numbers too... So why when he couldn't have known what Joanna Yeates did after he left for Sheffield did he only check with Darragh Bewell and not any of the other colleagues that Joanna Yeates went to The Ram Pub with, in case Joanna Yeates had been with them at a later time or a different day to what he believed ???? Because only ringing Darragh Bewell at 12:00 midnight and not finding out who else was in the pub at the time with him and contacting them to see if they knew anything makes no sense to me .....
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/17/vincent-tabak-held-jo-yeates-throat
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/vincent-tabak-strangled-joanna-yeates-for-20-seconds-2371832.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4X5I4eOKIBs
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8824561/Vincent-Tabak-told-friends-Joanna-Yeates-killer-must-be-crazy-detached-person.html
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8056.msg422287#msg422287
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg426823;topicseen#msg426823
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg427567#msg427567
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8826305/Pathologist-to-give-evidence-at-Joanna-Yeates-murder-trial.html
-
Well it was obviously more serious as they had the incident Van parked outside Canygne Road... And all of the media attention from the get go said that to anyone who cared to pay attention...
But what was it about the circumstances in that Flat... Or what information they already gathered ... that lead them to believe that she could have come to harm???
Again.. I have my own ideas on that probability...
Morning Nine and the rest of the world.
Do you know which day the Incident Van was brought in?
I think that her belongings that she normally would have taken with her, were in the flat, that's the difference and that's maybe what kicked it all off so quickly.
If you were to read the murder of Natalie Hemming, Thames Police took away all phones that could be had straight away. She also went missing on a week end, was reported by Mum on Monday.
Although Thames Valley didn't say it, they thought from the beginning that Natalie had been murdered as opposed to Missing.
This could well be what Avon & Somerset's finest were thinking, but who knows what the police think!
-
Morning Nina...
I don't know what the Police think either....
But Maybe I need to be more careful about what I have written as it appears some of the material is hearsay as it come from reports from the papers...
I need to think about things now...
So just ignore my posts... Or maybe John can remove them.....
-
Morning Nina...
I don't know what the Police think either....
But Maybe I need to be more careful about what I have written as it appears some of the material is hearsay as it come from reports from the papers...
I need to think about things now...
So just ignore my posts... Or maybe John can remove them.....
What on earth's up Nine?
Of course, because this is not the McCann files, all we have had to go by is the media, Judge R (haven't seen) and Sally R, who reckons she was in court during the trial. This I have my doubts about.
The rest is all IMO's, have I missed something out. So I would imagine that most of what is written is hearsay.
Why on earth should John remove yesterdays posts?
-
What on earth's up Nine?
Of course, because this is not the McCann files, all we have had to go by is the media, Judge R (haven't seen) and Sally R, who reckons she was in court during the trial. This I have my doubts about.
The rest is all IMO's, have I missed something out. So I would imagine that most of what is written is hearsay.
Why on earth should John remove yesterdays posts?
-
What on earth's up Nine?
Of course, because this is not the McCann files, all we have had to go by is the media, Judge R (haven't seen) and Sally R, who reckons she was in court during the trial. This I have my doubts about.
The rest is all IMO's, have I missed something out. So I would imagine that most of what is written is hearsay.
Why on earth should John remove yesterdays posts?
No you haven,t missed anything out... And you haven,t said anything about hearsay either...
And yes... I do write IMO... I need to think as I say ?{)(**
-
No you haven,t missed anything out... And you haven,t said anything about hearsay either...
And yes... I do write IMO... I need to think as I say ?{)(**
Well no I didn't mention hearsay because I don't know whether it's something I've said or something you've posted. Totally lost on this one.
Well most of us do IMO's not just yourself. I was not pointing a finger at you in particular.
-
Well no I didn't mention hearsay because I don't know whether it's something I've said or something you've posted. Totally lost on this one.
Well most of us do IMO's not just yourself. I was not pointing a finger at you in particular.
No... i understand that you weren't...
-
I was under the impression, from local gossip, that the whole house was knocked up.
Anyway with the racket going on I expect most people were awake.
I can only tell you what they asked, they didn't say Friday evening & Sunday evening being of interest, or the daytimes. Just the whole week end, and if that includes Friday in police speak, who am I to argue.
Anyway I couldn't help them.
Nina.... Are you saying that the Police arrived because of the racket that was being made by Mr and Mrs Yeates ??
Did Mr an Mrs Yeates make the racket so that the Police would turn up at Canygne Road??
I'm getting the impression that they took this seriously because of what Mr and Mrs Yeates did ,rather than the fact that Greg had called them... and that was why it took on urgency...
Because the Police didn't respond until Mr and Mrs Yeates arrived at Canygne Road... And the only thing that changed at that time was the fact that Mrs yeates went around banging on car boots and probably setting off car alarms...
Yes.. I think that may be correct...
DCI Phil Jones said... It was the early hours of December the 20th ,a Monday morning, around about 1:00 O'clock in the morning, er.. when Police received a telephone Call, from Joanna 's Boyfriend Greg Reardon. He rang 999 a call went through and an assessment is made that we need to send Police Officers to the address
They didn't treat this any different when Greg initially called them, because there was nothing at that early stage to indicate that she was not like any other 'Missing" adult in the country....(IMO)
I believe it therefore has to be the actions of Mr and Mrs Yeates, searching for there daughter, because they believed what ever had happened was extremely serious... And knew as soon as they got to the flat, that something untoward had happened .....
DCI Phil Jones does sort of say that... They didn't make the assessment built on the Phone Call they received from Greg... The assessment I believe was made from neighbours ringing because there was a lady running up and down the street screaming for her daughter and making one hell of a racket... and rightly so....
That indicated the severity of the situation... And not Greg's call..... (IMO)....
-
I think that the phone call to the Police, wasn't the tipping point in this case.... But Mr and Mrs Yeates were... And it was the actions of Mr and Mrs Yeates that truly made the Police respond... And not the phone call...
I believe that is why Mr and Mrs Yeates are always looked after by The Family Liason Officer and why it is always them whom make the appeals for Joanna Yeates... their daughter....
I think everyone has tried to complicate this case and it isn't... Take Dr Vincent Tabak out of the picture and look to the actions that took place and it's screaming out what happened ...(imo)
It didn't seem right that they suddenly decided that this was more serious than a "Missing person"... within hours of her being reported Missing.....
But the actions of the parents and the "Parents" belief that harm had come to their daughter, made the Police act... The information that they were given within an hour of their arrival, they knew instantly something was amiss...(imo)
There was nothing left in that Flat that would indicate an intruder had been there... Nothing whatsoever... No ransom note.. "Nothing"....
If there had been such a thing as a ransom letter , the police would not have allowed the Yeates family to talk about abductions... And personally I don't believe that is what the Yeates meant .....
The case was 'MADE" Complex!! even though it wasn't and that has to do more with what happened to stitch Dr Vincent Tabak up (imo) than what really happened to Joanna Yeates...
Reading between the lines of all the reports, I believe, it is there what really happened to Joanna Yeates and once the case became a 'monster" Mr and Mrs Yeates had little control over what took place...
I believe the Police knew what happened to Joanna Yeates , all along and the media circus was maybe there for a different purpose than I may have first believed...
Because it cemented in the minds of the public everything that happened that Christmas and with the Lost Honour of CJ.. That added to what we had come to know...
It hasn't gone away... It didn't go away... and it has nothing to do with Dr Vincent Tabak (imo).. But more to do with what they knew to be true.... And every so often, we get a glimmer of this case, it brings it back to everyone, but the purpose of that i don't think is to demonise Dr Vincent Tabak even though they do... I think it has more to do with keeping this in the public eye an letting someone know they haven't forgotten.... (imo)
-
I have always tried to keep away from what The Yeates family did and said, but I think the early part of the time when Joanna Yeates was reported Missing is important.....
Words Spoken of Mr and Mrs Yeates: From Murder at Christmas Part 1 and 2
The Mobile phone went, quite near midnight and Greg's name flashed up on it ,which I thought was, (pause) Unusual.
And er.. Then he said, is Jo with you? and we said (shakes head) No why would she be with us. And he said, all of her belongings are here. Her purse, her keys, and things like that.
...
There was No rational to it, (deep breath) and so we decided then that we would drive down to Bristol and we asked Greg to phone the Police Immediately.
...
Greg had all ready gone though the bag, she used to carry around with her. Found Jo's wallet, glasses, everything really. The only person (Breaths out) The only thing that wasn't in the Flat was Jo herself.
...
We walked around the block, just to sort of looking over walls, to see either the pizza or something to do with Jo, her clothes, and I remember sort of banging on boots of cars as well. Just incase she had been abducted and locked in. I knew there'd be no hope because it was so cold. But it's just not knowing what to do.
...
I noticed these foot prints going diagonally across the lawn, and I wondered where these came from, and I saw these two people , a shorter person and a taller person, walking along the same path,, They must have been the ones that caused it...
As I was going to the flat, she stopped and the smaller person was Tanja and she asked if she could help, and er, the man stood well back away, didn't say anything.
I was frantically looking for bits of evidence when we got there, there was,pockets ,diaries, everything really.
...
We really didn't know what to do, in searching because there are so many area's around there, it's very difficult, just sitting inside , waiting, waiting ,waiting, not really knowing what was happening in the back ground.
...
(Jo's parents were now visiting Tabak's Flat)
she was very kind and is there anything I can do.. I think she said I , I don't know if she said we, but he definetly took a step back as far as he could get from the doorway.
Firstly we have the phone call to Mr and Mrs Yeates, near midnight , she tells Greg to phone the Police immediately..
But it takes him until 1:00am to do this and inbetween the call to The Yeates, Greg rings CJ at 12:30, and doesn't speak to him, CJ notices on the Monday morning that he has a "Missed Call"
Why did it take Greg nearly an hour to phone the Police to report Joanna Yeates Missing after Mrs Yeates had asked him to call the Police Immediately???
What happened in that time, of almost one hour ????
We have Mr Yeates meeting Tanja and Dr Vincent Tabak after they must be returning from being out... He is the one who says that Tanja and Dr Vincent Tabak must have caused the foot prints, But before that what had he been thinking??
At this point of Tanja and Dr Vincent must be aware that something is going on, as Tanja asks is there anything I can do.. What time is this... I believe that it is before the Police arrived and they witnessed, Mrs Yeates banging on car boots, making a racket.
Mr Yeates meets Tanja and Dr Vincent Tabak on the lawn, and Mrs Yeates says when they got there... Mrs Yeates is frantically searching for bits of evidence." there was, pockets ,diaries, everything really."
Now if this had been an abduction by a stranger as Mrs Yeates had suggested that her daughter was abducted... Then why would she be "frantically looking for bits of evidence when we got there, there was,pockets ,diaries, everything really."
I wouldn't imagine she would be personally... I would have thought that she would have waited for the Police as not to disturb the evidence and contaminate the evidence, if she thought a stranger had abducted her daughter..... So what evidence was Mrs Yeates trying to find??
Mr and Mrs Yeates visit Tanja and Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat.... Tanja asks is there anything she can do, and it is commented upon that Dr Vincent Tabak takes a step back....
Now the timing of these events are most important.....
Did Mr Yeates see Tanja and Dr Vincent Tabak on the path before the Police arrived or after ???
I tend to think it was before, I believe it must have been around the time that they were searching outside and banging on car boots making a racket and disturbing the neighbourhood... I say this because Mr Yeates say As I was going to the Flat she stopped and asked if she could help..
I believe if the Police had already arrived by then, Mr and Mrs Yeates would be inside Flat 1 talking to the Police and telling them their fears.... It could also possibly be when Mr Yeates popped out for a cigerette as I know he smoked.. But I would have imagined he would have been on the doorstep smoking, unless he was advised not to... But he clearly is down The path as he mentions the foot prints across the lawn... But it is the next bit that makes me think the Police were not there already...
I then believe that Mr Yeates told Mrs Yeates, when he came inside... And that is what prompted them to go around to Tanja and Dr Vincent Tabak's flat, to ask if they had seen anything of their daughter.... And probably try to establish if they had seen anything of her over that weekend..
Dr Vincent Tabak at this time has witnessed the seriousness of the situation by the reaction of The Yeates, and I believe that he just didn't want to get involved ... plain and simple... (IMO)
This Visit by The Yeates to Flat 2 has to also be before the Police arrive... (IMO).. Because we find out that The Police go to Flat 2 at 4:15am on Monday 20th December 2010 accompanied by Greg....
I think the Yeates were clutching at straws and when the Police arrived they told them what they did... And I think that it is The Yeates visit to Flat 2 and Mrs Yeates noticing that Dr Vincent Tabak took a step back, that prompted, the Police to go and bang on his door.....
But why did Greg accompany the Police?? I find that strange... when he didn't accompany Mr and Mrs Yeates around to Flat 2 when they first went to talk to Tanja and Dr Vincent Tabak???
By 4:15am we can understand Dr Vincent Tabak being reluctant to say any thing to the Police... and probably similar reasons he didn't get involved when Mr and Mrs Yeates arrived at their Flat...
Dr Vincent Tabak is probably still suffering from Jet lag... He has been up all weekend very late and he needs his sleep.... Friday was late, as he picked up Tanja from her Party... Saturday I believe that they both were out... And now we have Sunday when it has to be gone 2:00am for the Yeates to have arrived from Southampton after the phone call... Seeing and talking to Tanja outside the house and then going around to Flat 2 to talk to them again....
I am sure at this point all Dr Vincent Tabak really wants to do is go to bed , as he has work in the morning ... But Mr and Mrs Yeates go around and knock them up and asking for their assistance, because Tanja offered... At this point also... you have to remember that Joanna Yeates is a Missing Person.... And Dr Vincent Tabak... (imo) probably was too tired to take any notice and just wanted to get back into his bed.....
And I believe Dr Vincent Tabak's reaction is quite natural considering he has had little sleep all weekend and had not long been back from America... He possibly thought that Joanna Yeates would just turn up, and couldn't wait to get back into his bed.... At this point as far as anyone knew... "no Murder" had been committed.. But an adult female had gone Missing...
I do not think Mrs Yeates really singled Dr Vincent Tabak out... In her anxiety over her daughters disappearance, I think Dr Vincent Tabak's lack of concern, for a Missing person, might have her wondering why he didn't want to get involved.... And she would not be aware of Dr Vincent Tabak's circumstances at this point... (lack of sleep etc)
On another video Mrs Yeates says she is the one who find the receipt in Joanna Yeates coat pocket... And as there was NO evidence of this Pizza in the Flat.. that I believe is why she mentions looking for the Pizza... When in reality I do not think Mrs Yeates would be looking over walls for a Pizza that her daughter bought.... she would be searching bins etc...(imo).....
And there cannot have been any evidence of a Pizza in the Flat either in the bins, as they wouldn't have been looking over walls for this Pizza... So The bin in the Flat must have been empty like Greg said... So where was Greg's Pizza wrappings and box??
She doesn't ask Tanja and Dr Vincent Tabak about the Pizza either....
Why would Dr Vincent Tabak take the Pizza anyway... that has never made sense to me..... You have just killed your neighbour within minutes of meeting her and you think that the Pizza is going to be the clue for the Police.... Just like "The Candle Stick" in a game of Cluedo.... apart from the fact Joanna Yeates wasn't killed with a Pizza... So it had NO RELEVANCE to Dr Vincent Tabak... Because he would have taken the cider also if that had been the case...(imo)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4X5I4eOKIBs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SgoYy3G750
-
Why on earth would Mr and Mrs Yeates go and knock up VT and girlfriend, they had already seen them outside when they were coming back home?
-
Do you have the date Nine, that VT returned to Bristol from the USA please.
-
Do you have the date Nine, that VT returned to Bristol from the USA please.
Think it was the 14th December 2010.. would have to check though...
-
Why on earth would Mr and Mrs Yeates go and knock up VT and girlfriend, they had already seen them outside when they were coming back home?
I don't know....
Maybe they suddenly thought to ask them if they had seen there daughter at all over that weekend....
-
Do you have the date Nine, that VT returned to Bristol from the USA please.
I had the 14th stuck in my head...
If I use what I have used which is The Sally Ramage papers... I have The date of the 11Th December 2010 arriving back from America and going back to work on the 14th December 2010..
Dr Tabak had returned from Los Angeles to the United Kingdom on 11 December
2010. He returned to office at Buro Happold in Bath, England, on 14 December 2010.
Still hardly enough time to get a fixation on a neighbour he had never meet.... And probably still tired! (imo)
I see why I thought he'd returned to work on the 14th December 2010.... Because it was Joanna yeates who had been away from work until the 14th December 2010.
Miss Yeates had taken a few days off at the same time, having had a cold and had
returned to work on 14 December 2010.
Just got them mixed up ...sorry..
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
From the Sally Ramage Papers
At 17.15 hours on Friday 17 December 2010, Joanna Yeates’ boyfriend and
cohabitee, Greg Reardon, began his car journey to Sheffield (using her car) to visit his
half-brother and is alleged to have returned to Flat 1 on Sunday, 19 December in the
evening at 20.20 hours.
Now do you see Nina , why I do not understand, how Greg Reardon, could have possibly known to ring Darragh Bewell at midnight on his return from Sheffield...
He should not have had any idea , who the last person to see Joanna Yeates was....
He should have No Idea that she went to the pub...
He should have no idea who was at the pub...
As I said before... Joanna Yeates could have meet up with Tom, Dick or Harry and decided to go hang gliding....(imo)..
And why... If he had spoken to Darragh Bewell, did he not ask who else was at the pub that evening and get in contact with them.....
Also... what tipped Greg off that Friday was the last day anybody saw her???? I'm not being funny... It's what logic dictates.....
There was NO EVIDENCE of the Pizza.... The cider had been opened.... her things were there... she hadn't answered her mobile... And he must have looked at it because the Police would have needed to gain access... and he would have to know the code if there was one..... Aparrently it wasn't unusual for Joanna Yeates to ignore her phone...
Talking of the Pizza... Greg didn't find the receipt for this Pizza, it was in Joanna Yeates coat pocket and Mrs Yeates, found this receipt.. So the Pizza for Greg was unknown..... Leaving an opened bottle of Cider on the side , which apparently was something that Joanna Yeates did quite often.. I believe that was why Greg drank The cider.... So that open bottle had not caused him concern either....
So..........
How did Greg Reardon know that Friday was the day and the last time anyone saw Joanna Yeates ?????
Why wasn't it Saturday Morning??? Why wasn't it anytime during Saturday??? Or even Sunday before he came home.....
Because again, he is away and should not know that the last time anyone saw Joanna Yeates was in the pub... and then we find out about The Tesco's CCTV.....
I don't get it... Darragh Bewell had not rung Joanna Yeates as we know, they were in The Ram at the same time... So what prompted Greg Reardon to ring Darragh Bewell at Midnight when he arrived home from Sheffield???
Because if Joanna Yeates was going shopping or baking , Why didn't he ring Rebecca Scott???? He wasn't to know that Rebecca Scott hadn't stopped of at the Flat on her way home after the end of term... And Joanna and Rebecca could have done a bit of girlie shopping on the Saturday morning....
Greg shouldn't know anything... he has stated he tried to ring Joanna Yeates and text her over the weekend... So at what point does it dictate, that Friday was the day???
My problem is a few things...... 'The Locks"... now we can't have it both ways with these locks.... either Both locks were locked Or just the Yale had been dropped....
Now on saying that, why would Greg have reason to start Panicking at 9:00pm just because he had rung Joanna Yeates phone, which she was bad at answering......
If we only have the Yale lock dropped.. Joanna Yeates could quite have easily meet up with Rebecca Scott and had some fun that weekend whilst he was away... They could have gone to other friends houses for drinks and a stop over... She might have just forgotten her phone and didn't need her bag... We know she went to the cashpoint.. But we don't know how much money she took out....
It is Extremely Feasible that she shoved 20 quid in her jeans pocket and popped out for a bit of fun... All we know is she didn't have her 'white coat on".... She could have had a different one on.. Because we know she was wearing different clothes from what she had on at The Ram pub...
So.. really nothing in the Flat should indicate , that anything untoward had happened.... And certainly not Friday 17th December 2010... with a full weekend available to Joanna Yeates ..... So Joanna yeates could have locked herself out because she forgot her keys.. Or wasn't worried because she knew Greg would be back from Sheffield... It was always possible that Joanna Yeates could ask CJ to open the door for her....
But if both locks were locked and that added to his panic... We then have another problem.....
How did Dr Vincent Tabak lock the door and put the keys back into Joanna Yeates bag that was on the table????
Impossible...!!!
So I never understood why Greg hadn't actually rang Rebecca Scott, seeing as it was the end of term and Rebecca Scott was apparently the last person that Joanna Yeates rang on the Friday 17th December 2010 at 8:30pm....
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
I'm trying not to keep editing my posts.....
So going back to the Yale lock being dropped, Greg would only have reason to worry , if both locks were locked, as that would indicate something untoward had happened to Joanna Yeates... As he had found her keys in her bag...
But as I have just said... Dr Vincent Tabak could not have been the person who killed Joanna Yeates... because he would not be able to leave the Flat with both locks locked and, the keys having been found in Joanna Yeates bag on the table in the front room.....
-
There's always a chance that Joanna and Greg R had a conversation about are you walking alone or with anyone to the Ram. Oh Darragh ...... da de da. One of those sort of chats. So yes I can see why Greg R would phone him and other friends.
I think that the only reason Greg R thought Friday, was because he had texted her around 10.30 Friday, as she had asked him to do and of course there was no reply.
This and the fact that everything that Joanna would have normally have taken out with her was in the flat.
I honestly don't think Joanna could have got over to Rebecca's place. As far as I remember, on the night of the 17th there were no trains or buses, because of the weather.
Maybe Greg R is not very good in a crises and basically runs around in circles. I don't think that many people think logically in this sort of situation, we panic. Just a thought.
Also while I remember, I don't think that if Mr and Mrs Yeates were concerned enough to get out of bed and drive through hazardous conditions from Hampshire to reach Bristol, that they would be thinking "Crime Scene". Like I would, they would probably be tearing the flat apart looking for clues as to where she was.
There you can see the problems the police faced initially. People had stomped all over the lawn and paths, covering initial footsteps. Greg R had been tidying up the place and then Mr and Mrs Yeates arrived and pulled the place apart. Makes me almost feel sorry for them .... almost, because they are the police.
-
I'm trying not to keep editing my posts.....
So going back to the Yale lock being dropped, Greg would only have reason to worry , if both locks were locked, as that would indicate something untoward had happened to Joanna Yeates... As he had found her keys in her bag...
But as I have just said... Dr Vincent Tabak could not have been the person who killed Joanna Yeates... because he would not be able to leave the Flat with both locks locked and, the keys having been found in Joanna Yeates bag on the table in the front room.....
If what you posted about the locks is true then surely the same applies to anyone, even the stranger off of the street.
We don't know if both locks were locked though do we?
-
There's always a chance that Joanna and Greg R had a conversation about are you walking alone or with anyone to the Ram. Oh Darragh ...... da de da. One of those sort of chats. So yes I can see why Greg R would phone him and other friends.
I think that the only reason Greg R thought Friday, was because he had texted her around 10.30 Friday, as she had asked him to do and of course there was no reply.
This and the fact that everything that Joanna would have normally have taken out with her was in the flat.
I honestly don't think Joanna could have got over to Rebecca's place. As far as I remember, on the night of the 17th there were no trains or buses, because of the weather.
Maybe Greg R is not very good in a crises and basically runs around in circles. I don't think that many people think logically in this sort of situation, we panic. Just a thought.
Also while I remember, I don't think that if Mr and Mrs Yeates were concerned enough to get out of bed and drive through hazardous conditions from Hampshire to reach Bristol, that they would be thinking "Crime Scene". Like I would, they would probably be tearing the flat apart looking for clues as to where she was.
There you can see the problems the police faced initially. People had stomped all over the lawn and paths, covering initial footsteps. Greg R had been tidying up the place and then Mr and Mrs Yeates arrived and pulled the place apart. Makes me almost feel sorry for them .... almost, because they are the police.
Yes.. Joanna Yeates may have informed Greg she was going to the pub with work colleagues, that is alway a possibility... But it didn't mean that they were the last people she saw....
Also... Rebecca Scott had a car... Rebecca Scott could have just as easily driven to Joanna Yeates Flat on Friday 17th December 2010, as Greg had managed to drive to Sheffield in the bad weather...
Now I don't remember about Joanna Yeates asking Greg to text her that evening????
So why didn't Greg ring CJ sooner and ask him to bob down to the Flat and check out if everything was ok, before he got back from Sheffield??? Just a thought....
And as I said, it was just as feasible that Joanna Yeates had gone out and shoved some money in her pocket forgotten her phone and dropped the latch....
Greg does say she was bad at texts.. So why would he expect her to reply to the one he sent when he was in Sheffield and had arrived ????
Mrs Yeates said that she had text Joanna Yeates also on the Saturday afternoon, and Joanna hadn't replied.. But she was not worried , because she didn't always reply....
Another thing I am assuming.. Just like Rebecca Scott assumed... was that it was possible to access Joanna Yeates phone... Now I don't know if that is the case... There is "Nothing" that states that either Greg knew the password... Or that Joanna Yeates phone was not password protected....
Which if Greg didn't ring Rebecca Scott because he didn't know that Rebecca Scott had spoken to Joanna Yeates on her way home, because Joanna Yeates phone was locked... And that would account for the reason that Greg only rang Darragh Bewell.... And if that was the case......
How did the Police know to ring Rebecca Scott in the first Place???? They hadn't been at the Flat that long to get a phone company to give them access to that phone ?????
And if the Police didn't leave the message.... Who did??? Did someone pretend to be the Police ???? who informed them that Rebecca Scott had been talking to Joanna Yeates ????
There are always things that don't make sense to me ....
-
If what you posted about the locks is true then surely the same applies to anyone, even the stranger off of the street.
We don't know if both locks were locked though do we?
Thats the point... There is nothing to indicate whether both of the locks on the Flat door were locked when Greg arrived home... He doesn't say that he opened both locks...
The Defence have alway contended that Dr Vincent Tabak left the door open, whilst he went back and forth doing the deed... And I just think everyone assumed he dropped the latch... as you can see the Yale lock on the back of the door...
But I believe that both locks were locked ... even though they don''t tell us that fact....
It's because of CJ...... If it was a case of just the Yale latch being dropped... Then all the fuss about CJ having keys to the Flat would be pointless.....
CJ wouldn't need the keys to the Flat if he had been down there and Joanna Yeates had let him in... he could have done exactly what the defence say that Dr Vincent Tabak had done and dropped the latch..... And no need for all the fuss, about it being the Landlord because he had a set of keys...... (not saying it CJ.. just using an example)..
So if in the first instance CJ was arrested because he had a set of keys to the Flat... Then logic again dictates that both locks must have been locked....
And again I will keep saying .. That in turn means that Dr Vincent Tabak didn't kill Joanna Yeates because he couldn't have locked both locks and put the keys back inside Joanna Yeates bag , which was found on the dining table in the front room....
So whoever killed Joanna Yeates had to have keys to her flat... (IMO)...
Previous tenants for example...
-
Yes.. Joanna Yeates may have informed Greg she was going to the pub with work colleagues, that is alway a possibility... But it didn't mean that they were the last people she saw....
Also... Rebecca Scott had a car... Rebecca Scott could have just as easily driven to Joanna Yeates Flat on Friday 17th December 2010, as Greg had managed to drive to Sheffield in the bad weather...
Now I don't remember about Joanna Yeates asking Greg to text her that evening????
So why didn't Greg ring CJ sooner and ask him to bob down to the Flat and check out if everything was ok, before he got back from Sheffield??? Just a thought....
And as I said, it was just as feasible that Joanna Yeates had gone out and shoved some money in her pocket forgotten her phone and dropped the latch....
Greg does say she was bad at texts.. So why would he expect her to reply to the one he sent when he was in Sheffield and had arrived ????
Mrs Yeates said that she had text Joanna Yeates also on the Saturday afternoon, and Joanna hadn't replied.. But she was not worried , because she didn't always reply....
Another thing I am assuming.. Just like Rebecca Scott assumed... was that it was possible to access Joanna Yeates phone... Now I don't know if that is the case... There is "Nothing" that states that either Greg knew the password... Or that Joanna Yeates phone was not password protected....
Which if Greg didn't ring Rebecca Scott because he didn't know that Rebecca Scott had spoken to Joanna Yeates on her way home, because Joanna Yeates phone was locked... And that would account for the reason that Greg only rang Darragh Bewell.... And if that was the case......
How did the Police know to ring Rebecca Scott in the first Place???? They hadn't been at the Flat that long to get a phone company to give them access to that phone ?????
And if the Police didn't leave the message.... Who did??? Did someone pretend to be the Police ???? who informed them that Rebecca Scott had been talking to Joanna Yeates ????
There are always things that don't make sense to me ....
Again I'm not 100 percent sure but I think that the bridge/s were closed. Rebecca was the friend who lived in Cardiff or Swansea wasn't she? There had been police warnings that we were expecting heavy snow and not to drive except in emergencies.
I think that the police would have seen on Joanna's phone that Rebecca was the last person she talked to on the mobile and that's why they contacted her.
Joanna asked Greg R to contact her when he got to Sheffield, just so that she would know that he had made it safely.
Joanna didn't just forget her phone, she also left her keys, glasses, coat and probably purse and we know her bag.... if she took the bag out when on a social evening.
Like you have said there is logic and things we don't know about this case and will probably never know.
-
Again I'm not 100 percent sure but I think that the bridge/s were closed. Rebecca was the friend who lived in Cardiff or Swansea wasn't she? There had been police warnings that we were expecting heavy snow and not to drive except in emergencies.
I think that the police would have seen on Joanna's phone that Rebecca was the last person she talked to on the mobile and that's why they contacted her.
Joanna asked Greg R to contact her when he got to Sheffield, just so that she would know that he had made it safely.
Joanna didn't just forget her phone, she also left her keys, glasses, coat and probably purse and we know her bag.... if she took the bag out when on a social evening.
Like you have said there is logic and things we don't know about this case and will probably never know.
But Greg would not know that the bridge had been closed as he was in Sheffield, or close to it.....
Yes ....Joanna might have received Greg's message realised he got there safely and did her usual and didn't reply because, he had said he had arrived ok.....
I'm just saying possibilities Nina... Joanna Yeates could have easily got changed quickly shoved money in her pocket, didn't need her big Rucksack and forgot her keys where in there... same with the phone...
And she didn't wear glasses all the time ... As we have seen on many pictures of her ....
-
Thats the point... There is nothing to indicate whether both of the locks on the Flat door were locked when Greg arrived home... He doesn't say that he opened both locks...
The Defence have alway contended that Dr Vincent Tabak left the door open, whilst he went back and forth doing the deed... And I just think everyone assumed he dropped the latch... as you can see the Yale lock on the back of the door...
But I believe that both locks were locked ... even though they don''t tell us that fact....
It's because of CJ...... If it was a case of just the Yale latch being dropped... Then all the fuss about CJ having keys to the Flat would be pointless.....
CJ wouldn't need the keys to the Flat if he had been down there and Joanna Yeates had let him in... he could have done exactly what the defence say that Dr Vincent Tabak had done and dropped the latch..... And no need for all the fuss, about it being the Landlord because he had a set of keys...... (not saying it CJ.. just using an example)..
So if in the first instance CJ was arrested because he had a set of keys to the Flat... Then logic again dictates that both locks must have been locked....
And again I will keep saying .. That in turn means that Dr Vincent Tabak didn't kill Joanna Yeates because he couldn't have locked both locks and put the keys back inside Joanna Yeates bag , which was found on the dining table in the front room....
So whoever killed Joanna Yeates had to have keys to her flat... (IMO)...
Previous tenants for example...
Was Chris Jefferies arrested just because he had a set of keys? You would expect a landlord to have them.
I also don't see that this means that the door was double locked. I mean we just don't know do we?
Previous tenants, naughty, naughty Nine - lol.
I'm sure that Chris Jefferies would have changed the locks between tenants, that's quite normal. Probably around the same time that he painted the hallway a bright ghastly yellow!
-
Was Chris Jefferies arrested just because he had a set of keys? You would expect a landlord to have them.
I also don't see that this means that the door was double locked. I mean we just don't know do we?
Previous tenants, naughty, naughty Nine - lol.
I'm sure that Chris Jefferies would have changed the locks between tenants, that's quite normal. Probably around the same time that he painted the hallway a bright ghastly yellow!
Why else would the Police assume that it was CJ, just because he was the Landlord??? There had to be a reason for this...
The Police had told everyone that there was NO Forced entry... The media at the time went rife with stories of CJ having keys to her Flat... And the police also took all the keys from CJ to all the Flats that were empty or let....
The subsequently arrested CJ after his second witness statement...
I believe the Police allowed everyone to believe that it was CJ as he had access to the flats because he held the keys..
Now those stories shouldn't have circulated if it was just a case of someone getting access by knocking on the door and dropping the latch on their way out....
And as to whether CJ changed the locks after each tenant I do not know the answer to that one....
Edit... I believe again ... that is why they said it was CJ... because he was the landlord and he had the keys to Flats....
Otherwise, there attention would have been drawn to all of the other residents as potential suspects, simply because a Latch had been dropped... (imo)
And that is the reason I believe that both locks were locked... Meaning whoever killed Joanna yeates had a key... And that person was not Dr Vincent Tabak !!!!!.... (imo)
Double Edit Now I know it applies in Scotland, but i'm not sure about English Law.... Don't the Police need 2 pieces of evidence to arrest someone on suspicion of murder???
If that is the case.. Then both locks would need to be locked , because otherwise it would mean anyone could lock the Flat door on the way out by dropping the latch....
-
Why else would the Police assume that it was CJ, just because he was the Landlord??? There had to be a reason for this...
The Police had told everyone that there was NO Forced entry... The media at the time went rife with stories of CJ having keys to her Flat... And the police also took all the keys from CJ to all the Flats that were empty or let....
The subsequently arrested CJ after his second witness statement...
I believe the Police allowed everyone to believe that it was CJ as he had access to the flats because he held the keys..
Now those stories shouldn't have circulated if it was just a case of someone getting access by knocking on the door and dropping the latch on their way out....
And as to whether CJ changed the locks after each tenant I do not know the answer to that one....
Edit... I believe again ... that is why they said it was CJ... because he was the landlord and he had the keys to Flats....
Otherwise, there attention would have been drawn to all of the other residents as potential suspects, simply because a Latch had been dropped... (imo)
And that is the reason I believe that both locks were locked... Meaning whoever killed Joanna yeates had a key... And that person was not Dr Vincent Tabak !!!!!.... (imo)
I suppose that as president/director or whatever of the Tenants Association he might have had the keys to all of the flats in no.44, not just the basements and his own flats which he owned.
From memory ... which isn't that good, in 2010 Chris Jefferies was the second youngest at no.44 so he might have had other reasons to have had all the keys at no.44.
If I disappear it's because my broadband keeps going, like just now. So apologies ahead of my crisis. I hate computers!
Maybe Chris Jefferies said something in his interviews with the police and they didn't believe him, not to do with the keys.
-
check my double edited post above.. please I did it as you posted
-
In reply to my double edit....
It must be the case....
When they arrested Dr Vincent Tabak, it was supposed to be the DNA and the phone call from the sobbing girl, that clinched his arrest!!!!
And as for CJ.. He had the keys and his second witness statement that he may or may not have seen Joanna Yeates that evening....
So the door had to be double locked..... Because it wouldn't make sense , on arresting CJ, as the evidence of the door latch being dropped would be too weak as a reason to arrest him....
And any person around that vicinity on Friday 17th December 2010, could have knocked on Joanna Yeates door and attacked her pushing her into the hall... Again dropping the latch on the way out...
So i will say again... I believe both locks were locked... And Joanna Yeates keys were in her rucksack on the table in the front room...
Meaning it had to be someone who had a set of keys, and NOT Dr Vincent Tabak.....(IMO)... Because they never ask Dr Vincent Tabak if he had any keys to Joanna Yeates Flat either !!!!!
-
In reply to my double edit....
It must be the case....
When they arrested Dr Vincent Tabak, it was supposed to be the DNA and the phone call from the sobbing girl, that clinched his arrest!!!!
And as for CJ.. He had the keys and his second witness statement that he may or may not have seen Joanna Yeates that evening....
So the door had to be double locked..... Because it wouldn't make sense , on arresting CJ, as the evidence of the door latch being dropped would be too weak as a reason to arrest him....
And any person around that vicinity on Friday 17th December 2010, could have knocked on Joanna Yeates door and attacked her pushing her into the hall... Again dropping the latch on the way out...
So i will say again... I believe both locks were locked... And Joanna Yeates keys were in her rucksack on the table in the front room...
Meaning it had to be someone who had a set of keys, and NOT Dr Vincent Tabak.....(IMO)... Because they never ask Dr Vincent Tabak if he had any keys to Joanna Yeates Flat either !!!!!
I don't follow your logic sometimes Nine, but I have a few questions.
Where is it proved that the sobbing girl existed.
Why stitch up a foreign person with no record at all ..... if that person is innocent.
Why was Joanna moved.
Why was Joanna murdered.
I do have loads more questions, but will stick with the four above.
-
I don't follow your logic sometimes Nine, but I have a few questions.
Where is it proved that the sobbing girl existed.
Why stitch up a foreign person with no record at all ..... if that person is innocent.
Why was Joanna moved.
Why was Joanna murdered.
I do have loads more questions, but will stick with the four above.
(1): It was never proved that the sobbing girl exisited, that is why I do not know with what evidence they arrested Dr Vincent Tabak in the first place, as DCI Phil Jones has stated the DNA was Low Copy... And that on it's own would not be enough to arrest Dr Vincent Tabak...(imo) The story of the sobbing girl circulated in the papers I think after his arrest...
(2): I don't know the answer to that one.. I know the review was due on the following Monday after Dr vincent Tabak's arrest, and DCI Phil Jones had commented that he was a very Placid individual to deal with... As for his record, did they check everything before they arrested him... That I do not know either....
(3): For me the only reason I believe someone moves a body is because they know the person.... And they try to distance themselves from what they have done.... Strangers I believe walk there victim to the scene of crime... Or leave them where they have found them..
(4): I don't know why she was murdered... It could have been an accident.... It could have been anything
-
I don't understand what you are not following with regards my logic??
-
(1): It was never proved that the sobbing girl exisited, that is why I do not know with what evidence they arrested Dr Vincent Tabak in the first place, as DCI Phil Jones has stated the DNA was Low Copy... And that on it's own would not be enough to arrest Dr Vincent Tabak...(imo) The story of the sobbing girl circulated in the papers I think after his arrest...
(2): I don't know the answer to that one.. I know the review was due on the following Monday after Dr vincent Tabak's arrest, and DCI Phil Jones had commented that he was a very Placid individual to deal with... As for his record, did they check everything before they arrested him... That I do not know either....
(3): For me the only reason I believe someone moves a body is because they know the person.... And they try to distance themselves from what they have done.... Strangers I believe walk there victim to the scene of crime... Or leave them where they have found them..
(4): I don't know why she was murdered... It could have been an accident.... It could have been anything
Thanks for the above Nine.
1. So the sobbing was just an urban myth.
2. I think that the police would most definitely have ascertained whether VT had a record before arresting him.
3. I tend to agree with you until I think of Becky Watts. Her half brother and idiot girlfriend, took her from her bedroom to his own home after murdering her. There's always some that are different I suppose.
-
If I am using the logic that... The Fact CJ had the keys and his second witness statement, was why he was arrested.
I believe that the door needed 2 locks to be locked and not just the Yale latch dropped....
I will say that this has to be the case... If CJ's lawyers arrived and knew that it was possible for just anyone to trick their way into Joanna Yeates Flat... Kill her, remove her, and drop the latch on the way out...
The Police would not have been able to apply for an extension for CJ to question him... and his Lawyers would have had him out quick sharp, as the reason of anyone getting access being a possibility would weaken whatever evidence they believed they had against him.... (imo)
-
Thanks for the above Nine.
1. So the sobbing was just an urban myth.
2. I think that the police would most definitely have ascertained whether VT had a record before arresting him.
3. I tend to agree with you until I think of Becky Watts. Her half brother and idiot girlfriend, took her from her bedroom to his own home after murdering her. There's always some that are different I suppose.
(1): Yes.. As far as I know... No evidence of The Sobbing Girls phone call or existence was brought to trial..
(2): That is possible Nina... They obviously got permission from someone in Holland to interview him in the first place on the 31st December 2010
(3):As you have pointed out, Becky Watts half brother knew her and also so did his girlfriend.. They removed her from her home. whether or not the place he chose to hide her was ill conceived, doesn't change the fact that he moved her from the scene of crime.
And you're welcome...
-
If I am using the logic that... The Fact CJ had the keys and his second witness statement, was why he was arrested.
I believe that the door needed 2 locks to be locked and not just the Yale latch dropped....
I will say that this has to be the case... If CJ's lawyers arrived and knew that it was possible for just anyone to trick their way into Joanna Yeates Flat... Kill her, remove her, and drop the latch on the way out...
The Police would not have been able to apply for an extension for CJ to question him... and his Lawyers would have had him out quick sharp, as the reason of anyone getting access being a possibility would weaken whatever evidence they believed they had against him.... (imo)
No I was just meaning that your logic is different from mine and sometimes I have difficulty with it, but it could be the way I read your posts. It's just two different points of view that's all.
Did Flat 1 have the sort of heating that you put on yourself, or was it controlled from the main house? Do you happen to know?
If it was the sort that was on all day, well that may have been a reason for moving Joanna.
On the other hand if no heating was on all weekend wouldn't that have the same effect of freezing her. Like dumping her in L/Wood Lane, but without the snow.
Again just another thought.
-
No I was just meaning that your logic is different from mine and sometimes I have difficulty with it, but it could be the way I read your posts. It's just two different points of view that's all.
Did Flat 1 have the sort of heating that you put on yourself, or was it controlled from the main house? Do you happen to know?
If it was the sort that was on all day, well that may have been a reason for moving Joanna.
On the other hand if no heating was on all weekend wouldn't that have the same effect of freezing her. Like dumping her in L/Wood Lane, but without the snow.
Again just another thought.
(1): There is a timer in the kitchen on the left for the boiler, I presume it controls the central Heating as well as the
hot water..
(2): Nothing has ever been mentioned as to whether or not the central heating was on or off or whether it was on a
timer. But say it was ON... Dr Vincent Tabak didn't turn it off... He would have said....
If Joanna Yeates had been at the Flat dead all weekend whether the heating was on or off, there would have
been signs of her death with the body fluids leaving the body...
If she had been there all weekend with the heating on, it would have compounded the issue of the body's
decomposition, and there would I believe , be the distinctive smell that a dead body leaves behind in the flat
So I believe Joanna Yeates would have been removed quite quickly if she had died in her Flat...
And that is why I believe we get the story of Dr Vincent Tabak taking her around to his Flat... But we still have
the problem that the bladder and bowel empty, quite soon after death.. and there doesn't appear to be any
evidence of this in either Joanna Yeates Flat or Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat, even though Dr Vincent Tabak was
supposed to have Joanna Yeates in his Flat for about an hour. Plus... Dr Delaney does not mention any staining
of Joanna yeates clothing when he does the post mortem, which would have indicated also that she was
deposited soon after her death...
(3): Yes it would..
-
(1): There is a timer in the kitchen on the left for the boiler, I presume it controls the central Heating as well as the
hot water..
(2): Nothing has ever been mentioned as to whether or not the central heating was on or off or whether it was on a
timer. But say it was ON... Dr Vincent Tabak didn't turn it off... He would have said....
If Joanna Yeates had been at the Flat dead all weekend whether the heating was on or off, there would have
been signs of her death with the body fluids leaving the body...
If she had been there all weekend with the heating on, it would have compounded the issue of the body's
decomposition, and there would I believe , be the distinctive smell that a dead body leaves behind in the flat
So I believe Joanna Yeates would have been removed quite quickly if she had died in her Flat...
And that is why I believe we get the story of Dr Vincent Tabak taking her around to his Flat... But we still have
the problem that the bladder and bowel empty, quite soon after death.. and there doesn't appear to be any
evidence of this in either Joanna Yeates Flat or Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat, even though Dr Vincent Tabak was
supposed to have Joanna Yeates in his Flat for about an hour. Plus... Dr Delaney does not mention any staining
of Joanna yeates clothing when he does the post mortem, which would have indicated also that she was
deposited soon after her death...
(3): Yes it would..
Ah yes it was a combi boiler and you control the heating/radiators from it. Mine's the same.
I suppose the heating issue could be one reason why Joanna was moved. That has never made sense to me, whoever murdered her didn't need to move her, unless the flat was warm.
-
Ah yes it was a combi boiler and you control the heating/radiators from it. Mine's the same.
I suppose the heating issue could be one reason why Joanna was moved. That has never made sense to me, whoever murdered her didn't need to move her, unless the flat was warm.
Or.... As people have mentioned previously....
She wasn't killed in her Flat and someone returned her possessions, locking the door behind them... But then you would still need someone to have the keys to the flat to lock both locks and leave Joanna yeates Rucksack on the table with the keys to the Flat inside....
-
Maybe the lack of heating was another thing that got Greg R worried.
-
Maybe the lack of heating was another thing that got Greg R worried.
He doesn't mention whether the Flat is warm or cold on his arrival from Sheffield... And you would have imagined if that was another reason for him to be concerned he would have stated so at trial... Even if it hadn't been reported in the papers in the early stages of the Investigation....
Also the stench from the cat tray would have been overwhelming on his entry to the Flat as The Cat tray is next to the door... So I do not believe the heating was on a timer... And it not being on can't have been a problem wither...(imo)
-
Or.... As people have mentioned previously....
She wasn't killed in her Flat and someone returned her possessions, locking the door behind them... But then you would still need someone to have the keys to the flat to lock both locks and leave Joanna yeates Rucksack on the table with the keys to the Flat inside....
It's a possibility I suppose, but I just don't believe it.
Is it a possibility that Joanna went upstairs to get any mail, leaving Flat 1 off the latch?
-
It's a possibility I suppose, but I just don't believe it.
Is it a possibility that Joanna went upstairs to get any mail, leaving Flat 1 off the latch?
Joanna Yeates could have collected the mail... But you still need to establish that both locks were locked on exit... And I have explained how I believe that had to be the case ......
-
Let me ask you a couple of questions Nina....
Do you think that both locks were locked??
What evidence did they arrest CJ on??
What Evidence did they arrest Dr Vincent Tabak on???
-
Let me ask you a couple of questions Nina....
Do you think that both locks were locked??
What evidence did they arrest CJ on??
What Evidence did they arrest Dr Vincent Tabak on???
Haven't a clue.
Haven't a clue.
DNA.
-
Haven't a clue.
Haven't a clue.
DNA.
To all three.... really??
It tends to make it pointless me posting in some ways... If anything I write isn't understood...
I thought my post were self explanatory ,.. Obviously there are not...
-
To all three.... really??
It tends to make it pointless me posting in some ways... If anything I write isn't understood...
I thought my post were self explanatory ,.. Obviously there are not...
We will never know.
You say keys, but again I don't know.
DNA.
-
We will never know.
You say keys, but again I don't know.
DNA.
We will never know could be the answer to everything that I have written.....
There needs to be probable cause to arrest CJ, and being a witness to people walking down the drive that he noticed, cannot have been probable cause to arrest CJ
The DNA was low copy 1000/1 and I'm not going over my posts about the Low Copy DNA again...
The sample was also minute... Transfer.. contamination.... could also rule this sample out.... And we know how slap dash they were with their Forensic Protocols at Canygne Road... Bob The builder has shown us that!!!!
-
We will never know could be the answer to everything that I have written.....
There needs to be probable cause to arrest CJ, and being a witness to people walking down the drive that he noticed, cannot have been probable cause to arrest CJ
The DNA was low copy 1000/1 and I'm not going over my posts about the Low Copy DNA again...
The sample was also minute... Transfer.. contamination.... could also rule this sample out.... And we know how slap dash they were with their Forensic Protocols at Canygne Road... Bob The builder has shown us that!!!!
Well we never will know will we, unless there is something that can be had by FOI request.
I actually did read all you posted on low copy DNA, and with a lot of it I agree with you, but it's what they had to convict VT, plus his confession.
-
Well we never will know will we, unless there is something that can be had by FOI request.
I actually did read all you posted on low copy DNA, and with a lot of it I agree with you, but it's what they had to convict VT, plus his confession.
Which isn't good enough in my book.... They Low Copy DNA supported Nothing.... No Evidence was brought to trial to support Dr Vincent Tabak having committing this crime...
Anyone can make a confession... But you need hard facts and Evidence to support a confession...
If his confession fit the facts of Joanna Yeates date of Death... that apparently being the 17th December 2010??Then why was he charged between the 16th and the 19th December 2010 when he was at trial.....
The lack of body fluids and the obvious change of Joanna Yeates clothing is testament in itself that Dr Vincent Tabak didn't kill Joanna Yeates and these omissions were never challenged....
And to be factual.. Dr Vincent Tabak did not confess to anything... He did not confess to Brotherton"... and he did not confess to anyone else.. he sat at trial and told a tall story... that didn't support what had happened to Joanna Yeates...
It may have touched the edges to satisfy the prosecution... But if fell way short of being any kind of admittance to commiting this crime...
Edit... This is also why the understanding of whether or not both locks had been locked is so important... Because I believe they had to be both locked, or The Police would not have arrested CJ... because informing them only that he saw people on the drive wouldn't be enough... and I believe it was the fact that he had the keys to Joanna Yeates Flat , was the other side of the coin they need to arrest him...
So we would have the problem that the way in which Dr vincent Tabak left the flat locked being of massive importance....
If you think FOI will work in this case... try The Relocation Services, mrswah has done a topic on this... an interesting read....
FOI = Freedom of Information and only if we decide that it doesn't come under data protection... and as everything comes under data protection we can not help you any further with your inquiry...
There was a woman who tried to get information through FOI... They did the data protection on her too... I have posted on this matter ...
Edit... Here's the link to the FOI
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/vincent_tabak_statements
-
And to cut a long story short after much wrangling this was their response...
Private Our Reference 973/14
Emily Johnson Your reference
[FOI #226900 email] Date 03 November 2014
Dear Ms Johnson
I write in connection with your request for information that was received
by us on the 27^th August concerning a personal statement.
Specifically you asked: “Please provide me with a copy of any statements
signed by Vincent Tabak during the Joanna Yeates investigation.”
Your request for information has now been considered and I am not obliged
to provide the information. The information is exempt by virtue of section
40(2) third party personal information, and section 30(1)(a)(b)(c)
relating to investigations and proceedings conducted by public
authorities.
Section 40 (2), third party personal information, this is an absolute and
class based exemption which means that there is no requirement to identify
and evidence the harm that would be caused by disclosure or consider the
public interest. Any information to which a request relates is exempt if
it constitutes personal data of which the applicant is not the data
subject and if disclosure of that information to a member of the public
would contravene any of the principles of the 1998 Data Protection Act. In
this particular case, disclosure of this information would contravene
Principles 1 and 2 of the Act, whereby personal data shall be processed
fairly and lawfully and only obtained for one or more specified purpose or
purposes.
Section 30 is a qualified and class based exemption which means that there
is no requirement to identify and evidence the harm that would be caused
by disclosure, however there is a requirement to consider the public
interest.
Public interest test
Factors favouring disclosure
This was a high profile case which was widely publicised in the media.
Disclosure of the requested information may go some way to demonstrating
that the force is efficient, effective and accountable for the actions
that it takes.
Factors favouring non disclosure
As this information was obtained as part of an investigation for the
purpose of ascertaining whether he should be charged with an offence and
whether he was guilty of that charge, section 30 is engaged. Should Mr
Tabak ever appeal his conviction, release of his statement may prejudice
any appeal. This exemption is valid for (currently) 29 years which
restarts every time the case is annotated or reopened.
Balance Test
Vincent Tabak’s statement was obtained for the purpose of the
investigation, disclosure of which would breach the data protection, this
would also prejudice any appeal he may make regarding his conviction.
Whilst this investigation is now closed, it is recognised there is a
public interest in understanding why or how a the conclusion was reached.
This murder investigation attracted a lot of media attention and a lot of
information is already in the public domain. A trial has been held which
of course means all aspects of the investigation have been subject to the
scrutiny of the court. Therefore after weighing up the competing
interests, I have determined that the benefits of disclosure are not made
out. Whilst the statement may be interesting to you this is of course
different to being in the public interest and I can see no tangible
community benefit of the disclosure of this information. In accordance
with the Act, this represents a Refusal Notice for your request.
Yours sincerely
C Quartey
Freedom of Information Officer
Corporate Information Management Department
This little nugget is total tosh
A trial has been held which
of course means all aspects of the investigation have been subject to the
scrutiny of the court.
All aspects of the Investigation were not dealt with at court... No Forensic Evidence from either Joanna Yeates Flat or Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat were ever brought to trial....
And vital witness's did not take the stand!!
Bow locks.... Total Bow locks...(imo)
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/vincent_tabak_statements
-
Balance Test
Vincent Tabak’s statement was obtained for the purpose of the
investigation, disclosure of which would breach the data protection, this
would also prejudice any appeal he may make regarding his conviction.
Whilst this investigation is now closed, it is recognised there is a
public interest in understanding why or how a the conclusion was reached.
This murder investigation attracted a lot of media attention and a lot of
information is already in the public domain. A trial has been held which
of course means all aspects of the investigation have been subject to the
scrutiny of the court. Therefore after weighing up the competing
interests, I have determined that the benefits of disclosure are not made
out. Whilst the statement may be interesting to you this is of course
different to being in the public interest and I can see no tangible
community benefit of the disclosure of this information. In accordance
with the Act, this represents a Refusal Notice for your request.
Vincent Tabak’s statement was obtained for the purpose of the
investigation,
disclosure of which would breach the data protection, this
would also prejudice any appeal he may make regarding his conviction.
Now my question to the quotes I have seperated is ... Is that two different reasons why they will not disclose the information???
Dr Vincent Tabak's statement being obtained for the purposes of the Investigation, could refer to his assistance he gave Avon and Somerset Police whilst he was in Holland....
Which is different from any statement he made whilst he was under Investigation himself....
Also there should be statements that all the neighbours made when the Police Initially questioned them on what happened on the weekend of the 17th-19th December 2010
And as for Dr Vincent Tabak appealing... Judge Field made sure he couldn't... that was the reason apparently they didn't use the porn in the trial as it could have been seen as prejudical.. And stopping Dr Vincent Tabak having a right to appeal, I believe ...
So back to good old 'Bow Locks"... I'm afraid...
Could Dr Vincent Tabak's statement incriminate anyone else ??? unbeknown to him???
-
‘He is not being tried for his behaviour after Joanna
died. He is not being tried for dumping the body. What
he is being tried for is whether he killed Joanna Yeates,
intending to kill or cause really serious harm to her, or
whether, he panicked and did it without thinking of the
consequences. Most of what the prosecution has stated
does not go this fact: it goes to what happened
afterwards.’
And on that... The searches should therefore, not have been admitted as evidence... As they account mainly what happened after the 17th December 2010... And I have never believed that these searches were the searches of Dr Vincent Tabak... As I have explained my reasoning many many times before..
They do not prove that Dr Vincent Tabak had intended to kill Joanna Yeates....
Which again leaves you with Zero evidence to support Dr Vincent Tabak killing Joanna Yeates...
You are left with a story that doesn't add up.. And a defendant that was NEVER Defended...imo
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
Sorry wrong place ...
-
At Line 305 of the prosecution chart
PC Karen Thomas went to 44 Canynge Road to search
Was Karen Thomas only a PC??? This is from the Prosecutions 1300 page document of searches etc....
DCI Phil Jones just says he sent a team out to Holland to interview Dr Vincent Tabak,.. And after finding out that Andrew Mott is a civilian, I'm starting to have my doubts about Karen Thomas also...
With the volunteers that the police have these days... Is Karen Thomas just that... A volunteer...
I am really starting to wonder what qualifications these Police have that were in key positions of the Joanna Yeates Case.
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
Was it Karen Thomas who dismissed Kingdom's statement that he heard the words "Help Me" on Saturday the 18th December 2010?
kingdom
BC Member
kingdom's Avatar
Joined
Jan 2011
Posts
278
Likes
100
OCT
26
2011
Default Re: Did Harry Walker change his story about the screams he heard?
- they newspaper seems to be incorporating several people's experiences in that article.
I only found out about Harry Walker's witness statement 10 days ago and have only read the details for the first time on this thread. What i experienced was during the day time - this is what i explained to the police on the 21st of December and to an Evening Post journalist a few days later.
(I'm the person in one of three flats - not Harry Walker - whose bedrooms back onto both CJ's drive - and with one having an oblique view of Tabak's door -- HW is in the same development but in the main house).
What i heard - on what i NOW believe to be saturday mid morning - probably between 10am - and 12.30 pm - was what sounded like a female voice shout out - 'Why won't someone help me!' very loudly. I only clearly caught the last two words 'help me!' - looked outside and there was no one about and assumed it was someone actually calling to someone else on Canynge Road and that i'd misheard - what i thought i'd heard).
It definitely wasn't on the friday night - i was in on the friday night and can't recall hearing anything undue - although i do recall hearing raised voices one evening of that week - which could have been an argument or could equally have revelers). I have a TV in the bedroom so it feasible that any scream might have been blocked out by the sound of that - (i seem to recall there was a turbulent episode of Eastenders on that evening).
I spoke to the DC last week who i had spoken to back in January and she said that as i hadn't been called as a witness they had probably concluded that what i heard was not relevant to the case. (Which i took to mean that the police have concrete forensic evidence that Jo was murdered on the friday night and that what i heard could not have been her on the saturday morning).
Personally i disagree. I'm not a fantasist or prone to a wild imagination and it would be a spectacular coincidence if the shout had not been Jo as at the time i thought the timbre of the voice sounded very odd.
I have contacted the police about this issue on at least 4 occasions specifying that i had heard this during the brightest part of that day -
He states Harry Walker couldn't have heard the screams as he lives in the main part of the building.. And Kingdom's backs onto the back of Canygne Road...
I spoke to the DC last week who i had spoken to back in January and she said that as i hadn't been called as a witness they had probably concluded that what i heard was not relevant to the case.
Did they dismiss out of hand Kingdoms statement because it was in the daytime that he heard the screams???
I spoke to the DC last week who i had spoken to back in January and she said that as i hadn't been called as a witness they had probably concluded that what i heard was not relevant to the case. (Which i took to mean that the police have concrete forensic evidence that Jo was murdered on the friday night and that what i heard could not have been her on the saturday morning).
Kingdom was under the impression that they had concrete Forensic Evidence that Joanna Yeates was murdered Friday Night... So what did the DC says to him???
Now kingdoms statement should have been taken more seriously... (imo)
Why won't someone help me!' very loudly. I only clearly caught the last two words 'help me!'
He hears someone shouting "Why won't someone Help me".... And the Police decide in their wisdom that this neighbour who is the closest neighbour to Joanna Yeates , doesn't have a valid statement...
I would have thought that out of all the neighbours.."Kingdom" was in a better position than anyone...
Where the jury ever told that the words help me were said on their visit to Percival Court???
Because why take them there... As Harry Walker couldn't hear anything..... Did they go inside "Percival Court to Harry Walkers Flat??? Or were they just stood in the garden or somewhere outside???
Because they would need to go inside his Flat.....
The jury also heard evidence from Harry Walker who said he heard a scream on the evening of 17 December.
Now it doesn't state whether he was inside or out????? And as there wasn't parties going on at Percival Court and the weather was freezing.. Harry Walker had to be inside.... So did the Jury go into Harry Walkers Flat to see if he could hear, screams coming from The Back of 44 Canygne Road ????
The jury went to 4 sites??
12:16 PM - 11 Oct 2011Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
Clegg QC says there are four particular sites they will look at. Jurors are to make a note of how long it takes to walk route Joanna took.
(1) Longwood Lane
(2) 53 Canygne Road
(3) Flat 1 44 Canygne Road
(4) Flat 2 Canygne Road
(5) Percival Court
(6) Joanna Yeates journey home
Amid a heavy police presence, Mr Justice Field helped the jury retrace her steps through Bristol's upmarket Clifton district.
There would have been loads of sites for number 6!!
Whatever is said to the jury on their visit... Is it recorded ??? Could the jury have been told about the cries for "help"??
So Karen Thomas did do a lot of Interviews... Was it she who spoke to "Kingdom" and dismissed his Important Statement A a credbile person witnessing a woman's cry for help?????
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/uknews/8822613/Inside-the-flat-where-Joanna-Yeates-was-killed-by-Vincent-Tabak.html?image=11
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg365827#msg365827
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-15289139
https://www.bowlandcentral.com/forum/showthread.php?t=98647&highlight=harry+walker
-
.................
-
12:29 PM - 11 Oct 2011Twitter
Katie Stallard
@skystallard
4: go to address in Percival court,around corner from canynge road,the significance of which they will be told later.
Now what was The significance of the Jurys visit to Percival Court????
Where they told about the "Help Me Crys"?????
Because realistically there's nothing significant that Harry Walker could hear...... He heard noise varying at different times...
Harry Walker told the court he heard a yell at about 8.30pm as he prepared to sit down for pudding with his girlfriend.
So harry walker heard a noise when Joanna yeates was on the phone to Rebecca Scott near Tesco's and they brought him to trial????
They must have said something about the crys "Help Me " to the jury..... There's no other significant reason that going to a house that didn't hear the noises at the correct time, would even warrant the jury visiting in the first place .....
I'll ask again... Where The Jury Told of The "HelpMe" cries when they visited Percival Road..??
As we know that is what another witness heard and these cries for Help were on Saturday 18th December 2010 Mid morning!!!!
I don't understand ... There is NOTHING SIGNIFICANT in Harry Walkers testimony......
Why is it significant?????
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2048622/Vincent-Tabak-trial-Pictures-Joanna-Yeates-drinking-night-died.html#ixzz4wQryHBkQ
-
It's has just dawned on me.... The Texts do not prove anything.....
The only way that the text prove the timing of anything is to see a print out of someones mobile Phone records... And we never got any mobile phone record print outs....
How can we rely on any text messages without a print out????
It's all to do with Setting The time and Date on your phone settings The timing of certain text were imperative... But they do not prove a person arrived at a destination or left a destination... They do NOT prove that they were at a location or NOT!!!!
I have just changed the date and time on my mobile phone..... And for my unfortunate hubby... sent him 2 random texts.... Just discovered that he has received them as todays date...
I have attached an image of what I sent him.. Please notice the date and time of the message I sent...
I think we now need to ignore these text messages that were part of this Investigation... Because without A Phone Company "print out log" of all the specific dates... Anyone could have changed the Date and Time On any message that was sent...
So when we have Dr Vincent Tabak and his "Crisis" text... did he write that.... And what proof did we have that Greg arrived at Sheffield after 10:00pm???
There is NO proof of either of these text messages ....(IMO)!!!!!
So I sent the text today and it says on my phone that i sent on: 17/12/2010, 20:31
In fact if you look at both texts..... On the first one I hadn't changed the time .....
Edit... You would need access to both phones also.... (for the date and time to correspond)
We never had Tanja Morson at Trial.. So we never had the proper log of what she received from Dr Vincent Tabak...
Her phone my have the day those texts were really sent... But if you have both phones, in ones possession... you can change the date and time on both of them , to make it appear that texts were sent at the said time .....
double Edit... On my phone which I haven't had that long (10 months)It is says its the first text I sent my hubby..... which of course it can't be ....
I have just screen shot my first texts to my hubby... I was thanking him for buying me this phone.. It has the date and time I sent my first message after those messages I did today.....
-
Was it Karen Thomas who dismissed Kingdom's statement that he heard the words "Help Me" on Saturday the 18th December 2010?
He states Harry Walker couldn't have heard the screams as he lives in the main part of the building.. And Kingdom's backs onto the back of Canygne Road...
Did they dismiss out of hand Kingdoms statement because it was in the daytime that he heard the screams???
Kingdom was under the impression that they had concrete Forensic Evidence that Joanna Yeates was murdered Friday Night... So what did the DC says to him???
Now kingdoms statement should have been taken more seriously... (imo)
He hears someone shouting "Why won't someone Help me".... And the Police decide in their wisdom that this neighbour who is the closest neighbour to Joanna Yeates , doesn't have a valid statement...
I would have thought that out of all the neighbours.."Kingdom" was in a better position than anyone...
Where the jury ever told that the words help me were said on their visit to Percival Court???
Because why take them there... As Harry Walker couldn't hear anything..... Did they go inside "Percival Court to Harry Walkers Flat??? Or were they just stood in the garden or somewhere outside???
Because they would need to go inside his Flat.....
Now it doesn't state whether he was inside or out????? And as there wasn't parties going on at Percival Court and the weather was freezing.. Harry Walker had to be inside.... So did the Jury go into Harry Walkers Flat to see if he could hear, screams coming from The Back of 44 Canygne Road ????
The jury went to 4 sites??
(1) Longwood Lane
(2) 53 Canygne Road
(3) Flat 1 44 Canygne Road
(4) Flat 2 Canygne Road
(5) Percival Court
(6) Joanna Yeates journey home
There would have been loads of sites for number 6!!
Whatever is said to the jury on their visit... Is it recorded ??? Could the jury have been told about the cries for "help"??
So Karen Thomas did do a lot of Interviews... Was it she who spoke to "Kingdom" and dismissed his Important Statement A a credbile person witnessing a woman's cry for help?????
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/uknews/8822613/Inside-the-flat-where-Joanna-Yeates-was-killed-by-Vincent-Tabak.html?image=11
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg365827#msg365827
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-15289139
https://www.bowlandcentral.com/forum/showthread.php?t=98647&highlight=harry+walker
What i heard - on what i NOW believe to be saturday mid morning - probably between 10am - and 12.30 pm - was what sounded like a female voice shout out - 'Why won't someone help me!' very loudly. I only clearly caught the last two words 'help me!' - looked outside and there was no one about and assumed it was someone actually calling to someone else on Canynge Road and that i'd misheard - what i thought i'd heard).
Kingdom only actually heard the words `Help Me' so where the why won't someone .... very loudly came from?
I can understand the police not calling this witness because of this statement ... if true.
Again these are words that I have shouted in my lifetime, over trying to rewire plugs etc., that I'm not good at. I would be shouting "why the hell won't someone help me!" So if the police are thinking along these lines well .....
Now it doesn't state whether he was inside or out????? And as there wasn't parties going on at Percival Court and the weather was freezing.. Harry Walker had to be inside.... So did the Jury go into Harry Walkers Flat to see if he could hear, screams coming from The Back of 44 Canygne Road ????
No I can't see that one Nine, Harry W didn't have to be inside. He could have gone outside for many reasons, to put the rubbish in the bin, to have a cigarette etc.,
How do you know that there weren't parties at Percival Court that weekend?
-
Yes Nina....
Harry didn't need to be inside... But then he would be further away... As he was supposed to live in the main building an I trust he would exit onto the road away from Canygne Road...
-
Yes Nina....
Harry didn't need to be inside... But then he would be further away... As he was supposed to live in the main building an I trust he would exit onto the road away from Canygne Road...
Sorry about that rather garbled post Nine. Was going by advice to cut and paste.
The acoustics around some of the roads, College Rd, Canynge Rd are quite amazing at nights.
That's why I was asking whether snow muffled sound to a certain extent.
-
Do we know what VT was doing in between him arriving home and Joanna arriving home?
-
...... sorry, besides making himself a pizza. That's all I know about what VT did.
-
...... sorry, besides making himself a pizza. That's all I know about what VT did.
think he was supposed to have gone out taking Photographs but there wasn't much snow apparently...
Defence Counsel: Did you remain at home or did you go out?
Tabak: I went out
I sent Tanja a text message after I returned; just after 7.15pm
I had gone for a quick walk to take pictures of snow.
I left by small garden gate to Bristol Road then returned.
I didn’t take any photos- the snow was dirty.
At 7.25 – after I had returned, I accessed my bank account via Internet until 7.37pm.
Defence Counsel: Can we just put the timeline to one side? What did you do after 7.37pm?
Tabak: I drank a beer. I watched TV- I cannot remember what. I had supper- a readymade
pizza. Then I decided to go out again.
Defence Counsel: Why?
Tabak: I was lonely; bored so decided to drive to the big Asda in Bedminster to buy myself
some treats.
Defence Counsel: Where was your car parked?
Tabak: My car was parked on the street.
Defence Counsel: Without any help from the timeline, are you able to say what time it
was you decided to go to Asda?
Tabak: No.
Defence Counsel: Look at our timeline chart again. No 76. Jo Yeates did not get back to
her flat until 8.37 or thereabouts. Timeline 39- you ultimately went to Asda at approx
10.13 pm.
Can you help by telling what time you believe you went to Asda?
Tabak: No not exactly.
Defence Counsel: Can we just put the timeline to one side? What did you do after 7.37pm?
Tabak: I drank a beer. I watched TV- I cannot remember what. I had supper- a readymade
pizza. Then I decided to go out again.
Ate Pizza... Nina you were right....
Notice he has supper and Not Dinner ... which he should have had after he returned from work... So what time did Dr Vincent Tabak eat his supper??? Just before he went to ASDA by the looks of things...
So he feels hungry after killing his neighbour?????
It has to be before ASDA... because he has a burger when he meets Tanja.....
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
For AH, mrswah and leonora....
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. – Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, stated by Sherlock Holmes
-
For AH, mrswah and leonora....
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. – Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, stated by Sherlock Holmes
Aww and that doesn't apply to me?
-
Aww and that doesn't apply to me?
Yes sorry Nina.... I just think they will know what i mean... that is all....
-
think he was supposed to have gone out taking Photographs but there wasn't much snow apparently...
Ate Pizza... Nina you were right....
Notice he has supper and Not Dinner ... which he should have had after he returned from work... So what time did Dr Vincent Tabak eat his supper??? Just before he went to ASDA by the looks of things...
So he feels hungry after killing his neighbour?????
It has to be before tesco's... because he has a burger when he meets Tanja.....
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
Out taking 'photos .... she said dubiously .... it was below 0 degrees, no snow earlier on, so what would he be taking 'photos of?
Ah just looking at your post will read and answer in a while.
-
Yes sorry Nina.... I just think they will know what i mean... that is all....
I too know exactly what it's about. I saw the 'photos!
-
I too know exactly what it's about. I saw the 'photos!
These posts I have done have been testing... And my brain isn't as sharp as it once was... But as time goes on I know I will eventually get there in the end!!!!
I just needed to get all my Ducks in a Row... little b....rs kept flying off!!
-
I too know exactly what it's about. I saw the 'photos!
Well maybe I haven't seen them all then.....
So I believe you know what I have been saying all along is accurate ...??
-
Out taking 'photos .... she said dubiously .... it was below 0 degrees, no snow earlier on, so what would he be taking 'photos of?
Ah just looking at your post will read and answer in a while.
Well I though him taking photo's of the snow odd too... It didn't make sense.... We know when Joanna Yeates walks past Waitrose it isn't snowing... So i couldn't understand how Dr Vincent Tabak apparently went outside to take photo's in NO SNOW... When he wanted pictures that were pretty...
Good glad you look at my posts later ... I know i write too many and far too long...lol. But there's a good reason for the way I post... Everything is screen shot and links are always provided....
-
Did you take any photo's of the snow that weekend Nina??
Did it get quite deep at any point???
There must be someone in the area who has photographs of the snow at that time ....
Edit..... I was just thinking it a shame we can't access Dr Vincent Tabaks facebook account anymore, it would show the time and date of anything he might have posted at that time...
Maybe he posted the picture of the snow he took on that weekend... It sure would have the date on them... And settle this, as to whether or not he did take any picture ....
-
I PANICKED. IT WAS A REALISATION SOMETHING WAS WRONG': GREG REARDON TALKS JURY THROUGH HIS GROWING FEARS FOR JO
Greg Reardon yesterday told the jury of the frantic hours after he arrived back at 44 Canynge Road to find his girlfriend Jo Yeates missing.
In this account from the witness stand at Bristol Crown Court, he tells of his initial annoyance that Jo wasn't answering his calls, the ensuing panic when he found her mobile phone and keys... and describes his final ever embrace with her.
'We met just before 5pm downstairs in the lobby area. We had a bit of a kiss and a cuddle, said goodbye and I left.
'She wanted to finish off her Christmas shopping.
'We had a get-together planned for the next weekend and she wanted to do some baking for it.
'I think she wanted to do that and relax.'
During his weekend away, Mr Reardon told the court he had rung Jo numerous times and sent her text messages, but she did not respond.
'I rang her mobile and the landline and sent her a text (on Friday).
'I tried to contact her twice on the Saturday - at lunchtime and again in the evening. On Sunday, I rang her in the day and on the way home.
'I was worried, but didn't really think there was a problem.
'I thought she might have gone away and was busy doing fun things and was not able to get hold of a phone.'
But when he arrived back home from Sheffield at about 8pm on December 19, he found Jo was not home - and noted strange movements in their flat.
'There was clothing, boots, shoes and general paraphernalia in the main walking path of the hallway.
'There were several coats on the floor. One of my brown coats and two or three big items of clothing.'
'I initially thought she had been quite lazy or been and gone in a rush. I think one of the lounge lights was on and I think the hall light was on.
'The cat seemed very pleased to see me. I think it was quite desperate to go outside. When I was settling down to have some food, he was being particularly affectionate. He seemed particularly hungry.
'When I went back to the car and came in again, I noticed the litter tray was full. I realised the faeces in the litter tray was very old. It was dried out on the top.'
'I didn't immediately think that anything serious was wrong. I was starting to feel quite worried. I was quite annoyed that I had not been told what her plans were.
'I noticed an open bottle of cider on the right by the microwave.
'It was a bad habit of Jo to open drinks and leave them. I came in and I was slightly annoyed. It looked like she had done it again and left a bottle of cider. I consumed it.'
His fear intensified when Jo failed to return home by 9pm. The pair had planned to watch the final of the BBC's The Apprentice show together.
'I tried to get hold of her to let her know it was about to start. It was about 8.55pm.
'I rang her mobile and again it didn't pick up and I heard it faintly ringing in the house. I went to find it. I found it in the pocket of her white jacket hanging up.'
'I just kept saying to myself that she had gone out for the evening and had forgot her phone. I thought it was odd. It was cold and she had gone out not wearing her warm jacket.
'I just started pacing around really. I had this base level of stress that I didn't know what was going on. I felt I needed to know what was going on. I walked around the flat looking for things.'
Mr Reardon noticed two broken pieces of plastic on a green pedestal in the hallway, with a pair of Jo's briefs on top.
He told the court that this was not the normal place they would be kept. The bin had not had any extra rubbish put into it since he left on December 17 and he spotted Jo's work bag on the dining room table. In it, he found her keys and wallet.
'I panicked really. It was a realisation that now something was wrong. At very best, she had been locked out with all her stuff in the flat.
'I started to ring around her friends and my friends in Bristol to try and find out where she was.'
It was the early hours of the morning when he rung the police to report Jo missing.
I tried to get hold of her to let her know it was about to start. It was about 8.55pm.
'I rang her mobile and again it didn't pick up and I heard it faintly ringing in the house. I went to find it. I found it in the pocket of her white jacket hanging up.'
What type of ring tone did Joanna Yeates have ????
How did Greg hear Joanna Yeates phone ring if again it didn't pick up???
If it didn't pick up it must have gone to voice mail.... So how did he hear it ringing faintly in her pocket????
Double Edit....I was worried, but didn't really think there was a problem.
'I thought she might have gone away and was busy doing fun things and was not able to get hold of a phone.'
So did Joanna Yeates always take her phone with her ????? I don't know ... So why would Greg say: 'I thought she might have gone away and was busy doing fun things and was not able to get hold of a phone.'
Why was he so worried that her mobile phone was at home in her coat pocket....if he says he thought she might not be able to get hold of a Phone whilst she was doing "Fun Things"????? That sounds like she didn't always take her phone with her...(imo)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2050063/Vincent-Tabak-strangled-Jo-Yeates-20-seconds-stifle-scream-arm-her.html
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
think he was supposed to have gone out taking Photographs but there wasn't much snow apparently...
Ate Pizza... Nina you were right....
Notice he has supper and Not Dinner ... which he should have had after he returned from work... So what time did Dr Vincent Tabak eat his supper??? Just before he went to ASDA by the looks of things...
So he feels hungry after killing his neighbour?????
It has to be before ASDA... because he has a burger when he meets Tanja.....
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
quote]
Where the heck is Bristol Rd then? I don't know of it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist ..... but I googled it and it doesn't seem to be in Clifton.
VT can't have gone far if he went out and came back within 10 mins. So where did he go to, also why, because there was no pretty snow all day and up till 7.35'ish when he was home again.
-
Nina... Can't find it at the moment ... what time did Joanna Yeates go into bargain booze ??
-
quote]
Where the heck is Bristol Rd then? I don't know of it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist ..... but I googled it and it doesn't seem to be in Clifton.
VT can't have gone far if he went out and came back within 10 mins. So where did he go to, also why, because there was no pretty snow all day and up till 7.35'ish when he was home again.
Why do you ask... It's where Buro happold is according to These papers....
Buro Happold Ltd, Camden Mill, 230 Lower Bristol Road,
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
I see what you mean....
I left by small garden gate to Bristol Road then returned.
Dr Vincent Tabak was going to work!
I sent Tanja a text message after I returned; just after 7.15pm
I had gone for a quick walk to take pictures of snow.
I left by small garden gate to Bristol Road then returned.
I didn’t take any photos- the snow was dirty.
At 7.25 – after I had returned, I accessed my bank account via Internet until 7.37pm.
Thats mental... He wouldn't have time to go to work and back.....
Is that more than one day?????
I'll need to look at this properly... Not well today... can't think straight...
Was Dr Vincent Tabak at work that evening??
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
Timeline 37- Vincent Tabak leaves his workplace.
Timeline 45- Vincent Tabak’s journey home- 6.54 at Constitution Hill. Home just after
7pm by which time Tanja had already left. Text message to Tanja- ‘Just got home’.
Defence Counsel: Did you remain at home or did you go out?
Tabak: I went out
I sent Tanja a text message after I returned; just after 7.15pm
I had gone for a quick walk to take pictures of snow.
I left by small garden gate to Bristol Road then returned.
I didn’t take any photos- the snow was dirty.
At 7.25 – after I had returned, I accessed my bank account via Internet until 7.37pm.
Defence Counsel: Can we just put the timeline to one side? What did you do after 7.37pm?
Tabak: I drank a beer. I watched TV- I cannot remember what. I had supper- a readymade
pizza. Then I decided to go out again.
Was this Dr Vincent Tabak returning from America ????
"Workplace"??
We are just assuming he means Buro Happold in Bath.... But a place of work can be anywhere....
Is that why he didn't go to the party with Tanja ... And sent the message that he had just got home????
So did he go to work to drop something off??
Buro Happold have been very quiet on this....
Is this why they know where he was for an hour at around 9:00pm??
He could have accessed his bank account at work... There may be a rest room at work...
Saying your home... could mean he's back from the States or any other place he may have been regarding his work...
He wasn't at home was he !!! So by the time he is home he just grabs something to eat.... The ASDA CCTV he could have gone before he went home and bought beer!!
Edit... Put the timeline aside it sounds like a trigger.... He stops explaining what he is doing... He then goes into talking about eating...
Defence Counsel: Can we just put the timeline to one side? What did you do after 7.37pm?
It makes it appear that after he has accessed his bank account at a precise time of 7:37pm he immediately starts talking about what he did to relax... He doesn't explain how he got home from Buro Happold on Bristol Road and how long it took or what time it took......
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
Why do you ask... It's where Buro happold is according to These papers....
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
Well that's in Bath, not Bristol then.
-
Nina... Can't find it at the moment ... what time did Joanna Yeates go into bargain booze ??
Whatever time she was at Tesco's, allow about 4 minutes for her to get from Bargain Booze. Given the conditions.
-
Whatever time she was at Tesco's, allow about 4 minutes for her to get from Bargain Booze. Given the conditions.
Thanks... But I need an exact time... I'm looking at her timeline....
-
Thanks... But I need an exact time... I'm looking at her timeline....
Isn't there a time on Bargain Booze video?
Gotta go for a little while the plumber is arriving.
-
Isn't there a time on Bargain Booze video?
Gotta go for a little while the plumber is arriving.
Not that I know ... will look
-
This is for my next post......
In a statement read to the jury, BDP architect Samuel Huscroft said he had planned to go to the Ram but he was not feeling well and because of the pre-Christmas crowds, he instead went home.
He said that later on he received a text from Miss Yeates, which said: 'Where are you this fine evening?' Mr Huscroft said he texted back but did not receive a reply.
Jurors also heard a statement from Peter Lindsell, a former colleague of Miss Yeates at BDP, who she had also texted that evening.
Mr Lindsell said he was standing on a platform at Bristol Temple Meads station waiting for a train to Reading, where he was attending a wedding that weekend, when he received a message from Miss Yeates at 8.12pm.
She wrote: 'Where art thou?'
Mr Lindsell said he replied immediately and said he was at the station waiting for his train.
At 8.24pm, Miss Yeates replied: 'On my tod, just thinking about how much fun your birthday was.'
Mr Lindsell said in his statement: 'I thought this was an odd comment because she was referring to my BBQ in April 2009. I cannot think why she would make that comment.'
He said that he replied at 8.25pm offering to meet up with Miss Yeates and Mr Reardon for a drink - either before Christmas or after.
'I took it from her text that she was at a loose end, which is why I suggested the drink because I had not seen Greg or Jo for such a long time,' he said. 'After that text I didn't hear any more from Jo but didn't think that was unusual.'
A statement from Matthew Wood, who was a school friend of Miss Yeates' older brother Chris, was also read out to the court. Mr Wood, a project manager, said he lived in Bristol and had been asked by Chris Yeates to show his sister around the city after she moved there in 2008.
He said over the next two years they met up socially a dozen times to go for a drink. Mr Wood said it was rare for him and Miss Yeates to contact each other by text message as they usually communicated by Facebook.
However, at 8.26pm he received a text from her, which said: 'Matt, are you out tonight?'
Mr Wood said that he was at his staff Christmas party and did not see the message until 9.22pm but immediately replied and said: 'At office party. Not sure what I'm doing later.'
He said he never got a reply.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2048622/Vincent-Tabak-trial-Pictures-Joanna-Yeates-drinking-night-died.html#ixzz4wWPZi8Sa
-
These times come from the article I just posted and I added what I originally knew about Rebecca Scotts phone call..
(1) : 6:00pm The bristol Ram
(2): 8:00pm Leaves bristol Ram
(3): 8:10pm Waitrose
(4): 8:12pm Texts Mr Lindsell/ he replies immediately
(5): 8:24pm Joanna Yeates Replies "on my tod"
(6) 8:25pm Mr Lindsell replies
(7): 8:26pm Matt wood receives a text
(8): 8:30pm Rebecca Scott phone Call.. 15 minute call
(9): 8:36pm Tesco's
(10): 9:22 pm Mr wood replies...
I haven't even managed to allow for Bargain Booze...
At 8.30pm she made a telephone call on her mobile phone to her friend Rebecca Scott but the duration of the call is not being disclosed by the police.
Joanna went into Tesco, just 50 yards away from Bargain Booze, at 8.37pm to buy a £4.50 vegetarian pizza which she bought using the self-service till.
The CCTV of Joanna Yeates in Tescos starts at 8:36pm..
How long does it take to walk 50 yard????
2-3 minutes walking into the door of Tesco's and getting the Pizza
So we have Between 8:30pm and 8:36pm... Joanna Yeates has to go into Bargain Booze and Buy 2 Bottle of cider... I remember her mother saying she got one bottle then went back for another bottle because it made Mrs Yeates smile....
We have 6 minutes exactly too...
Go into Bargain Booze...
Walk 50 yards
Go into Tesco's and find the Pizza she requires.. Whilst having a Phone call with Rebecca Scott for 15 minutes, and I believe by the time we went to trial it was & minutes...
It still doesn't fit!!!! We never see Joanna Yeates making a phone call to anyone whilst she is shopping...
Now we know Joanna Yeates has to be in Waitrose for more than 2 minutes... Yet we do not see her text anyone in the video... The CCTV had been edited... They say she arrives at Waitrose at 8:10pm... The video is very jerky and I's been edited because It freezes at 1:23/ 1:24 of the video.. and then it moves on...
So Waitrose leaves by using the video it is.. 8:11:38 pm ... So in exactly 12 seconds, Joanna Yeates has to leave the Exit of `Waitrose and then text Mr Lindell...
She now needs to go to Bargain Booze...
But The timelines have changed .... I've just read her phone call to Rebecca Scott was at 8:10Pm..... From reports after the trial...
8.02pm: Miss Yeates leaves the pub alone to walk the 20-minute journey home from the city centre to Clifton.
8.10pm: She phones best friend Rebecca Scott on her mobile while walking home. They talk for seven minutes. Miss Yeates is tempted to visit Miss Scott in Swansea that night but she has to look after the cat. They arrange to meet Christmas Eve.
8.29pm: Miss Yeates buys two bottles of cider in Bargain Booze in Clifton Village.
8.31pm: She's buys a £4.50 mozzarella and basil "Finest" pizza in Tesco Express.
8.33pm: The final CCTV sighting of Miss Yeates as she walks across a junction near the Hop House pub, 632 yards from home.
8.40pm to 8.45pm: She chats about the slippery pavement with a priest walking his dog.
Shortly before 8.49pm: A couple hear a woman scream twice as they arrive for a party across the road from Miss Yeates's flat in Canynge Road.
These timeline are from the trial..... So How did Joanna Yeates manage to text Various Male Friends when she was on the phone to Rebecca Scott????
Between 8:10pm and 8:17pm Joanna Yeates is talking to Rebecca Scott.. She cannot have sent anybody any texts... Where there replies from her male friends texts or Phone messages ??
The quote that always got me was Matt Wood... He said over the next two years they met up socially a dozen times to go for a drink. Mr Wood said it was rare for him and Miss Yeates to contact each other by text message as they usually communicated by Facebook.
He said they always communicated via facebook???
Is it like I said yesterday... Someone went into the Date and Time settings on Joanna Yeates phone and sent those messages ???
It has to be with the information we have from reports after the trial... why has no-one picked up on this....
I don't know what time Joanna Yeates died... But I know she didn't send those texts....
yesterday I nearly didn't put the screen shot up of my message to my hubby , because of the emoji's and kisses, but for fact I needed to...
It has always struck me as odd.. That to all her male friends Joanna Yeates didn't put any kisses on.... not even 1..
Most people put kisses on .. many men I know do eve when replying to other men... The amount of kisses would normally donate, how close you are... whether male or female... I know everyone is different, but a X normally goes with the territory..
Now I do know Joanna Yeates puts a kiss on the end of a message... In 2009 when their friends on their facebook group they are arranging the "Come Wine With Me" events they do... Joanna Yeates uses Gregs facebook account and leaves a message on the group... she writes..
I can't do monday due to no time to buy the stuff/cook stuff beforehand. I'm in Devon on the weekend. From Jo x
I believe who ever killed Joanna Yeates had to know her and also had to know her circle of friends.... For them to create a trail of text messages that Joanna Yeates herself couldn't possibly have sent....(IMO)
I think the times show this and the fact that a kiss at the end of her messages were devoid...
Edit.... Both articles are written either when the trial is happening or at the end of the trial....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2048622/Vincent-Tabak-trial-Pictures-Joanna-Yeates-drinking-night-died.html#ixzz4wWV6Vhb7
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/joanna-yeates-murder-timeline-of-events-2377178.html
https://www.facebook.com/groups/82338951384
-
8.02pm: Miss Yeates leaves the pub alone to walk the 20-minute journey home from the city centre to Clifton.
8.10pm: She phones best friend Rebecca Scott on her mobile while walking home. They talk for seven minutes. Miss Yeates is tempted to visit Miss Scott in Swansea that night but she has to look after the cat. They arrange to meet Christmas Eve. 7 minutes on the phone!!!
8:12pm Texts Mr Lindsell/ he replies immediately
8:24pm Joanna Yeates Replies "on my tod"
8:25pm Mr Lindsell replies
8:26pm Matt wood receives a text
8.29pm: Miss Yeates buys two bottles of cider in Bargain Booze in Clifton Village.
8.31pm: She's buys a £4.50 mozzarella and basil "Finest" pizza in Tesco Express.
8.33pm: The final CCTV sighting of Miss Yeates as she walks across a junction near the Hop House pub, 632 yards from home.
8.40pm to 8.45pm: She chats about the slippery pavement with a priest walking his dog.
Shortly before 8.49pm: A couple hear a woman scream twice as they arrive for a party across the road from Miss Yeates's flat in Canynge Road.
Edit... The timings don't make sense ... thats why we need proper records of these communications...
-
In a written statement read to the court, Mr Brown said he had spoken to Miss Yeates in the Ram about her plans for Christmas and who would win the final of The Apprentice, which was being aired on the Sunday night.
'I remember texting Jo and betting her 50p that Chris was going to win The Apprentice show on the BBC,' he said
.
What day and what time did Mr Brown bet Joanna Yeates 50p about the winner of The Apprentice....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2048622/Vincent-Tabak-trial-Pictures-Joanna-Yeates-drinking-night-died.html#ixzz4wWnmyM00
-
Thinking about these phone calls and text messages....
Did the Police request all the phone records of "ALL" these individuals or did they just take their word!!!
How did they establish that these timings were accurate ????
(1) Rebbecca Scott
(2) Mr Brown
(3) Mathew Wood
(4) Mr Lindsell
(5) BDP architect Samuel Huscroft
I will also add the 4 other people in this case....
(A) Joanna Yeates
(B) Greg Reardon
(C) Tanja Morson
(D) Dr Vincent Tabak
Not forgetting
(E) CJ... who received a call
(F) Mr and Mrs Yeates who received a call...
That is 11 requests of phone records... I don't remember these phone records coming to court....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2048622/Vincent-Tabak-trial-Pictures-Joanna-Yeates-drinking-night-died.html
-
8.02pm: Miss Yeates leaves the pub alone to walk the 20-minute journey home from the city centre to Clifton.
8.10pm: She phones best friend Rebecca Scott on her mobile while walking home. They talk for seven minutes. Miss Yeates is tempted to visit Miss Scott in Swansea that night but she has to look after the cat. They arrange to meet Christmas Eve. 7 minutes on the phone!!!
8:12pm Texts Mr Lindsell/ he replies immediately
8:24pm Joanna Yeates Replies "on my tod"
8:25pm Mr Lindsell replies
8:26pm Matt wood receives a text
8.29pm: Miss Yeates buys two bottles of cider in Bargain Booze in Clifton Village.
8.31pm: She's buys a £4.50 mozzarella and basil "Finest" pizza in Tesco Express.
8.33pm: The final CCTV sighting of Miss Yeates as she walks across a junction near the Hop House pub, 632 yards from home.
8.40pm to 8.45pm: She chats about the slippery pavement with a priest walking his dog.
Shortly before 8.49pm: A couple hear a woman scream twice as they arrive for a party across the road from Miss Yeates's flat in Canynge Road.
Edit... The timings don't make sense ... thats why we need proper records of these communications...
We are just assuming that these texts were all sent on the Friday... where do they have the date ?????
We need date and time of all of these communications ....
-
The jury was sworn on 7 October, 2011. The trial was postponed for a day because
Vincent Tabak's defence team, led by William Clegg, QC, pleaded o he judge for extra
time to read an additional 1,300 pages of documentary evidence which the prosecution had
disclosed to them at the last minute.
When prosecution counsel Nigel Lickley opened the case, he produced copies of an
A3- bound document which consisted of colour-coded pages of the timeline of the alleged
murder: every incident from emails, mobile texts, landline telephone calls, travel,
shopping, etc of the parties involved, ieJoanna Yeates and her cohabitee; and Vincent
Tabak and his cohabitee. Importantly, these schedules also include alleged internet
searches by Dr Tabak.
I believe the timelines for Joanna Yeates phone calls etc and texts she sent and recieved all come from her mobile phone... I don't believe that they came from anywhere else.....
The Timings that don't correspond and the text of her male friend at the train station going to a wedding, always struck me as odd..
Why would you go to a wedding at that time of night.... What date was this friend of Joanna Yeates at Temple Mead going to a wedding ????[/quote]
She phoned several male friends and told how she was bored.
She texted Samuel Ashcroft:
“Where are you this fine eve?”
His reply was “Home- sorry”.
She then texted Peter: “Where are you?”
Peter replied “On my way to a wedding. Where are you?”
She replied: “At home- on my todd”.
She texted a third male friend.
So according to the Sally Ramage Papers .. Joanna Yeates Replies she is at "Home on her Tod"
Because Joanna Yeates replies at 8:24pm... She cannot be at home because she is supposed to be on her way home ....That's why I believe that the text is on Saturday 18th December 2010... (imo)
So was Peter going to a wedding on the Saturday???? Making his 8:12pm text he recieves from Joanna Yeates possible?? With that timestamp being on Joanna Yeates phone ???
But What time and day do they really show up on Peter's Phone ???
Mr Lindsell said he was standing on a platform at Bristol Temple Meads station waiting for a train to Reading, where he was attending a wedding that weekend, when he received a message from Miss Yeates at 8.12pm.
She wrote: 'Where art thou?'
Mr Lindsell said he replied immediately and said he was at the station waiting for his train.
Were the texts between Joanna Yeates and Peter done on the Saturday?????
Mr Lindsell said he was standing on a platform at Bristol Temple Meads station waiting for a train to Reading, where he was attending a wedding that weekend, when he received a message from Miss Yeates at 8.12pm.
She wrote: 'Where art thou?'
Mr Lindsell said he replied immediately and said he was at the station waiting for his train.
So you have a clash of texts... But if the information only came from Joanna Yeates phone... I believe...(imo) you can see why they say what they do....
Because other wise they don't make sense ....
I believe someone messed with Joanna Yeates phone ...(imo)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2048622/Vincent-Tabak-trial-Pictures-Joanna-Yeates-drinking-night-died.html#ixzz4wXFVcstf
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
Nine's post #1029
VT states he left home and went to Bristol Rd to take photos.
Where is Bristol Rd, Clifton, please.
-
Nine's post #1029
VT states he left home and went to Bristol Rd to take photos.
Where is Bristol Rd, Clifton, please.
Sorry guys... I feel like I am being lead by the nose....
-
Was this Dr Vincent Tabak returning from America ????
"Workplace"??
We are just assuming he means Buro Happold in Bath.... But a place of work can be anywhere....
Is that why he didn't go to the party with Tanja ... And sent the message that he had just got home????
So did he go to work to drop something off??
Buro Happold have been very quiet on this....
Is this why they know where he was for an hour at around 9:00pm??
He could have accessed his bank account at work... There may be a rest room at work...
Saying your home... could mean he's back from the States or any other place he may have been regarding his work...
He wasn't at home was he !!! So by the time he is home he just grabs something to eat.... The ASDA CCTV he could have gone before he went home and bought beer!!
Edit... Put the timeline aside it sounds like a trigger.... He stops explaining what he is doing... He then goes into talking about eating...
It makes it appear that after he has accessed his bank account at a precise time of 7:37pm he immediately starts talking about what he did to relax... He doesn't explain how he got home from Buro Happold on Bristol Road and how long it took or what time it took......
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
I can see where you're coming from Nine, but he says he left by the small garden gate, that's at no.44 Clifton.
-
I can see where you're coming from Nine, but he says he left by the small garden gate, that's at no.44 Clifton.
Garden and path spring to mind
-
Took a fork in the road... sorry
-
.
Sharon Burns, 35, who has lived next to Frank for five years and is a close friend, said: “He must have been through a terrible time.
“Helen had twins in September. When Greg came to visit before Christmas it was the first time he had come to see them.’’
Another neighbour who saw Greg’s car parked outside his brother’s home that weekend said: “He must have been on top of the world seeing the twins for the first time. Then to be plunged into all this.
“His emotions have been pulled all over the place. What a rollercoaster. It must be unbearable.
“They’d seemed so happy. Both the lads are great skiers and Greg had his skis with him. They probably took advantage of the weather for a little fun.
“They are such a lovely family. It should have been a lovely weekend for them. It’s heart-breaking.’’
Who is the neighbour referring too, when they say "They'd seemed so happy"??
-
8.02pm: Miss Yeates leaves the pub alone to walk the 20-minute journey home from the city centre to Clifton.
8.10pm: She phones best friend Rebecca Scott on her mobile while walking home. They talk for seven minutes. Miss Yeates is tempted to visit Miss Scott in Swansea that night but she has to look after the cat. They arrange to meet Christmas Eve. 7 minutes on the phone!!!
8:12pm Texts Mr Lindsell/ he replies immediately
8:24pm Joanna Yeates Replies "on my tod"
8:25pm Mr Lindsell replies
8:26pm Matt wood receives a text
8.29pm: Miss Yeates buys two bottles of cider in Bargain Booze in Clifton Village.
8.31pm: She's buys a £4.50 mozzarella and basil "Finest" pizza in Tesco Express.
8.33pm: The final CCTV sighting of Miss Yeates as she walks across a junction near the Hop House pub, 632 yards from home.
8.40pm to 8.45pm: She chats about the slippery pavement with a priest walking his dog.
Shortly before 8.49pm: A couple hear a woman scream twice as they arrive for a party across the road from Miss Yeates's flat in Canynge Road.
Edit... The timings don't make sense ... thats why we need proper records of these communications...
I know that all of the timings you have posted are different, shows us how accurate the media is.
Well I'm sorry, but I don't believe that Joanna walked from Bargain Booze to Tesco's in 2 minutes.
She would have had to cross the main road in and out of the Village, which is the end of Queen's Rd .... I think, I'll have a look on Wednesday, to see what it's called.
I got my friend's 24 year old daughter to do that walk last night. It was wet but obviously nothing like the weather in 2010. It took her 2 seconds short of 4 minutes. She did have to stop for traffic, we don't know if Joanna had to do this.
Also this was just to Tesco's door she did not go in. Joanna knew where the pizzas were, through doors far right down the end on right hand side. So it wouldn't have taken her long.
Joanna talked to a priest about the slippery pavements so she wouldn't have been walking that fast on that part of her journey home.
I think that you are bang on Nine, the timings are all approx. wrapped neatly around the odd timings we have been given from CCTV.
-
Defence Counsel: Can you look at item where you sent message to Tanja ‘missing you’
Can you remember if you sent it before you decided to go to Asda.
Recapping- you come off the Internet at 7.37pm (our entry 47) & remain in your flat until
9.29pm (our entry 88).
How soon before that did you left your flat?
The searches are NOT Dr Vincent Tabak's!! I've always said this... Now I am questioning what was said at trial....
I couldn't understand how Clegg had anything to refer too with regards any timings for what Dr Vincent Tabak did...
This has to be from something else... maybe an interview with someone....
If Dr Vincent Tabak didn't say anything to his Lawyer and all they had was an enhanced statement, how did they know that Dr Vincent Tabak stayed in his flat until 9:29pm???
I could never understand this... From 7:37pm until 9:29pm.. Dr Vincent Tabak... according to the Defences timeline, was in his Flat... Obviously proving he didn't go around to Flat 1 , when they said he did...
But it cannot be an account of Dr Vincent Tabak's movement on that day... As Dr Vincent Tabak remained silent throughout.. And only signing an enhanced statement in September....
So Clegg had to get this information from somewhere..... Just like the searches are not Dr Vincent Tabak's (imo).. I don't believe the account of his movements are his either...
Why is Dr Vincent Tabak suddenly going to come up with some random statements that don't make sense, without anyone to verify them...
Clegg should have had access to Dr Vincent Tabak, computer, but I don't think he did.... Where has this information come from??
If Clegg had spent the time checking everything that Dr Vincent Tabak had done over that weekend, He would have known that Dr Vincent Tabak was still in his Flat till 9:29pm and didn't move... He would have argued that point to the bitter end.... Proving his Client was at home when Joanna Yeates was killed But he didn't!
I had just assumed Clegg must have had some evidence that Dr Vincent Tabak was in his Flat until 9:29pm on that Friday... But what evidence could that have possibly have been...
He has already said that he came off the Internet, so it cannot be that which puts Dr Vincent Tabak in his Flat until 9:29pm.... And him saying he was watching TV without knowing what he was watching, it can't be that either....
I remember DCI phil Jones saying that Dr Vincent Tabak would only talk about the phone... So the police in their Interviews didn't get any change from Dr Vincent Tabak...
Yes there is the holland interview.... But Clegg cannot use that as his information for what Dr Vincent Tabak apparently did...And I doubt that he had a copy of DC Karen Thomas Interview.. Also within this Holland Interview, how do we know what Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have said??? Did he actually speak?? Did we ever see any evidence from DC Karen Thomas of what Dr Vincent Tabak did or said in this 6 hour Holland Interview?? No... does she refer to her notes in court??? Not that I know of.....
This whole case is odd.... Why would Dr Vincent Tabak talk to DC Karen Thomas for 6 hours in Holland yet when he has been arrested he say absolutely nothing.....
His freedom is on the line and for 10 months he doesn't speak... until he is at trial.... So I cannot see that the Holland Interview had reams of info either... I think the Holland Interview is a smoke screen...
Where has the Information come from that is used at Dr Vincent Tabak's trial????
We have no corroborating independent witness's to say anything as far as Dr Vincent Tabak is concerned...
Tanja at the very least should have been there at trial... but she wasn't, and the reason I believe she wasn't was so she didn't perjure herself...
This line... again doesn't make sense ...
Defence Counsel: At our timeline 100, you sent a text message to Tanja ‘How are you? I
am at Asda. Buying some crisis.’ How did you feel?
Tabak: I just wanted to hear her voice; to get support and comfort.
Dr Vincent Tabak has sent a text message... Yet it talks of him wanting to hear her voice.... That sounds like a phone call... What it reminded me of was someone ringing and it going to voicemail...
There you would here someones voice... But for Dr Vincent Tabak it doesn't make sense ..as he didn't ring Tanja he was supposed to have text her....
So who or what wanted to hear her voice ??? and who's voice are they talking about???
We have to go back to the 1300 page document.... If Clegg appeared surprised about the contents of this document when it was presented to him at the court on the 7th October 2011 , if I remember correctly, that tells me he didn't investigate anything to do with this case...
There literally should have not been any surprises from that document for him... He should have been aware what exactly was on Dr Vincent Tabak's computer and what exactly was on Dr Vincent Tabak's phone.
I still do not understand where Clegg got his Information about his client Dr Vincent Tabak, when Dr Vincent Tabak didn't say anything before trial.... And Clegg obviously didn't do anything to help his client as he demonstrated in court...
That information had to belong to somebody... but I am sure that it didn't belong to Dr Vincent Tabak..(imo)
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
Defence Counsel, Mr William Clegg, QC’s opening speech:
‘If Jo Yeates had stayed for just one more drink she would be alive today. If Vincent
Tabak had gone to Asda as he had planned that same time, he would not be in the dock
today.
She turned on the oven to bake.
She phoned several male friends and told how she was bored.
She texted Samuel Ashcroft:
“Where are you this fine eve?”
His reply was “Home- sorry”.
She then texted Peter: “Where are you?”
Peter replied “On my way to a wedding. Where are you?”
She replied: “At home- on my todd”.
She texted a third male friend.
This is from Clegg's opening speech.......
She phoned several male friends and told how she was bored.
Who did Joanna Yeates phone ?????
According to Clegg she phoned several Male friends... And I do not think that is a mistake on Clegg's part... So who did Joanna Yeates phone????
Not only does Clegg talk of the people Joanna Yeates phoned that evening but also... In The Judge Rinder program.. DCI Phil Jones confirms that Joanna Yeates made Phone calls... as in plural, on her way home.. Now we only know of the phone call to Rebecca Scott... So where have they put the evidence of these 'Other Phone calls"???
DCI Phil Jones at: 18:01
And what was identified on the phone were people that she rang, during her journey on her way home, over the next half an hour, so there was some friends ,of hers, so clearly we made contact with them,To see whether she'd been with them after those telephone calls, if they had any information as to her whereabouts...
There is clearly evidence in this case that was omitted from trial... The only thing that keeps coming back to me is that these people didn't appear in court... And the only reason for that would be she cannot have spoken to them..
DCI Phil Jones says people she Rang...... He doesn't say talked too..... So were there a string of phone calls from Joanna Yeates phones that didn't go anywhere?? Because as I have already said,... If these people had picked up the phone and talked to Joanna Yeates... They too would have been stood up in court... Or an account of their conversations would be part of the evidence as the text messages were...
But they were not... And no account was given....Which leads me to believe the phone calls were numbers rung and then the phone was put down... It's the only obvious conclusion to make....
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4htq8y
-
When they say that the last person to see Joanna Yeates alive was The Priest??? How do we know that is true?
Normally you would have a last confirmed sighting... wouldn't you????
Father Henwood says he talked to a woman matching Joanna Yeates description, he could not be certain that it was Joanna Yeates, but I think they needed him at trial.... They needed someone to vaguely say that they saw Joanna Yeates that night, and so therefore he would be the last person to see, her....
Realistically The last person to see Joanna Yeates that evening that can be verified, is the guy standing next to her at the self service till in Tesco's.. He is there for all to see... and I am sure the police would have followed up who he was...
By jumping straight to Father Henwood, and avoiding the person who served her in "Bargain Booze or the man who was at the till next to Joanna Yeates in Tesco's.. We have avoided putting a proper time and date to anything....
The man in Tesco's ...should have noticed her stood next to him... especially as the CCTV footage has been played time and time again... Who's to say he didn't ring the Police and say something??? He even looks at Joanna Yeates as she goes to pay for her pizza....
Do The Police not normally say The Last Confirmed Sighting?? Well Father Henwoods sighting is not Confirmed
We have Robin Paine, forgetting that she served Joanna Yeates, and The Police telling her that Joanna Yeates came in there... The only way they'd know that is if they had a receipt, or someone else told them..
''I don't remember serving her and it was the Friday night before Christmas, between 8pm and 9pm and it is very, very busy,'' Ms Paine said.
''It was the night before all the students went home for Christmas and it was non-stop all night serving people.
Police confirm body is that of Joanna Yeates 26 Dec 2010
''I spoke to the detectives and I said I didn't remember serving her. They came and took away the CCTV because they said she had been in here.
''The police think she bought a small bottle of cider - I just don't remember.''
Ms Paine added: ''It's awful really, and unimaginable that someone can just disappear like that. It's really upsetting and I feel very very sorry for the family.''
.
So we are left with the man in Tesco's... who has never confirmed or denied that he saw Joanna Yeates purchasing a Pizza that evening...
So who is The man in Tesco's... Because I believe he is the last person who saw Joanna Yeates alive, other than the person who killed her.... (imo)
And another thing that has just sprung to mind... When they do the reconstruction of Joanna yeates in Tesco's... The man that was stood next to Joanna Yeates in the Tesco's CCTV Footage... Is strangely Missing!!!! How can "THAT" be a reconstruction"??
So what is it about "That Man In Tesco"s???????? Who is the man in Tesco's???? And why wasn't he at trial??
Edit Just added image of reconstruction.....
Double Edit... If Robin Paine doesn't remember serving Joanna Yeates, how can she know what time she was in Bargain Booze buying cider ?????
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8228350/Joanna-Yeates-murder-architect-stopped-at-shop-to-buy-alcohol-on-night-she-disappeared.html
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
3:47 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Defence asks why the use of the broom handle to attach the straps to move #Joannayeates' body was not in statement.
ReplyRetweetFavorite
3:48 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Dr Delaney said he is confident the broom handle did not cause any injury #Joannayeates #Vincenttabak
At The Trial I cannot find where Dr Carey says he actually examined Joanna Yeates body... There was a Dr White
2:52 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Dr Delaney did further examination on 31 Dec and observed another on Jan 17 by Dr White #Vincenttabak #Joannayeates
I was looking about Dr Carey and went back to these tweets.... Why didn't Dr White come to trial???
Did Dr Carey just look at the photographs of Joanna Yeates... What was the date of his examination???
Those first tweets I have done... Dr Delaney does a swerve... He doesn't answer the question....
Defence asks why the use of the broom handle to attach the straps to move #Joannayeates' body was not in statement.
I missed it before.. I thought photo's... But they are actually Missing from "The Statement" of Dr Delaneys... So were Broom Handles actually ever used??? Because I don't think they were....
Andrew Mott mentions The Broom Handles... But When Dr Delaney comes to the stand.... Clegg doesn't push him about the omission of The Broom handles from his statement....
What significance are these Broom handles ???
And does anyone know where it says the date that Dr Carey performed his examination of Joanna yeates ???
I have found this... A post mortem examination was carried out last week on behalf of Vincent Tabak by a pathologist, Bristol Crown Court was told.
Michael Fitton QC, representing Tabak, told the preliminary hearing that Dr Nat Carey conducted the examination last Wednesday.
The Article is dated 31st January 2011... So last Wednesday would be 26th January 2011
Dr Vincent Tabak was Charged on Saturday 22nd January 2011... He doesn't appear in court until Monday the 24th January 2011... And by Wednesday Dr Carey is performing an examination on his behalf????
Dr Vincent Tabak hasn't even had chance to apply for bail...... No evidence has been collected to speak of.... So why on earth is Dr Carey performing an examination on Joanna Yeates as soon as the 26th January 2011??
"With his consent we have consented to the release of the body of the deceased," Mr Fitton told the court.
Why would Dr Vincent Tabak give consent to allow Joanna Yeates body released before he has even had time to work out whether he is on his arse or his elbow????? You would think he'd be asking for bail first!!!!
The weirder thing is this article.... On The Sunday 23rd January 2011....
Sunday 23 January 2011 14.33 GMT
The father of Joanna Yeates said today that her family was focusing on her funeral after a neighbour of the 25-year-old landscape architect was charged with her murder.
How can David Yeates even be talking about this before he even knew whether Dr Vincent Tabak would consent to Joanna yeates body being released , and he hadn't even heard of Dr Carey by this point I would imagine....
The time of the Article is 14:33pm... Dr Vincent Tabak was charged less than 24 hours prior.... How can they be talking funerals???
They don't know until Dr Vincent Tabak has arrived at court whether or not the evidence the Police have is strong enough... And with the rubbish they appear to have had it was not......
Had Paul Cook arrived as Dr Vincent Tabak's Lawyer at this point?? Or did he still have the duty solicitor...??
And another point... Why would Dr Vincent Tabak consent to anything when all he did was make "NO COMMENT!!!!
It's a 2 No Trump hand that they are playing there (imo)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/joanna-yeates-body-released-to-family-2199445.html
http://live-news.sky.com/Event/Live_Updates_Vincent_Tabak_Trial2
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jan/23/joanna-yeates-vincent-tabak-funeral
-
This does mean that one really hasn’t got a real clue as to when Tabak went into
Joanna’s flat except that it was between the time he went to Asda and the time he texted
his girlfriend, say, between 9.00 pm and 11.00 pm.
Were you to conclude that the couple heard Joanna’s screams and not the scream that Mr
Sweet heard; if the Laymans and Sweet‘s evidence were to be dismissed, it would tie in
with the scientific evidence.
One thing is certain. Joanna Yeates was killed between 21.00 and 21.30 pm on Friday 17
December 2010.
The quote is from Clegg's opening statement..... And what is it saying??
This does mean that one really hasn’t got a real clue as to when Tabak went into
Joanna’s flat except that it was between the time he went to Asda and the time he texted
his girlfriend, say, between 9.00 pm and 11.00 pm.
So according to Clegg's opening statement... Dr Vincent Tabak went to ASDA first....
And why so vague with the time ??? I thought Dr Vincent Tabak texted Tanja when he was at ASDA's?? To create his alibi apparently....
Clegg cannot be getting basic's like this incorrect.... (imo)
More importantly..... why does he know what time Joanna yeates died between???
One thing is certain. Joanna Yeates was killed between 21.00 and 21.30 pm on Friday 17
December 2010.
So he knows for certain the time of Joanna Yeates death.. Yet he has forgotten that his client was in his Flat till 9:29pm..
Defence Counsel: Can you look at item where you sent message to Tanja ‘missing you’
Can you remember if you sent it before you decided to go to Asda.
Recapping- you come off the Internet at 7.37pm (our entry 47) & remain in your flat until
9.29pm (our entry 88).
What evidence does Clegg know or has Clegg seen that proves that Joanna Yeates died between 9:00pm and 9:30pm on Friday 17th December 2010??
It's a very bold claim to be made by a DEFENCE Lawyer, who apparently is trying to protect his client.... Yet he fails to emphasis to the Jury that his client was in his Flat until 9:29pm on Friday 17th December 2010, so could not have possibly committed this crime !!!
Come on Clegg is the master that Defended Barry George and War Criminals.... Yet he can't see past his own statement to the Jury.. That Clearly gives his own client an alibi....!!
That trial is off!!! Something just like the "TIME CAPSULE" doesn't add up....(imo)
Edit...
This does mean that one really hasn’t got a real clue as to when Tabak went into
Joanna’s flat
The sentence about Dr Vincent Tabak going into Joanna Yeates Flat..... That probably is a true statement... But not in the context that Clegg is implying... Dr Vincent Tabak may have been inside Flat 1 before... Who's to know??? Other people had lived there before Joanna Yeates and Greg... who's to say he wasn't friendly with them?????
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
Continuing from the above post of mine...
This does mean that one really hasn’t got a real clue as to when Tabak went into
Joanna’s flat except that it was between the time he went to Asda and the time he texted
his girlfriend, say, between 9.00 pm and 11.00 pm.
Were you to conclude that the couple heard Joanna’s screams and not the scream that Mr
Sweet heard; if the Laymans and Sweet‘s evidence were to be dismissed, it would tie in
with the scientific evidence.
One thing is certain. Joanna Yeates was killed between 21.00 and 21.30 pm on Friday 17
December 2010.
Were you to conclude that the couple heard Joanna’s screams and not the scream that Mr
Sweet heard; if the Laymans and Sweet‘s evidence were to be dismissed, it would tie in
with the scientific evidence.
Lovely paragraph from Clegg... he is a Master of disguise .....
Harry Walker, who lived behind Yeates's flat, said he heard a scream at about 8.30pm.
The Lehmans:
Two witness, Zoe and Flo Lehman, who had been to a party in Canynge Road that night, told the court they had heard two piercing screams coming from number 44.
They said the cries, sometime before 8.49pm on December 17, sounded like they came from a woman in distress.
Now Clegg's carefully crafted statement.....
If the Laymans and Sweet‘s evidence were to be dismissed, it would tie in
with the scientific evidence
Yes indeed it would Mr Clegg...... Dismiss the screams... And it would support the scientific evidence...
Because the scientific evidence does not support Joanna Yeates being attacked before 9:00pm..... Remember he did say...
One thing is certain. Joanna Yeates was killed between 21.00 and 21.30 pm on Friday 17
December 2010.
So the screams again where a distraction......
But looking for the Lehmans I did come across this .....
The couple had left home at 8.35pm and went to buy a bottle of wine from the Bargain Booze off-licence before heading to the party. He said that, after they opened the gate of No 53 and walked down the path, they heard two screams.
Did they actually see Joanna Yeates on that evening???? It may seem an odd question, But I have always wondered why they looked so distressed when they left the trial at Bristol Crown court... I couldn't understand why it would effect them so much , If all they did was witness a random scream that could be anyone....
But watching the video.. Zoe Lehman especially looks distressed.... Did the actually see Joanna Yeates that evening?? It's feasible seeing as they were at Bargain Booze, that they did actually cross paths with Joanna Yeates ..
Did the Lehmans actually know Joanna Yeates ??? We have to remember how this has been presented to us... So nothing is what it seems ...
It is always possible that Joanna Yeates got a lift from the Lehmans.... As I say.... anything is possible in this case ....
But I just found Zoe Lehmans reaction interesting... Looked quite emotional for someone with no connection to Joanna yeates... Yes.. It's an appalling tragedy... But I am making observations .... And I don't get that from Rebecca Scotts face... Infact I can't find video of Rebecca Scott leaving the court... But The lehmans are there... and I believe there has to be more to it than them hearing screams to be focusing in on them leaving the court after they gave evidence....(imo)
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/13/tabak-friends-police-joanna-yeates
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2048622/Vincent-Tabak-trial-Pictures-Joanna-Yeates-drinking-night-died.html
http://stories.swns.com/news/vincent-tabak-guilty-of-murdering-joanna-yeates-21407/
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/vincent-tabak-trial-continues-zoe-and-florian-lehman-news-footage/656463068
-
This timeline I did of the phone calls that Greg made on the Sunday/Monday 19th-20th December 2010...I'll link the post..
(1): Darragh Bewell Midnight
(2): CJ 12:30
(3): Mr and Mrs Yeates Around Midnight
(4): Rebecca Scott before 4:00am
(5): The Police 1:00 am Monday Morning..
(6): Police Call Darragh Bewell at 3:00am
Now in the Sally Ramage papers.. I have just seen this ..
2.13. As Miss Yeates was not at home when he returned, giving evidence in court in
October 2011, he said that he waited but when she did not arrive back after midnight, he
telephoned his mother, her friends, her mother and later, the police. He reported Miss
Yeates as a missing person to Avon and Somerset police. He made the ‘missing person’
report at 1:00 hours on Monday morning, 20 December 2010.
So more times to fit in....
He has rung his "Mother" first then her friends, her mother and later the Police..
So... Her Friends I take that to mean "His" Mothers friends!! It cannot be Joanna Yeates friends because he didn't ring Darragh Bewell till Midnight and he rang The Yeates before he rang Darragh Bewell...
Why did he ring his mother and her friends first???? Eh.... thats weird...
He's worried his girlfriend is missing.... And he rings his mum and her friends before Joanna Yeates Mum and Joanna Yeates friends....
Thats even before he has rung CJ... To ask CJ if he has seen Joanna Yeates at all that evening...
So he arrives home at 8:00pm... he rings Joanna Yeates phone at 9:00pm ... Is worried and then rings his mum????
Why would his mum know where Joanna Yeates was ??? Why would "Her Friends" know where Joanna Yeates was ??
Why weren't these people brought to court?? This is beyond odd to me...
I'm trying to figure the timeline here... I thought it was once he found her bag on the table that he really started to panic... Which if I remember correctly, that was about 11:00pm... because it used to confuse me how he hadn't noticed it for 3 hours... In that tiny Flat....
But ..... he said that he waited but when she did not arrive back after midnight, he
telephoned his mother, her friends, her mother and later,
Now things are not adding up in my book..... Because the Yeates said...
The mobile phone went... quite near midnight and Greg's name flashed up on it, which i thought was unusual, and erm.. Then he said is Jo with you? And we said why would she be with us?? And then he said that all her belongings are here, her purse her keys and things like that.
So he has to have called his mother well before midnight.....
But he also says, that he waited for Joanna Yeates return after Midnight.... You can't have it all ways....
How many phone calls did Greg Reardon make before he rang Joanna Yeates parents or her friends???? Lets say far arguments sake that he rang two of his mothers friends and his mother also....
What time were these calls made at??? They should be between 11:00pm and 12:00am if finding the rucksack has anything to go by...
But why would he ring his mother before Joanna Yeates mother ????? so we now have a time line change....
(1): His Mother... Between 11:00pm and Midnight
(2): His mothers first friend between 11:00pm and Midnight
(3): His Mother second friend between 11:00pm and Midnight
(4): Darragh Bewell Midnight
(5): Mr and Mrs Yeates Around Midnight
(6): CJ 12:30
(7): Rebecca Scott before 4:00am
(8): The Police 1:00 am Monday Morning..
(9): Police Call Darragh Bewell at 3:00am
I'm only guessing that it was 2 of his mothers friends it may be more....
I know I haven't got this wrong... But it's a strange order of events, when he was supposed to be trying to locate where his girlfriend may be ....
Shouldn't he have started with CJ first...Then Rebecca Scott .... then Darragh Bewell, And any other friends that Joanna Yeates may have been in contact with over that weekend.... Before he rang his mother ?
What did his mother advise ???? Who were "her " friends he rang.... Shouldn't we have a breakdown of Greg's phone calls at trial, to show the concern he had for his girlfriends disappearance ???
There should be a host of calls he has obviously made, yet these people didn't appear in court... only Rebecca Scott and Darragh Bewell,
Why weren't there at least statements made and read out in court from his Mother and her friends.... CJ and anyone else who may have been rung... To show the jury Greg increasing worry??? Would have played right into the jurys hand...
I don't see why the prosecution didn't bring these calls to court... A young man concerned over his girlfriend missing and he rings his mum... That would have had an even bigger sympathy vote.... (imo)
But it doesn't get past the fact , that he rang people before he waited for Joanna Yeates to arrive home.... And he said he waited until midnight... But he cannot have done that as he rang the Yeates family before Midnight....
Oh dear.....
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg427623#msg427623
-
With the above post being confusing, I have observed even more strangeness in this case .....
During his weekend away, Mr Reardon told the court he had rung Jo numerous times and sent her text messages, but she did not respond.
'I rang her mobile and the landline and sent her a text (on Friday).
'I tried to contact her twice on the Saturday - at lunchtime and again in the evening. On Sunday, I rang her in the day and on the way home.
Friday... Rang Moblie, Rang Landline, sent her a text...
Saturday... Tried to contact her twice...Lunchtime and Evening
Sunday...Rang her in the day and on my way home....
What's going on... That doesn't make sense.... As far as I was aware.. Greg had seen Joanna Yeates on Friday in the lobby at work... Left her at 5:00pm
And when he went to Sheffield he sent a text to say he had arrived....
So whats with the mobile phone call and a call to the landline on Friday night??? There shouldn't be anything wrong on the Friday Night.. he's only just left her.... about 5 hours prior...
He at this point has no need to worry.... None whatsoever.... Yet he rings her and texts her more on the Friday, when everything should be hunky dory, than Saturday and Sunday...
Joanna Yeates was hopeless with her phone.... Not being rude, she just didn't always reply.... her mother had confirmed this....
It was Greg's increasing worry that made him ring her phone again at 9:00pm on the Sunday... Now I just like to pull everything I can in this case apart... Because it hasn't made any sense from the begining...
Why if he was concerned, did he not ring her phone immediately on arriving home???
He over that weekend, has made 6 telephone calls and sent a text... And the bulk was on Friday.... It always takes me back to Dr Vincent Tabak being charged from Thursday The 16th to Sunday the 19th December 2010...
From another article....
10.30: Around the same time Jo’s boyfriend Greg texts her saying: “Made it ok! Good traffic. Car wouldn’t start had to get neighbour to jump start. Ok now though. Did you have a good night.” Greg does not get a reply. Jo is dead.
So Greg texts when he arrives in Sheffield.... Does he ring her after he's text???? It's only 10:30pm
I'm slightly puzzled... If Joanna Yeates was out having a good time because she was on her own, she could have been in a busy pub and might not have heard her phone....
Did he ring because she didn't reply to his texts?? Or did he ring her first and text her later....
Why haven't we got a timeline for these texts and phone calls of Greg Reardons... It would put it more into context....
Did he ring to check she had got home safely from drinks with her work colleagues, for instance? And that was why he rang the landline as well as her mobile phone??? That would make sense...
So that would roughly be around 8:30pm- 9:00pm.. I say that because she apparently always left The Ram at 8:00pm on a Friday evening and would have arrived home 9:00pm at the latest...
Now unless he has stopped off at a service station I cannot imagine him ringing her at that time...
6.50pm: A neighbour helps to start Greg’s car and he leaves for Sheffield, arriving at 10.10pm.
See it can't be... He's only an hour and forty into his Journey, so he wouldn't call her at that point... So it has to be when he arrived in Sheffield after he sent the text.....
It still doesn't make sense... So...10:30pm he sends a text.... And we know she is useless at replying... So what does he do... ring her straight away??? Why would he ... So you have between 10:30pm and Midnight for these two phone calls to have been made....
What makes him so anxious to contact her?? I'm not being funny... But he has just arrived in Sheffield to see his nieces for the first time and his brother , he's probably sat down chilling having a beer after his journey in the freezing weather... And Joanna Yeates could be out having a ball at this time.... Why would he ring the house phone??
He can't have rung her before 10:30pm, because he'd of mentioned it in the texts (imo)...
Then we get the next phone call on Saturday 18th December at Lunchtime..... and then in the evening.... And if he'd been really concerned when he phoned her the previous night he would have called before lunchtime...
But It says he sent text messages as in plural... So what other messages did he send??? Because we haven't seen any evidence of them.... Just the one about arriving at Sheffield...
What were the times of these other messages ??? Why are important pieces of information missing from this case?? It doesn't paint a clear picture!!
The most important timeline I would imagine in this case... Is Greg's contact with his girlfriend... and his increasing worry that he couldn't get hold of her... But why have the Prosecution missed out all of his text messages??
It would demonstrate how frantic Greg was because of the numerous texts he had sent along with the phone calls ... But they are strangely Missing.... Why would the prosecution do that... we see more texts from Dr Vincent Tabak for that evening and weekend than we do of what should be the most important texts.. Of Greg's increasing concern..
7.15pm: Tabak sends Tanja a text from home saying “love you too” and “missing you” before she attends her Christmas party in Bristol.
9.25pm: Tabak sends his girlfriend a text saying: “It’s boring here without you. V xx” The prosecution claim that was after he killed Jo.
10.30: Tabak texts Tanja saying: “How are you. I’m at the Asda buying some crisps. was bored. Can’t wait to pick you up.”
Why haven't the prosecution shown us the text messages that Greg sent to Joanna Yeates... We get Dr Vincent Tabak's instead.... As another sympathy vote at least, The Prosecution should have entered these text messages into trial... But they don't.... we have instead The defence's timeline of the texts that Dr Vincent Tabak sent.....
Which I think came from the 1300 page document....
It's befuddling...
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murder-trial-countdown-84740
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2050063/Vincent-Tabak-strangled-Jo-Yeates-20-seconds-stifle-scream-arm-her.html#ixzz4wmF22mp7
-
1.32am Saturday: Tabak gets a call at home from his girlfriend asking for a lift from her party. The prosecution claim that before this he was seen driving back and forth on the same road with a 45-50 minute gap which could have been to and from disposing of Jo’s body.
1.38am Tabak picks up Tanja from her party. They are filmed arm in arm, by CCTV cameras.
From the trial.....
Defence Counsel: Our Timeline 113 – your car was seen on the road and so you must
have reached your flat around 10 minutes past midnight. At 18 minutes past we can see on
the timeline, a text from you to Tanja- ‘Are you on the bus?’ Then your landline call to
Tanja. What did you do?
If Dr Vincent Tabak was seen on CCTV driving back and forth trying to dispose of Joanna Yeates body, and the only CCTV we know of, is when he is on Park Street when he goes to Collect Tanja, and that CCTV footage is from Saturday 18th December 2010... They apparently didn't have any CCTV footage of him driving aimlessly to Longwood Lane from Asda in Bedminster.....
What CCTV Footage that is 40-45 minutes long do they have ???? Because it is NOT Dr Vincent Tabak....
They have him back at home for 12:10am, on Saturday morning, and a text and landline call putting him in his Flat at 12:18am...
So 40-45 minutes prior to that he is actually where??? Somewhere between Asda and Longwood lane apparently... Well he isn't on CCTV... they would have show it to the media... The media at the time showed the image from Park Street, which is the day after... And 40-45 minutes prior would make it 11:25pm-11:30 pm on Friday the 17th December 2010....
They didn't bring this footage to court... They allowed everyone to believe that the images from Park Street was Dr Vincent Tabak driving around trying to dispose of Joanna Yeates ,when we know this not to be true....(imo)....
We know he is in Park Street or thereabout at 1:38am on Saturday, because he's is captured with Tanaja having a burger.....
On 18 Dec 2010, Tabak searched at
1.26 am- ‘BBC news’ and ‘weather forecast’
1.46 am- ‘weather forecast’
1.47 am- ‘BBC Bristol news’
The search that said it all...... As we know 1:46am and 1:47am Dr Vincent Tabak was not at home, he is captured on CCTV at 1:38am in Park Street ... Or where ever he and Tanja got their burger from... So those searches are not his ....
Who timings are these ?? I don't believe that they are anything to do with Dr Vincent Tabak apart from him obviously collecting Tanja... They can't be ....
Clegg had to get his information from somewhere... And as Dr Vincent Tabak didn't speak once he was arrested, then the only info Clegg had for him was the original statement all the neighbours made to the Police .... And that wouldn't be in any great detail.. To be honest.. Just an outline of what the weekend held for Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson.... (imo)
The whole story at trial, the timings all have to come from somewhere ... And I do not believe they got that detail from Dr Vincent Tabak... (imo) They never corroborated any of Dr Vincent Tabak's timings with Tanja Morson, because if they had, she too would have been stood up in court.... And they only used CCTV they found after they had received Dr Vincent Tabak's original statement he gave when the neighbours did, He told them about what he did that weekend... (imo)
So was this whole trial a sham?? Because I cannot think of anything, evidence wise, that had Dr Vincent Tabak's name written all over it.... And the DNA didn't do that either...
1000/1 I believe was the ratio... Well to come to that statistic, all you need to be is the same blood group...
Experiments 1 and 2 show that DNA match statistics that target the individual suspect and that are framed as probabilities (i.e., “The probability that the suspect would match the blood drops if he were not their source is 0.1%”) are more persuasive than mathematically equivalent presentations that target a broader reference group and that are framed as frequencies (“One in 1,000 people in Houston would also match the blood drops”).
So how definitive was the DNA????? It wasn't was it.... So we again have no evidence that Dr Vincent Tabak committed this crime apart from a tall story he told at trial... (imo)
And they appear to have failed to show the 40-45 minute CCTV footage of him driving Back and Forth, disposing of Joanna Yeates. after his trip to Bedminster and going to Longwood Lane ..
The only footage they actually do have of Dr Vincent Tabak, is when he went to pick up Tanja at 1:38am.... (imo) And that's the footage that they give to the media as we know .....
They also fail to produce the "Supposed" Evidence that they charged him with in the first place... we don't see any of this at trial...
`So I can only conclude that the trial is as made up as the searches... Or if they are not made up.. they belong to someone else and not Dr Vincent Tabak .... (imo)
Edit... Why did Dr Vincent Tabak get convicted of Joanna Yeates murder, when there is no corroborating evidence to support this theory that was told as a tall tale at trial..... (imo)And why did they do this trial in the first place, because they must have known,(imo) that none of this evidence belonged to Dr Vincent Tabak... apart from his trip to pick up Tanja...(imo)
Double Edit.... Add all that to the staged flat, that is supposed to be a time capsule, that hadn't been touched since Joanna Yeates went Missing on the 17th December 2010.. And what have you got??? A man in prison for a Crime he couldn't have committed.. Because if he had, everything to do with The Joanna Yeates Murder Investigation would point to Dr Vincent Tabak, and they wouldn't have to resort to painting kitchen tiles ready for the jury visit... It's appalling, come to think of it!!!
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murder-trial-countdown-84740
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A%3A1012892815916
-
Hiding in Plain sight..
At Line 171 of the prosecution chart
Tabak accessed ‘Map of Bristol’.
Again, the Prosecution repeated their show the film of the road where Joanna Yeates was
found although this could not be accessed on Map of Bristol.
The Jewel in The Crown......
Starring me in the face for, how long??? The Fire Trucks did it, The Rope access guys, the milling of Senior Police Officers, the media all gathered at the bottom of Longwood Lane, and it being Christmas morning,made this so memorable... Now that I have come to understand, virtually ALL of the Smoke and Mirrors in this case, my approach has slightly changed.. And slowly I believe that the information that is available, will reveal the hidden truth, that is there for all to see, if we just take the time to look..
Joanna Yeates, wasn't found in Bristol, It clearly tells us in the trial, if we read it carefully...
I think because of the appearance of The Fire Brigade, The Rope Access Guys, The Media all on Longwood lane Bristol, I had just assumed she was over the wall, and that was NOT, the spot that she was actually located in.... We,ve been fed so many details, repeatedly, everything automatically falls into place,so we don't take in the subtle changes.. And blindly keep picking the same spot....
I knew she wasn't found where they said she had been... I just didn't know where else it could be.. And the obvious conclusion was she had to be inaccessible and not on a verge were everyone frequented on a daily basis for 8 days...
Yes.. I'm not too sure if Longwood Lane Bristol is the Official Place she was found... Maybe she was put there later... But I have said before it's possible they had found her before Christmas day...
I tried to look at maps, I even tried Google Street view, And had tried without success to look over the wall, and of course you cannot access over the wall on street view... I believe that was the point... That was why she was placed and that piece of Longwood lane was chosen as her known deposit site...
Someone has carefully thought through how this would be relayed to the public... Those of us who always thought,
that it didn't add up, continually fought, to work out her location as we knew it wasn't were they had said...
And it wasn't..... The trial document tells us.. The map I have attached tells us..... Joanna Yeates was not even found in Bristol (imo) I think they just allowed us to believe this , just as they have allowed us to believe all of the carefully crafted and staged scenes....
From the quote.....
Again, the Prosecution repeated their show the film of the road where Joanna Yeates was
found although this could not be accessed on Map of Bristol.
There in Black and white.......... Although this could not be accessed on a map of Bristol... That's because she wasn't found in Bristol was she !
The two possibilities is they were elsewhere on Christmas morning recovering Joanna Yeates... Or as I believe, they had found her before... And the media circus commenced...(IMO)
(1): Longwood Lane Bristol
(2): Longwood Lane Amersham
(3): Longwood lane Walsall
(4): Longwood lane Wellington
So we can get rid of Number 1....
And AH... leonora and mrswah .....will know where I am coming from on this one, Because what I had said there is a reason for everything in this case..... The trial papers are correct... The location of Joanna Yeates could not be accessed on a map of Bristol.... But I bet she could be located on a map of Wellington....Ib believe it's a distinct possibility....(imo) This is the location I believe Joanna Yeates was found... "Longwood Lane " Wellington" TA 21 OLX... That is why is wasn't a lie about finding her on Longwood Lane.... we just had the wrong one ....(imo)...!!!!
I have attached an image of Longwood Lane Wellington from google street view, it's a narrow lane and you would have to hid a body there...
Everything that was said at trial was aimed at one person... To let them know they knew that this was a deliberate act...
And i can see why they believed that... But the deliberate act was not that of Dr Vincent Tabak.... It was the person whom is still free, free to do this again to some poor unsuspecting female... And who has been shielded for years by someone with clout....
Or is it just a case now that Avon and Somerset Police are too Embarrased to hold their hands up and tell us "The Whole Truth" of what really happened to Joanna Yeates ... Because I believe you owe The Yeates Family , The Tabak Family and the general public an explanation of what you actually did in this Investigation....(imo)..
What was it that Judge Field said... "The Full Truth May Never Be Known".... All I say to that is ... I think we are getting "Closer'!!!!!!!
And I think it is time that the public knew the WHOLE TRUTH... And free Dr Vincent Tabak.... Because he certainly didn't put Joanna Yeates on Longwood Lane in "Wellington"
Edit I have attached an image of a Roadside verge, in Longwood lane Wellington... This might not be the exact location , but it's a start.. I will look up and down Longwood Lane in Wellington, to see if I can find any more grass verges....
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I think it is very possible that I may have misjudged DCI Phil Jones and Ann Reddrop... Because without their documentaries and statements that they made, I would not, fully have gotten to the point that I am at now....
I believe they do tell us everything we need to know..... We just have to listen..... %£&)**#
-
With my belief now that it is Longwood Lane, Wellington as the possibly Location that Joanna Yeates was found, I decided to take a virtual stroll... And walking down Longwood Lane in Wellington, I came across a Location that had a Grass Verge and a Fence.... Which then brought to mind Dr Vincent Tabak's strange answer about not being able to lift Joanna Yeates "Over The Fence".....
Defence Counsel: What did you do then?
Tabak: I tried to hide the body. I tried to put the body over the fence.
I have attached an image of this possible location, which would go with the evidence ....(imo)....
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Slightly less probable solution than average. BUT it does raise the issue of whether or not the self serving bottom feeders moved Yeates’s body from its original point of discovery for reasons we cannot determine. In all it appears to be a red herring, if the body was moved, so what. The question is why would the judicial system be so determined and so collaborative in framing Tabak. Answer; it has to be protecting itself. The system always protects itself from its own failings and prevents exposure of its previous failings. If the system knew of the presence of a single unidentified individual that had led to the wrongful conviction of multiple crowd pleasers, then it will do anything it can to prevent its failings becoming public. End of story. They celebrate their complicity and rejoice in convincing the gullible masses. Pity the choir boys.
-
Slightly less probable solution than average. BUT it does raise the issue of whether or not the self serving bottom feeders moved Yeates’s body from its original point of discovery for reasons we cannot determine. In all it appears to be a red herring, if the body was moved, so what. The question is why would the judicial system be so determined and so collaborative in framing Tabak. Answer; it has to be protecting itself. The system always protects itself from its own failings and prevents exposure of its previous failings. If the system knew of the presence of a single unidentified individual that had led to the wrongful conviction of multiple crowd pleasers, then it will do anything it can to prevent its failings becoming public. End of story. They celebrate their complicity and rejoice in convincing the gullible masses. Pity the choir boys.
Well thanks for that AH... My average solution will stay until I can find another possible answer as to where Joanna Yeates was....
Ranks were closed indeed.. I agree... But who decided extremely early on to implicate The Placid Dutchman???? I think the answers lie in what has been said....
-
At Line 267 of the prosecution chart
at 15.00 pm on 21 December 2010, Tabak searched the words
‘Extradition of Dutchman’
‘Jo Yeates’
At Line 271 of the prosecution chart
Tabak searched the Dutch word
‘doodslag’ (English meaning: ‘manslaughter’)
If as I believe that these are not the searches of Dr Vincent Tabak, they have to be someone else's.... There has to be some basis of truth that is hidden between the lines....
I thought that they had been invented at first to be honest, when I say that I mean once Dr Vincent Tabak was in custody... That still could be the case... But I have another thought...
If these searches belong to the person who killed Joanna Yeates , then it displays the early intension of implicating Dr Vincent Tabak from early on in the Investigation....
I know we have heard talk that Dr Vincent Tabak was told by Joanna Yeates that she was at home alone that evening... But did anyone know that applied to Dr Vincent Tabak that evening also???
Someone would need to know that information (imo)
The date of the searches has always concerned me... Not only that but the lack of Dutch.... We have very few Dutch references, I'll deal with this one first...
The date is the 21st December 2010 at 3:00pm, I noticed something else... which I will come back too....
"Doodslag"... That old favourite.... The word that says it all..... Now if someone is trying to stitch Dr Vincent Tabak up, it had to start early on.... Curiosity.... whatever, But someone deliberately looked up the word "Doodslag" And it wasn't Dr Vincent Tabak (imo)... It is the answer you would get if you looked up on an English google search what is the Dutch word for Manslaughter... And it would of course give you the answer of Doodslag...
So when our Perfect Pointer of Powerpoint was Pointing... she had been looking at a computer that had this information already there, But it wasn't Dr Vincent Tabak's computer (imo)...
Why would Dr Vincent Tabak be checking about understanding what the word "Doodslag" meant if he already knew ???
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work that out... But the use and staging of the searches, helped everyone believe that it indeed was the work of The Placid Dutchman...
The previous search... At Line 258 (afternoon- at work)
Tabak performed Google searches on the words
‘manslaughter’
‘previous offenders’
‘Maximum sentence Manslaughter’
Tabak then performed a Yahoo search for the words
‘penalty for manslaughter’
When has Dr Vincent Tabak got the time to be doing all these searches at work???? And why on the 21st December would Dr Vincent Tabak be searching for "Maximum Sentence for Manslaughter"... When at this time Joanna Yeates was still a "Missing person"?? Nothing had been determined as to how she had died...
They keep saying only the killer would know this... only the killer would know that.... . And I say only the killer would not know any Dutch... But use google to help with the translation ....
So I glean from this that "The Killer" Has got prior Offences, maybe more than a Parking Ticket, The Killer was trying to see what the likely sentence would be if he was actually arrested for this crime,
You see the searches have to be The killers..(imo) That is all I can think of... That makes sense... And I do Not go with the searches being Dr Vincent Tabak's.. I never have....
On the 21st December 2010 why would anyone want to be checking about "Manslaughter" when the cause of death hadn't been determined, couldn't be determined , because Joanna Yeates hadn't been found"....
And would stupidly use only one Dutch word "Doodslag", because anyone who knew someone who was Dutch would be aware as my Dutchie told me ..."We Dutchies google in Dutch"... Only someone who was trying to implicate the Dutchman, would throw in that one word.... Because in their mind that one word said it all..."MANSLAUGHTER"....
But they forgot... Thee Placid Dutchman didn't know English Law.... why would he ??? So to even start looking up the word "Doodslag" Would he have needed to look up English Law first???
At Line 225 (sic)
Tabak searched using the words
‘Joanna Yeates’
‘Salt supplies in the Netherlands’
This particular search has always struck me as odd.... Dr Vincent Tabak doesn't need to know anything about "Salt Supplies in the Netherlands"... But if someone is trying to incriminate Dr Vincent Tabak, it almost sound plausible....
Why would Dr Vincent Tabak need Salt supplies in the Netherlands.. when he's apparently popped to ASDA for some Rock Salt!!!!! Maybe someone else popped to ASDA for some ~Rock Salt.... (IMO)...
Again I believe it has to be the person it really applies too, because only they would know that "Rock Salt" and the purchase of Rock Salt was of importance......
At Line 267 of the prosecution chart
at 15.00 pm on 21 December 2010, Tabak searched the words
‘Extradition of Dutchman’
‘Jo Yeates
Another indication in my mind that someone was trying to implicate Dr Vincent Tabak as early as 21st December is "Extradition of Dutchman"... why would Dr Vincent Tabak be looking on an English Google engine for what happens to "Dutch Nationals"... Surely he would have looked on a Dutch website, and being a Dutch National the words "Dutchman" wouldn't even come into it.... Funnily enough he is a Dutch National!!!!! I think this is a flaw, in the person mind, who is trying to implicate the Dutchman.... And as Dr Vincent Tabak is Dutch, he wouldn't need to emphasise the word "Dutchman"... (imo)
If Dr Vincent Tabak was going to flee he wouldn't have returned after his festive break with his family... He would have come up with various reasons not to return to England....(imo)...
So I believe that it was someone else that searched for the Extradition of a Dutchman, in their attempt to implicate him....
Also within that comment i did notice something else that had slipped me by....
Jo Yeates
Well, well well,.... I do not believe that Joanna Yeates was referred to as Jo Yeates in the media as early as the 21st December 2010.... And that search has to be very telling indeed....
The Article I have found when her mother says her firends call her Jo... is dated 24th December 2010
Mrs Yeates, 58, said her daughter, known as Jo to her friends, had recently moved into a flat with her boyfriend and had been looking forward to a party they were holding for friends on Tuesday.
And as Dr Vincent Tabak didn't know Joanna yeates, he to wouldn't refer to her as "Jo".. (IMO)
I do not believe that there was anything in the media by the 21st December 2010 that referred to Joanna Yeates as "Jo"...
The helpfindJo wordpress didn't take shape until the 22nd December 2010... So obviously the information cannot have come from there ....
And as there is nothing from Dr Vincent Tabak's facebook account , we cannot see if he got the information from there either.... In fact I find that weird as well... Why haven't they got Dr Vincent Tabak's Facebook account, as part of this 'Trial Evidence"....????? Another piece of Evidence "Missing " from the Trial....
Therefore I believe it had to be someone who knew Joanna Yeates well enough to search for information on her disappearance using the words "Jo Yeates" and not Joanna Yeates, as I believe it was a while before, she became known to the public as "Jo"....
It has to be someone who know Joanna Yeates (imo) and I do not know How many People the Police Interviewed or checked, during there Investigations that would know Joanna yeates well enough to refer to her as simply "Jo"...
And as i know Dr vincent Tabak didn't "Know " Joanna Yeates, he would only search for her in terms that the public at large did... and put her full name into the search engine.....(imo)
Dr Vincent Tabak didn't do these searches as I have said many many times before.... maybe it was the killer who did???? (imo)..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1341452/Jo-Yeates-murder-Police-search-missing-architect-finds-womans-body.html#ixzz4wvHWgFEW
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Continuing from my previous post......
Talking of things that are void from the trial... There is plenty of things that are void from the 1300 page Document....
As I have mentioned The texting between Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson, The twitter Pages of Dr Vincent Tabak and The facebook pages of Dr Vincent Tabak....
Even though it was reported that Dr Vincent Tabak had made a comment about CJ to Gunter Morson on twitter , that didn't come to trial...
Wouldn't that show he was trying to implicate CJ??
By Martin Evans and John Bingham3:31PM BST 28 Oct 2011
Tabak also began to tell friends of his certainty that the police had the right man in Mr Jefferies.
On New Year’s Eve, Gunter Morson used his Twitter account to post the message: “I am 100 per cent certain Chris Jefferies, under suspicion for the murder of Jo Yeates, will be charged with murder within the next 12 hours.”
The following day, after Mr Jefferies was released without charge, Gunter wrote: “My source is a complete idiot, and wrong.”
We knew about this tweet well before it was reported after the trial... And as Gunter Morson was never called to trial to explain what Dr Vincent Tabak meant, we too do not know of the context it was in....
Did Gunter misunderstand what Dr Vincent Tabak meant???
If CJ had that information we all were aware of, that he saw people at the gate... It is also feasible that after Dr Vincent Tabak had talked to the Police,he too was aware who CJ had seen at the little gate and therefore expected an charge within 12 hours.... But maybe he didn't mean CJ!!
Why is Dr vincent Tabak's Facebook account totally Missing from this trial??? There's nothing... But if he was keeping abreast of everything surely he would have spoken of Joanna Yeates at this time leading up to his arrest.. Again strangely void!!!
I want to know why Dr Vincent Tabak texts stopped ......
Defence Counsel: Do you and Tanja often communicate every day?
Tabak: Yes. Tanja and I constantly emailed, telephone and text several times a day
including all the time I was in Los Angeles, USA.
So we can see they always communicate daily and text several times a day......
Again these texts are void after the very early hours of Saturday 18th December after Dr Vincent tabak pick up Tanja after her party......
For a man that texts several times a day.. He stops texting after the 18th December 2010... Now we know he goes to work after he has come back from Holland... So there should be plenty , plenty text messages available for us to see between Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson during this time..... But as i have said they are strangely void!!!
Now... they shouldn't be... As I have said I am critical of everything in this case because, as a case against Dr Vincent Tabak it doesn't add up!!!
But someone else , must fit the bill.... (imo)... I do not believe that they even used Dr Vincent Tabak's laptop at trial to be honest.... How would they discern who was who's searches... Tanja's or Dr Vincent Tabak's ??? They wouldn't.. (imo)..
But they must be sure that the searches belong to someone who was responsible for Joanna Yeates death...(imo).. To be confident that the searches were theirs and theirs alone .... (imo)
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8847771/Vincent-Tabak-carried-on-as-if-nothing-happened-after-murder-of-Joanna-Yeates.html
-
On 6 Jan 2011, Tabak researched the words
Pizza box
Tabak Googled the words
‘Rubbish collection York Place Clifton Bristol’
‘Jo Yeates rubbish’
At 4.10 (pm) Tabak searched on Wikipedia for the words
‘Detention of a suspect’
‘letter and label sent to a public house’
Tabak Goggled the words:
‘Yeates’
‘Avon & Somerset police’
And at 5.00 pm, Tabak researched on
Google map
‘Clifton Richmond Terrace’
At Line 422 of the prosecution chart
At 9.10 am (at work)
Tabak searched for press articles on the murder.
Then he Googled the words
‘DNA test’
‘Waste recycling’
‘rubbish collection’
The Article about this Note and Pizza label was actually not reported until 10th January 2011 and the search is clearly done on The 6th January 2011
By Martin Evans11:41AM GMT 10 Jan 2011
The note, which was scrawled in A5 paper in black ink, was sent to the Bristol Ram pub shortly after her body was discovered on Christmas Day.
Written on lined paper ripped from a notepad, the letter included a fake address and telephone number, and mentioned Miss Yeates by name.
Just thinking about the "mentioned her by name ".... Would that be "Jo"??
"As soon as I saw her name I realised it could be very important. The police were clearly interested.
The Police were clearly interested (imo) because it said the name "Jo" (imo)
The evidence about the note and The Pizza was never brought to trial in relation to Dr Vincent Tabak and I believe it was because of course.. It had nothing to do with Dr Vincent Tabak.... But it had something to do with somebody....
The only reason for this piece of significant Evidence being on the search of what they have lead us to believe are Dr vincent Tabak's searches are they are either... The searches of the person responsible for her death... Or someone close enough to the Investigation to even know of it's existence before the 10th January 2010...
If the Pizza and note had a Dr Vincent Tabak connected to it in any shape or form.... Even by the searches... They would have brought the "Pizza and The Note ' to trial to prove that he was aware of their existence before the 10th January 2010....
But they don't .... So again.. I look at the searches and conclude they are NOT Dr Vincent Tabak's searches, but the searches of the person responsible for Joanna Yeates death.... (imo)..
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8250162/Joanna-Yeates-murder-letter-containing-pizza-label-sent-to-pub-where-architect-had-final-drink.html
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Part One....Referring back to this:
4:46 PM - 28 Oct 2011Twitter
Jim Old
@SkyFixer69
#JoannaYeates police asked why VTs girlfriend was not a witness in the trial. They haven't spoken to her since the day after his arrest...
Tanja hadn't spoken to the Police since the 21st January 2011... And Dr Vincent Tabak was not charged until 22nd January 2011...
This alone proves that the mobile phone calls that were used in Dr Vincent Tabak's trial, that were supposed to be between Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson were not theirs...(imo)...
Defence Counsel: Turn to entry 11.
‘Entry 11- seen past the flat at 9.05 where Tanya had already left for work in a lift-share’.
Text message from Tabak: ‘Love you’.
Text answer from Tanja: Love you too. Pretty snow.
Defence Counsel: Continuing to look at our timeline- timeline 24 was a ‘Divert
voicemail’.
Timeline 27- telephone call.
Timeline 28- text message from Tanja and to Tanja at 4 pm.
Timeline 29- there was a much longer telephone call at 4.23pm.
Timeline 30- Internet use at home- Tanja used the laptop – The Defendant was still at
work.
Timeline 31- Vincent Tabak texted girlfriend Tanja: ‘How are you? Getting ready for
party?’
Timeline 37- Vincent Tabak leaves his workplace.
Timeline 45- Vincent Tabak’s journey home- 6.54 at Constitution Hill. Home just after
7pm by which time Tanja had already left. Text message to Tanja- ‘Just got home’.
Defence Counsel: Did you remain at home or did you go out?
Tabak: I went out
I sent Tanja a text message after I returned; just after 7.15pm
I had gone for a quick walk to take pictures of snow.
I left by small garden gate to Bristol Road then returned.
I didn’t take any photos- the snow was dirty.
Defence Counsel: At our timeline 100, you sent a text message to Tanja ‘How are you? I
am at Asda. Buying some crisis.’ How did you feel?
Tabak: I just wanted to hear her voice; to get support and comfort
[/Defence Counsel: Our Timeline 113 – your car was seen on the road and so you must
have reached your flat around 10 minutes past midnight. At 18 minutes past we can see on
the timeline, a text from you to Tanja- ‘Are you on the bus?’ Then your landline call to
Tanja. What did you do?
Defence Counsel: Can you look at item where you sent message to Tanja ‘missing you’
Can you remember if you sent it before you decided to go to Asda.
Recapping- you come off the Internet at 7.37pm (our entry 47) & remain in your flat until
9.29pm (our entry 88)
From The Mirror...
Early that evening Miss Morson texted Tabak and said: "Love you. Bus is very quiet and tame only me and Nic drinking".When Tabak arrived home from work at around 7.15pm, he replied: "Love you too. Hopefully party is more lively. Just got home. Missing you Vxx".
Throughout all of these text..... It is only again until the 18th December that there is an exchange between Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson.... But that is not what I'm really referring too...
If Tanja Morson had exchanged those texts messages with Dr Vincent Tabak on the evening of the 17th and 18th December 2010.... Tanja Morson would have been at trial.....
They would have needed Tanja Morson's phone records to prove that she had sent those texts, and by using Tanja Morson phone records that in turn I believe would require her to be at trial to corroborate these texts....
They didn't just use Dr Vincent Tabak's phone and go... He's such a nice chap we'll believe what it says on his phone... No they would have needed both Dr Vincent Tabak's phone records and Tanja Morsons phone records, to make sure that Dr Vincent Tabak hadn't had access to both his and Tanja's phone to create himself an alibi...(imo)
So... Those text are no more Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morsons texts as they are mine and Humpty Dumptys texts....
They belong to someone else..... (imo)
Tanja is not strangely absent.... Or agreeing with Clegg...
And Miss Morson seems to agree, having failed to make a single appearance at court.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg425494#msg425494
http://live-news.sky.com/Event/Reaction_on_verdict_over_Yeates_death?Page=2
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/830029/vincent-tabak-strangled-jo-yeates-then-texted-girlfriend-im-bored/
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Part Two....
And Miss Morson seems to agree, having failed to make a single appearance at court.
Tanja didn't make a single appearance at court because she had NO PART in this case... period...(imo) She didn't send those texts.. so she wasn't going to be on the stand to say so..... It wasn't that the Defence didn't need Tanja Morson at Trial... They really didn't WANT her at trial as a witness...(imo) It suited them better that she was absent and they chose NOT to call her to give evidence... Because if she gave evidence .. i wouldn't be sat here now... And Dr Vincent Tabak would not be in prison....
The fact that Tanja Morson was NOT at Trial at all, should be enough to tell us what was said on the stand an in court about Dr Vincent Tabak was an untrue....
The same with Buro Happold... They were not needed in court either.... Because it wasn't 'Their" work computers that the searches were done on....(imo) So the too had nothing to add to this trial (IMO)...
Someone staged those texts... They are NOT the texts of Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson... (imo)
I believe it is this text that proves that Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson didn't exchange texts..(imo)
Defence Counsel: Turn to entry 11.
‘Entry 11- seen past the flat at 9.05 where Tanya had already left for work in a lift-share’.
Text message from Tabak: ‘Love you’.
Text answer from Tanja: Love you too. Pretty snow.
And in more detail...
Early that evening Miss Morson texted Tabak and said: "Love you. Bus is very quiet and tame only me and Nic drinking".When Tabak arrived home from work at around 7.15pm, he replied: "Love you too. Hopefully party is more lively. Just got home. Missing you Vxx".
The reason I say this is the case is three fold... No kisses after Tanja, Apparently said Love You... No name .. No pet names.... But most of all... If that had been a text from Tanja Morson.. I believe that she would have been in court to take the witness stand.... Or signed a statement as did the friends of Joanna Yeates, who replied to the texts she made when she was looking for company.....
I believe a statement from Tanja Morson would have been read out in court, if those were her texts...(imo)
In a written statement, Michael Brown, who also worked with Yeates, said he had spoken to her in the Ram about her plans for Christmas and about who would win the final of The Apprentice, which was being aired on the Sunday night.
In a statement read to the jury, the architect Samuel Huscroft said he had planned to go to the Ram but he was not feeling well and went home.
He said that later on he received a text from Yeates, which said: "Where are you this fine evening?" Huscroft texted back but did not receive a reply.
These people confirm to the Jury what they said via text.....In a Statement that is read to the court.... Tanja Morson does NOT!!!!
They confirm what they were doing that evening .... Tanja Morson does NOT!!!!
Tanja Morson doesn't make a statement or appearance at court, to confirm or deny anything... That is why I do not believe that they are the texts of Tanja Morson.....
The Defence tells us it is from Tanja... But there is no evidence to support that it is from Tanja Morson...
Smoke Mirrors.... Date and Timestamp settings... all to try and fool us into believing that this is exactly what Dr Vincent Tabak did... But we do not know what Tanja Morson did which is just as important...
And if you put Tanja Morson in the witness box today I am more than sure she would deny that those texts were the texts of hers and Dr Vincent Tabak's (imo)...
Defence Counsel: Our Timeline 113 – your car was seen on the road and so you must
have reached your flat around 10 minutes past midnight. At 18 minutes past we can see on
the timeline, a text from you to Tanja- ‘Are you on the bus?’
Where is the end to that text?? I mean the kisses and "V"... As apparently is usual for Dr Vincent Tabak... Strangely Missing..... I have attached images from the media what these texts were supposed to look like ...
Defence Counsel: Continuing to look at our timeline- timeline 24 was a ‘Divert
voicemail’.
Timeline 27- telephone call.
Timeline 28- text message from Tanja and to Tanja at 4 pm.
Timeline 29- there was a much longer telephone call at 4.23pm.
Timeline 30- Internet use at home- Tanja used the laptop –
Where is the content of this text message at 4pm ?????
Has no-one noticed... When Dr Vincent Tabak texts Tanja stop??? We see no evidence of them.....
Defence Counsel: Tanja phoned on the landline. Why did you go for Tanja in the car?
Tabak: I didn’t want her to walk home in the cold.
Defence Counsel: You were on the Internet later. Why did you do that? Constant contact
with Tanja by phone. At I.38 am, 18 December, you were leaving again in the hatchback.
Is this to collect Tanja from the Coach?
Tabak: Yes.
They could only verify that Dr Vincent Tabak was on the phone with Tanja if the landline was in Dr Vincent Tabak's name... But was it??
Defence Counsel: We can see the video of you going out of Park Street. Then you made a
call to Tanja. That was to ask her directions as to where to collect her?
If someone they are seeing on the street making a wrong turn, But was it Dr Vincent Tabak... ?? Because there is still the 40-45 minutes CCTV we haven't seen.... Is it on this CCTV that the phone call was made???
Dr Vincent Tabak as we remember has not given ANY details to anyone... about his movement since his arrest.. He only signed the enhanced statement in September 2011... So where did all this detail come from??? Not from Dr Vincent Tabak (imo)....
They must have had this information in some form or other.... they had to.. it's the only explanation....
Which part of Dr Vincent Tabak didn't say "anything" has nobody understood`?????
So if he didn't say anything.... he didn't confirm any of the texts that he and Tanja made at anytime...... Why would Dr Vincent Tabak confirm text messages that he and Tanja made, if He was protecting Tanja as we have presumed, by the lack of her appearance....
So why then bring her Smack Bang .. right into the middle of this trial by stating what they had discussed via text message and phone calls...... He wouldn't .. he didn't (imo)...
The only reason Tanja Morson wasn't called to trial (imo).. Is that it would have made mincemeat out of the Defences claims their client did certain things, which were untrue.... They didn't want her there...(imo)
Those texts are not the texts of Tanja Morson and Dr Vincent Tabak.... I believe you need to look elsewhere for the answer to that riddle!! The same place that you need to look for this riddle....
Defence Counsel: Continuing to look at our timeline- timeline 24 was a ‘Divert
voicemail’.
Timeline 27- telephone call.
Timeline 28- text message from Tanja and to Tanja at 4 pm.
Timeline 29- there was a much longer telephone call at 4.23pm.
Timeline 30- Internet use at home- Tanja used the laptop – The Defendant was still at
work.Timeline 30- Internet use at home- Tanja used the laptop – The Defendant was still at
work.
How did they confirm that Tanja Morson used the Laptop at home?? When there was no way that they could prove it was Tanja Morson on the laptop as she hadn't been a witness.... I always presumed that they didn't have a password code... But i don't think it is that either....
Someone accessed a computer at home and they knew that for sure.... But how can they attribute that to Tanja Morson when they have no statement from her at trial.... It was just as likely if Tanja was getting ready for a party that she had a girlfriend at home with her who used the laptop.... It could even have been Santa Claus... There is no evidence that Tanja Morson did anything apart from the CCTV of her with Dr Vincent Tabak walking arm in arm going for a burger.....
Tanja Morson was not at trial to give evidence .. To Confirm or deny any of the claims made about her .... telling us of the untruths...(imo)
And as The Defence has demonstrates for us... Dr Vincent Tabak had his own notes he needed to refer to ....
Defence Counsel: Without any help from the timeline, are you able to say what time it
was you decided to go to Asda?
Tabak: No.
Also adding to my belief that they never had a statement of any detail from Dr Vincent Tabak.... Because he never made one ...(imo)
Instead used the information they already had.. to create a timeline of events for Dr Vincent Tabak.... (imo)
The content of the message from Tanja is seen in the media clearer...
Early that evening Miss Morson texted Tabak and said: "Love you. Bus is very quiet and tame only me and Nic drinking".When Tabak arrived home from work at around 7.15pm, he replied: "Love you too. Hopefully party is more lively. Just got home. Missing you Vxx".
Who is Nic???? Everyone is accounted for at trial.. But we have a mysterious person whom is with Tanja Morson... Now was Nic at Flat 2 on the computer when they say Tanja was at home using it, seeing as they were together????? They could have got ready at the flat??? But Tanja Morson hasn't confirmed or denied this possibility....
We don't know do we... Because Nic didn't make a statement either, Maybe this Illusive Nic should be a person of Interest... Maybe Nic can confirm or deny what Tanja Morson did or didn't do at this party... Maybe Nic can confirm or deny how often Tanja Morson was on the phone to Dr Vincent Tabak....
Or maybe Nic could actually tell us that she/he was the only ones drinking with Tanja Morson that evening!!!
I have a feeling Nic wasn't with Tanja Morson that evening somehow..... but that is only my opinion!!!!!
And if Nic had been with Tanja, it wouldn't have been left up to the media to disclose this piece of important information.. The Defence would have done it themselves.... But that might have been another statement or witness that should have been at trial...(imo)
So.... Whose Nic?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg425494#msg425494
http://live-news.sky.com/Event/Reaction_on_verdict_over_Yeates_death?Page=2
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/830029/vincent-tabak-strangled-jo-yeates-then-texted-girlfriend-im-bored/
-
Joanna Yeates movements.....
What were Joanna Yeates movements??? We only have a certain version of events, which is made up from media reports and bits from the trial... And they allow us to imagine what Joanna Yeates movements were.... We have to make this journey up in our minds, from articles such as :
Reardon told the court how he and Yeates had lunched together on Friday 17 December, the day she died.
Later they had a "kiss and cuddle" in the lobby of the office where they both worked and Reardon set off for a family weekend away.
Now On The Judge Rinder program it says something quite odd:
Judge Rinder:5:55
Earlier in the day Greg had departed for Sheffield, to spend the weekend with his family
Did Greg set off twice???
We met just before 5pm downstairs in the lobby area. We had a bit of a kiss and a cuddle, said goodbye and I left.
I suddenly had a thought... I couldn't work out if they worked for the same company, I couldn't understand why no-one at work had talked about Greg going to Sheffield for the weekend... I thought meeting downstairs in the lobby meant, he must have been visiting, or he wasn't at work that day.. But he'd just go up to the Office and everyone would be around...
The wording is always clever..(imo), I'm trying to decipher what it all means....
I have an idea about where Joanna Yeates was working on that day.... And I do not believe that she was at her Office near Park Street, at all.... I've been sent around the houses, backwards and forwards.. Trying to see how Joanna Yeates was caught on CCTV, having a kiss and cuddle in the Lobby, But I don't believe she was caught on CCTV, and no-one witness this event, so this Information has come from Greg...
My next question.... Did Joanna Yeates got back to work, in BDP Building on the 14th December 2010?
Miss Yeates had taken a few days off at the same time, having had a cold and had
returned to work on 14 December 2010.
So we envisage, Joanna Yeates popping off on her travels to Her Office in the BDP, building near Park Street....
They only need to give us enough detail for ourselves to fill in the gaps.....
I think, that Joanna Yeates worked from home sometimes.... I am not stating it as fact... I am making this conclusion on observations....
The image I have attached shows filing cabinet, boxes , files, tubes for storing drawings... And the green board behind the white shelves I believe is a "Drawing Board and one boxed also......."
There is a desk and chair in the fire place area.... I wondered if there had been a room divide ??
But there is evidence that Joanna Yeates had a Home Office.. And i believe that Joanna Yeates had been at home under the weather, But didn't physically go back into the BDP Building, but worked from home instead....
It was the lobby that throw me.... The lobby I believe is the "Hallway" of Flat 1... Some people call it a Hallway, some people, call it a foyer, some people call it a "Lobby" ... And that is what I believe Greg meant when he said.. And downstairs is of course, downstairs in 44,canygne Road (imo)
Later they had a "kiss and cuddle" in the lobby of the office where they both worked and Reardon set off for a family weekend away.
Yes, I am sure Greg Reardon worked from home sometimes too..... (imo)
So it drastically changes the dynamics of what we believe Joanna Yeates Journey was....
We are aware of what her Journey was apparently on her way home... But there is no description of Joanna Yeates setting off to work in the morning... Because i do not believe she did.... I am almost certain she worked from home that Friday...
And part of her Journey that we have come to know, is when she is seen going up the hill after being to a cashpoint....
I'm busy trying to work out, how she left the BDP, building... And I don't think she did... I believe, she caught a bus into Clifton from her home, or someone gave her a lift, to meet Darragh Bewell and got to the cashpoint,where there is CCTV evidence, then she walked up the hill to the Ram pub with Darragh Bewell...(imo)
The other CCTV's?? Are they all the correct time... I mean did she pop into Waitrose, to buy something for someone as a pressie?? It doesn't say she does, and we don't know that she didn't.. She has bags with her in Waitrose, we do not see the full Waitrose clip....
Is this the reason Joanna Yeates has a rucksack with her... She had gifts for people at work??? The Rucksack, Is an Enigma.. What is in it and what time thing are in it are of importance.....
We only know of the Rucksacks contents because of what Greg Reardon says at court...
Mr Reardon, who works as an architectural assistant, said he spotted his girlfriend's rucksack on the dining room table and when he opened it he found her glasses, sunglasses, keys and wallet inside.
Her striped jumper, which she had been wearing on the day she was last seen alive, was also in the bag.
Architects assistant??
Thought he was an Architect in his own right..... Or do they mean he was Joanna Yeates assistant??
So when we go to the CCTV from The Ram Pub, there is no evidence of this "Stripy Jumper" in sight... she just has a T-shirt on.. She can't have taken it off if it was that cold, and I believe her fleece, would keep her warm....
We only know of it's existence because we are told so... And Greg would know what she was last wearing... No-one else from BDP, comfirms that Joanna Yeates was wearing a stripy top that day, or wearing a stripy top to work...
So I now have an image of Joanna Yeates working from home in a stripy top, possibly, or she had removed it because her heating was on and had, got ready for her evening out...Then having a kiss and cuddle in the Hallway of Flat 1 where she says Goodbye, to Greg as he leaves for Sheffield....
So... it's making sense.. especially with what Judge Rinder says... "Earlier in the day Greg had departed for Sheffield, "
On Friday 17 December 2010, after Greg Reardon has left for Sheffield, Miss Yeates
went to The Bristol Ram, a public house near her place of work, in order to socialise and
have some drinks with people she knew.
So at 5:00pm he sets off to Sheffield, Joanna Yeates is at home getting ready for the work party/drinks, and sets off to The Ram Pub.... Did he go somewhere first.. we know he has car trouble.... The times of the fixing of the car we don't have from CJ and Peter Stanley.. Setting off to Sheffield, could mean he popped to the shop first... Not physically got into the car...
Those phone calls on Friday never made sense, But If Joanna Yeates is getting ready to meet her friends in The Ram Pub, then....
'I rang her mobile and the landline and sent her a text (on Friday).
That quote makes sense... She's working from home says goodbye, he ring the land line,... maybe to whisper sweet nothings and blow kisses down the phone ... We don't know... And his Journey commences.... Did Greg Reardon set off from home at 5:00pm... Forget something or go back to the house for something and then have problems with the car??
5.20pm: Mr Reardon arrives home and is ready to set off at 6pm but Miss Yeates' Ford Ka will not start.
6.50pm: A neighbour helps to start the car and Mr Reardon leaves for Sheffield, arriving at 10.10pm.
As I keep saying the reports are confusing... So did he leave the flat and come back???? Had Joanna Yeates left by then??? She has to get to The Ram Pub for 6:00pm but we do not know what else she did other than go to the Cash point.....
I am at the point where it is starting to make sense, to me..... I believe, I have understood Joanna Yeates Journey to the Ram Pub, from her home Office... Her Rucksack has gifts inside, I believe and in return Joanna Yeates leaves The Ram with Gifts etc, from here work colleagues...
That is why I believe she has so many bags when leaving the Ram... And adds to them with her trip to the shops..
But if Joanna Yeates worked from home and got ready to go to the Ram Pub from home... How did the stripy top end up inside the Rucksack? That puzzles me...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/joanna-yeates-murder-timeline-of-events-2377178.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/boyfriends-panic-over-missing-joanna-yeates-2371910.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2050063/Vincent-Tabak-strangled-Jo-Yeates-20-seconds-stifle-scream-arm-her.html#ixzz4wyfFgNe3
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4htq8y
-
I have tried to find out about the locks that are on Joanna Yeates Flat... I believe that, it is of importance, whether or not people agree...
CJ.... was not arrested for nothing, legally they would need to have something that connected him to Joanna Yeates and as the only 2 pieces of evidence we were aware of were the fact that he has seen someone at the gate and the fact that he was the Landlord and would have the means to access her flat... Otherwise, anyone could gain access, even someone making a collection for charity for instance...
It's taken me an age to find info on the latch.... but it is not conclusive like many things in this case ..It is always the way that it is worded...
He said he and Miss Yeates would usually double-lock the wooden blue front door of the flat in Clifton, Bristol, whether they were in or out.
But he said he had only needed to use one key to get in when he returned on December 19.
Is this the access Panel.... If Joanna Yeates and himself would ordinarily lock both locks on their wooden door.... (There has to be something about that door.. i will look..)..
Then why didn't the fact that apparently only the latch was dropped, cause him concern?? That should have been a key factor (imo)..
To me that makes NO sense... why would the arrest CJ??
Hang on... I thought Joanna Yeates flat door was Plastic???
Ok I'm going back to what I had originally said that Joanna Yeates Flat had the Bay window.... The only door that is wooden is what we have come to know as Flat 2....
OMG.. I have had a moment.... Flat 1's door is not wooden.... Thats why when we see that it has been returned after its removal, we can see the white, through the door....
So If I am correct.. Joanna Yeates lived in the other Flat... I have to remember the staging... And the words...
"No forced entry".... That must be referring to the fact that the glass panels were not broken ....
No- one but the media says the flat down the right hand side as you face the building is Joanna Yeates Flat... She lived in the flat that we see as Dr Vincent Tabak's.... They didn't stage Joanna Yeates Flat.. they staged an empty one... They cannot have sent the jury around to see a staged flat... There is no way they would do that, if i apply logic....
They cannot have gone to such lengths... That would really put Bernard amongst the flying Rats....
The jury told me .... I have seen inside Joanna Yeates flat I just didn't realise that I had... and I do believe that there are coat pegs there.....
Hand, slap forehead ,springs to mind..... It has been staring me in the face all along... Staring everyone in the face all along...
That is why we see the evidence of the media outside what we have been lead to believe is Dr Vincent Tabaks flat... It wasn't it was Joanna Yeates Flat...
I'm guilty as charged... I have done what everyone else has done... believed that the Flat that all the staging took place in was Joanna Yeates Flat and it wasn't....
It cannot have been... smoke and mirrors.. Well that trick nearly had me fooled.... That is why they Painted the tiles Because they could.. It wasn't Joanna Yeates home....
This brings even more questions.... Lord!!
So does that mean that the Halloween picture was also staged ??? It must be .. Greg, Emma and a Joanna Yeates look alike... Something is off... Something is wrong about this and I'm not sure if I am correct...
If the evidence of what we know as Flat 1 is anything to go by... The fact that it has most certainly been tampered with, then , that in itself, should have been enough for Dr Vincent Tabak to launch a campaign... (imo) His family would have seen that it wasn't correct...
And you cannot bring evidence to court that is so blatantly false.... It would have had mincemeat made out of it...
So the interior of Joanna Yeates Flat is not that... But the Blue wooden door with the glass panel.... It has to be ... they cannot move trainers in pictures... I shouldn't have been able to find so many discrepancies....
Work was going on at the other side of the building all along , but our eyes were drawn to 'THAT" Flat.... The jury cannot have been taken to that flat and shown it as Joanna Yeates ... So all my talk of Bob The Builder was true... But he and his band of ham fisted dudes, where only there to take our attention away from what was really going on....
I will look at this more closely... I know you all hate long posts... But My question now is... Why would Greg agree to take a photo of himself, with Emma and a Joanna Yeates look alike , to make it appear that they lived in that flat if that was not true????
I remember a post I did.. I will try to find it... where a girl had said she meet Joanna Yeates at the Halloween party.. So maybe the Halloween party wasn't held at Canygne Road...
Brings me back to why the Halloween Photo???
If he didn't live in that Flat as I now believe, why would he agree to pretend that he did????
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2050063/Vincent-Tabak-strangled-Jo-Yeates-20-seconds-stifle-scream-arm-her.html#ixzz4wyfFgNe3
-
This is the image that has always made me believe that that Flat was Joanna Yeates .....
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/29/article-2053178-0E936C4800000578-475_634x478.jpg)
It is because of the bed you can see in the bedroom... The black and white bed that is shown in the images of that flat....
(http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/view-of-the-bedroom-of-joanna-yeates-flat-in-canynge-road-on-october-picture-id129073070?s=612x612)
And that was the only reason, and only connection that showed me it was the Flat that Joanna Yeates was supposed to live in....
I seem to have ignore, what is right in front of me.... That was the reason I couldn't work out where the wall was, that the picture of Greg ,Emma, (maybe it is Joanna Yeates with them??? Maybe not.. a possible look alike...)
Anyway.. That was why I couldn't find that wall in Flat 1... because it wasn't taken in Flat1 as we know it.... (imo)
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/12/22/article-1340586-0C8F3424000005DC-76_634x424.jpg)
I need to look at all the video's again...
-
09:50, 19 October 2011 Daily Mail
A couple walking their dog found her body, partially clothed, 100 yards down the lane, on Christmas Day morning.
The trial at Bristol Crown Court continues.
Were the jury told she was partially clothed?? (they didn't need to be told.. they saw!!)
Was her pink top not actually over her body properly??
I say Pink Top... The Flower patterned Top that Dr Delaney Described, at trial, which differed from the plain top that Joanna Yeates was seen wearing in The Ram Pub, clearly showing that there had been a change of clothing...
Of Course... By the time who ever removed Joanna Yeates from the Flat, Rigor Mortis would have started to set in, and redressing her would have been impossible... That's why her top, was pulled up over her head.....
It wasn't pulled up over her head... More of a case of NOT being pulled down...(imo)
DCI Phil Jones has clearly stated on many many Occassions that Joanna Yeates was "Fully Clothed"... well she obviously wasn't!!!
Miss Yeates went missing on Dec 17 and her fully clothed body was found on Christmas Day.
So DCI Phil Jones had been letting us know all along that something was wrong..(imo)
So she probably didn't have any socks on either as the court drawing show her with bare feet.. And i am sure, the photo's that were taken say with sock removed....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8228665/Joanna-Yeates-murder-police-holding-secrets-of-architects-killing-father-says.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2050518/Vincent-Tabak-trial-Joanna-Yeatess-mother-Teresa-weeps-dead-body-photo.html#ixzz4x6lLIzkw
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Please remove what I have said leonora... I apologise I have made an error...
But it still doesn't take away from the fact that Greg didn't ring Rebecca Scott
-
Rebecca Scott
Rebecca Scott called Jo back..... She doesn't say she spoke to Joanna Yeates... But she did call her. Is this the reason that Rebecca Scott knew that something was wrong when...
Those phone times we have from Joanna Yeates phone have many calls missing..... I am positive.... They may not have been answered but they were made .....
So If Rebecca Scott called Joanna Yeates phone and she hadn't answered... Why didn't Greg ring Rebecca Scott, if she was the last person to ring the phone???
That's really weird.... I cannot have misunderstood....
Rebecca Scott says the last phone call she got was from the Police...
So why didn't Greg ring her ??? That's at least two missed opportunities to ring Rebecca Scott... (imo)
Was Rebecca Scott expecting Joanna Yeates to meet her ?? she says she was on her way??? Is that why Rebecca Scott rang Joanna Yeates phone, because she didn't turn up????
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/briefing/joanna_yeates/news/8785323.Best_friend_speaks_about_murdered_Jo/
I don't wish to seem condescending, but you have built a house of cards on a misinterpretation. Daily Echo reporter Bethan Phillips implies that the telephone call that Joanna initiated to Rebecca Scott while on her way from the Ram pub was in response to an earlier unanswered call to Joanna by Rebecca. Nothing in the article allows you to conclude that Rebecca had tried to ring Joanna between that call and her call 2½ days later in response to the police's text. Rebecca herself makes no mention of any call initiated by herself earlier than the one she made early on the Monday morning.
Rebecca testified in court in person, and was one of the most straightforward and trustworthy witnesses. If she had tried to call Joanna back on the Friday evening, as you suggest, then she would certainly have mentioned this attempt to the news media at the time, and during her testimony in the trial. Such a call would have reinforced the police's belief that Joanna was dead by the time the call was made. This call too would also have been seen on the call log by Greg, who would therefore have had no reason not to call Rebecca as well as Joanna's friends in Bristol. But he did not call Rebecca.
It is possible that Rebecca knows more than the police allowed her to tell, both to the press and during the trial, but I doubt very much if she is implicated in the cover-up, let alone the crime itself. If she had called Joanna's phone at any time during that weekend, and the phone had been answered by Joanna herself, or by someone else who could have been her killer, then I do not believe for one moment that Rebecca Scott would have kept silent.
You also keep on posting that Rebecca couldn't have known so soon that Joanna's coat was in the flat - and I keep on reminding you that she herself stated that it was Greg who took Joanna's phone when she rang early on the Monday morning. That Joanna's coat and purse were still in the flat is one of the first things Greg would have told Rebecca in his explanation of why the police had been summoned.
-
I don't wish to seem condescending, but you have built a house of cards on a misinterpretation. Daily Echo reporter Bethan Phillips implies that the telephone call that Joanna initiated to Rebecca Scott while on her way from the Ram pub was in response to an earlier unanswered call to Joanna by Rebecca. Nothing in the article allows you to conclude that Rebecca had tried to ring Joanna between that call and her call 2½ days later in response to the police's text. Rebecca herself makes no mention of any call initiated by herself earlier than the one she made early on the Monday morning.
Rebecca testified in court in person, and was one of the most straightforward and trustworthy witnesses. If she had tried to call Joanna back on the Friday evening, as you suggest, then she would certainly have mentioned this attempt to the news media at the time, and during her testimony in the trial. Such a call would have reinforced the police's belief that Joanna was dead by the time the call was made. This call too would also have been seen on the call log by Greg, who would therefore have had no reason not to call Rebecca as well as Joanna's friends in Bristol. But he did not call Rebecca.
It is possible that Rebecca knows more than the police allowed her to tell, both to the press and during the trial, but I doubt very much if she is implicated in the cover-up, let alone the crime itself. If she had called Joanna's phone at any time during that weekend, and the phone had been answered by Joanna herself, or by someone else who could have been her killer, then I do not believe for one moment that Rebecca Scott would have kept silent.
You also keep on posting that Rebecca couldn't have known so soon that Joanna's coat was in the flat - and I keep on reminding you that she herself stated that it was Greg who took Joanna's phone when she rang early on the Monday morning. That Joanna's coat and purse were still in the flat is one of the first things Greg would have told Rebecca in his explanation of why the police had been summoned.
Apologises leonora.... Please remove what I said... I obviously have a different way of looking at things than other people....
And you may think I have misinterpreted... Best idea... ask Rebecca Scott... she may be able to clarify...
Maybe I imagine the Painted tiles as well...
Or maybe you know something i don't know leonora... And that is why you are sure I have misinterprted what was said!!
-
There is something I have just realised.... The other day, I made remarks to the effect that the wooden door, with The Glass Panels at the back of Canygne Road had to be the residents of Joanna Yeates....
Because i could not see how they could so blatantly, tamper with the Flat that we know as Flat 1, by painting tiles in the kitchen window sill for starters... And the coat pegs Missing that the jury saw....
So I went back to Flat 2... Now on the diagrams of Flat2 the kitchen is supposed to be at the side of the building.. Meaning as you walk either up or down the side of the building that you would not see anyone outside... You would not recognise anyone, because all you would see is a pair of legs passing by the window...
So How could Dr Vincent Tabak actually wave to Joanna Yeates as he went past that Flats kitchen window ????
Is that the kitchen of that Flat????
Now... The alternative, is that The kitchen is the little window that they say is the bedroom of Flat 2...
The blind does appear broken on that window..... (images attached)
But then i have another problem.... If Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have taken Joanna yeates to his Flat... why would he ????
Even if it was he who lived in Flat 1... From the Flat at the back he would have direct access to the carpark... That would be an easier access ... Meaning no need to move her .....
So which Flat did Joanna Yeates actually live in ... because I do not think it was what we know as Flat 1.... I cannot see a jury been taken to a flat as part of a murder trial that was, staged !!!! (imo) And Bob the builder's lack of Forensic protocol...
So she had to live in the Flat we have been lead to believe is Dr Vincent Tabak's.... So the kitchen window at the side of that building you cannot see anybody walking past apart from legs....
If what we have come to know is the second bedroom of that Flat, then the kitchen has to be the little room,...
Either way Dr Vincent Tabak did not live there... And would have no need to be at The back of the building, to be even going past Joanna yeates Flat... seeing as he went onto Canygne Road to collect his car before he went to ASDA... So he didn't access the back of the building to get his car either.....
Another point I would like to make.... When ever we see down the side of that building also... there are NO lights... There is one outside the main entrance, but it is always dark down the side of the building ....
There is an outside light above the front door of Flat 2... would it emit enough light to the second bedroom????
Edit How was Dr Vincent Tabak supposed to have walked past Joanna Yeates kitchen window ??? And more to the point why would he ???
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The question of who is Peter brotherton.. i think so many people look very similar in this case ,it is quite amazing really...
-
Following on from this post... It is not in the correct place.. But i was replying to BAZ...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8239.msg429443#msg429443
I want to use the tweets, becaise they demonstrate what actually is going on....
12:10 PM - 18 Oct 2011Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
Peter Brotherton now giving evidence. He is a Chaplin at the prison where Tabak was held.
This is probably correct... Peter Brotherton is a Chaplain at a prison..... It doesn't say which Prison... We again have filled in the gaps....
12:11 PM - 18 Oct 2011Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
Mr Brotherton started to volunteer at prison in January. He has been a prison visitor since 1975
Another true statement... Mr Brotherton started to volunteer at "A" prison.. In January... It does not say that Mr Brotherton was a volunteer at "Long Lartin Prison"at this time... Big Difference..
12:13 PM - 18 Oct 2011Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
The prison was Long Lartin in Worcestershire #VincentTabak
So my take on this,, which is very clever wording again... Is since 1975 Mr brother had been a volunteer Chaplain at Long Lartin.... But maybe in January he went to another prison also.....
12:14 PM - 18 Oct 2011Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
Mr Brotherton first met #Tabak on Feb 2. Tabak was in first cell in the health unit which has perspex door as he was on 24 hr watch.
Mr Brotherton may well have meet Dr Vincent Tabak on February 2nd, But it appears to be in the Health Unit that Mr Brotherton was hanging around....
It is the next tweet that tells us who Peter Brotherton is NOT!!!!
12:15 PM - 18 Oct 2011Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
They met again on Feb 5 for five minutes. #Tabak asked for paper and pencil and asked to see the chaplain again.
Dr Vincent Tabak only asked Peter Brotherton for a pencil and Paper.. And he asked "Brotherton" to sort it for him to meet the Chaplain... He was asking Brotherton to get him the Chaplain... Not that Brotherton was the Chaplain...
The use of language has been extraordinary... (imo)... So this clearly tells us Brotherton is NOT the Chaplain Dr Vincent Tabak spoke too.... Well not in the capacity of Chaplain!!
12:17 PM - 18 Oct 2011Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
Tabak and the chaplain met again on Feb 8th. #Tabak said he was " so, so" and "I'm going to tell you something that will shock you"
Dr Vincent Tabak does see a Chaplain on the 8th february.. But it isn't Brotherton!!!
12:20 PM - 18 Oct 2011Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
#Tabak told the chaplain he was going to change his plea to guilty. Brotherton asked if this was about the young lady in Bristol
So what had Dr Vincent Tabak said to the Police???? Is this where Dr Vincent Tabak has pled "Guilty" in The Police Interviews, to scupper The Polices Investigation, because they were playing games... He just played them at there own game... But decided to change the plea. to NOT.. Guilty!!
12:20 PM - 18 Oct 2011Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
Tabak said yes. When asked if he was sorry for what he had done. He replied "yes"
Yes Dr Vincent Tabak is sorry for what he has done... By telling the Police that he was guilty... They didn't continue in their investigation to find the real killer... His idea that pleading guilty to them would force there hand.. obviously enraged them....
12:22 PM - 18 Oct 2011Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
Tabak told the chaplain that he would find it difficult to tell his girlfriend.
Indeed... explaining how he was trying to stuff the system up, would indeed be something he needed to tell his girlfriend as it had backfired and they were going to be detaining him....
12:22 PM - 18 Oct 2011Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
Mr Brotherton told the court that Tabak wanted to talk more but that he didn't want him to as he was getting upset.
Yes I am sure that Dr Vincent Tabak told Brotherton , that he wanted to talk more... And sort this sordid mess out.... Was I right in thinking that Brotherton was a Policeman./ Prison Officer... Or was Brotherton one of the Civilians that volunteers for the Police ???????
12:23 PM - 18 Oct 2011Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
The chaplain then told his boss about it as Tabak was not religious it was not a religious confession.
Dr Vincent Tabak told the Chaplain and not Brotherton, what had taken place... The Chaplain then told his boss... But it didn't help Dr Vincent Tabak....
Nothing is cut and dry in this case... It is entangled up in a notion we have already formed in our minds and go with what we think we have heard or read... But we didn't really listen did we....
Brotherton and the Chaplain are actually two different people and not one in the same as we had been lead to Believe.... So Peter Brotherton of stout stature are you a Police Volunteer??
But putting together the idea that Brotherton had been a volunteer at Long lartin.. Then at another prison... we assume they mean he was still volunteering at Long Lartin in January as the chaplain...
But there is also the fact that there are many different faiths... Brotherton cannot cover all... !!!
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Twepe7h34SQ/T-mdG_YbtqI/AAAAAAAAAFU/A90Z4Qszgn0/s1600/Chaplain+Peter+Brotherton.jpg)
So who is this man.. who played along with the notion that Dr Vincent Tabak had actually confessed to him... This man who attended court, to say that he was 'THE" Chaplain whom Dr Vincent Tabak had requested to talk to....
Because he didn't request to talk to that man in the image.... And as Sally Ramage has pointed out.... The chaplain wasn't called in court !
AH... I am nearly falling for their tricks again.... That man walking out of the court I believe is the Chaplain that Dr Vincent Tabak spoke too... He is the man that wasn't called to give evidence... So The Peter Brotherton whom is the Prison Officer.. is the man whom talked to Dr Vincent Tabak but not as a Chaplain and gave evidence in court... As the real chaplain didn't testify!!! (imo)
Oh what a tangled web we weave....
http://live-news.sky.com/Event/Live_Updates_Vincent_Tabak_Trial3?Page=0
-
When was Joanna Yeates actually reported Missing???
The frozen body of 25-year-old Jo was found by dog walkers hidden on a snowy path on Christmas Day 2010 three miles from her home in Failand, Somerset.She had been reported missing eight days before when her sex killer next door neighbour strangled her after she spurned his attempt at kissing her in her Bristol flat.
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
If you don't count the 25th 8 days before is The 17th December 2010
Am I right about the Phone Call????
The one where Rebecca Scott says she rang Jo's phone ???
One thing that has always troubled me.. Who is the neighbour they are talking about... Because it is not Dr Vincent Tabak ...(imo)
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4794456/jo-yeates-grave-epitaph-headstone-parents/#comments
-
Did Joanna Yeates have a stalker????
-
Here's a random thought.... Seeing as Brotherton and the Chaplain are not the same people....
Is Greg and Greg Reardon two different people ?
-
Here's another random thought.... Two cat trays
Where there two cats???
The impostor Bernard that Joanna Yeates is seeing holding isn't her cat Bernard,... But the cat that the other cat tray belongs too.... Is that Joanna Yeates neighbours cat????
-
What lengths did they go to to try and fool the public??
There are two sides to a story... There's the one they played out at trial.... The massive untruth that was told...
And the Real Truth...
I believe that there were some Police and The Head of The complex Crime Unit trying to sort this mess out... By leaking information to an unsuspecting public, who were happy with salacious headlines and didn't want to know a truth... They were happy with an ending whether or not it was the correct ending and "The Just" ending that Joanna Yeates and The Yeates family deserved....
Who benefited from Dr Vincent Tabak being put away for life???
Because it cannot just be the person who actually killed Joanna Yeates.... It had to have an impact on someones career if the "Truth was Told".... But who that was I do not know....
They had to have some clout and influence ...(imo)
This charade has gone on long enough... It's time for the whole truth to be told..... And for Dr Vincent Tabak to be released from Prison and given his freedom......
And Time for The Yeates and Joanna Yeates to receive Justice...(imo)
-
"They met again on Feb 5 for five minutes. #Tabak asked for paper and pencil and asked to see the chaplain again."
You state that this means Tabak asked Brotherton to see the chaplain again but I would suggest that the actual meaning of this tweet is that Tabak asked Brotherton for paper and pencil and to see him again (meaning at a later date.)
There is absolutley no evidence to suggest that the person Tabak told he was going to plead guilty to was anyone other than Peter Brotherton the Salvation Army Chaplain who gave evidence in court. None whatsoever.
The fact that this Sally Ramage, a dubious source I would argue, says:
"It is alleged that Tabak made a confession to an unlicensed prison chaplain, who was not called to give evidence, a most pertinent point"
When every other source talking about the trial goes into detail about his attendance and the evidence he gave, is strange. I personally wouldn't take the Ramage document as being particularly accurate as she makes numerous claims whilst offering no evidence to support them e.g.
"He was tricked to sign the confession statement inn September 2011, because there could be no trial for murder or manslaughter without a signed confession statement."
I doubt that a serious legal publication would allow such reporting/analysis. But then if you look at where the article was published it is only in "Criminal Law News" and who is the sole editor of this? Sally Ramage!!
It's an article that is full of spelling and grammatical errors and makes leaps in logic based on no or slight evidence so perhaps Sally needs an editor other than herself.
I would also point out that she seems to be someone who is very interested in numerous conspiracy theories and so a willingness to believe the unlikely on scant or non-existant evidence is to be expected.
So why did she say the Chaplain Peter Brotherton wasn't called to give evidence when every other person reporting on the trial says he did? I'm guessing she just got it wrong. Either that or EVERYONE else did.
She is on twitter and her contact details are all over the place. Have you considered asking her directly?
-
No Baz... i do not think that Sally made an error.....
Dr Vincent Tabak talked to a Vicar.... Not a Chaplain... And there is a difference...
Vicar, a priest who is the bishop's helper..
Chaplain An ordained person whose vocation is specific to their task (i.e. hospital chaplain, military chaplain etc..) not to a parish.
So did Dr Vincent Tabak speak to a "Vicar"?? Maybe he asked to speak to the Vicar of his Parish??? As at this point he was on remand and could have his own visitors...
We only have Brotherton telling us Dr Vincent Tabak wasn't religious... who's to say he wasn't???
Did Dr Vincent Tabak ask to see his own Priest?? More than likely (imo)
that the man he allegedly confessed to in Long Lartin prison in Worcester was a
chaplain, yet he was not called to give evidence in court; that the man said he knew that
Tabak was not a practising Christian and yet he went to see Dr Tabak several times to
develop a relationship with him.
Maybe Dr Vincent Tabak was of the Catholic Faith.... Therefore the assumed chaplain was of no use to him and he preferred to converse with his own Vicar....(imo)
Dr Vincent Tabak had been tricked on numerous occasions... Why would he blindly talk to a complete stranger and divulge anything, if he did not know him???? He wouldn't (imo)
At that time the only person he probably had access to from the outside would have been his own priest, whom he knew he could trust.... (IMO)
It's not that everyone else is wrong... They just went with what they thought they believed... It was easy to confuse a public that didn't know the difference between the two....
The public were tricked (imo)... They were happy for anyone to make a statement against Dr Vincent Tabak, as long as someone paid the price for Joanna Yeates death...
You see, people do not want to look unless it stares them in the face... They're happy with a friar tuck lookalike, as long as they are told that someone is something, they will blindly take that information from authority figures as gospel... But no-one in this case were asked for their credentials, as far as I can tell...
which is mighty strange , wouldn't you concur???
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
Did Dr Vincent Tabak ask to see his own Priest?? More than likely (imo)
Please show me your evidence for this assertion?
I've seen nothing to suggest Tabak was religious. I've seen no reports of him asking to see a Priest or Vicar.
Also, why is it only one person (Sally Ramage) saying the Chaplain didn't give evidence when every other report that I can find says he did?
Have you been in touch with Ramage?
-
I meant no offence, but then I think it's only offensive from your interpretation.
A conspiracy theory is generally considered a theory that goes against the generally held beliefs and the facts available. And I would worry about someone that posts about JFK, the evil machinations of the CIA and the war in Syria from a conspiracy theory point of view.
It's not simply someone who asks why or thinks against the party line. It's someone who wilfully does so because they want to and will only accept evidence that supports their point of view and everything else is considered planted or faked evidence (with no proof that is the case.)
Anyway, you managed to avoid all my questions and arguments again.
-
Erm... I wasn't being aggressive. I was quite polite I thought. I even edited one of my messages because I had written something sarcastic and felt it was unnecessary.
All I've done is question your arguments and tried to further my own understanding.
I'm not sure why you've suddenly taken this attitude with me.
So as you're not here to argue the case with me does that mean you won't answer my questions? I thought that was the point of these forums.
If you don't want to contact Sally Ramage to ask her about the discrepancy I can send an email instead if you'd rather?
(Thank you for deleting the post in which you said I was happy to see a killer on the loose.)
-
Yes.. i have just tried to contact Sally.... did it via twitter... But hey ho....
-
That's great. Let's hope she replies. If you hear nothing I have found three email address for her we could try.
Did you tweet @editorlaw? Because that's her twitter name I think.
What did you ask? (If it's not impertinent of me to ask!)
-
Yes i did tweet her at @editorlaw
And I ask her your daft question about The Chaplain... I did tell her I had many more questions... But because you deemed The Chaplain question more important... I asked her about that....
I will quote the last line...
Please do you mind explaining who stood up in court instead of the vicar.. Regards Nine
Would you like to know what i had for tea whilst we are at it???
Do I call it Tea or do I call it Dinner??
Do I play Bridge ???
Am I a Treo fan ??
The answers are ..
Dinner
Yes and yes
Anything else Baz whilst we are at it... Colour of my eyes maybe.... How tall I am??? what i'm wearing?? Age??
Are are we happy with the quote I provided???
-
Yes i did tweet her at @editorlaw
And I ask her your daft question about The Chaplain... I did tell her I had many more questions... But because you deemed The Chaplain question more important... I asked her about that....
I will quote the last line...
Would you like to know what i had for tea whilst we are at it???
Do I call it Tea or do I call it Dinner??
Do I play Bridge ???
Am I a Treo fan ??
The answers are ..
Dinner
Yes and yes
Anything else Baz whilst we are at it... Colour of my eyes maybe.... How tall I am??? what i'm wearing?? Age??
Are are we happy with the quote I provided???
I'm genuinely a bit confused by this sudden change in attitude and if I've done anything to deserve it apologise completely.
I thought it would be fun to try and get to the bottom of some of the discrepancies but I'll just go back to being a silent reader.
Best of luck with all your future endeavours.
-
I thought i was being amusing.... My sense of humour is off... People don't get it... sorry Baz...
-
Apologies for the none sense I talk....
-
We know Joanna yeates had taken time off work...
But.......... we do not know the reason why???
Was Joanna Yeates pregnant???
Her parents say their daughter's killer has robbed her of a future as a wife and mother. Her brother, Chris Yeates, says he has been left in a ''surreal hole of despair''.
We never actually see Joanna Yeates drink anything... We are told that her blood alcohol level is 67 mil in 100 mil of blood...
Tests revealed Miss Yeates had 67 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.
Now I'm no Dr... But is the reason for this because she had taken some medication that contained ethanol??
QUESTION: I have asthma and need your help desperately. The new propellant (as required by Congress) used in albuterol inhalers for asthma contains ethanol (drinking alcohol). I do not feel that anyone is aware of this.
So is it possible that Joanna Yeates had just inhaled asthma medication. before she died ??/ Or taken medication with Ethanol in it???
If Joanna Yeates was asthmatic, that would account for her not managing to breath.... and would also account for the alcohol levels in her system...(imo)
I'm just questioning this because her mum said her being robbed of being a mother.... Now that would only make sense if Joanna Yeates was actually pregnant...
Because there is nothing else to suggest that Joanna Yeates may have wanted children in the future....
We do not have a full autopsy report on Joanna yeates... So anything is possible...(imo)
Edit... If Joanna Yeates took medication and ethanol was in this medication, once the lab had said how much alcohol was in Joanna Yeates system... Was that the reason they worked out when she must have died?? Because of the length of time it would take the ethanol to disperse in her blood stream???
Which brings me back to DCI jones saying that they were working out the timings??? Is that what he meant????
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8270913/Joanna-Yeates-murder-timeline.html
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg385266#msg385266
http://legacy.sandiegouniontribune.com/uniontrib/20080219/news_1c19qam.html
-
To mediate between the competing claims for poor Joanna's body made by the different forensic professionals, Andrew Mott was called in as the Forensics Co-ordinator. He had to stop the body from thawing out, so as to preserve its immediate environment from contamination until Karl Harrison could examine it. As Lyndsay Lennen says, the body was frozen to start with, but for her to get the clothes off so as to analyse the DNA on the clothes and skin, its temperature had to be above freezing. To do his worst with his little scalpel, Dr. Delaney also needed the body to thaw out. However he also needed to observe and document the clothes themselves before Lyndsay Lennen. Andrew Mott had a legitimate role as referee.
As I posted before, Dr Delaney could not even get near the body until the fire engines had finished doing whatever they came to do. The best he could do until then was to glimpse it.
But which body are they talking about ... If there is a possibility that Joanna Yeates was pregnant???? Then both statements are true, in that respect.... (imo)
Did Dr Delaney know straight away that Joanna Yeates had died from compression of the neck... And it was the foetus that he needed to wait to thaw??? To take samples???
I'm just asking......!
-
I meant no offence, but then I think it's only offensive from your interpretation.
A conspiracy theory is generally considered a theory that goes against the generally held beliefs and the facts available. And I would worry about someone that posts about JFK, the evil machinations of the CIA and the war in Syria from a conspiracy theory point of view.
It's not simply someone who asks why or thinks against the party line. It's someone who wilfully does so because they want to and will only accept evidence that supports their point of view and everything else is considered planted or faked evidence (with no proof that is the case.)
Anyway, you managed to avoid all my questions and arguments again.
This is the sort of extreme sentiment I expect to find in The Guardian or The Telegraph. It is hardly appropriate to a moderated forum like this one, intended for contributors whose aims are to expose fake stories in the printed and electronic media. With the possible exception of the sports world, people are notoriously more prepared to believe what they learn from the professional media - even when it publishes information perporting to be factual which is manifestly mutually contradictory - than the facts that they know from their own personal experience.
Conspiracy theorists first and foremost focus on facts that are usually public knowledge, but that the media collectively disregard in the context even though they are relevant. No evidence has ever come to light to explain what actually happened to the two little Princes in the Tower of London, yet nobody ever describes Shakespeare or his sources as "conspracy theorists" for pointing the dubious finger so firmly at King Richard III as their murderer.
Apparently the ownership of the entire World Trade Center site on Manhattan changed hands only six weeks before the destructive attacks on 11th September 16 years ago. This seems to be a fact, undisputed by the media, yet the media made no attempt to report it for many, many years, until some people whom I suppose you might choose to call "conspiracy theorists" began to speculate about whether the timing was purely coincidental or not.
Most of the big conspiracies that dominate all walks of public life are not hidden at all - the facts are well known - but the media does not connect them. I am sure you are as well aware of this as I am, so I fear that your disparagement and misrepresentation of "conspiracy theorists" makes you yourself a part of the conspiracy.
-
This is the sort of extreme sentiment I expect to find in The Guardian or The Telegraph.
There was nothing extreme about my post except perhaps your response to it.
No evidence has ever come to light to explain what actually happened to the two little Princes in the Tower of London, yet nobody ever describes Shakespeare or his sources as "conspracy theorists" for pointing the dubious finger so firmly at King Richard III as their murderer.
Shakespeare was a dramatist and was not trying to achieve histrorical accuracy. In fact it is generally well known that his plays are quite inaccurate when it comes to history and even geography. What a strange example to choose.
Apparently the ownership of the entire World Trade Center site on Manhattan changed hands only six weeks before the destructive attacks on 11th September 16 years ago. This seems to be a fact, undisputed by the media, yet the media made no attempt to report it for many, many years, until some people whom I suppose you might choose to call "conspiracy theorists" began to speculate about whether the timing was purely coincidental or not.
It doesn't take much effort to find numerous articles (some published before and some after the tragic attacks) discussing the purchase of the lease for the World Trade Centre. And in fact the guy who ended up winning the bidding contest (Larry Silverstein) only did so because the company that actually won withdrew their bid, which feels quite significant to me.
Most of the big conspiracies that dominate all walks of public life are not hidden at all - the facts are well known - but the media does not connect them. I am sure you are as well aware of this as I am, so I fear that your disparagement and misrepresentation of "conspiracy theorists" makes you yourself a part of the conspiracy.
I'm not sure which conspiracies you are referring to that dominate all walks of life but I can assure you that I am not part of them. I mean I am a six foot lizard and a quite high ranking member of the Illuminati who helped produce the "moon landing" film and killed Princess Diana but other than that I object to you implying I'm part of any conspiracy. Even us Lizards have feelings!!
-
Please stay on topic. This thread is for discussing the Joanna Yeates case, not unrelated conspiracy theories !!
Also, could we please stop "sniping" at each other. I don't like removing people's posts, but-----------.
Thanks!
-
Please show me your evidence for this assertion?
I've seen nothing to suggest Tabak was religious. I've seen no reports of him asking to see a Priest or Vicar.
Also, why is it only one person (Sally Ramage) saying the Chaplain didn't give evidence when every other report that I can find says he did?
Have you been in touch with Ramage?
Peter Brotherton did testify in court, and was questioned by William Clegg QC, Vincent Tabak's defence lawyer.
I have no idea why Sally Ramage said he didn't----after all, she attended the trial herself.
I have, in the past, attempted to contact Sally Ramage, but she did not reply!!
There are, indeed, inaccuracies in her account: for example, she says that Vincent and Tanja reported that Chris Jefferies used to look through the windows of his tenants' flats-----when, in fact, it was actually previous tenants who said this.
-
Peter Brotherton did testify in court, and was questioned by William Clegg QC, Vincent Tabak's defence lawyer.
I have no idea why Sally Ramage said he didn't----after all, she attended the trial herself.
I have, in the past, attempted to contact Sally Ramage, but she did not reply!!
There are, indeed, inaccuracies in her account: for example, she says that Vincent and Tanja reported that Chris Jefferies used to look through the windows of his tenants' flats-----when, in fact, it was actually previous tenants who said this.
Has Sally Ramage ever spoken to Dr Vincent Tabak ??
And if you say that it was the previous tenants... Was Dr Vincent Tabak a previous tenant??
-
Abstract
A 25 year-old professional woman was murdered on 15 December 2010,her body discovered on 26 December 2010 on a grass verge some three miles from the apartment she rented with her cohabitee. On 23 January 2011, a Dutch Architectural Consultant Engineer, working in Bristol, United Kingdom, and living next door with is Chartered Accountant cohabitee, was arrested and later charged with the woman's murder. This is the story of the court trial in Court One at Bristol Crown Court.
Why are the dates so different ???? Is this when Joanna Yeates went Missing??? why would Sally Ramage have this different to what we know ???
I know you said that Sally had maybe got some inaccuracies... But The 15th December 2010??
We know that Dr Vincent Tabak was charged between the 16th December and the 26th December 2010 originally. why are all the dates out????
I don't understand???
https://philpapers.org/rec/RAMRVV
-
Has Sally Ramage ever spoken to Dr Vincent Tabak ??
And if you say that it was the previous tenants... Was Dr Vincent Tabak a previous tenant??
I believe it was a couple who were tenants before Vincent/Tanja/Jo/Greg who, according to one report, complained about their landlord letting himself in to their flats with his keys , and peering through windows. Will try to find the link!
As far as I know, Sally Ramage hasn't spoken to VT, but I cannot be sure.
-
Who appeared in court on 31st January 2011 ???
Now Dr Vincent Tabak appeared via video link from Long Lartin Prison... so who was in the :
A Reliance prison van arrives at Bristol Crown Court as media wait for a prelimiminary hearing for the murder of Joanna Yeates on January 31, 2011 in Bristol, England. Vincent Tabak who has been charged with her murder appeared via video link from HMP Long Lartin in Worcestershire. A provisional trial date has been fixed for October 4 and the plea and case management hearing will take place on May 4.Licence
DCI Phil Jones was there for this Preliminary hearing... so who was in The Van???
What was going on at Preliminary Hearing??
At the conclusion of Monday's proceedings, the judge told Tabak: "Your next appearance in court will be on May 4 by which time the case papers will have been served and you will see in detail what the allegations are against you. There will be a hearing to make the final arrangements for a trial which we expect to take place in October."
So did Dr Vincent Tabak not know what the allegations were ??? I thought it was a simple case that he apparentley murdered his next door neighbour... what else was laid out in detail????
Going back to the van... why would the media take a picture of a random van if it didn't have anything to do with Dr Vincent Tabak ???
Who else was at court???
Seeing as DCI Phil Jones was there and I am now of the opinion that he was trying to uncover the truth.. that leads me to believe that someone else also appeared at court on the 31st January 2011.. In relation to the Joanna yeates murder case ....
But who was it ????
This I believe is when Paul Cook, dropped Dr Vincent Tabak... so what was going on at Bristol Crown Court on the 31st January 2011???
Can some one help me here please....
How comes Dr Vincent Tabak went from the magistrates court to the crown court in about one week???
How did we jump from charge to preliminary hearing and being at crown court via video link??? That cannot be right!!
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/event/vincent-tabak-preliminary-hearing-for-the-murder-of-joanna-yeates-108632844#avon-and-somerset-police-dci-phil-jones-arrives-at-bristol-crown-for-picture-id108634439
http://www.leighjournal.co.uk/news/national/news/8822736.Joanna_s_body_released_to_family/
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
31st January 2011
At the conclusion of Monday's proceedings, the judge told Tabak: "Your next appearance in court will be on May 4 by which time the case papers will have been served and you will see in detail what the allegations are against you. There will be a hearing to make the final arrangements for a trial which we expect to take place in October."
How does that work ???
Shouldn't the case be lined out before being sent to a hearing... They had , had the initial preliminary hearing on that day....
See in detail?? what were these allegations??? Other than that Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have killed Joanna Yeates ...
Shouldn't they already have case papers??? or is it me misunderstanding?? Did they go to court on a wing and a prayer??? Chuck a couple of accusations in and then told the judge they'd fill him in later???
I do understand it takes time to collect all statements and evidence, but they must have had to have something for the preliminary hearing?
And most certainly the allegations should have been spelt out...(imo)
There are I believe many procedures that should be followed when preparing the case...
Witnesses
Corroboration
Always look for corroboration. If other witnesses are present or named then they should make statements or there should be an explanation for the lack of a statement.
The police should be asked to explain any inconsistencies in the statements or if necessary to give witnesses the opportunity to make further statements clarifying the discrepancies.
Now here is an interesting quote... If other witnesses are present or named then they should make statements or there should be an explanation for the lack of a statement.
On saying that ... where was Tanja Morson at trial, as she was named on numerous occasions, at this trial, she was, with Dr Vincent Tabak on the night in question... She apparently texted and phoned Dr Vincent Tabak on this evening.. yet she made no statement nor did she appear in court...And her name was mentioned on numerous occasions...
How can that be ?????
I can count at least 30 times that Tanja Morsons name is mentioned in the Sally Ramage papers,
Tanja Morson named 30 plus times.. Tanja Morson the girlfriend of the defendant who could corroborate, what Dr Vincent Tabak's demeanor was on any given day.. who could verify any phone calls made.... Yet she is strangely absent from these proceedings...
Wouldn't Tanja have made a good witness for the prosecution. showing how she was aware that Dr Vincent Tabak tried to implicate CJ...
I still would have imagined that they did interview her.... But why is her named mentioned over and over again, if she doesn't make a statement to the court???
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/crown_court_case_preparation/
http://www.leighjournal.co.uk/news/national/news/8822736.Joanna_s_body_released_to_family/
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
Looking at an article after the trial.... And Tanja Morsons father speaks...
"After he confessed, it was difficult for us all because we didn't know what he was saying about Tanja. But we had total faith in our daughter and knew she had done nothing wrong."
We know that Dr Vincent Tabak didn't confess... The only thing he possibly said was guilty to manslaughter, as AH pointed out a possible reason for this admission...
By the 22nd September 2011, Dr Vincent Tabak had signed his enhanced statement.. the details I believe were a little sketchy...
So I am trying to understand what Mr Morson means, when he says...what he was saying about Tanja. But we had total faith in our daughter and knew she had done nothing wrong.
What is he referring too??
What had Dr Vincent Tabak said about Tanja??
What could Tanja have possibly done wrong??
What was said at trial that could possibily incriminate Tanja in any way??
I do not believe that there was anything....
The only slight answer I can come up with is Tanja ringing the Police from Holland.. But what would be wrong with that ?? It would show that it wasn't Dr Vincent Tabak trying to incriminate CJ...
But I don't think Mr Morson means that .... So what does we didn't know what he was saying about Tanja. But we had total faith in our daughter and knew she had done nothing wrong."..... actually mean??
Because we know Dr Vincent Tabak wouldn't say anything....What is it that Mr Morson knows?? If these statements were not heard at trial,and how could he know ??
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8857776/Joanna-Yeatess-father-and-her-killers-girlfriends-family-unite-in-revulsion.html
-
31st January 2011
How does that work ???
Shouldn't the case be lined out before being sent to a hearing... They had , had the initial preliminary hearing on that day....
See in detail?? what were these allegations??? Other than that Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have killed Joanna Yeates ...
Shouldn't they already have case papers??? or is it me misunderstanding?? Did they go to court on a wing and a prayer??? Chuck a couple of accusations in and then told the judge they'd fill him in later???
I do understand it takes time to collect all statements and evidence, but they must have had to have something for the preliminary hearing?
And most certainly the allegations should have been spelt out...(imo)
There are I believe many procedures that should be followed when preparing the case...
Now here is an interesting quote... If other witnesses are present or named then they should make statements or there should be an explanation for the lack of a statement.
On saying that ... where was Tanja Morson at trial, as she was named on numerous occasions, at this trial, she was, with Dr Vincent Tabak on the night in question... She apparently texted and phoned Dr Vincent Tabak on this evening.. yet she made no statement nor did she appear in court...And her name was mentioned on numerous occasions...
How can that be ?????
I can count at least 30 times that Tanja Morsons name is mentioned in the Sally Ramage papers,
Tanja Morson named 30 plus times.. Tanja Morson the girlfriend of the defendant who could corroborate, what Dr Vincent Tabak's demeanor was on any given day.. who could verify any phone calls made.... Yet she is strangely absent from these proceedings...
Wouldn't Tanja have made a good witness for the prosecution. showing how she was aware that Dr Vincent Tabak tried to implicate CJ...
I still would have imagined that they did interview her.... But why is her named mentioned over and over again, if she doesn't make a statement to the court???
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/crown_court_case_preparation/
http://www.leighjournal.co.uk/news/national/news/8822736.Joanna_s_body_released_to_family/
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
Following on from here:....
Defence Counsel: Turn to entry 11.
‘Entry 11- seen past the flat at 9.05 where Tanya had already left for work in a lift-share’.
Text message from Tabak: ‘Love you’.
Text answer from Tanja: Love you too. Pretty snow.
Defence Counsel: Continuing to look at our timeline- timeline 24 was a ‘Divert
voicemail’.
Timeline 27- telephone call.
Timeline 28- text message from Tanja and to Tanja at 4 pm.
Timeline 29- there was a much longer telephone call at 4.23pm.
Timeline 30- Internet use at home- Tanja used the laptop – The Defendant was still at
work.
Tanja has replied in the first quote as I have demonstrated... So why is she not in court or giving a statement to be read out at court??
I keep questioning are these actually Tanja Morsons texts??? Because they cannot be,(imo) otherwise a statement would have been read out in court from her or she would have appeared herself.. But we know she did not attend court whatsoever!
So who texts are they???
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
Timeline 31- Vincent Tabak texted girlfriend Tanja: ‘How are you? Getting ready for
party?’
Timeline 37- Vincent Tabak leaves his workplace.
Timeline 45- Vincent Tabak’s journey home- 6.54 at Constitution Hill. Home just after
7pm by which time Tanja had already left. Text message to Tanja- ‘Just got home’.
Defence Counsel: Did you remain at home or did you go out?
Tabak: I went out
I sent Tanja a text message after I returned; just after 7.15pm
I had gone for a quick walk to take pictures of snow.
I left by small garden gate to Bristol Road then returned.
I didn’t take any photos- the snow was dirty.
At 7.25 – after I had returned, I accessed my bank account via Internet until 7.37pm.
Defence Counsel: Can we just put the timeline to one side? What did you do after 7.37pm?
Tabak: I drank a beer. I watched TV- I cannot remember what. I had supper- a readymade
pizza. Then I decided to go out again.
"Constitution Hill to Bristol Road ??? That is the only two locations I have in this quote....
Tried Googling it... And I get "Constitution Hill Settle " to Bristol Road Sheffield"...( A long Journey)
Alternatively Constitution Hill to "Bristol Road" is a disused railway station... Bristol Road being the name at "Stonehouse"..
But for either to be accurate.. The times it took to get there, would be wrong.... The only way one could be correct is if Dr Vincent Tabak lived in "The Master House" in the vicinity of "Bristol Road Station". as I believe it is still a residential house...
Passenger and goods services were withdrawn from Frocester on 11 December 1961, four years before other local stations on the line lost their services. The station buildings were demolished and the signalbox also closed. The station-master's house remains in residential use.[1]
So for the quote to be accurate.. I would say that Dr Vincent Tabak had to live in The Masters House of Bristol Road railway Station to be able to leave by the little gate onto Bristol Road and take photographs of the dirty snow..
But it still doesn't quite add up.... Because it take 29 minutes to get from Constitution Hill to Bristol Road, and Dr Vincent Tabak has 6 minutes to get home...
But then did he go to Bristol Road after he got home ???.... Did he know someone who lived near Bristol Road ???
Why does this never add up????
Or is this an inaccuracy??? Does anybody know ??? Is "Bristol Road" an inaccuracy???
Which Constitution Hill is Dr Vincent Tabak referring too?? because there are many Constitution Hills in the country....
I have a third alternative........
The only "Constitution Hill" to Bristol Road that comes anywhere close to the timescale is... Constitution Hill Birmingham to Bristol Road Birmingham" which is an 11 minute journey roughly.. But that is miles away from Bristol...
So which Constitution Hill are we talking about??? And which Bristol Road???
But the biggest coincidence with the Birmingham factor is that you take the A38 to get from "Constitution Hill" to Bristol Road"...
Now if you take the A38 down to Anchor Road you arrive at The Bristol Ram Pub.... That is one too many coincidences for me .... Also the A38 to Bedminster...
If someone travelled from Birmingham on the A38, they would not have been picked up by CCTV as they would have by using the M5...
It is about 89 miles away from Bristol... Not a long Journey, if you put your foot down....
As I am not convinced that the statements made at court belonged to Dr Vincent Tabak.. who did they belong to?? And was it someone who lived in Birmingham??? Or stayed there during the week??? Or even owned a house there ???
It says: I left by small garden gate to Bristol Road then returned.
Now that is possible if you are a Student and live at "collegiate 800 bristol road - luxury student accommodation birmingham" (image attached)
There is a double gate for car access and a little gate to the side of it for foot access, which brings you directly onto "Bristol Road" A38....
So is this the residents that is being talked about when it says that, I left via the little gate onto Bristol Road to take some photos???
Lets not forget how close "Constitution Hill is to this residence.....
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehouse_(Bristol_Road)_railway_station
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanaj Morson went to Holland over the Christmas period..
I remember seeing the news around the time and people wating for trains.. and it now has only just come back to me why...
The weather had been so bad that trains were actually stuck in the tunnel over the christmas period... and many people were waiting to get from A to B...
The report's authors made 21 recommendations, saying Eurostar's "routine maintenance procedures were inadequate" to deal with the extreme winter weather conditions on the night of 18 and 19 December. The report was compiled by the former GNER East Coast Main Line rail boss Christopher Garnett and French transport expert Claude Gressier.
Which lasted for several days....
All Eurostar services were cancelled for several days, bringing pandemonium to stations as passengers, unable to take fully booked flights and ferries, struggled to get home for Christmas.
Ticket sales were stopped until after Christmas eve....
Eurostar has also closed ticket sales until after Christmas Eve.
Passengers were asked to postpone their journeys..
Passengers have been urged to cancel or postpone their journeys and not to travel unless it was "absolutely necessary".
So how many days did it take to get things back to normal???
"We will operate a contingency timetable with some cancellations for a number of days.
"We recommend that if you do not need to travel you cancel or postpone your journey. Due to exceptional demand, sales are closed for travel up to and including 24 Dec."
And who had priority for catching these trains ???
Only Tabak knew the truth and he was not telling. On 28 December he and Morson drove via Eurotunnel to the Netherlands where they were to spend new year with Tabak's family.
Was 4 days long enough to have everything up and running properly?? We have people who still need transporting and people who have purchased tickets running up unto this date, who should get priority...
Did Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson have any issues getting to Holland ?? As I am sure there would have been many people whom had booked seats on these trains, in December and I believe that their needs would come first...
Did Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson plan to go to Holland sooner?? And because of the chaos of the train situation ended up staying at Tanja Morsons parents home ??
What were the original Plans for Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson and their Holiday visits.. and on what date did they originally set of down south???
What day did Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson leave Bristol??? Because I can now see why they wouldn't have been able to get to Holland any sooner and may have ended up staying at Tanja's parents home over Christmas, if these trains were not running properly...
(https://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/304/media/images/50494000/jpg/_50494063_010769362-1.jpg)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-12036873
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/28/joanna-yeates-case-vincent-tabak
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/feb/12/eurostar-no-plan-travel-chaos-report
-
Defence Counsel: Where was your car parked?
Tabak: My car was parked on the street.
Now on saying i don't believe it was Dr Vincent Tabak who said about leaving the little gate to Bristol Road.. it brought this back to mind...
How would Dr Vincent Tabak make such a mistake... when we know he and Tanja shared the car...
Again I would ask who's car this is reference too?? Because the car Dr Vincent Tabak drove was Tanja Morsons....
So is it the persons car who went onto Bristol Road to take photographs of the snow ???? and (imo) that wasn't Dr Vincent Tabak...
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
Land Registry
17 January
Land Registry documents show the killer could have entered and left Yeates's flat without being seen by any of her neighbours.
What was visible on the Land Registry Records on the 17th January 2011??
Does this go with Joanna Yeates living in what I believe to be Flat 2???
I say this because of 2 reasons....
If it was flat 1 ...anyone could have entered by the little gate and seen by anyone outside.... And you wouldn't need the Land Registry Plans for that...
The land Registry Documents were talked about before the Yeates appeal on the 18th January 2011 which prompted the sobbing girl phone call ...
So up until this point... the images that we know of as the basement flats are of no use... And after when we see the basement flats they are still of no use as the door is blocked off between the basement flats....
So what was on the land registry plans that showed how someone could enter Joanna Yeates flat without being seen???
To me that sounds like it is from inside the house... Don't know what anyone else thinks...
They had to have had the entire house on these plans... So what was visible on the plans to show someone could access Joanna Yeates Flat without being seen??
Where the media already suggesting Dr Vincent Tabak at this early stage ??? Or do the plans mean something else ???
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/01/18/article-1348132-0CCD1F7A000005DC-597_306x630.jpg)
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/dec/30/joanna-yeates-disappearance-murder-timeline
-
Where were the Defence
Indeed, he had no previous convictions for sex offences or for any other criminal offences and in
fact was a virgin when he met his then partner Miss Morston. The judge cannot be said to have
correctly directed the jury in their conviction of Dr Vincent Tabak for murder, because the trial
judge, had been told beforehand by police officers, that a prostitute in Los Angeles had telephoned
the Avon and Somerset police to identify Vincent Tabak as her one-time client for prostitution in
Los Angeles and requested ‘strangulation sex’.
From the Sally Ramage papers, we can see that Dr Vincent Tabak was sexually inexperienced when he meet Tanja Morson and in fact was still a virgin....
This flies in the face of all that has been said about Dr Vincent Tabak's sexual appetite... The supposed sexual purpose that Dr Vincent Tabak apparently showed in his approach to Joanna Yeates, seems flawed.. (imo)
If Dr Vincent Tabak had a penchant for prostitutes, surely he would have been using these ladies well before he meet Tanja Morson... Therefore losing his virginal status...
And if he was into watching this porn on a regular basis, he again would have used the services of prostitutes before he meet Tanja Morson..
There has been NO EVIDENCE brought (A) to trial or (B) to the public that proves that Dr Vincent Tabak watched pornography or used Prostitutes... Yet the public have been tricked into believing that this is the case...
Did Dr Vincent Tabak wake up one morning and think... Oh yes i know what I'll do I will become a sexual deviant as my hobby choice??..... Ridiculous..... Sexual deviant behaviour tends to start at a young age (imo) and there is no signs of this in Dr Vincent Tabak....
There are NO woman that were produced at trial to state that Dr Vincent Tabak's behaviour towards them had ever been untoward... Dc Joe Goff stated after the trial that they never spoke to these supposed prostitutes.. So were was the evidence that Dr Vincent Tabak had this type of behaviour...
Would going in to Kiss your neighbour you have just meet, be the type of behaviour of a man like Dr Vincent Tabak, who to all intense and purposes, was very inexperienced, and obviously had never demonstrated this behaviour before, or there would have been a string of witness's to say so....
Why would Dr Vincent Tabak jeopardise his relationship with Tanja by attempting to kiss his next door neighbour for whom he had meet for a couple of minutes.. That seems highly implausible....
He apparently went as far as grabbing Joanna Yeates around the waist area so his hand was around her back... That too seems highly implausible, that action is of someone whom knows a person well, whom is comfortable, with a person... Someone whom is moving the person towards them in an intimate manner... That movement suggests that both people were familiar with each other...
Doing as best you can describe to the court exactly what you did
I put my hand in the small of her back and went to kiss her
Did you kiss her?
Noooo
The statements contradict each other.... Dr Vincent Tabak is agreeing he apparently put his hand around her back and then went to kiss her.... But when asked if he kissed her his response is of someone whom appears shocked at the idea... (imo)
Was Dr Vincent Tabak looking at notes when he made that statement about his actions ???
Wouldn't Joanna Yeates have reacted sooner, as Dr Vincent Tabak was trying to put his hand around her back... I do not believe that Joanna Yeates would have allowed Dr Vincent Tabak to get that close, without trying to escape his clutches... I cannot see her just standing there and not moving...(imo)...
Again I would say that that action, would indeed be of someone whom knew Joanna Yeates ....
I try to envisage Joanna Yeates stood with Dr Vincent Tabak in the kitchen, and him apparently moving in to grab her around the waist... Because lets face it that what it means.... never mind the small of her back rubbish.. They are describing an action of someone grabbing Joanna Yeates around the waist...
At this point wouldn't she move out of the way ??? wouldn't she duck, dive, grab his hand... tell him were to go...
She doesn't she starts to scream...... Why??? The big question is Why did Joanna Yeates start to scream after she was grabbed around the waist???
This in my mind suggest that these actions were done by someone whom she knew... Because I believe that Joanna Yeates would have made some attempt to escape before she started to scream....
I did notice the Defence nor The prosecution established how close to each other Dr Vincent Tabak and Joanna Yeates were for him to be able to easily grab her around her waist.....
The action is such that he would (imo) have to be close enough to grab her as her face to be close enough for her to be kissed... Was her head looking up??? Or was it down ??? I think these are important factors... If we are talking strangers here, I would imagine her head looking down and her chin close to her chest as she tries to move away from her assailant...
But the description that the court gives us, which is extremely vague, has us imagining that her head was up, and her neck was exposed, as to make it easy for Dr Vincent Tabak to grab her around the throat, when she let out a scream....
This doesn't sound right at all.... But what vision I mostly get from these action are, what I remember as a child, watching old "Black and White" Movies... when the man grabs the woman around the waist and pulls her closer to Kiss her... Occasionally the woman responds with a slap around the face... I can almost see the side on view of this action that Dr Vincent Tabak apparently did....
Is this the action that they are describing in court or wanting the jury to imagine ????
I will keep saying ..The words that came out of Dr Vincent Tabaks mouth at trial were not his own... The statement that he apparently has signed to say he killed Joanna Yeates hasn't got this detail... I believe these words have come from someone who was interviewed by the Police... And it has to be someone whom Joanna Yeates knew.....(imo)
The action of grabbing Joanna Yeates by the waist as to draw her in to kiss her is an extremely intimate action, that would be done by someone close to Joanna Yeates.... If Dr Vincent Tabak had a sexual purpose that they claim he did and was a sexual deviant that they claim after the trial... why would he even bother kissing her ..... ???
I would have imaged that someone with the sexual deviance that they say Dr Vincent Tabak had wouldn't have even bothered with foreplay, as he was supposed to be someone who like bondage type films... So why wasn't Joanna Yeates tided up and restrained?? Why would he bother with the pleasantries of kissing???
Ok, I'm sure some of you think that was just Dr Vincent Tabak answer for the court to make it sound like no sexual attack took place and it was all an accident...
But can you all honestly say what else Dr Vincent Tabak could have done according to the trial testimony and the evidence of Dr Delaney...??
Where was the DNA under Joanna Yeates finger nails from fighting off her attacker ?? Remember he has one hand around her waist and one hand either over her mouth or around her throat... How did he restrain her... Her wrists had marks upon them. That would take two hands... So where did Dr Vincent Tabak sprout 2 extra hands from???
Visualizing this attack, it seems impossible for it to happen in the manor they say it did... Without Joanna Yeates putting up some type of struggle that would leave the attacker with evidence of this assault....
Why didn't the Defence or Prosecution, ask Dr Vincent Tabak how he managed to restrain Joanna Yeates as to leave finger marks on her wrists and holding her waist and throat at the same time... Because all of these actions that left marks on Janna Yeates body had to be done whilst she was alive and the blood was still circulating around her body....
Neither the Prosecution or Defence question this implausible theory that Dr Vincent Tabak apparently did on his own.... But happily go along with it, so they have a scapegoat at trial to take the fall for the murder of Joanna Yeates (imo)
https://philpapers.org/archive/RAMTMT-4.pdf
-
None of us posting on here can say for sure whether or not Vincent Tabak was sexually experienced, or indeed, whether he liked watching porn, or whether he ever sought the services of escorts.
However, I do find it very strange that nobody ever came forward to say that he behaved inappropriately towards women. He had plenty of opportunity to do so, after all: he had female colleagues, he had female friends, he had ex-colleagues, former neighbours, university acquaintances, he knew Tanja's friends. I find it hard to believe that Joanna Yeates was the first woman he ever "tried it on" with.
Which is why I cannot believe he did, guilty plea or no guilty plea.
-
None of us posting on here can say for sure whether or not Vincent Tabak was sexually experienced, or indeed, whether he liked watching porn, or whether he ever sought the services of escorts.
However, I do find it very strange that nobody ever came forward to say that he behaved inappropriately towards women. He had plenty of opportunity to do so, after all: he had female colleagues, he had female friends, he had ex-colleagues, former neighbours, university acquaintances, he knew Tanja's friends. I find it hard to believe that Joanna Yeates was the first woman he ever "tried it on" with.
Which is why I cannot believe he did, guilty plea or no guilty plea.
Indeed mrswah.... But as I was using Sally Ranages papers were she states that Dr Vincent Tabak was a virgin before he met Tanja.. I assumed that him risking his relationship with her by visiting prostitutes and the like, seems ridiculous... Therefore only having one sexual partner, for a couple of years would count for Dr Vincent Tabak's lack of sexual experience....(imo)
Unless you believe that Sally Ramage is mistaken in her statement...
-
Sally Ramage...
I felt that because people believe that the information I have used is somehow wrong... i would bring forward Sally Ramage and her accreditations, for people to have an understanding of where she stands in the legal field...
LinkedIn
Sally Ramage
Chief EDITOR: Criminal Lawyer; Current Criminal Law; STATUTE ANNOTATER ; CORPORATE CRIME LAW WRITER; TM UK, US, INDIA.
Bloomsbury Professional LLM, University of Staffordshire
Birmingham, United Kingdom 500+ 500+ connections
As the overwhelming value of most early-stage companies resides in their intellectual assets, IPFrontline is the publication whose legal content on IP is second to none.
LexisNexis® and ThomsonReuters are both leading global providers of content-enabled workflow solutions to professionals in law firms, corporations, government, law enforcement, tax, accounting, academic institutions and risk and compliance assessment.
Specialties: conflict management, content management, fax, criminal law, marketing, Netscape enterprise server, networking, police, research, writing,
More on sally Ramage.....
SALLY RAMAGE
Main Details
Full name SALLY RAMAGE
Country United Kingdom
Primary language English
Specialist areas
EDITOR, JOURNALS, Criminal law; family law; finance
Editorial work News writing, Features writing, Editing, Sub-editing, Radio
Last updated 10-07-2012 17:41
Articles published for Westlaw the legal data base for lawyers.... I have only copied five there are 216 articles that published... And many other books etc.....
Articles published in WESTLAW legal database for lawyers
1. Whitney Houston dies: now follow the money
Citation: Crim. L.N. 2012, 41(Mar), 2-6
Subject: Intellectual property; Arts and culture
Keywords: Copyright; Musical works; Royalties
Documents: Legal Journals Index Abstract
2. The trial of Vincent Tabak for the murder of Joanna Yeates
Citation: Crim. L.N. 2012, 39(Jan), 2-50
Subject: Criminal procedure; Criminal evidence
Keywords: Expert evidence; Juries; Murder; Witness statements
Documents: Legal Journals Index Abstract
3. Preserving legal privilege and employing a PR professional while your client is being investigated or prosecuted
Citation: Crim. Law. 2012, 206, 3-5
Subject: Legal profession; Criminal procedure
Keywords: Clients; Criminal investigations; Legal professional privilege; Public relations
Documents: Full Text Article, Legal Journals Index Abstract
4. Identification: Investigation, Trial and Scientific Evidence (Publication Review)
Citation: Crim. Law. 2012, 206, 6
Subject: Criminal evidence
Documents: Full Text Article, Legal Journals Index Abstract
5. Forensic Medicine in Western Society: A History (Publication Review)
Citation: Crim. Law. 2012, 206, 7
Subject: Criminal evidence; Police
Documents: Full Text Article, Legal Journals Index Abstract
Then we have .....
The Criminal Lawyer newsletter is published six times a year to keep the busy criminal law practitioner up-to-date with recent changes and developments in criminal law. Each issue contains a news review, articles on recent legislation and signficant cases, as well as a page set aside for points in practice. ISSN: 09567429
(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR0_8bELYvOwy6-mG3OavYYF-lI2Rk4q4ciYplZwH28ujr88SxZ)
Current Issues in English Criminal Law This book contains the latest in English criminal law. It is written in the style of nine essays on current issues in English criminal law.
She has her own site http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/
SALLY RAMAGE
Editor of The Criminal Lawyer, Bloomsbury Professional, UK; annotator in Current Law Statutes
Verified email at law-office.co.uk - Homepage
criminal lawcorporate crimeprison lawhuman rights
Here are the first page of 20 of some titles...
Comprehensive functional analysis of Mycobacterium tuberculosis toxin-antitoxin systems: implications for pathogenesis, stress responses, and evolution
HR Ramage, LE Connolly, JS Cox
PLoS genetics 5 (12), e1000767 388 2009
Explaining criminal careers: Implications for justice policy
JF MacLeod, PG Grove, DP Farrington
Oxford University Press 34 2014
The financial crisis and white collar crime: The perfect storm?
N Ryder
Edward Elgar Publishing 16 2014
Abuse of process in criminal proceedings
D Corker, MA Summers, D Young
Butterworths 10 2003
The Guyana Court of Appeal
B Ramcharan
Cavendish Publishing 4 2001
English prison law
S Ramage
iUniverse 3 2009
Johnson's Dictionary
D Dabydeen
Peepal Tree 2 2013
Information technology facilitating money laundering
S Ramage
Information & Communications Technology Law 21 (3), 269-282 2 2012
Covert surveillance'
S Ramage
Criminal Lawyer 181, 2 2 2008
The Tottenham riots in August 2011
S Ramage
Criminal Law News, 2-5 1 2011
Fraud Investigation: Criminal Procedure and Investigation
S Ramage
iUniverse 1 2009
A Comparative Analysis of Corporate Fraud: Fraud Law: Book Four
S Ramage
iUniverse 1 2006
SSRN Abstract Database Search Results
ID Forgot
1
Book review:'The law relating to financial crime in the United Kingdom '
S Ramage
2017
Analysis of R v H 2014
S Ramage
2017
Miscarriage of jstice
SS Ramage
2017
Genetics crime and justice, Edward elgar 2015
S Ramage
2016
Cold case: the 1994 death of British MP Stephen David Wyatt Milligan
S Ramage
2016
Critical analysis of case R v H [2015]
S Ramage
2015
Criminal Law Journals Chief Editor
S Ramage
2015
Articles 1–20
I believe that Sally Ramages credentials speak for themselves and I have no reason not to believe what she has written about Dr Vincent Tabak and The Joanna Yeates case being untrue or incorrect... I have referred to The Sally Ramage Papers on numerous occasion for the information on this case.... And will continue to do so...
Otherwise someone provide me with all the evidence ...all the trial transcripts that 1300 page document and all of the witness statement read out at trial, so I can cross reference everything myself....
Other than that... I believe Sally Ramage is in the best position to give us the information we know from trial.... And have been lead to believe that she actually attended the trial itself....
I hope Sally doesn't mind me posting this....
https://freelanceprofiles.responsesource.com/journalist/QXLLT/SALLY-RAMAGE
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=nvY3qJcAAAAJ&hl=en
https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Criminal_Lawyer.html?id=5HMsQAAACAAJ&source=kp_cover&redir_esc=y
https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Current_Issues_in_English_Criminal_Law.html?id=aRBXlFExrtQC&source=kp_cover&redir_esc=y
https://www.linkedin.com/in/criminallawyer1/
-
None of us posting on here can say for sure whether or not Vincent Tabak was sexually experienced, or indeed, whether he liked watching porn, or whether he ever sought the services of escorts.
However, I do find it very strange that nobody ever came forward to say that he behaved inappropriately towards women. He had plenty of opportunity to do so, after all: he had female colleagues, he had female friends, he had ex-colleagues, former neighbours, university acquaintances, he knew Tanja's friends. I find it hard to believe that Joanna Yeates was the first woman he ever "tried it on" with.
Which is why I cannot believe he did, guilty plea or no guilty plea.
Hi Mrswah,
I can see your point about this but I would suggest a different point of view.
If we momentarily accept the evidence of the pornography on his computer and his visiting the prostitutes then could this not be seen as a kind of escalation. He goes from the imaginary experience that porn provides to the simulated experience with a prostitute. Perhaps this lead to an increase in confidence and desire. When he finds himself in Joanna's flat he sees an opportunity and tries to capitalise on it but it goes wrong, he panics and the worst happens. I admit that I haven't looked deeply into the porn/prostitute allegations but this is at least a scenario that makes some kind of sense.
I can't agree with your "he hasn't done anything like it before therefore he must be innocent" assertion because there is a first time for everything. And I certainly don't think that he never tried it on with anyone outweighs an un-retracted confession.
Isn't it also possible that other women did come forward with stories about Vincent that were not taken to trial because they already had his guilty plea and so did not feel the need to present this evidence?
-
Hi Mrswah,
I can see your point about this but I would suggest a different point of view.
If we momentarily accept the evidence of the pornography on his computer and his visiting the prostitutes then could this not be seen as a kind of escalation. He goes from the imaginary experience that porn provides to the simulated experience with a prostitute. Perhaps this lead to an increase in confidence and desire. When he finds himself in Joanna's flat he sees an opportunity and tries to capitalise on it but it goes wrong, he panics and the worst happens. I admit that I haven't looked deeply into the porn/prostitute allegations but this is at least a scenario that makes some kind of sense.
I can't agree with your "he hasn't done anything like it before therefore he must be innocent" assertion because there is a first time for everything. And I certainly don't think that he never tried it on with anyone outweighs an un-retracted confession.
Isn't it also possible that other women did come forward with stories about Vincent that were not taken to trial because they already had his guilty plea and so did not feel the need to present this evidence?
His Guilty Plea meant nothing once he went to trial.... I believe that that was put aside and the Jury only had the evidence that was presented at trial...
The Guilty Plea was not accepted... The only choice the jury had was to find him either Guilty of Murder or Not guilty of murder... Otherwise the fact he had plead guilty in May 2011 would have been entered into evidence... This was NOT!!
If the jury had found him not guilty I believe Dr Vincent Tabak would have walked away a free man as the guilty plea was not applicable...
So nothing that was said at trial implicated Dr Vincent Tabak apart from some half baked story.. There was no evidence to support this story that was told by Dr Vincent Tabak at court.....
I believe that the court would have needed to be shown the Long Lartin video where Dr Vincent Tabak pleads guilty to manslaughter...I do not believe this was ever shown to the Jury or any member of the public for that matter....
So (imo)... The Guilty plea was null and void by the time the trial started....
Therefore you would need evidence of Dr Vincent Tabak's interaction with other females who had experience of him behaving in such a manner, to support the fact that it was part of his character... (imo)
-
I believe that Sally Ramages credentials speak for themselves and I have no reason not to believe what she has written about Dr Vincent Tabak and The Joanna Yeates case being untrue or incorrect... I have referred to The Sally Ramage Papers on numerous occasion for the information on this case.... And will continue to do so...
Otherwise someone provide me with all the evidence ...all the trial transcripts that 1300 page document and all of the witness statement read out at trial, so I can cross reference everything myself....
Other than that... I believe Sally Ramage is in the best position to give us the information we know from trial.... And have been lead to believe that she actually attended the trial itself....
I hope Sally doesn't mind me posting this....
I don't want to say anything disparaging about Sally Ramage because I do not know her but I am a lot less convinced of her credentials than you are.
For instance if you go to the Westlaw Legal database and search Sally Ramage there are no articles, unless I am mistaken.
Also, with regard to "The Criminal Lawyer" it seems that she is the only person to write for it, and she is the editor plus at the bottom of the June 2017 edition it says Printed and Published by Sally Ramage. So it appears that this periodical is something she just self publishes (as with her books.) Without an editorial team can we really rely on the accuracy of her writing?
And on that point I would argue that the answer is no as we have already shown a number of ways that her article regarding Tabak is inaccurate and misleading.
I would argue that she's really not a great source of information, personally. I'd love to know if she was at the trial.
Is there a way of getting trial transcripts if you are not directly involved in the case? Would be a fascinating read.
-
His Guilty Plea meant nothing once he went to trial.... I believe that that was put aside and the Jury only had the evidence that was presented at trial...
The Guilty Plea was not accepted... The only choice the jury had was to find him either Guilty of Murder or Not guilty of murder... Otherwise the fact he had plead guilty in May 2011 would have been entered into evidence... This was NOT!!
If the jury had found him not guilty I believe Dr Vincent Tabak would have walked away a free man as the guilty plea was not applicable...
So nothing that was said at trial implicated Dr Vincent Tabak apart from some half baked story.. There was no evidence to support this story that was told by Dr Vincent Tabak at court.....
I believe that the court would have needed to be shown the Long Lartin video where Dr Vincent Tabak pleads guilty to manslaughter...I do not believe this was ever shown to the Jury or any member of the public for that matter....
So (imo)... The Guilty plea was null and void by the time the trial started....
Therefore you would need evidence of Dr Vincent Tabak's interaction with other females who had experience of him behaving in such a manner, to support the fact that it was part of his character... (imo)
Do the jury really not get to know that he pleaded guilty to manslaughter?
-
Do the jury really not get to know that he pleaded guilty to manslaughter?
Of course the jury knew he'd pleaded guilty to manslaughter----after all, we all knew, didn't we? That's what the trial was all about: WAS it manslaughter, or was it murder? There was no option of finding him not guilty full stop, as he had already admitted to manslaughter. Good thing I wasn't on the jury----but then, I suppose, with my views, I wouldn't have got that far, LOL!
Sally Ramage did attend the trial, so I have been told by a reliable source. I don't know much about her. I know she has written several books, and it seems she is well qualified in the law. Actually, she never says that she thinks Vincent Tabak is innocent, and I have no idea whether or not she does think that. She does, however, highlight what she thinks was wrong with his trial.
As you say, Baz, perhaps various women did come forward with complaints about Vincent's behaviour towards women. If they did, I am very surprised that at least some of this was not picked up by the newspapers. This kind of info would have bolstered the prosecution's case far better (IMO) than vague stories about American escorts (who may or may not have existed, and who were never traced by the police), and so called "evidence" from VT's computers, which needed to have been seen by the defence as well as by the prosecution to appear credible. After all, anyone could borrow my computer and say there was porn on it. There might be, and there might not be-----who would know for sure?
-
Of course the jury knew he'd pleaded guilty to manslaughter----after all, we all knew, didn't we? That's what the trial was all about: WAS it manslaughter, or was it murder? There was no option of finding him not guilty full stop, as he had already admitted to manslaughter. Good thing I wasn't on the jury----but then, I suppose, with my views, I wouldn't have got that far, LOL!
I did think it sounded strange that the jury wouldn't know this. It would make his lawyers' defense ("I'm not trying to convince you he's a good guy" very odd.
Sally Ramage did attend the trial, so I have been told by a reliable source. I don't know much about her. I know she has written several books, and it seems she is well qualified in the law. Actually, she never says that she thinks Vincent Tabak is innocent, and I have no idea whether or not she does think that. She does, however, highlight what she thinks was wrong with his trial.
If she was at the trial it makes her mistakes even odder, to me. Why would she say Brotherton didn't testify if she was there and heard him testify without any explanation? As for her qualifications... I can't find where she says she received her qualifications. I'm just not convinced she's a reliable source. I apologise in advance if I am wrong.
As you say, Baz, perhaps various women did come forward with complaints about Vincent's behaviour towards women. If they did, I am very surprised that at least some of this was not picked up by the newspapers. This kind of info would have bolstered the prosecution's case far better (IMO) than vague stories about American escorts (who may or may not have existed, and who were never traced by the police), and so called "evidence" from VT's computers, which needed to have been seen by the defence as well as by the prosecution to appear credible. After all, anyone could borrow my computer and say there was porn on it. There might be, and there might not be-----who would know for sure?
True, we probably would have heard if there were numerous accusations of creepy behaviour from other women. He pleaded guilty to the computer crimes, so I think it's safe to say he was responsible for the presence of the disturbing images.
Can I ask Mrswah, why you think he pleaded guilty and has not protested his innocence? I have never had a reasonable answer to this.
-
I doubt if I am going to give you a "reasonable answer" either, Baz, but I will give you an answer, for what it's worth. I will not be at all offended if you don't agree with me either, as hardly anyone does!
I suspect that VT was questioned non-stop until he went somewhat mad, OR drugged in prison, OR told he had done things that he hadn't done----until he came to believe this himself. He may well be mentally ill. I think, at the time he pleaded guilty, he probably did believe he had killed Jo. For all I know, he still might think so.
Why doesn't he protest his innocence now? I think he probably believes he is guilty, OR he is too depressed/ill to care. He has lost his girlfriend and his career, so perhaps he cannot face a long appeals process. Who knows? Perhaps he no longer cares what happens to him. I would imagine prison life is a nightmare to him----possibly, he half thinks he's dreaming it, who knows?
If he is now mentally ill, the fact that he is of above average intelligence won't do very much for him.
I have tried to contact him-----he has not said he does not want to hear from me: he just says nothing at all. No response. He might be dead, for all I know.
On the other hand, you, John, and all the other people who believe that he wouldn't have pleaded guilty unless he actually was guilty might be right, and (as I'm always saying), I might be wrong.
-
Well Baz...
Everyone in the country should be tickerty boo with our justice system, if this trial has anything to go by.... A Defence Council who never Defended their Client... A judge who ignored, the badgering of said Defendant..
A jury that was mislead and told untruths.... CCTV that was never used to establish who was on Canygne Road over that weekend... which also this said CCTV should have had the last images of Joanna Yeates upon it if she had indeed reached home... But Colin Port says at the Leveson the last known images of Joanna Yeates was at the hophouse pub... Clearly telling us she never reached her home...
Flat 1.. That was tampered with evidence in Flat 1, to the point of laughability when they go as far as painting the kitchen tiles for us all to see...
DRA Builders... who have no forensic experience, but were used......their forensic protocol going out of the window, as they rip gaffer tape with their teeth and have Forensic Gloves on with a huge hole in the fingers whilst wiping their noses and constantly putting their hands in their grubby pockets ...
Tanja Morson being mentioned over 30 times in court and her text responses to Dr Vincent Tabak, yet she was not called as a witness nor did she provide a statement to the court... (That being illegal as far as i am aware)... she should have either attended or provided confirmation to the court....
No Psychiatric Evaluation of Dr Vincent Tabak ever being presented in court....
The Judge adding 5 more years to Dr Vincent Tabak sentence, when the aggravating factors didn't come under the laws guidance for these factors..
No good character evidence being given in Dr Vincent Tabak's defence....
No application for bail being entered into...
20 witness's that didn't appear in court, but had there statements read out to the jury...
No proper cross examination of witness's.....
If this is your idea of Justice and a fair and right trial that proves a defendant guilty of a Crime... All I can really say is our country is in a sorry state of affairs... And as we have seen they have gotten away with these actions and no-one gives a flying fig about it...
No-one then has the right to complain if this unjust tactic is served upon them or any of their relatives, because everyone basically has condoned the actions of The Judge, The Prosecution and The Defence in this case..
I for one do not need to prove whether you think Sally Ramage is qualified or not... Even without her paper, it is clear to see the "Miscarriage of Justice " that has happened in this case...
Like leonora has said time and time again... This was a show trial..... not only that i will add ... they appear to be playing parts from any tv show or sitcom and pull it together to create what they deem as a trial....
I still cannot get past the fact I had seen DCI Phil Jones before I ever saw him at the media conferences... Also one of the detectives accompanying Rebecca Scott to court looks familiar... It's like they are actors and have had bit part in something... Thats what I get from them.... We also have DCI Phil Jones LinkedIn picture from Points West that doesn't look like the DCI Jones we Know....
So if this was made up of actors... was the jury real everyday people, that had genuinely been picked for jury service.... What was this appalling trial about??
You may think I sound mad... But not half as mad as the protocol and disregarding of laws that happened in this case... To put a Placid Dutchman away for life, without any evidence to back up what he said at trial....
Edit.... I will add that they all knew that Dr Vincent Tabak was Innocent... They would not have so flagrantly ignored the law and it's protocols, if Dr Vincent Tabak could appeal against a loop hole within the law and find a way in which his conviction could be quashed...
Why would they make everything so obvious as for someone like me who has no experience can see what they did....
Would they really want a killer on the streets through there lack of protocol, there disregard for the law and their client... I do not believe so...
That should tell everyone that Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent of this crime... and there is another reason that they put him away for life... The real Killer had some kind of immunity (imo) and maybe like people have suggested... Dr Vincent Tabak is in Holland... on some kind of deal.... But that doesnt take away the fact that they took the complete PI out of our system that is there for us to rely upon when we had real villians about in the community....
Do not know what their game was... But they must think the public completely stupid to fall for that outrage....!!!
-
I doubt if I am going to give you a "reasonable answer" either, Baz, but I will give you an answer, for what it's worth. I will not be at all offended if you don't agree with me either, as hardly anyone does!
I suspect that VT was questioned non-stop until he went somewhat mad, OR drugged in prison, OR told he had done things that he hadn't done----until he came to believe this himself. He may well be mentally ill. I think, at the time he pleaded guilty, he probably did believe he had killed Jo. For all I know, he still might think so.
Why doesn't he protest his innocence now? I think he probably believes he is guilty, OR he is too depressed/ill to care. He has lost his girlfriend and his career, so perhaps he cannot face a long appeals process. Who knows? Perhaps he no longer cares what happens to him. I would imagine prison life is a nightmare to him----possibly, he half thinks he's dreaming it, who knows?
If he is now mentally ill, the fact that he is of above average intelligence won't do very much for him.
I have tried to contact him-----he has not said he does not want to hear from me: he just says nothing at all. No response. He might be dead, for all I know.
On the other hand, you, John, and all the other people who believe that he wouldn't have pleaded guilty unless he actually was guilty might be right, and (as I'm always saying), I might be wrong.
Thanks for the response. I enjoyed reading it. I can see, from a certain perspective, that is one way to reason out how someone can be forced to plead guilty o a crime they didn't commit. There are certainly plenty of examples of false confessions. But, for me, your answer is more than a simple false confession. For instance, from what I have read, false confessions are usually given to the interviewers in a desperate attempt to end an interrogation not in a private meeting with a prison chaplain. If he had been somehow drugged or tortured into lying wouldn't those around him have a noticed a change in his behaviour?
Also, why is it believable that a man who has shown no sign of mental illness previously would so suddenly develop such an acute case that he can believe he has murdered when he has not but you are unwilling to believe that a man can be a killer without showing any previous behaviour to point to this possibility? (Does that make sense? I think I confused myself even whilst writing it!) Surely there would be some indiciators of mental illness/deviant behaviour that we can point to in hindsight (eg the pornography!) but I see nothing to indicate fragile mental health. Also, and this may be naive, but why would all the people it would take in all those different departments and places all agree to drug him/torture him etc to get a lie?
I did read your attempts to get in touch, and I am tempted to try myself. I did some research and the find a prisoner government site requires that I indicate my reason for wanting to find him... what did you say? I think I will say "Interested in initiating a correspondence" Did you provide his date of birth as requested (and can I have it so I can make a request?)
-
Like leonora has said time and time again... This was a show trial..... not only that i will add ... they appear to be playing parts from any tv show or sitcom and pull it together to create what they deem as a trial....
I still cannot get past the fact I had seen DCI Phil Jones before I ever saw him at the media conferences... Also one of the detectives accompanying Rebecca Scott to court looks familiar... It's like they are actors and have had bit part in something... Thats what I get from them.... We also have DCI Phil Jones LinkedIn picture from Points West that doesn't look like the DCI Jones we Know....
So if this was made up of actors... was the jury real everyday people, that had genuinely been picked for jury service.... What was this appalling trial about??
You may think I sound mad... But not half as mad as the protocol and disregarding of laws that happened in this case... To put a Placid Dutchman away for life, without any evidence to back up what he said at trial....
Honestly, and respectfully, the idea that they used actors as the police and the jury does sound a little mad.
-
Honestly, and respectfully, the idea that they used actors as the police and the jury does sound a little mad.
Yes quite honestly it does Baz......
But doesn't the fact they tampered with the evidence and didn't use proper protocol sound even more ridiculous to you????
I could say a pig flew past my window Baz.... Wouldn't change the fact that they didn't follow the law.... And made complete utter fools out of the entire country..... who they expect to uphold the laws of this land....
The respect that I was taught as a young girl for the laws of this land has flown past the window with the pig... I have never felt so distrushut upl of our system as I do today....
And that is something they will have a hard time changing... That case made a laughing stock of our Judicial System... And there must be many who hold our system dear who feel utter shame!!! (imo)
-
Yes quite honestly it does Baz......
But doesn't the fact they tampered with the evidence and didn't use proper protocol sound even more ridiculous to you????
No it doesn't, sorry.
In fact evidence tampering, if there were any, would make a hell of a lot more sense in trying to wrongly convict someone than hiring professional actors to play the police and jury!
-
No it doesn't, sorry.
In fact evidence tampering, if there were any, would make a hell of a lot more sense in trying to wrongly convict someone than hiring professional actors to play the police and jury!
And there you have it... Someone who believes evidence tampering to convict someone is "A" ok.....
It would make more sense.. "that evidence tampering may have happened".... Try did happen.. if the images of Flat 1 are anything to go by....
I do not understand why no-one takes this cases seriously..... bar a few.....
Circles I go round in Circles... No-one will ever do anything about this .. thats for sure..... And when we go back to the good old days of rioting on the streets... you can tell them that it 'A" ok... because the law doesn't give a F*** anymore.... You can make your own laws up as you go along.... As long as you can convince a Jury that it's "A" ok!!!
-
I do not think it is ok to tamper with evidence to convict someone. Please do not misrepresent what I say.
-
Hi Mrswah,
I can see your point about this but I would suggest a different point of view.
If we momentarily accept the evidence of the pornography on his computer and his visiting the prostitutes then could this not be seen as a kind of escalation. He goes from the imaginary experience that porn provides to the simulated experience with a prostitute. Perhaps this lead to an increase in confidence and desire. When he finds himself in Joanna's flat he sees an opportunity and tries to capitalise on it but it goes wrong, he panics and the worst happens. I admit that I haven't looked deeply into the porn/prostitute allegations but this is at least a scenario that makes some kind of sense.
I can't agree with your "he hasn't done anything like it before therefore he must be innocent" assertion because there is a first time for everything. And I certainly don't think that he never tried it on with anyone outweighs an un-retracted confession.
Isn't it also possible that other women did come forward with stories about Vincent that were not taken to trial because they already had his guilty plea and so did not feel the need to present this evidence?
Regardless of what Mrswah accepts or does not accept, there was NO EVIDENCE of porn or prostitutes. Please remember that in one of his more lucid moments, the judge told the jury must base their verdict on the evidence that they heard, and nothing else. You and mrswah and the rest of the world may pass judgement that is based on hearsay, but it is just that. There is no doubt that porn exists and that prostitutes do ply the hotel bedrooms of California, but allegations that VT viewed porn and paid prostitutes were and remain hearsay.
No witness was ever identified who could testify to the viewing of porn by the defendant on a computer, nor were any affidavits by any of the prostitutes ever referred to by the lawyers who made these allegations (under the protection of the court), nor by any of the journalists who faithfully reproduced them without stating that these allegations were hearsay. It is an astonishing "oversight". Regardless of whether it was brought before the jury or not, the absence of these guarantees that there were evidence, rather than mere hearsay, makes any discussion of VT's private sexual behaviour (other than his own testimony under oath) futile, very offensive, unserious, and suggestive of somene who prefers to believe what they want to believe, rather than a contribution to an understanding what what really happened.
-
For Baz http://wlv.openrepository.com/wlv/bitstream/2436/14408/2/Ramage%20MPhil%20thesis%202007.pdf
-
No it doesn't, sorry.
In fact evidence tampering, if there were any, would make a hell of a lot more sense in trying to wrongly convict someone than hiring professional actors to play the police and jury!
The importance of the tampering of the evidence in what we know as Flat 1 is crucial to the Prosecution and The ill written words of The defence...
If I have shown on numerous occasions, the work that was done in Flat 1 before the jury arrived to view it, then that should cause concern.... I'll refer back to the tiles painting of the kitchen window sill....
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg418939#msg418939
Image comes from Daily Mail UPDATED: 11:46, 20 October 2011 which when they took the image is not known, because by the time we have the jury visit the window sill is fully painted.. image attached .Also the air vent is not broken... but by the time the Jury see it the Air vent is Broken having only one half of it in place .....
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/19/article-2050880-0E58081400000578-386_634x417.jpg)
If we can see that these tiles have been painted for what ever purpose... Then why do we believe Clegg's opening statement....
The kitchen blind was broken and so stayed up all the time, as Greg Reardon had
confirmed.
This being pivitol in Dr Vincent Tabak being able to gain entry to Joanna Yeates Flat, as she was apparently inviting Dr Vincent Tabak in to her home.... And he apparently saw Joanna Yeates through her kitchen window... I do not believe this !!!!
If we cannot trust the evidence and integrity of the Flat itself... How can we trust what was supposed to have taken place.... There was NO FORCE ENTRY.... Yet we have tile painting instead....
No jury if they had been aware of the tampering of this Flat would have believed anything that the prosecution had claimed, as the evidence of this tampering is only too clear to see by all....
Who ever wrote Dr Vincent Tabak's "Court Lines".. failed to check anything in regards to this case... As not only did Clegg have his client in his own residence until 9:29pm on Friday 17th December 2010.. He failed to point out the tampering that had taken place......
But he took the word of a man simply because he was the partner of the victim, without establishing if what this man was saying was the truth.... Nothing established this man's testimony apart from himself... And Clegg with his vast experience shouldn't take one mans word against another... Court is about proving the facts,....
And nothing was there to prove that the Blind in Flat 1 was actually broken.... And nothing to prove that the people who painted the tiles in the kitchen window around the time of the the tile painting didn't actually brake this Blind themselves....
And with that I would have thought the case would and should have collapsed... You can't tamper with a Crime Scene!!!
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/vincent-tabak-trial-jury-visits-flat-int-interior-of-news-footage/656494322
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
For Baz http://wlv.openrepository.com/wlv/bitstream/2436/14408/2/Ramage%20MPhil%20thesis%202007.pdf
Thanks for the link. Have to admit I haven't read the whole thesis but I skimmed a few pages. Not sure how relevant a masters in philosophy is when questioning someone's legal credentials. Perhaps her undergraduate degree was in law.
-
The importance of the tampering of the evidence in what we know as Flat 1 is crucial to the Prosecution and The ill written words of The defence...
If I have shown on numerous occasions, the work that was done in Flat 1 before the jury arrived to view it, then that should cause concern.... I'll refer back to the tiles painting of the kitchen window sill....
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg418939#msg418939
Image comes from Daily Mail UPDATED: 11:46, 20 October 2011 which when they took the image is not known, because by the time we have the jury visit the window sill is fully painted.. image attached .Also the air vent is not broken... but by the time the Jury see it the Air vent is Broken having only one half of it in place .....
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/19/article-2050880-0E58081400000578-386_634x417.jpg)
If we can see that these tiles have been painted for what ever purpose... Then why do we believe Clegg's opening statement....
This being pivitol in Dr Vincent Tabak being able to gain entry to Joanna Yeates Flat, as she was apparently inviting Dr Vincent Tabak in to her home.... And he apparently saw Joanna Yeates through her kitchen window... I do not believe this !!!!
If we cannot trust the evidence and integrity of the Flat itself... How can we trust what was supposed to have taken place.... There was NO FORCE ENTRY.... Yet we have tile painting instead....
No jury if they had been aware of the tampering of this Flat would have believed anything that the prosecution had claimed, as the evidence of this tampering is only too clear to see by all....
Who ever wrote Dr Vincent Tabak's "Court Lines".. failed to check anything in regards to this case... As not only did Clegg have his client in his own residence until 9:29pm on Friday 17th December 2010.. He failed to point out the tampering that had taken place......
But he took the word of a man simply because he was the partner of the victim, without establishing if what this man was saying was the truth.... Nothing established this man's testimony apart from himself... And Clegg with his vast experience shouldn't take one mans word against another... Court is about proving the facts,....
And nothing was there to prove that the Blind in Flat 1 was actually broken.... And nothing to prove that the people who painted the tiles in the kitchen window around the time of the the tile painting didn't actually brake this Blind themselves....
And with that I would have thought the case would and should have collapsed... You can't tamper with a Crime Scene!!!
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/vincent-tabak-trial-jury-visits-flat-int-interior-of-news-footage/656494322
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
I don't think the tiles are painted. It looks like something in the reflection of the window to me.
-
Regardless of what Mrswah accepts or does not accept, there was NO EVIDENCE of porn or prostitutes. Please remember that in one of his more lucid moments, the judge told the jury must base their verdict on the evidence that they heard, and nothing else. You and mrswah and the rest of the world may pass judgement that is based on hearsay, but it is just that. There is no doubt that porn exists and that prostitutes do ply the hotel bedrooms of California, but allegations that VT viewed porn and paid prostitutes were and remain hearsay.
No witness was ever identified who could testify to the viewing of porn by the defendant on a computer, nor were any affidavits by any of the prostitutes ever referred to by the lawyers who made these allegations (under the protection of the court), nor by any of the journalists who faithfully reproduced them without stating that these allegations were hearsay. It is an astonishing "oversight". Regardless of whether it was brought before the jury or not, the absence of these guarantees that there were evidence, rather than mere hearsay, makes any discussion of VT's private sexual behaviour (other than his own testimony under oath) futile, very offensive, unserious, and suggestive of somene who prefers to believe what they want to believe, rather than a contribution to an understanding what what really happened.
Didn't he plead guilty to the porn charges when the case came to court?
-
Yes he did plead guilty, but what was the point in not doing? The sentence, if you could call it that, would run concurrently whilst he was already in prison and might gain him category C status, away from the rest of the morons he’s had to put up with. Cat C prisoners may be nonces, but often they are educated nonces, not your average dipstick and are less prone to violent unprovoked outbursts.
-
Yes he did plead guilty, but what was the point in not doing? The sentence, if you could call it that, would run concurrently whilst he was already in prison and might gain him category C status, away from the rest of the morons he’s had to put up with. Cat C prisoners may be nonces, but often they are educated nonces, not your average dipstick and are less prone to violent unprovoked outbursts.
I guess that's a possibility.
It does seem strange to me that people here seem to think that Tabak's guilty pleas come about for every reason other than "because he did it!!"
-
Yes he did plead guilty, but what was the point in not doing? The sentence, if you could call it that, would run concurrently whilst he was already in prison and might gain him category C status, away from the rest of the morons he’s had to put up with. Cat C prisoners may be nonces, but often they are educated nonces, not your average dipstick and are less prone to violent unprovoked outbursts.
I wonder , what was the point of putting him on the sex offenders' register, since this will have expired by the time he comes out of prison. He is not likely to commit any offences against children, or against anyone else if he is in prison now, is he, unless he is going to attack another inmate, which I somehow doubt.
Why try him for "indecent images" all that time later? Well, he MIGHT actually be guilty (even I don't discount this completely). On the other hand, I am a cynic, and let's just suggest that it might have been done just in case the stitches started to unravel at some point.
-
I guess that's a possibility.
It does seem strange to me that people here seem to think that Tabak's guilty pleas come about for every reason other than "because he did it!!"
Why do you assume that people who plead guilty have necessarily "done it"???
-
Why do you assume that people who plead guilty have necessarily "done it"???
I'm not quite sure what to say to that. I guess it feels to me that it's just logical that (at least) the large majority of people that plead guilty do so because they are. I guess in the States people might plead guilty to avoid a likely death sentence but I can't think of a good reason to do so here. In what situation do you think that you would admit to murder when you hadn't committed the crime?
I'm wracking my brain and but I can't think of any proven miscarriage of justice i which the person pleaded guilty in a court of law.
-
Didn't he plead guilty to the porn charges when the case came to court?
You can be forgiven for not having all the "facts" of this case at your fingertips, but this discussion has been somewhat derailed. To clarify: two different porn allegations were made public - adult porn, and child porn. We haven't previously used the word "adult", because it was clear from the context what was intended. Furthermore, there were allegations relating to prostitutes. These belong together with the adult porn, since in neither case was there any suggestion of any law being broken.
The child porn would have been illegal, had it existed. Vincent Tabak did indeed plead guilty to the charge of possessing illegal child images, or at least the media reported that he did. Whether you think his trial and conviction for this offence, several years after his conviction for the murder of Joanna Yeates, is weird, seems to depend on how credulous you are. Once again, no witness was produced to testify under oath that these illegal images had actually been found on his computer. None of the news media found this odd - but I do. Any normal defence counsel would have challenged the prosecution to produce this witness right from the start.
I don't want to spend time on this issue, as some people will consider it speculative. What is 100 percent certain, however, is that NEITHER the child porn NOR the adult porn (and associate prostitute trysts) could have existed at all. If police really had found illegal child porn on his computer, then they could have produced it during the murder trial as inescapable evidence of his bad character. There would have been no need for the lawyers to waste time arguing backwards and forwards, repeatedly, about whether to tell the jury about the adult porn and the prostitutes, as they evidently did, if the prosecution already had such strong evidence of bad character to produce against him. Therefore, this evidence did not exist, and therefore the adult porn and the prostitutes also had to be equally phoney.
-
I'm not quite sure what to say to that. I guess it feels to me that it's just logical that (at least) the large majority of people that plead guilty do so because they are. I guess in the States people might plead guilty to avoid a likely death sentence but I can't think of a good reason to do so here. In what situation do you think that you would admit to murder when you hadn't committed the crime?
I'm wracking my brain and but I can't think of any proven miscarriage of justice i which the person pleaded guilty in a court of law.
I would agree with you that most people who plead guilty probably are guilty, but I'm sure there are exceptions.
In what situation might I admit to a crime that I hadn't done? Well, I sincerely hope I am never put to the test. However, if I had undergone several days of relentless questioning, gone without sleep, and had perhaps been given medication too, I might go slightly mad, especially if it was my first time in custody, and I could hardly believe what was happening to me.
Also, if I knew that somebody on the outside might threaten me or my family if I didn't plead guilty, I might conclude that a prison sentence was preferable to spending the rest of my life in fear that I, or a member of my family might be "bumped off".
But then, I'm a bit of a coward, AND I have a very vivid imagination!
-
You can be forgiven for not having all the "facts" of this case at your fingertips, but this discussion has been somewhat derailed. To clarify: two different porn allegations were made public - adult porn, and child porn. We haven't previously used the word "adult", because it was clear from the context what was intended. Furthermore, there were allegations relating to prostitutes. These belong together with the adult porn, since in neither case was there any suggestion of any law being broken.
The child porn would have been illegal, had it existed. Vincent Tabak did indeed plead guilty to the charge of possessing illegal child images, or at least the media reported that he did. Whether you think his trial and conviction for this offence, several years after his conviction for the murder of Joanna Yeates, is weird, seems to depend on how credulous you are. Once again, no witness was produced to testify under oath that these illegal images had actually been found on his computer. None of the news media found this odd - but I do. Any normal defence counsel would have challenged the prosecution to produce this witness right from the start.
I don't want to spend time on this issue, as some people will consider it speculative. What is 100 percent certain, however, is that NEITHER the child porn NOR the adult porn (and associate prostitute trysts) could have existed at all. If police really had found illegal child porn on his computer, then they could have produced it during the murder trial as inescapable evidence of his bad character. There would have been no need for the lawyers to waste time arguing backwards and forwards, repeatedly, about whether to tell the jury about the adult porn and the prostitutes, as they evidently did, if the prosecution already had such strong evidence of bad character to produce against him. Therefore, this evidence did not exist, and therefore the adult porn and the prostitutes also had to be equally phoney.
This article references the porn been shown when the jury were not there .. I don't know how the article has that date ???
CREATED: 10:27, 25 October 2011
Her reaction to news that her boyfriend was a killer with a sordid double life can only be imagined. She was not called as a trial witness and not in court to hear legal argument - without the jury - over Tabak’s internet porn obsessions.
I take from this that the porn was brought to trial..... That proves it didn't exist.... I have always said that it couldn't exist because of the 1300 page document.... The jury had a copy so did the prosecution the judge and the defence... I believe that if it existed then it would be within the pages of the 1300 page document....
Now I'm about to contradict myself.... The 1300 page document was made well before trial... And it should have had all the information relating to what they say Dr Vincent Tabak apparently did in America .. along with his internet searches for porn ..... And any supposed transactions for porn.....
I am now wondering whether or not the jury saw this information.....
They convicted Dr Vincent Tabak of murder.. there was no supporting evidence to say whether it was intentional or not...The Prosecution always maintaining that it was sexual... But.... And I am being to wonder....
Did the 1300 page document still contain the alleged searches of porn and the so called evidence of subscriptions to various websites.....
We don't KNOW.......
I have always assumed that because they argued the porn... then it couldn't be still contained within this document... But lets face it... 1300 pages is one hell of a lot of information, which was supposed to contain Joanna Yeates ... Greg Reardon... Tanaj Morson and Dr Vincent Tabaks movement .. emails texts and phone calls....
Joanna Yeates would have had very few texts and phone calls .... Greg Reardon too, as he was just a witness... Tanja Morson did not appear at trial, even though we are aware some of her texts were mentioned in court....
Which leaves Dr Vincent Tabak.... So the majority of this 1300 page document was in relation to Dr Vincent Tabak....
So what did the jury actually see within these 1300 pages of documentation???
Were the references to porn still in there ???
Were references to prostitutes still in there ????
What about the child porn ????
What was bound in this document that the jury had in their possession to take to the jury room and deliberate as to whether or not Dr Vincent Tabak was guilty???
Did they have the knowledge that was not used in evidence in this trial in the jury room before we the public were made aware of it??
It most certainly could have been still held within the 1300 page document... Lets face it Clegg was hardly gonna say anything was he .... (imo)
That 1300 page document I believe is significant.... Now where can I get my hands on it ????
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2053178/Joanna-Yeates-trial-verdict-Vincent-Tabak-guilty-murder.html#ixzz4yS40Arel
-
Replying to Leonora's last post, yes, I do think it's weird that VT was tried for possessing illegal images of children as late as 2015. If these images really existed, I cannot, for the life of me, understand why he wasn't tried for this at the same time as he was tried for the murder of Joanna.
I am very suspicious of "computer evidence"------unless it has been verified by at least one independent witness. As I have said previously, anyone can accuse anyone of having nasty or illegal material on their computer. There are far better sources of evidence: CCTV, for example (providing the images are clear, and the dates and times are accurate ), of course!
-
Looking at the difference between the two images of Dr Vincent Tabak... We have the Black and white CCTV image of Dr Vincent Tabak that was taken the day before his arrest and we had the one from when he is in custody....
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/11/01/article-2055938-0E93167700000578-429_233x297.jpg)
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/01/23/article-1349615-0CDF6F2A000005DC-371_634x431.jpg)
Is either of these images Dr Vincent Tabak??? If we accept that one is, then the other cannot be...
Dr Vincent Tabak is well groomed ordinarily... The image from When he was in custody, shows beard growth/stubble.... which of course not having access to a shave you can see why..
The CCTV image, shows he is normally clean shaven....
The length of the sideburns in the custody image are far longer than in the CCTV image... This cannot be possible.. Dr Vincent Tabak could not have grown his sideburns longer whilst he was under arrest.
If we look at this image we can see he has close cut hair by the ears...
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/03/02/0BEA54A100000578-2976490-image-m-26_1425337647379.jpg)
In the CCTV image the hair at the side of his face comes to the top of his glasses frame... But on the custody image, the sideburns are a good inch below the glasses frames...
Who is the Dr Vincent Tabak impersonator?????
-
I wish you would stick to the point. What is WEIRD is that Vincent Tabak's defence didn't challenge the very existence of the illegal child porn images - in view of the failure of the prosecution to call a witness to testify to having analysed the defendant's computer and state under oath that these image were found on it. mrswah, we don't know WHY the CPS waited several years with this prosecution, so we cannot discuss whether it was weird or whether they had some logical reason for doing this.
Nine...Again, the link you posted adds NOTHING to our knowledge about Tanja or the porn & prostitutes. We don't know WHEN these were brought before the court, because none of the news media has reported the date. This means that they must have been prohibited from EVER reporting the date. Indeed, their reporting seems deliberately intended to mislead us, perhaps because the way the reporting restrictions and their very nature were not allowed to be reported.
In the absence of clear information, we must assume that the adult porn & prostitutes were first discussed at the Old Bailey on 5 May 2011. They seem to have been discussed again, perhaps more than once, during the main period of the trial. The actual content of the discussions, and what was said by the lawyers, were reported in great detail by the local news media, and in somewhat less detail by the national media.
My guess, mrswah, would be, that the trial for the child images was delayed as long as possible, because they realised that this trial would enable "people like us" to work out, onjectively, that the failure to tell the jury about the illegal child images PROVES that neither the adult porn, the child porn or the prostitutes existed at all - they were all devices invented to blacken the defendant's character. It is one thing to "feel" subjectively that something is WEIRD - it is quite another matter to have the objective evidence for it that we have here.
-
By delaying the second trial for as long as possible, perhaps it was hoped that the general public would have forgotten the details of the first one, and merely remember that Vincent Tabak was convicted of murdering Joanna Yeates, was sentenced to life imprisonment, and therefore is a very wicked man. If that was in the forefront of people's minds, the second trial would not have seemed "weird" at all-----just exactly what VT deserved, and good on the CPS for bringing it, no matter how late. Just my opinion, of course.
I believe those who sat in the public gallery during the murder trial did hear the "bad character evidence" in the absence of the jury. I do remember one poster on the original Facebook forum saying this----although , of course, she did not reveal exactly what she had heard.
-
I'm not quite sure what to say to that. I guess it feels to me that it's just logical that (at least) the large majority of people that plead guilty do so because they are. I guess in the States people might plead guilty to avoid a likely death sentence but I can't think of a good reason to do so here. In what situation do you think that you would admit to murder when you hadn't committed the crime?
I'm wracking my brain and but I can't think of any proven miscarriage of justice i which the person pleaded guilty in a court of law.
Yes but Baz in this particular case it is clear that, in my opinion, Vincent Tabak was NOT guilty of killing Joanna Yeates at all, so you need to think a good deal harder. The course of the trial and the scale of the deception of the jury, with, amongst other things, fake evidence, proves this, both in detail and on an overall scale. We don't know what really happened, nor who else was really involved. If he had killed her somewhere other than at 44 Canynge Road, then the prosecution would have made the effort to have a much more convincing case.
There are numerous examples in fiction of persons who accepted blame for a killing to protect someone they loved, especially Agatha Christie's "Five Little Pigs". Had Vincent Tabak done this, then it would be the job of the Prosecution to expose it - not to go along with it. There is OVERWHELMING evidence that both the defendant, his defence lawyers, and the judge, were in collusion with the prosecution to ensure a guilty verdict - and the only explanation, in my opinion, HAS to be that his reward was an amnesty, a new identity, and goodness knows what else besides.
I am sure that the real killer(s) has/have already worked this out too.
-
...
I believe those who sat in the public gallery during the murder trial did hear the "bad character evidence" in the absence of the jury. I do remember one poster on the original Facebook forum saying this----although , of course, she did not reveal exactly what she had heard.
Absolutely not. They would ONLY have allowed these discussions to be heard by those whom they knew they could control - and those whom they WANTED to hear them - the press first and foremost. At the Old Bailey Joanna's parents would also have heard about the adult porn & prostitutes. So would Vt himself, but I do not believe it was he. If Noel O'Gara had been in court, he would certainly have passed on what the press was forbidden to pass on, as he is less cowed by fierce judges than us normal mortals. No one on the forum could shed any intelligent light on when the bad character evidence was discussed.
-
Absolutely not. They would ONLY have allowed these discussions to be heard by those whom they knew they could control - and those whom they WANTED to hear them - the press first and foremost. At the Old Bailey Joanna's parents would also have heard about the adult porn & prostitutes. So would Vt himself, but I do not believe it was he. If Noel O'Gara had been in court, he would certainly have passed on what the press was forbidden to pass on, as he is less cowed by fierce judges than us normal mortals. No one on the forum could shed any intelligent light on when the bad character evidence was discussed.
Well that last sentence is rather self-defeating isn't it.
Having been through Noel O'Gara's websites (about this and the Yorkshire Ripper ) I find him to be someone who makes damning assertions whilst offering no evidence to support his claims. He even goes as far as saying Greg committed the crime, as if the poor bloke hasn't been through enough already.
-
Yes but Baz in this particular case it is clear that, in my opinion, Vincent Tabak was NOT guilty of killing Joanna Yeates at all, so you need to think a good deal harder. The course of the trial and the scale of the deception of the jury, with, amongst other things, fake evidence, proves this, both in detail and on an overall scale. We don't know what really happened, nor who else was really involved. If he had killed her somewhere other than at 44 Canynge Road, then the prosecution would have made the effort to have a much more convincing case.
There are numerous examples in fiction of persons who accepted blame for a killing to protect someone they loved, especially Agatha Christie's "Five Little Pigs". Had Vincent Tabak done this, then it would be the job of the Prosecution to expose it - not to go along with it. There is OVERWHELMING evidence that both the defendant, his defence lawyers, and the judge, were in collusion with the prosecution to ensure a guilty verdict - and the only explanation, in my opinion, HAS to be that his reward was an amnesty, a new identity, and goodness knows what else besides.
I am sure that the real killer(s) has/have already worked this out too.
Examples in fiction aren't exactly helpful. And there is nothing to suggest Tabak was protecting a loved one.
Why would Vincent want amnesty and a new identity if he were innocent. How would that be an incentive to not speak out against his own conviction?
-
Looking at the difference between the two images of Dr Vincent Tabak... We have the Black and white CCTV image of Dr Vincent Tabak that was taken the day before his arrest and we had the one from when he is in custody....
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/11/01/article-2055938-0E93167700000578-429_233x297.jpg)
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/01/23/article-1349615-0CDF6F2A000005DC-371_634x431.jpg)
Is either of these images Dr Vincent Tabak??? If we accept that one is, then the other cannot be...
Dr Vincent Tabak is well groomed ordinarily... The image from When he was in custody, shows beard growth/stubble.... which of course not having access to a shave you can see why..
The CCTV image, shows he is normally clean shaven....
The length of the sideburns in the custody image are far longer than in the CCTV image... This cannot be possible.. Dr Vincent Tabak could not have grown his sideburns longer whilst he was under arrest.
If we look at this image we can see he has close cut hair by the ears...
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/03/02/0BEA54A100000578-2976490-image-m-26_1425337647379.jpg)
In the CCTV image the hair at the side of his face comes to the top of his glasses frame... But on the custody image, the sideburns are a good inch below the glasses frames...
Who is the Dr Vincent Tabak impersonator?????
The CCTV image is too low resolution to be able to analyse really. You can say it's not him because he doesn't have side burns but by that logic it can't be him because he doesn't have any eyebrows either. It's just a rubbish picture.
Comparing the two portrait pictures, well they look like the same person to me. He has put on some weight and isn't smiling, perhaps they why he looks a little different. But the practicalities of finding a double so convincing and then persuading him to be part of a cover up and then to never tell anyone.... I can't even begin to understand how that would work.
-
I would think all three pictures are of Vincent Tabak.
"Mugshots" taken in custody do tend to be unflattering, to say the least-----I'm sure we all remember Myra Hindley's!
Images from CCTV are often unclear, especially if they are recorded out of doors when it's dark.
As for the "nice" picture of VT, who knows when it was taken? It could well have been taken a few years earlier than 2010.
-
Yes but Baz in this particular case it is clear that, in my opinion, Vincent Tabak was NOT guilty of killing Joanna Yeates at all, so you need to think a good deal harder. The course of the trial and the scale of the deception of the jury, with, amongst other things, fake evidence, proves this, both in detail and on an overall scale. We don't know what really happened, nor who else was really involved. If he had killed her somewhere other than at 44 Canynge Road, then the prosecution would have made the effort to have a much more convincing case.
There are numerous examples in fiction of persons who accepted blame for a killing to protect someone they loved, especially Agatha Christie's "Five Little Pigs". Had Vincent Tabak done this, then it would be the job of the Prosecution to expose it - not to go along with it. There is OVERWHELMING evidence that both the defendant, his defence lawyers, and the judge, were in collusion with the prosecution to ensure a guilty verdict - and the only explanation, in my opinion, HAS to be that his reward was an amnesty, a new identity, and goodness knows what else besides.
I am sure that the real killer(s) has/have already worked this out too.
Personally, I cannot believe Vincent was "in collusion" with anyone to ensure a guilty verdict. I think he had long given up all hope by then, and was merely going through the motions, having been worn down by months in custody and relentless questioning-----and goodness knows what else.
Unless, of course, he was guilty, and genuinely remorseful------then he might well have felt he deserved a guilty verdict
-
Well that last sentence is rather self-defeating isn't it.
Having been through Noel O'Gara's websites (about this and the Yorkshire Ripper ) I find him to be someone who makes damning assertions whilst offering no evidence to support his claims. He even goes as far as saying Greg committed the crime, as if the poor bloke hasn't been through enough already.
You have obviously "been through" Noel O'Gara's websites so rapidly that you didn't bother to read what was in them. Contrary to what you so flagrantly assert, his analyses of crimes and the conclusions he draws are always solidly backed up by a great deal of evidence, corroborated by media accounts, police statements and other sources which may be considered to have been trustworthy. I hope the moderators will take noté of your damning, false , libellous assertion about Noel O'Gara.
Of course Greg Reardon has to be the No. 1 suspect, since we now know that Vincent Tabak was inexplicably persuaded to stand trial for a crime which the trial itself proved he did not commit. Before the moderator reaches for his/her blue pencil, I would be delighted if Greg himself, his family, or any other insider who knows more about the case than we have been able to learn from the evidence we have, would please come on to the forum and fill in just some of the gaps in our knowledge.
The big question which you, Baz, or any other person who (ignoring the massive evidence to the contrary) faithfully believes in the authenticity of the trial and the verdict, has to answer is: HOW were the police able to eliminate Greg Reardon as a suspect within three days of his 999 call? Nine days were to pass before Vincent Tabak became a suspect, according to the testimony of the officer who interviewed him in the Netherlands. During those nine days, the police wrongly arrested the landlord, but whatever else he may have done, we can be confident that Chris Jefferies did not kill Joanna Yeates.
I concede that the police knew things that we do not know, will never know, nor cannot even claim the right to know. But in those nine days, however much they knew, they cannot possibly have known enough to eliminate Greg with confidence. So why did they do so publicly? Were they lying in order to lure someone else into a false sense of security? The absence of even a false retrospective excuse for their curious behaviour is really very incriminating, both for Greg himself and the police. I too would like to eliminate Greg, but I cannot do so, even in my own mind, as long as both you and the police treat the public with so little respect. As I say, even a phoney excuse is to be preferred to the deafening silence.
-
Well that last sentence is rather self-defeating isn't it.
...
No it is not. I don't recall anyone who could state with confidence (either on the Facebook forum, or anywhere else) the date(s) when the "bad character evidence" was discussed in court. I don't believe anyone except "insiders" (including the journalists) actually know. The very fact that we don't know is itself of some significance. I am not prepared to speculate, except without very good grounds - and there ARE very good grounds for believing that a part of the discussion took place at the plea hearing, five months before the trial.
-
Personally, I cannot believe Vincent was "in collusion" with anyone to ensure a guilty verdict. I think he had long given up all hope by then, and was merely going through the motions, having been worn down by months in custody and relentless questioning-----and goodness knows what else.
Unless, of course, he was guilty, and genuinely remorseful------then he might well have felt he deserved a guilty verdict
I'm sorry mrswah, but you are posting with your good heart rather than your sound mind. If Vincent had ceased to function, as you suggest, then you may be sure that his family and his employer would have intervened to get an independent lawyer to replace Messrs Kelcey & Clegg. There is no doubt that the defence lawyers were in full control of their own actions, and in collusion with the judge and the prosecution. They did this in open court for everyone to hear. Unless the Tabaks were satisfied with these lawyers' extraordinary behaviour, they would have had the most solid grounds for sacking them. Therefore it is indisputable that the defendant and his famliy too had agreed to this collusion.
-
The big question which you, Baz, or any other person who (ignoring the massive evidence to the contrary) faithfully believes in the authenticity of the trial and the verdict, has to answer is: HOW were the police able to eliminate Greg Reardon as a suspect within three days of his 999 call? Nine days were to pass before Vincent Tabak became a suspect, according to the testimony of the officer who interviewed him in the Netherlands. During those nine days, the police wrongly arrested the landlord, but whatever else he may have done, we can be confident that Chris Jefferies did not kill Joanna Yeates.
I concede that the police knew things that we do not know, will never know, nor cannot even claim the right to know. But in those nine days, however much they knew, they cannot possibly have known enough to eliminate Greg with confidence. So why did they do so publicly? Were they lying in order to lure someone else into a false sense of security? The absence of even a false retrospective excuse for their curious behaviour is really very incriminating, both for Greg himself and the police. I too would like to eliminate Greg, but I cannot do so, even in my own mind, as long as both you and the police treat the public with so little respect. As I say, even a phoney excuse is to be preferred to the deafening silence.
You say nine days I say less..... Evidence proves that they were busy setting up the stage for Dr Vincent Tabak within days as the footage outside his residence shows, this footage was within days of Joanna Yeates been reported missing as the snow will indicate....
So why did they Zero in on Dr Vincent Tabak, before they had Eliminated Greg Reardon????
The only other option is someone else lived in Flat 2 as we know it.... Or it was Joanna Yeates ....
Dr Vincent Tabak cannot have brought any attention to himself at this time.... Was it his Flat... why did the media take footage of it at that time ?????
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/joanna-yeates-murder-trial-defendant-vincent-tabak-gives-news-footage/656385638
-
You say nine days I say less..... Evidence proves that they were busy setting up the stage for Dr Vincent Tabak within days as the footage outside his residence shows, this footage was within days of Joanna Yeates been reported missing as the snow will indicate....
Oh for goodness sake, Nine...Again - DO pay attention please. With your meticulous analysis you have been able to work this out, some six years after the trial. But the nine days is what we all thought we knew BEFORE Ann Reddrop made her remarks outside the court. There are about three people in this world who respect your research, and about 3 billion who are convinced that Vincent Tabak is guilty as charged. The police are never going to explain the huge number of anomalies that you have revealed by minute analysis of every pixel. I for one would be satisfied if they published the full text of the landlord's 2nd witness statement.
-
Oh for goodness sake, Nine...Again - DO pay attention please. With your meticulous analysis you have been able to work this out, some six years after the trial. But the nine days is what we all thought we knew BEFORE Ann Reddrop made her remarks outside the court. There are about three people in this world who respect your research, and about 3 billion who are convinced that Vincent Tabak is guilty as charged. The police are never going to explain the huge number of anomalies that you have revealed by minute analysis of every pixel. I for one would be satisfied if they published the full text of the landlord's 2nd witness statement.
I for two would be happier with someone looking at the evidence and a re-trial taking place... some proper evidence gathering and a defence Council who knows how to defend his client....
Or better still throw out this tainted conviction and actually start looking for the real killer......
I believe he is still out there.... And he knows he is..... !!!
-
Who else was in Tesco's at the time Joanna Yeates visited the store ??? We assume she went in alone, maybe she did maybe she didn't...
There are at least 3 people in the store... Joanna Yeates... The man at the till and to Joanna Yeates left, there is another person at the till being served by a Tesco's employee....
I Believe that there are only 2 self service till in that store, as I looked at the reconstruction....
Joanna Yeates may not have had an option other than to use the self service... She may have come in there with someone.. we don't know... But what we do know is that there are 2 people unaccounted for in The Tesco's express store.... Were they ever tracked down ???
Image attached and circled ....
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
No it is not. I don't recall anyone who could state with confidence (either on the Facebook forum, or anywhere else) the date(s) when the "bad character evidence" was discussed in court. I don't believe anyone except "insiders" (including the journalists) actually know. The very fact that we don't know is itself of some significance. I am not prepared to speculate, except without very good grounds - and there ARE very good grounds for believing that a part of the discussion took place at the plea hearing, five months before the trial.
Leonora (and others), take a look at the following link, and please comment on what you think "Kayleigh" heard in court. I always assumed she heard something about the "bad character evidence"------------but then, I am mrswah, and I might be wrong!!!
www.yeates-archive.livejournal.com/125700.html
-
Leonora (and others), take a look at the following link, and please comment on what you think "Kayleigh" heard in court. I always assumed she heard something about the "bad character evidence"------------but then, I am mrswah, and I might be wrong!!!
www.yeates-archive.livejournal.com/125700.html
Absolutely top marks for tracking this discussion and this poster "Kayleigh" down, mrswah! My immediate reaction is that threatening members of the public with prosecution for contempt of court for repeating verbally outside the court anything they heard inside the courtroom HAS TO BE a breach of the English constitution. Cases must be heard in open court unless the judge allows a hearing to be held behind closed doors. This is not uncommon, but I have never before heard of the public being admitted to a closed hearing and then threatened in this way.
I knew already that the public were not allowed to take written notes. That in itself was unprecedented. Therefore I am prepared to concede that this person Kayleigh may be telling the truth. What she heard may indeed have included the bad character evidence, and it may also have included details of Joanna Yeates's private life. I don't think we can do anything about this. Nor does it alter the conclusions we have already reached.
-
Leonora (and others), take a look at the following link, and please comment on what you think "Kayleigh" heard in court. I always assumed she heard something about the "bad character evidence"------------but then, I am mrswah, and I might be wrong!!!
www.yeates-archive.livejournal.com/125700.html
mrswah.... with kayleigh's comments and the comments of others, it does appear that they are talking about the porn....
Kayleigh Erin Samková
I attended this morning's session and heard a couple of the points of law, all I can say is I'm amazed at some of the stuff they're keeping from the jury and it makes me wonder how much more they've held back. Very frustrating.
last Monday · Delete Post
Caroline Louise Broome
is this 'stuff' that in your opinion would act for or against VT?
last Monday · Report
Mair Gravatt
@Kayleigh - what were these couple of points of law
last Monday · Report
Kayleigh Erin Samková
@Caroline: Almost certainly against.
@Mair: Can't say or will be in contempt of court, hopefully all points of law will be made public after the trial is over (correct me if I'm wrong)?
last Monday · Delete Post
Kayleigh Erin Samková
No problem, Dyna. It's rather maddening not being able to elaborate!
last Monday · Delete Post
Mair Gravatt
OH I see - are you a journalist\/
last Monday · Report
Caroline Louise Broome
How come they don't present this to the Jury then? Is it just so he gets a fair trial?
last Monday · Report
Sarah Ryan
@Mair Its my understanding that anyone can be in contempt of court, not just journalists.
Thank you for sharing Kayleigh.
last Monday · Report
Kayleigh Erin Samková
@Mair: Nope, turned up at 6AM and got into the public gallery.
@Caroline: It's really difficult to explain why without giving details away, but the judge concluded the jury didn't "need" to hear it.
Which brings me back to... what was in the 1300 page document?? The date on the link you give is the 25th October 2011 some of the posts say a week ago... Even if you take into account the week before... The jury still have in there possession the 1300 page document...
So you have 2 options...
(A): The Jury didn't need to hear it because it was already contained within the 1300 page document and they could read it in their delberations...
(B): The Porn never existed... It was only there for the fact that after trial they wanted to blacken Dr Vincent Tabak's character to make the public believe that he was a Nasty Man.... And his intention was sexual, everyone then could understand...
The document would be interesting to see...
Having had the 1300 page document for weeks, if there was any porn... it should have been within those pages... they obviously didn't redact the info in the document..... Did it contain references to porn, or child porn???
Or was it just a trick like all the other tricks the Prosecution used, in this trial ??? Another worrying trend that is mentioned Anne Isherwood
@Debra Yes. Points of law are only discussed between the briefs and the Judges.
last Monday · Report
Debra Ann Clements
'Kayleigh Erin Samková
I attended this morning's session and heard a couple of the points of law, all I can say is I'm amazed at some of the stuff they're keeping from the jury and it makes me wonder how much more they've held back. Very frustrating'.
I have to say that after reading the above post by Kayleigh I was somewhat perplexed, and that my immediate thoughts were that was not how I remember it, but you have now confirmed what I recall, and is why I posted my intial comment.
last Monday · Report
Is it normal for points of law to be discussed when the public and journalists are present????
http://yeates-archive.livejournal.com/125700.html
-
further down on the page...
Anne Isherwood
@Kayleigh Interesting if this was done in full hearing but it was during the defence so must have been something that the defence wanted to include that would be deemed helpful to Tabak as the prosecution case was rested.
last Tuesday ·
I can look at this in different ways... either it was something else completely... which I do not imagine it was at this point ....
Or It was Clegg who wanted the information divulged.... Because they are under the illusion that Clegg wanted to help his client... But as we know ... he only helped to bury him.....!! (imo)
Alternatively it was to stop the Defence, being able to use Good Character Evidence ???
http://yeates-archive.livejournal.com/125700.html
-
Catergory A+ DCI Phil Jones at The Leveson....
As an SIO i have led numerous Homicide investigations within a diverse range
of circumstances and communities, These investigations have varied in
complexity and have ranged from Category A+ murders such as the Joanna
Yeates investigation where the offender is unknown and there is a high level of
media interest and public concern, to Category C murders
Never really picked up on this before ....
Level4
This is aimed at the Principal Investigating Officer or Officer in Overall Command of the Investigation of critical, complex, protracted or linked serious crime (Catergory A+) or review of others crime. Accreditation at this level is still being developed nationally
From the police manual.. Category A+
A homicide or other major investigation where public concern and the associated
response to media intervention is such that normal staffing levels are not adequate
to keep pace with the investigation.
Catergory A+ For complex or linked crimes.....
Where was the evidence for this at trial?? We need to remember that DCI Phil Jones is speaking to the leveson after the trial has finished... He doesn't need to mention this fact... He does along with the trainer...
Both speaking volumes about this case.... both pointing to someone other than Dr Vincent Tabak...
Where have Avon and Somerset established that this was a complex crime or that it was a linked crime ??? They obviously have in their possession information to the fact that this crime is very different from what we have been lead to believe...
What information has Avon and Somerset Police have that proves that this investigation was nothing to do with Dr Vincent Tabak...
What have they been hiding?????
https://www.north-wales.police.uk/media/342121/professionalising-the-investigation-programme-pip-policy.pdf
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122182731/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-DCI-Phillip-Jones.pdf
-
Witness's and the Media
An SIO should consider advising each witness in writing of the danger of
jeopardising future proceedings if they discuss their evidence with a journalist, either
on promise of payment or not.
This is why I do not understand how much information was given to the media by all those witness's....
(1):Rebecca Scott, talking about Joanna Yeates coat being left in her flat as early as the 22nd December 2010..
(2):The information that CJ saw people on the path..
(3):The information that Greg had help with his car
(4):The showing of Dr Vincent Tabaks flat in December
(5): Peter Stanley being filmed at his residence
(6): Neighbours talking of hearing screams
(7): Police doing forensics at Peter Stanleys
(8): Immediately saying Greg is NOT a Suspect ... he's a Witness, when they couldn't afford CJ the same grace, but
leave CJ until March 2011 for people to make their own minds up..
We had many many stories in the media early in this investigation from neighbours and friends, telling us details we should never have known...
Why were we allowed to find this information out so early on??
http://library.college.police.uk/docs/APPREF/murder-investigation-manual-redacted.pdf
-
Reminder to all posters:
Far too many posts are still being removed having fallen foul of the off-topic rule. Please ensure that your comments are relevant when posting.
Despite my previous warnings, some of the posts on this thread are far too long and repetitive. From now on, any such posts will be removed.
Moderator please note!
-
Reminder to all posters:
Far too many posts are still being removed having fallen foul of the off-topic rule. Please ensure that your comments are relevant when posting.
Despite my previous warnings, some of the posts on this thread are far too long and repetitive. From now on, any such posts will be removed.
Moderator please note!
Moderator has noted!
If any poster wishes to discuss similarities between this case and others, please begin a new topic for this. Thank you.
-
Why was a Missing persons Inquiry given an Operational name ??
What qualifies for an operational name???
Why was The Joanna Yeates case given The Operational name of Operation Braid when she was just a Missing Person...??
I was under the impression that Operational names were for more complex crimes and multiple persons etc...
Could someone explain why an Investigation is given an Operational name please...
-
(http://images2.corriereobjects.it/methode_image/2017/08/04/Interni/Foto%20Gallery/4%20joanna-yeates-poster_MGTHUMB-INTERNA.jpg)
The Missing Poster for Joanna Yeates gives a phone number to contact of 0845 456 7000
plus a CID number..... 0117 945 5355
0845 456 7000 is for "Operation Braid".... I have attached another image of a poster with this information upon it...
The odd thing I originally believed that this number had been set up specifically for The Joanna Yeates Murder/Missing person Inquiry..
But it isn't the case .... It's a none emergency number for general use.. this number has been replaced by 101
19 September 2011
101 - The new non-emergency number for Avon & Somerset Police. The old 0845 4567000 number has been replaced by the much easier to remember 101.
If you want to contact Avon & Somerset Constabulary and it is less urgent than 999, you can now call us on 101.
This is part of a national programme to make it easier for you to contact your local police, 101 should be used for non-emergencies such as:
•reporting a crime
•contacting local officers
•getting crime prevention advice
•making the police aware of policing issues in your local area
•making an appointment with a police officer
•for any other non-emergency
101 does not replace 999, which will continue to be used for emergencies.It replaces the existing 0845 number, although there will be a period when both numbers will be available. If you are deaf, hard of hearing or speech impaired, you can textphone us on 18001 101. Calls to 101 from landlines and mobiles cost 15 pence per call, no matter what time of day you call or how long your call lasts. International callers, those in the UK residing outside of England and Wales and those residing in local force areas currently awaiting access to 101 should call 0845 456 7000 to contact Avon and Somerset Police. You can also use this website www.avonandsomerset.police.uk to contact the police.
Remember...
999 should be used for an emergency, when a crime is happening, someone suspected of a crime is nearby, someone is injured, being threatened or in danger.
Seeing as everything about this case was seen as Immediate attention needing, you would have thought that there would have been s dedicated number just for reporting of this crime ... And Crime Stoppers being another number..
On the image I have attached we are given 2 numbers to contact...
Operation Braid.. being 0845 456 7000
Crime Stoppers.. being 0800 555 111
Now the CID telephone number is now Missing from this later poster, which I find odd...
Why when the Missing persons poster I have attached which also includes the "helpfindjo" word press addy and the facebook group on this poster, has the CID's phone number been left off of the poster, and just a general number which is equivalent to calling 101 is there....
This Poster from "helpfindjo" wordpress... only has the 0845 456 7000 number on it..
(https://helpfindjo.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/profile_findjo.jpg?w=167&h=300)
Are the posters telling??
Firstly why would the CID be involved with a "Missing Persons Inquiry"??? And why remove their number fro the posters ???
The 3rd image I have attached is a poster being held by The Yeates family.... It says ...
We urge anyone with Information to call us quotingOperation Braid on: 0845 456 7000
Is that normal to quote an "Operational Name" when calling the police and not a reference number ??
So why did the phone calls to the Police just go through to an ordinary telephone at the Police Station instead of reaching directly to the incident room at Avon and Somerset Police station???.... Why did the CID number get retracted from the posters???
http://www.swbac.org.uk/htm/n20110922.545350.htm
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Looking at Dr Vincent Tabak's appearances in court I came across this reference for 2015..
The court heard Tabak’s former girlfriend was interviewed and said the engineer, who she described as being “very good” at computers, would use his laptop while sitting in his lounge. Ford said Tabak would remain on the sex offenders’ register for 10 years and banned him from working with children or young people.
How again are they Referencing anything to do with Tanja Morson in relation to any apparent crime that Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have committed if she was not at court to confirm this .... How is that possible ??
Also when talking about a fair trial Dean Armstrong......
Dean Armstrong QC had argued that his client could not receive a fair trial due to his notoriety and the portrayal of him during the two-part ITV drama The Lost Honour of Christopher Jefferies. But the judge ruled: “I take the view that it will be possible for Mr Tabak to have a fair trial.”
Wouldn't the real issue be the fact the trial was held in Bristol and the National Media reported unsubstanciated claims about Dr Vincent Tabak after his trial... The Porn/ child porn had already come into the public domain, so any jury would already be prejudiced when Dr Vincent Tabak attended court... And as there was never any independant testing of said computer we still don't know where these images came from....
The mentioning of The Lost Honour of Christopher Jefferies at court also seems a little strange, they had already had previous documentaries that portrayed Dr Vincent Tabak in an unfavourable light... what had the program about CJ got anything to do with it....
Because oddly enough he appear in court literally months after the showing of that production... The Police and CPS have had years in which to take Dr Vincent Tabak to court in relation to the allegations of child porn.... But they instead appear to what for the screening of The Lost Honour of CJ, and then Dr Vincent Tabak goes to Court......
Is that coincidence ????
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/02/vincent-tabak-admits-possessing-indecent-images-of-children
-
Interesting thought that it might not have been a coincidence that the second trial came shortly after the film.
By the time VT was tried for the child porn, many people would have forgotten about the first trial, and had it not been for the "Lost Honour of CJ", they would possibly have forgotten the case too.
As for Tanja, I very much doubt that she was interviewed by anybody about VT in 2014/15. It's probably true that she did say that her boyfriend was "very good at computers" etc, but I expect that was back in 2011. Just my opinion!
-
I know I have posted this quote before and If John wishes to remove it that fine... But....
The first issue I originally pointed out was that Jessica had been informed of Joanna Yeates disappearance by the weekend of 17th - 19th December 2010... which of course is before the Police were informed of Joanna Yeates disappearance.... How can that be ????
But within the comment I do not know if Jessica actually works for BDP.... Did she work for some one else...
She states her and Joanna Yeates paths may have crossed many times, but in what capacity is she talking.... ??
Jessica Siggers states about receiving the message from BDP... She says it in the context of plural... which sounds as if she is talking about another company... (imo)
So how many "Companies"/"People" did BDP inform that Joanna Yeates was a "Missing Person"... before she was Offically reported Missing....
Darragh Bewell wasn't phoned till midnight... so the earliest anyone from BDP should know of Joanna Yeates disappearance is Monday 20th December 2010...
But it appears from reading Jessica's facebook message.. that more people knew about the disappearance of Joanna Yeates, before the police we informed.....
Which companies had been informed of this situation and how did they get the information before the Official Channels did???
And were is the communications between BDP and any other company at this time ??? Don't believe they were even looked at by the Defence ....(imo)....
Is this another piece of information that points towards the 16th December 2010 being an important date ... seeing as Dr Vincent Tabak was charged from that date ??
Jessica Siggers
27 December 2010
Travelling back to my home in Clifton today which will never feel the same again. Jo, I never knew you but our paths may have crossed many times. You, your family & Greg have not left my thoughts since last weekend when we received a message from BDP. I wanted to go out and search there & then. No-one should be taken the way you were. It's a cruel world but for what it's worth, you will get justice. RIP beautiful girl. X
https://www.facebook.com/groups/169097479794933/
-
I think you mean Monday 20th December!
-
I think you mean Monday 20th December!
Thanks for that mrswah... hit the wrong key....
I have edited it....
-
This message was from Rebecca Scott at 12:06 on Saturday 25th December 2010
Rebecca Scott
25 December 2010
IF ANYONE HAS INFORMAITON PLEASE GO DIRECTLY TO THE POLICE WITH IT!
Maybe I am reading this wrong... But with knowing that Joanna Yeates was found on 25th December 2010 Rebecca's message does tie in... And I cannot see another reason why on that date she would write this message...
This was why I wanted to know when it was reported on the TV News....
On the online News it was around 12:30... But I thought the TV News was around 1:00pm when the fire trucks turned up...
Now when they did the video Interview of Rebecca Scott, she said that she heard the News through the Telly about Joanna Yeates being found ....
Erm..... (licks and purses lips)..
You know what when obviously when.... the the news was on con constantly... as soon as her body was found (someone speaks to her ) Yer Yer through the telly...
Her facebook comment to me contradicts that.... But if I am correct that it wasn't on the TV News before 1:00pm ish... How did Rebecca Scott know that she had been found, before anyone else was told... going by her Facebook post..??
I have attached an image of her post... and I hovered over the date that was how I got the time....
What do other people think ??
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8056.msg422287#msg422287
-
From the #helpfindjo“ wordpress dated 19th January 2011Mrs Yeates appealing to the media
Jo’s parents have made a further statement appealing to those responsible for their daughters death.
“We are making this appeal as we feel this is one way we can help this police investigation. We feel we are part of the police investigation, just as much as the investigating officers. We spend much of our time – as I imagine most of the country does – thinking of scenarios which took Jo, alive in her flat, to being found dead by the side of a country lane. These scenarios change as events unfold, and new facts are made available. All our thoughts are passed back to the police. Although we invariably do not have all the facts known by the police, we do know Jo. We know what Jo would do, and how she would react in different situations. This, we believe, is our major contribution.
“Whatever we do or say, we do not want to frustrate or compromise the police investigation.
“For over three weeks there has been extensive media coverage of Jo’s disappearance and murder. The last few weeks have encompassed an extensive festive period. Many people will have probably been socialising and spending extra time with family and friends.
“Nearly the whole country has been moved by the tragic events surrounding Jo’s murder.
“Many of us are ‘armchair detectives’, but if this activity triggers anything please come forward.
“If you do know something and you do not come forward you are consciously hampering the apprehension of Jo’s killer(s) and the perpetrator(s) is still free.
You will also be prolonging the torment of Jo’s family and friends.
“Do you know anyone that hasn’t been shocked or disturbed?
“Has anyone you know had an unusual or inexplicable reaction?
“Was their behaviour unusual on the week-end of 17/18/19th December, or throughout the past three weeks?
“Do you know someone who has been behaving out of character either by actions, or what is said – or not said? Do you know someone who has inexplicably become reclusive, quiet or vocal?
“As mentioned above, scenarios abound regarding Jo. Has someone tried to impress on you a scenario which has been inconsistent with the information released by the police at that time – and refused to change it?
“It would appear that the nation is shocked and appalled by what has happened to our daughter. Do you know someone who has been, somehow, justifying her being killed?
“Please help us identify the killer. Jo was probably acquainted with her killer.
“We are sure the killer will be brought to justice. When this happens, please think how you will feel, if you knew the killer, and you had questions in your mind which you consciously refused to act on.”
The parents helped the police with their Investigations by appealing to "Someone" who might know "Something"..
But I cannot see how they would be allowed to make the statement if the content was not accurate... The Police would have read the statement that was prepared by The Yeates family...
We spend much of our time – as I imagine most of the country does – thinking of scenarios which took Jo, alive in her flat, to being found dead by the side of a country lane.
This contradicts entirely what the Police have said and what the trial said , having Joanna Yeates killed in her Flat...
Why did they believe and why did the Police not correct the statement which clearly indicates that Joanna Yeates was alive when she left her flat??
Does this go with the possibility that CJ did in fact see Joanna Yeates leave the premises with 2 other people ???
Or... That Joanna Yeates never returned to her Flat after she had been to The Bristol Ram??
I cannot forget what DS Mark Saunders and Colin Port both say about the CCTV footage...
DS Mark Saunders, talks of the footage for that weekend on Canygne Road with people milling about and lots of cars... But never mentions seeing Joanna Yeates on this Footage..
And Colin Port tells the Leveson Inquiry that the last known CCTV footage of Joanna Yeates is from The HopHouse Pub...
With the statement Mrs Yeates made to the media I wonder if Joanna Yeates on the Private CCTV footage, seeing as they say that she was taken "ALIVE" from her Flat... which in turn would mean that Colin Port told the Leveson an untruth.... !
https://helpfindjo.wordpress.com/
-
When the penny drops the penny drops.... The images we get of CCTV footage stick with us... And with me too....
Joanna Yeates and The Hophouse Pub...
Colin Port telling the Leveson Inquiry that the last known images of Joanna yeates was at The Hop house pub... And with us knowing about the pub and seeing the CCTV footage from around 8:45pm on Friday the 17th December 2010, I again assumed she couldn't have reached Canygne Road.... "(wrong)!"
If we take into account CJ's statement and people leaving Canygne Road on the Friday 17th December 2010, he very well could be talking about Joanna Yeates... And Colin Port was NOT then Telling an untruth... Because she went back out and went past "The Hop house Pub" again.... This is a very good possibility....
We have to remember that Colin Port insisted that they removed the entire CCTV system from The Hop house Pub...
23/12/10: A subsequent report and examination of the material confirmed
that Ms Yeates was seen walking past the Hop House camera heading in the
direction of her home address.
This quote tells us what they want us to know... Joanna Yeates is seen walking home....
But......
27/12/10: A CCTV technician visited the Hop House to download additional
footage. The manager was not present but it was clear that the brand of
CCTV unit was one with a long retention period and thus footage would not
be lost. A return visit was planned to swap the unit with a loan CCTV unit
when the manager was available, During the week 27-31/12/10 a second
CCTV technician attended once again to carry out the swap as planned but
the premises were closed.
4/1/11: A CCTV technician attended at the Hop House with a new CCTV
loan unit and seized the Hop House unit, A reporter was at the premises
when he attended.
So.. I always wondered why Colin Port felt the need to seize The Hop House Pub CCTV system if all we have is Joanna Yeates walking home on a grainy bit of footage....
I believe that Colin Port is probably correct when he says the last known footage of Joanna Yeates is The Hop House Pub What we really need to consider is, What time and What Date.... these images of Joanna Yeates at The hop House Pub were... I believe it is very possible that there was other footage of Joanna Yeates at The Hop House Pub, that Colin Port didn't want anyone to know about... and he carefully crafted his response to The Leveson...(imo)..
Because he had No good reason to remove the entire CCTV system from The Hop House Pub unless their was some other evidence of Joanna Yeates being there... and possibly being there with someone else... Or walking past with someone else....
What additional footage did they download ?????
27/12/10: A CCTV technician visited the Hop House to download additional
footage.
They already had downloaded the CCTV footage of Joanna Yeates journey home.... Again what was on this additional footage ??
Have I too mis-judged Colin Port?? Was Colin Port also trying to tell us something through The Leveson Inquiry??
Because Colin Port didn't need to inform us of those two additional pieces of information...
(1): Being the additional footage
(2): The Removal of The Entire System....
Just like DCI Phil Jones mentioning the trainer Underneath the kitchen sink unit... Colin Port also could have left that info out of his Leveson Papers...
4/1/11: Ryan Parry called the press office stating that he wanted to make
us aware of CCTV footage from the Hop House Pub in Clifton of Jo Yeates on
her journey home, He says that the manager has told him that we have not
yet seen this CCTV because we are waiting to take the whole CCTV unit and
tells us that the paper is planning to publish tomorrow.
Looking at that quote... Did Joanna Yeates enter The Hop House Pub?? Did she go past it again??
The Police were already aware of some Hop House Pub footage on the 23rd December 2010 and by the 4th January 2011, the paper and The Police both act... I think there must be more to The Hop House Pub CCTV than that one grainy image that we know about.... (imo)
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122184118/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Witness-Statement-of-Chief-Constable-Colin-Port.pdf
-
Why was Greg Reardons movements ever questioned by the defence? I'm trying to establish the course of events because they do not make sense ...
Was Greg actually at the Flat when The Yeates family arrived... Or was he off somewhere searching for Joanna Yeates ..?? The Yeates look for Joanna Yeates around the neighbourhood on their own... They never mention Greg helping them to look!!
And there is no mention of what he did from when Mr and Mrs Yeates arrive at the flat... Because he tided before they arrived...
If no one else is going to ask the question I will....
What did Greg Reardon do between ringing The police and the Police arriving?? Because I do not believe the police arrived at that Flat till after Mrs yeates went around banging the neighbours up shouting for her daughter....
So little is known of Greg Reardons movements... We know he went to Sheffield for the weekend, because Greg tells us so... No-one confirms this... There's nothing to substanciate that claim...
We know he ate Pizza
We Know he went back out to his car
We Know he tided up...
We know he rang Mr and Mrs Yeates and the Police...
But we have 4 hours before we ring Mr and Mrs Yeates , without any great detail of what he did in that tiny flat for that time.... And after he rings The Yeates family we know what ????
Was he even in The Flat when he rang the Yeates family??? We don't know that either... we just assume he is... But it was Greg's name that appeared on Mrs Yeates phone.. So it wouldn't have been the house phone he had used....
What evidence is there that once Greg Reardon arrived back at Canygne Road at 8:00pm that he stayed there...??
We know he went out to the car.... Did he actually drive off somewhere... ??
I had presumed like most that Greg Reardon was always with a family liason Officer at all times with his girlfriend missing.... But that was not the case....
Greg, who returned to work just a week after Jo was found to help him cope
with his grief, intends to stay in Bristol and has bought a small flat in
the city centre.
I know people have different ways of coping but i find that plain weird! This is a high profile case... It is all over the media far and wide... I am surprised he didn't keep a low profile...
Why weren't the media camped outside Greg's place of work all the time if he was so easier to locate ???
Now of all of the statements that Greg has made which are few and far between...this has to be the strangest....
He said: “When I found out she had not been admitted to any hospital, or been
picked up by the police, or returned to work on the Monday morning I could
only fear the worst.
If he didn't ring round the hospitals, why would he know whether she had been admitted or not ??
And what reason would there be for Joanna Yeates to be picked up by the Police ?? That is a strange statement in itself??
I thought Greg had already feared the worse when Joanna Yeates didn't answer here phone on the 19th December 2010 at 9:00pm??
Why is he talking about her returning to work on the Monday Morning??? I think it's time that Avon and Somerset Police answered a few questions... Now that would be Interesting!
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/968556/jo-yeates-boyfriend-tells-of-heartbreak-at-christmas/
-
Problem is, can we take a report by "The Sun" as being completely accurate??????
-
Problem is, can we take a report by "The Sun" as being completely accurate??????
Therefore we cannot take any reports as being completely accurate... Who are we supposed to trust in regards to reports in the papers???
None of them questioned anything in relation to this case.... which I find mighty strange... why didn't any reporters question the trial???
The information at trial just doesn't add up... The sentencing ...doesn't make sense... You can't add 5 extra years to someones sentence because you feel like it... Those aggravating factors that were used are not aggravating factors within law...
It's about time someone who knows law looks at this case mrswah.... It's a travesty.....
-
Therefore we cannot take any reports as being completely accurate... Who are we supposed to trust in regards to reports in the papers???
None of them questioned anything in relation to this case.... which I find mighty strange... why didn't any reporters question the trial???
The information at trial just doesn't add up... The sentencing ...doesn't make sense... You can't add 5 extra years to someones sentence because you feel like it... Those aggravating factors that were used are not aggravating factors within law...
It's about time someone who knows law looks at this case mrswah.... It's a travesty.....
Well, don't forget Sally Ramage ! She knows law, looked at the trial, and wasn't happy------------
-
Well, don't forget Sally Ramage ! She knows law, looked at the trial, and wasn't happy------------
Now I wasn't adding Sally Ramage to that list mrswah..... I was meaning the tabloids... I should have made myself clear....
Sally Ramage is in a class of her own... And if it wasn't for her I wouldn't be where I am today with The Joanna Yeates Case....
So Thank You Sally Ramage.... ?{)(**
-
This move by Avon and Somerset Police is rather strange.... It was after CJ got an apology from Avon and Somerset Police..
We know that CJ never sued Avon and Somerset Police, but sued the tabloids instead.. Now my question is this...
Why would Avon and Somerset Police pay CJ compensation for damage done to his property??? What damage??? The complete staging of Flat 1 perhaps???
quote from The Guardian... Dated: Monday 16 September 2013 10.22 BST
Gargan's letter to Jefferies is part of a legal settlement with the police, which has included Jefferies being paid some compensation for damage caused to his property.
So there was some kind of legal settlement from Avon and Somerset Police, which included compensation for damage to CJ's property...
That has to be Flat 1... I cannot see it being anything else... Because I remember that on 4th May 2011 that CJ's Flat was up for sale and there was no damage to HIS Flat.... that leaves the basement...
Also in May 2011 Flat 2 had had a refurbishment..... And I wouldn't imaging it was Flat 2... which leave Flat 1... which as we can see from the photo's of this flat some dodgy work had been completed...
What did Flat 1 originally look like ?? Because I will keep saying that it wasn't the crime scene they told us it was !!! The photographs and videos of Flat 1 prove that....
Flat 1 had to be left empty until after the trial... And (imo) CJ had to have already had an agreement with Avon and Somerset Police for lost revenue for the Flat we know as Flat 1... So I believe that CJ had leverage and spent until 2013 bashing out the finer details of what he required....(imo)
The Avon and Somerset Police were never going to allow CJ to take them to court.... That would have brought the Second Witness Statement into play... And under NO Circumstances do they want the content of that statement made public...(imo)...
So CJ had the upper hand..... This is why CJ got the Avon and Somerset Police to give a PUBLIC apology...(imo)... not out of any service to a private citizen.... They had too... CJ had them by the proverbials...!!! (imo)
"While it is not normal practice to make such a public statement, in the circumstances of the exceptional media attention your arrest attracted, I acknowledge we should have considered this and I am very sorry for the suffering you experienced as a result."
No it isn't NORMAL!!! You had no choice...(imo)...
The content of that second witness statement is the whole case
And whoever CJ saw that evening has to be the person/persons who were involved with Joanna Yeates death... (imo).. And not Dr Vincent Tabak... Because if that was the case there wouldn't be so much secrecy surrounding CJ's second witness statement... and the police wouldn't be making public apologies and throwing compensation at CJ willy nilly...(imo)...
How much compensation did CJ receive and how much of that was for damages to the property??? And when was this compensation paid??? I'm of the opinion it has to be around the time of this article... because I believe that CJ wanted a public apology from the Police... And that was also part of this legal settlement ...(imo)!!
Because CJ had the Leverage and The Police could do nothing about that....
Next question.... Did the Police have CJ sign a gagging order as part of this Legal Settlement?? because I cannot see any other reason as to why CJ has never come forward and explained everything what took place at 44, Canygne Road in December 2010 and January 2011.... And up until the and the end of the trial in October 2011..!!
Now there's food for thought!
Be Interesting to see this Legal Settlement and it Contents!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/16/joanna-yeates-police-apologise-christopher-jefferies
-
Now with my post above, I was wondering if Dr Vincent Tabak ever came back to trial for an appeal, what would happen about CJ's second witness statement??
Would It have to be produced??
You see the Police cannot have it both ways... When someone asked through FOI for the witness statement of Dr Vincent Tabak , they were told that they could not release the information as it may hinder any appeal Dr Vincent Tabak may launch... (I have posted on this).. Yet I do not think it is even possible for Dr Vincent Tabak to launch an appeal.. I was under the impression that Justice Field had put paid to that....
So... what does it leave us with.. A man convicted of a Murder I believe he did not commit and an entire Police Force and everyone else covering up the truth about this Crime....
What about The Yeates Family... surely they want Justice for their Daughter Joanna Yeates...? It must be agonising that they have to live with this Massive Cover-up.. (imo)
-
Greg Reardon told the court that he got back to the flat about 8 p.m. on the Sunday evening. He told the court that he and Joanna normally double-locked the front door, but that he thought that he had needed to unlock only the Yale lock to get in when he returned.
Unless I am mistaken, the usual kind of Yale lock allows the door to be slammed shut without the use of a key. Once that has been done, it can be opened from the outside only by someone with a key. Reardon's testimony implies that this is what had the intruder had done. The discrepancy in the colours of the two lock components could be accounted for if the Yale lock itself had been replaced by a more modern one while the old component on the door jamb was retained.
Let us be clear what the jury found, and what it did not find. The jury found that Vincent Tabak murdered Joanna and dumped her body. However, it did NOT find that the killing took place in the flat itself. If Reardon is a credible witness, then there was a struggle inside the flat. However, the total absence of forensic evidence from the flat itself means that the jury would have to conclude that the killing took place somewhere else.
Everyone is agreed that Vincent Tabak was a liar, so there are no grounds for believing some parts of his testimony while dismissing others. His testimony is the only basis for believing that the killing took place in the flat. The court did not determine where the killing actually took place. We do not know if it were Vincent Tabak who pulled the door shut, leaving the key inside, or Joanna herself, or a third party.
As soon as she was reported missing, the police repeatedly told the public that Joanna got home to her flat on Friday 17th December evening. There is no reason for us to believe she didn't.
Just thinking about this leonora... Greg is incorrect (imo)... The Bell system lock that is installed as far as i am aware would automatically lock when the door is closed... So that means that 2 locks needed to be unlock.. whether it was Flat 1 or Flat 2 seeing as they both have the same system...
These systems run on night latch locks I believe so lock when closed and then can be deadlocked ... So there had to be both locks locked on that door, when Greg returned home, he shouldn't have had any problem with knowing this information.... He shouldn't be unsure... And when talking of double locking the door that should mean the dead lock...(imo)...
From the trial....
He went to his flat and left Joanna’s flat door on the latch.
He returned.
Impossible.. he would not have been able to regain entry into Joanna Yeates Flat..... (imo)
So the following could not have happened....
He returned.
He turned off the oven that she had turned on.
He took the Tesco pizza that was in the kitchen.
He carried the body from her flat to his flat.
He then put her body in the bag that he used to cover his bike.
He then went to get his car, placed the body in the boot of his car, went to Asda, a trip he
formerly planned, and drove aimlessly around whilst deciding what to do.
He tried to put the body over the wall.
It was too heavy and so he left it by the roadside.
When he got back home, he put the pizza, the cycle cover and the sock into a corporate
dustbin.
And then, despite the awful secret that he was carrying, he tried to carry on as before:
going to parties, living with his girlfriend, etc, instead of going to the police.
There will be no excuse from me for that. He will be called to give evidence on Thursday
20 October
It was not possible for Dr Vincent Tabak to return to take Joanna yeates out of Flat 1 as he inadvertantley locked the door...(imo)
I knew that the reason for CJs arrest had to be both locks being locked... So The only person/persons who killed Joanna Yeates either had her leave her Flat without her possessions or had access to the second lock and not just the Yale Latch... Or... returned her possessions back to Flat1..
Was Joanna Yeates one of the people CJ saw at the gate???
Why didn't Clegg check this lock.... Is this the reason that they moved the panel for the jury because someone would realise that the night lock would also lock on closing the door, making the Yale Lock being on the Latch...useless....
I believe the installation of the Yale Lock was for double security, incase the electric system failed and therefore the night lock wouldn't work..
So how on earth was Dr Vincent Tabak supposed to have re-entered Joanna Yeates flat???
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
Just wondering, has anyone managed to contact Vincent Tabak? Do we know who currently represents him?
-
Just wondering, has anyone managed to contact Vincent Tabak? Do we know who currently represents him?
I never managed to contact him, John, although I tried (see the topic referring to my response from the prisoner location service).
No, I have no idea who currently represents him------------I don't know how to find out, either!
-
I never managed to contact him, John, although I tried (see the topic referring to my response from the prisoner location service).
No, I have no idea who currently represents him------------I don't know how to find out, either!
The last time he appeared in court, in 2014, his instructing solicitor was Nick Kelcey and his defence councel was Dean Armstrong. There are good reasons to assume that he has retained the same law firms.
-
What is a CT Reserve in The Police Force?? I'm looking at something and wanted to know what it meant??
Noticed it on a Lanyard around a Policeman's neck... anyone know what it means??
-
leonora, can you remember the man of the EX Police Officer who gave an interview about the Investigation, he had grey hair and stubble...
-
leonora, can you remember the man of the EX Police Officer who gave an interview about the Investigation, he had grey hair and stubble...
I can't remember this at all. Unlike you, I have difficulty in concentrating on videos unless they are VERY SHORT. Despite searching, I cannot even find the excellent tabloid report by an ex-police officer whose name also escapes me, which I recall from memory began, "The place where Joanna's body was found must be the most unlikely dump-site in the annals of crime..."
EDIT: Found it! Unfortunately it has been redacted, so it no longer reveals the name of the author:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/joanna-yeates-murder-analysis-country-101520
-
Does this guy ring any bells leonora, he reminds me of the EX DCI something like that ..can't remember his title... he gave an interview to one of the papers... Talked about the case even though he had nothing to do with it...
images attached...
Edit And I do not mean Peter Kirkham...
-
I can't remember this at all. Unlike you, I have difficulty in concentrating on videos unless they are VERY SHORT. Despite searching, I cannot even find the excellent tabloid report by an ex-police officer whose name also escapes me, which I recall from memory began, "The place where Joanna's body was found must be the most unlikely dump-site in the annals of crime..."
EDIT: Found it! Unfortunately it has been redacted, so it no longer reveals the name of the author:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/joanna-yeates-murder-analysis-country-101520
Interesting article----had not come across it before. Wish they had told us who said it!
-
Interesting article----had not come across it before. Wish they had told us who said it!
I've now managed to find out the author of this article from my MS. It was - wait for it - former Detective Chief Inspector Peter Kirkham. The redacting of the credit line after some years is uncanny.
-
Why was the Police Press conference held at the Thistle Grand Hotel, Bristol after the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak???
Thought that Portishead had it own conference area??
No other rooms available at any of Bristols Police Stations for this "Complex Case"????
Images from Getty attached...
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/detective-chief-inspector-phil-jones-speaks-at-a-press-news-photo/809586626#detective-chief-inspector-phil-jones-speaks-at-a-press-conference-at-picture-id809586626
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
CJ... At The Leveson.....
13. The police issued an official statement on Thursday 30 December 2010 following my
arrest, The statement did not name me. It said:
"Just after O7OOhrs this morning, police attended an address in Canygne
Road and arrested a 65-year-old man on suspicion of murder. He has been
taken into custody at a police station within the Avon and Somerset force area
and detained for questioning, Detectives investigating Joanna’s murder are
continuing to carry out forensic examinations and are also continuing to
appeal for anyone with any information that can help the enquiry to call the
Operation Braid Incident room on 0800 555 111."
Why did the Police quote The Crime Stoppers number??? Crime Stoppers is not the Incident room.....
Crimestoppers: The only independent UK crime fighting charity
https://crimestoppers-uk.org/
We are an independent charity helping law enforcement to locate criminals and help solve crimes. You don't have to give us your name or any of your personal details. We do not trace calls or track IP addresses. All information given to Crimestoppers remains completely anonymous.
So what has "Crime Stoppers" The Charity, got to do with the case??? Why did the Police mention this in their statement to the press??
There has to be a valid reason for them to say this.... because "Crime Stoppers Is not a Police Incident Room!! It may assist the police... but that is it....
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122175642/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Second-Witness-Statement-of-Christopher-Jefferies.pdf
-
I keep going back to what was said at "The Leveson" and Colin Port's response about CJ....
Mr Jay
Thank you. Point (b):
"The day before Mr Jefferies' arrest (29 December) police sources briefed the media that Mr Jefferies had told neighbours that he had seen three people leave Ms Yeates' flat, including Ms Yeates herself, on the night she disappeared. Mr Jefferies said that he was parking his car outside the house when he saw three people. But Mr Jefferies later told the media and neighbours in impromptu comments before his arrest that in fact he had not seen Ms Yeates."
Then Mr Wallace says:
"I believe the police felt there was an inconsistency in his story, although Mr Jefferies had a different view."
Then we have what Mr Jefferies told Sky News on 29 December, and of course we also heard Mr Jefferies' own evidence to this Inquiry on these issues. Again, you say this statement is not true. In your own words, please, Mr Port, why not?
Colin Ports Response....
Mr Colin Port
Well, we did not give Mr Jefferies' identity to anyone. He did say that he saw three people on two occasions that I recall. In his evidence to this Inquiry, he said that -- and I think I quote accurately -- he told no more than three people about his sightings. That's incorrect, and I completely understand why Mr Jefferies can't recollect that, but I've counted eight people, including some people who were paid by the media for information, and I've also seen evidence that he told people that they should also tell members of the Neighbourhood Watch. So his recollection is flawed, unfortunately.
Colin Port does not confirm or deny that CJ saw Joanna Yeates that evening... but skirts around by concentrating on whom CJ had told...
I believe that the fact that Colin Port does not clarify this position can only lead to the conclusion that CJ did in fact see Joanna Yeates at the gate at Canygne Road on that evening....(imo)
Mr Jay
It might be said that Mr Wallace's statement is not altogether precise in this particular regard.
Point (d), that's one that you accept. This is the extension of the police bail.
Mr Colin Port
Yes.
Mr Jay
Point (e) --
Lord Justice Leveson
The extension not of police bail but of --
Mr Colin Port
Detention.
Looking into the detention of CJ... were was the evidence that they got an extension for his detainment?? There would have needed to be plenty of evidence for them to detain him and I will carry on in my next post....
http://leveson.sayit.mysociety.org/hearing-27-march-2012/mr-colin-port
-
Lord Justice Leveson
The extension not of police bail but of --
Mr Colin Port
Detention.
Both CJ and Dr Vincent Tabak were detained for many hours and both being arrested on a Thursday, which had been carefully planned, especially in regard to CJ.. knowing that he had told the Police a week earlier that he did indeed see people at the gate....
I do not know if there is a paper trail for the warrants of an extension for these 2 peoples detention... But I believe that it is very possible to detain them in a different way...
Under Pace.....
Section 41 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) provides for a person being detained without charge.
'41(2) The time from which the period of detention of a person is to be calculated (in this Act referred to as 'the relevant time') –
(a) in the case of a person to whom this paragraph applies, shall be –
(i) the time at which that person arrives at the relevant police station; or
(ii) the time 24 hours after the time of that person's arrest,
whichever is the earlier.'
With an additional 12 hours granted by
It is from then that the 24 hour period will commence.
Section 42 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 empowers a superintendent to authorise the detention of a prisoner beyond twenty-four hours, for a maximum of a further twelve hours (a total of thirty-six hours in all), without the suspect being charged. This will be for a period of time, rather than from one specified time to another.
We then have the Hospital Visit This I believe ... Stops the clock!
Where a person is detained under PACE there is provision under section 41(6) for the detention clock to be temporarily suspended if the suspect requires hospital treatment. See the document 'PACE - review of police detention - notes on reviews when detained in hospital' on PNLD for further information.
Did CJ go to the hospital at all...?? Did Dr Vincent Tabak go to the hospital at all??? Was it at the hospital that Dr Vincent Tabak was examined ??? We know that a nurse named Ruth Booth-pearson examined Dr Vincent Tabak... But was that at the Police station or in hospital???
If it is possible to keep someone in custody for a longer period by introducing a hospital visit as to 'Stop" the clock.. then I believe it is possible to detain someone longer than 36 hours without getting a warrant for an extension...
As we know.. there was no evidence against CJ... and the supposed evidence against Dr Vincent Tabak never was produced... They had "No" so called confession at this point.... And a partial DNA sample... Nothing that would warrant an application for an extension to be obtained..(imo)..
With all the smoke and mirrors in this case... Did the Police simply keep stopping and starting the clock of CJ and Dr Vincent Tabak's detention???
It can be seen that even when in hospital, a suspect is still in police detention but the clock will not be rolling. (The exceptions to this are if the suspect is arrested and taken straight to the hospital without calling in at the police station or is bailed from the hospital to return to the police station at a later date). The detention clock restarts if it is necessary to interview the suspect on his way to or from hospital or in hospital (this may be necessary because of the urgent nature of the enquiry). In such circumstances, the detention clock is suspended once the questioning has ceased. (In the case of a suspect taken straight to hospital, it would be necessary to treat the suspect as being in police detention and start the detention clock, if he/she needed to be interviewed).
For all intense and purposes.. This Clock could have been stopped and started on many many occasions... As we do not know for a fact that Dr Vincent Tabak or CJ were held at the Police station for all of that time...
Therefore, in the example you provide, if the original 24 hours has expired and you are into the 12 hours extension authorised by the Superintendent, the detention clock would freeze for the time spent travelling to and from the hospital and the time spent at the hospital. The clock would restart upon the suspect's return to the police station. It is our opinion that you can extend the detention expiry time to 21:00.
This is fasinating.... They could drive round and round with someone in a car... leave someone at the hospital and the clock has not re-started!!
So (imo).. It is possible that the police did not need a warrant to extend the time of detention... They just needed a loop-hole...!!!
https://www.pnld.co.uk/your-legal-questions-answered/extensions-to-detention-and-hospital-visits/
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, s.34
Limitations on police detention
34. - (1) A person arrested for an offence shall not be kept in police detention except in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act.
(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, if at any time a custody officer -
(a) becomes aware, in relation to any person in police detention, that the grounds for the detention of that person have ceased to apply; and
(b) is not aware of any other grounds on which the continued detention of that person could be justified under the provisions of this Part of this Act,
it shall be the duty of the custody officer, subject to subsection (4) below, to order his immediate release from custody.
(3) No person in police detention shall be released except on the authority of a custody officer at the police station where his detention was authorised or, if it was authorised at more than one station, a custody officer at the station where it was last authorised.
(4) A person who appears to the custody officer to have been unlawfully at large when he was arrested is not to be released under subsection (2) above.
(5) A person whose release is ordered under subsection (2) above shall be released without bail unless it appears to the custody officer -
(a) that there is need for further investigation of any matter in connection with which he was detained at any time during the period of his detention; or
(b) that proceedings may be taken against him in respect of any such matter,
and, if it so appears, he shall be released on bail.
(6) For the purposes of this Part of this Act a person arrested under section 6(5) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is arrested for an offence.
(7) For the purposes of this Part of this Act a person who returns to a police station to answer to bail or is arrested under section 46A below shall be treated as arrested for an offence and the offence in connection with which he was granted bail shall be deemed to be that offence.
It is this part of the quote....
(5) A person whose release is ordered under subsection (2) above shall be released without bail unless it appears to the custody officer -
(a) that there is need for further investigation of any matter in connection with which he was detained at any time during the period of his detention; or
(b) that proceedings may be taken against him in respect of any such matter,
CJ was released on Bail.... As the Police assertained that in no way was CJ responsible or involved with the death of Joanna Yeates I conclude it has to be (a) that it is in connection to him being bailed...
So what matter needed further Investigation by the police in relation to CJ??
For me that can only be who CJ saw that weekend.... And if he saw the real perperater at the gate, then that couldn't have been Dr Vincent Tabak, as he was already in custody and if CJ had seen Dr Vincent Tabak, they wouldn't have kept CJ on Bail.....
So I believe the people at the gate are those who are involved with the death of Joanna Yeates and not Dr Vincent Tabak... And by March 2011.. someone was no longer being investigated... Or they could no longer investigate this person...
https://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/hamlyn/detentio.htm
-
I want to revisit this quote... from this post :
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg414580#msg414580
Clio said:
05-04-2011 11:17 AM
Courtserve listing for the Old Bailey for tomorrow (5th May) states
Court 2 - sitting at 10:00 am
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE FIELD
For Mention (Defendant to Attend)
U20110387 Vincent TABAK
Via PVL - Bristol Crown Court Case - T20117031
Wonder why it says "For Mention" rather than "Plea and Case Management"...
http://www.courtserve2.net/courtlist...T110505.01.htm
It's this case number U20110387 ??? what does the "U" denote??
"T" in a case number I assume means trial... But "U" seems to mean something else.... I went back to the law pages to look for Dr Vincent Tabak's case and came across something that peeked my interest....
Central Criminal Court List 14/12/2017
Search:
LOCATION COURT CASE N0. DEFENDANT/S
Central Criminal Court 11 T2017024 Tim Varchmin
Central Criminal Court 10 T20177322 Emil Asparuhov Hristov
Central Criminal Court 8 U20171154 S.74 Socpa
Central Criminal Court 7 T20167316 John Buwalda
Central Criminal Court 1 T20177345 Paul Akinnuoye
These are todays listings... the case marked with the letter "U" is U20171154 S.74 Socpa, I looked up
Socpa stands for... "The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005" (I believe)
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/socpa_agreements_-_note_for_those_representing_assisting_offenders/
Any case I find that denotes a "U" doesn't have the defendants name.... The quote below is from various dates in December 2017.. images attached...
Central Criminal Court (Old Bailey) 18 U2017114 Po 218/2017 PaceCentral
Criminal Court (Old Bailey) 18 U20171140 Po 184/2017 Poca
Central Criminal Court (Old Bailey) 1 U20171126 Po 39/2017 Ss
Central Criminal Court (Old Bailey) 1 U20171127 Po 40/2017 Ss
Central Criminal Court (Old Bailey) 17 U20171129 Po 11/2017 Amo
I am trying to understand why these cases Do Not have a defendants name when the letter "U" is before a case number.... Is there something significant about the use of the letter "U" in these cases...
So what does it mean in terms of Dr Vincent Tabak case Number U20110387 at the Old Bailey in May 2011
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Every time I look, there are many coincidences and i don't believe that everything can be a coincidence...
We have been told that Joanna Yeates worked for BDP and we have always believed that their Offices were near to The Bristol Ram ..... BDP is on Hill Street...
KEITH RETIRED FROM BDP IN 2013.
Keith is a main board director and heads our Bristol studio. He directs a range of projects across the educational and commercial sectors.
Keith has been with us since 1973 and helped bring Whicheloe Macfarlane and BDP together to create a new BDP southwest regional capability, based around vibrant studios in Bristol and Winchester.
Now from Companies House... WHICHELOE MACFARLANE PARTNERSHIP LIMITED
Company number 02679625
PAVEY, Keith Clifford
Correspondence address
23 Westgate, Caledonian Road, Bristol, BS1 6JR
Role RESIGNED
Director
Date of birth
April 1948
Appointed on
17 December 2002
Resigned on
30 June 2013
Nationality
British
Occupation
Chartered Architect
So with that in my mind does it makes 2 Offices where Joanna Yeates may have worked... And would make sense of Emma the FLO's speech being on the harbour side, as it is quite possible that was the Office that Joanna Yeates worked in...
And would also make sense of Joanna Yeates walking up the hill to the Ram Pub after being at an ATM with Darragh Bewell....
Is it possible that BDP staff worked at 23 Westgate, Caledonian Road, Bristol, BS1 6JR ?? Is it possible Joanna Yeates worked near the harbour side??
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/02679625/officers
http://www.bdp.com/en/files-not-in-use/retired/Keith-Pavey/?id=55617&epslanguage=en
-
leonora, this article tells of timeline with the first appeal being on the 20th December 2010
20 December
Avon and Somerset police make their first appeal for information over Yeates's disappearance. Officers say they are concerned for her safety because it is out of character.
Haven't yet found any articles with that actual date ...
What information did the police have on the 20th December 2010 to appeal for information within hours of Greg Reardon reporting Joanna Yeates missing ??? Did the Police know before the 20th December 2010 that Joanna Yeates was Missing??
CJ said at The Leveson that Joanna Yeates was reported missing on the 19th December 2010... And the Police said that Greg rang on the Monday 20th December 2010...
Yeates's boyfriend, Greg Reardon, returned from a weekend away on the evening of Sunday 19 December to find Yeates missing, though her mobile phone, keys, purse and coat were there.
At 12.45am he dialled 999 and less than four hours later a police officer banged on the door of Flat two. Tabak answered and denied all knowledge.
It should follow that 12:45am is the Monday morning.... but is it?? Someone is telling untruths here.... that is for sure.... I think it is about time that Joanna Yeates boyfriend let us know what happened (imo).. He has never said anything apart from that one TV Interview that was pulled...
There were statements made in the papers apparently by him... but we don't know how accurate they are unless he himself talks to us in person....
Why didn't Clegg cross examine Greg Reardon, instead of letting Greg Reardon tell his version of what happened when he arrived home... The Prosecution were happy to cross examine Dr Vincent Tabak.... How could the defence be so certain that Greg Reardon's memory of what he did at a time of what would have been great distress was clearly fixed in his mind... There might have been something that Greg Reardon had noticed in the flat , that could have made a difference to Dr Vincent Tabak's defence.... Something unusual... maybe the night lock on the door, or what Joanna Yeates routine was when she arrived home from a hard days work....
I myself like to change out of the clothes I have been wearing and put something more comfortable on if I am not going anywhere....
Slippers for instance... did Joanna Yeates wear her slippers when she got home... there has been no mention of such items...
I would say that you are not going to start cooking until you have made yourself comfortable, especially as it was extremely cold.. No mention of the heating being on... Did she leave her green fleece on?? that wasn't mentioned either...
So why if she was getting ready to pop a Pizza in the oven did she not take off all her outdoor clothing or put on something warm and cozy for her apparent night in???
Why didn't Clegg ask Greg what Joanna's routine at home was on returning from a usual day at work?? I'm sure most of us have one... Was the heating switched on?? she had been in the kitchen near the heating control... Talking of the heating I never noticed the thermostat for it?? how old was the boiler?? did it have a remote control??
If Joanna Yeates was apparently attacked as soon as she entered her home, when did she have time to turn the oven on??? Or open the cider?? They cannot have it both ways....
She either had time to do all of these things... which then makes it relevant as to her routine on returning home... Or she was attacked immediately on entering her home and therefore couldn't have switched the oven on....
Which makes Dr Vincent Tabak trail statement that he went back to switch the oven off, complete poppy cock, which the prosecution didn't challenge as far as I am aware....
The routine of Joanna Yeates returning home is important..... Because we all have one I believe.... And if she was in a rush not to get comfortable and the first thing she did was to switch the oven on to put the Pizza in..... Then I believe i was because she was expecting someone, and was rushing to have everything ready on their arrival...
Otherwise I believe that she would have had the time to make herself comfortable, maybe in her dressing gown and slippers and lounged around waiting for her Pizza to cook.....
Dr Vincent Tabak has NO NEED to mention turning the oven off!! So why was it relevant at trial?? Someone turned the oven Off (imo) And I don't believe it was Dr Vincent Tabak! Clegg had to get his information from somewhere... and it wasn't Dr Vincent Tabak, as no-one knew what Dr vincent Tabak was going to say until he arrived at court.... Not even Clegg!! (imo)
So who gave Clegg the information for his opening speech??? Because it sure as hell wasn't Dr Vincent Tabak... (imo)
Defence Counsel, Mr William Clegg, QC’s opening speech:
‘If Jo Yeates had stayed for just one more drink she would be alive today. If Vincent
Tabak had gone to Asda as he had planned that same time, he would not be in the dock
today.
She turned on the oven to bake.
And... He went to his flat and left Joanna’s flat door on the latch.
He returned.
He turned off the oven that she had turned on.
And Defence Counsel: After you put the body in the boot of your car, what did you do next?
Tabak: I went back to Joanna’s flat and switched off the TV and the oven; I took away the
sock and the pizza.
It is mentioned 3 times by the defence.... Did The prosecution argue that it wasn't true???
So... she had time to turn the oven on... So did she have time to get herself comfortable or was she expecting a visitor??
Simple questions that should have been asked of the man that lived with Joanna Yeates were not.... That's just basics.. Yet Clegg didn't do any of that... Again I will say he did not defend his client (imo)
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/dec/30/joanna-yeates-disappearance-murder-timeline
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/28/joanna-yeates-case-vincent-tabak
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
A missing pizza
Although there's no CCTV to prove it, detectives believed Joanna made it home to her flat because the Tesco receipt for the pizza was later discovered there, along with the coat she had been wearing that night, her mobile phone and keys. But from there, they were at a loss. Where was she? Why did she appear to have vanished into thin air?
What else made the Police believe that Joanna yeates made it home to her Flat on that evening??
I'm scratching my head... We know that there was private CCTV on Canygne Road and The Police saw cars and people milling about, but have never stated that Joanna Yeates was on that CCTV... even Colin Port had stated at The Leveson, that The Hop house pub was the last known images of Joanna Yeates...
It has been mentioned by many that someone could have simply returned Joanna Yeates items back to her home address, to make it appear that she arrived home.... But I would have imagined that the Police would have looked at that possible scenario....
So what are we left with that would make the police believe that she reached home other than her clothing bag etc being there ??
There are two possibilties that would say Joanna Yeates reached her home, that I can think of.....
(1):Alarm system ??
(2):Computer ??
If her computer was used, then it would log a time and date on which she may have view anything...
But I favour that an alarm system could be in place....
We have the little box in the kitchen underneath the boiler,where the system could be located... we have various door contacts we can see around the flat ... One which I pointed out above the red bookcase, and other above the doors in the Flat....
So did Joanna Yeates have a system where she also had a fob on a keyring in case of emergencies??
(http://www.global-gadgets.co.uk/ekmps/shops/globalgadgets/images/sentry-pro-wireless-gsm-auto-dial-house-alarm-solution-3-132-p[ekm]350x350[ekm].jpg)
Package Contents
1 x Sentry Pro GSM Control Panel
4 x Wireless wide-angle PIR’s
4 x Wireless door/window contacts
4 x Wireless key fobs with built-in panic button
1 x Internal siren
1 x 12v mains powered external strobe siren
Batteries included for all sensors
There's an alarm attached to the building on that side of the building (image attached).. and I see no other alarms around the building..
Is this the reason the Police believe Joanna Yeates reached home ??? Because...
Full alarm history available - see what zone, date and time historic activations occurred.
(I am not saying this is the system installed , but giving an idea of what is available.... )
So with a full history of use they would know when someone entered or exited setting said alarm..... There is never any mention of this alarm system we can see around Joanna Yeates Flat.. But that would therefore give the 'Police" another reason at the time to suspect "CJ".... And why there Investigation was centred on that house!!!
The Police never went further afield in regards to this Investigation... they focused soley on 44, Canygne Road....
If Joanna Yeates had a working alarm system in her Flat, where are the logs for it??? Was it always switched on when leaving the property??
The alarm system is never mentioned at all... But (imo) there has to be more than just her possesions lying around the Flat for the Police to say that they believe she had arrived home.... And the only logical reason I can think of is the alarm system...
They only say "believe"... they do not state it as fact.... So is that the reason they got excited when CJ said he saw people at the gate ??? Because we have no CCTV footage putting Joanna Yeates on Canygne Road on that evening either arriving or leaving ... Yet we have her shopping and Clothing and other possessions at her home... And the distinct possibility that an alarm code could be needed to enter said Flat...
As I said the other day... Joanna Yeates routine on entering her home is important.... Did she turn off the alarm system??? was the alarm system switched on ????
These are the questions that Clegg could have asked Joanna Yeates boyfriend at trial..... because without knowing the basic's we are all left guessing !!
Question.... Is the alarm history the reason the Police give us a time of Joanna Yeates death, and the date of Joanna Yeates death?? They always insisted it had been the 17th December 2010 from the very begining of the "Missing Person Inquiry"...
And again the "Alarm System" (imo) could be the only concrete evidence that would show that the house had not been entered after the 17th December 2010 by Joanna Yeates... Giving the Police a record of the occupants movements..
And making sense of why they always stuck with the 17th December 2010 at a time of around 8-45 pm and 9:00pm
for her time of Joanna Yeates being attacked....
Because I cannot see any other way in which they could assume a time and date of an attack on Joanna Yeates...
And their believing she arrived at her home.... Because quite frankly she could have gone anywhere at any time over that weekend, even if she didn't reply to texts, they could never have known at such an early stage, when she was last seen and by whom... unless there happened to be another way of proving that she could have entered her Flat.... And an alarm system is the only thing left...(imo)
Edit Is this the reason that "The Yeates" believed and said that Joanna Yeates had been abducted?? because the alarm hadn't been reset at the Flat?????
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/reports/a14432079/joanna-yeates-murder-anniversary-vincent-tabak-christopher-jefferies/
http://www.global-gadgets.co.uk/sentry-pro-wireless-gsm-auto-dial-house-alarm-solution-3-132-p.asp?gclid=CjwKCAiA1O3RBRBHEiwAq5fD_DY69o_0bdPFT2DyUcO5-vsOGvB7f7vKHCxYyO4z-Sdf8ZClGZZCLhoCANYQAvD_BwE
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The last time he appeared in court, in 2014, his instructing solicitor was Nick Kelcey and his defence councel was Dean Armstrong. There are good reasons to assume that he has retained the same law firms.
I think we will e-mail them and see who is now representing him so that we can make contact. There have been several questions raised on here which I too would like an answer to from Mr Tabak just to set the record straight.
-
I think we will e-mail them and see who is now representing him so that we can make contact. There have been several questions raised on here which I too would like an answer to from Mr Tabak just to set the record straight.
That's great John.... ?{)(**
I just had another thought.... Back to the alarm system.... I presume when using an alarm system you set the date and time on it... (correct).... Was the wrong date set on this alarm system???
Did it have the 16th December 2010 on it ???.... instead of the 17th December 2010??
That would make sense as to why they charged Dr Vincent Tabak from the 16th December 2010 to the 19th December 2010...
There was no reason to say the 16th December 2010 when charging Dr Vincent Tabak with this crime ,when everyone who made a statement made it to prove that Joanna Yeates was alive on the 17th December 2010... Leaving only the possibility of an electronic record giving us the 16th December 2010...
And the alarm system is the only record I can think of that would give the Police a record of when Joanna Yeates last entered Flat 1....
Either that or the alarm system was not set on the 17th December 2010 and the last known entry was the 16th December 2010...
There has to be a reason for the charge date for Dr Vincent Tabak!!.. (imo) I've been around the houses suggesting she may have died the day before, but I think the key is the alarm system to dating most things in relation to Joanna Yeates movements in and out of Flat 1...
-
As there were no witnesses who encountered Joanna after she returned home the police must have accepted that she was killed that same evening and not the following day.
-
Was Dr Vincent Tabak arrested on the 19th January 2011??
Police in Bristol investigating the murder of landscape architect Joanna Yeates have arrested the boyfriend of Tanja Morson who works at Dyson in Malmesbury.
Dutchman Vincent Tabak, 32, a neighbour of Miss Yeates, was seized by police in a pre dawn raid on Wednesday and arrested on suspicion of her murder.
Now to get the date wrong by typo is understandable , But... to type the day differently is Interesting...
Had they arrested Dr Vincent Tabak on the Wednesday 19th January 2010 ?? Possible?? That would have given them the time they needed to apply for an extension....
The other curious statements Mr Morson makes...
Her parents, speaking from their Cambridgeshire home, confirmed she had a relationship with with Tabak.
Geoffrey Morson said: ''We are a very close family and I speak to my daughter all the time but she has not told me anything. “I do not know if he is her boyfriend or not.
''He's a boy, she's a girl and they are friendly with each other.
''Obviously this is a murder investigation and the public have the right to know about it but I don't know any more than I have read in the newspapers.
Now I thought that Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson had gone to stay with her parents over Christmas and apparently that DC Karen Thomas had called Dr Vincent Tabak whilst he was visiting with Tanja to clarify a few things....
On Christmas Eve, Detective Constable Karen Thomas, a member of the police's major crime investigation team, spoke to Tabak by telephone about his movements on the night of Yeates's disappearance. He told her he was in all evening before driving in the early hours of the morning to pick up Morson after a work party.
Also lets not forget Gunter Morson and the Tweet about the idiot who was wrong.... How does that stack up with Mr Morson not knowing anything about the case other than what he had read in the papers??? That simply doesn't makes sense....
His daughter apparently lived next door to a Murder victim and he has not asked her a single question whilst her and Dr Vincent Tabak were visiting for the festive period???
Geoffrey Morson said: ''We are a very close family and I speak to my daughter all the time but she has not told me anything. “I do not know if he is her boyfriend or not.
Very close ?? speak all the time... no mention of the visit... why even be Interviewed?? Evasive as to whether they were an item or not... Wouldn't No Comment have been more in keeping... Why agree to an Interview at all??
Geoffrey Morson is NOT A Stupid man.... His response to this Interview is extremely odd (imo) There is NO need for him to comment whatsoever... yet he does... He doesn't need to defend his daughters honour, nothing has been proven, it's just an arrest... His choice to engage with the media at such an early stage of Dr Vincent Tabak's arrest to make light almost of whether his daughter and Dr Vincent Tabak were an official item seems inappropriate...
With his legal knowledge and vast experience I couldn't understand why on earth he made such a statement!
International US Lawyer
Brexit Legal Network Ltd. Harvard Law School
Cambridge, United Kingdom 500+ 500+ connections
Substantial experience in US international litigation matters, US international tax disputes, Swiss bank secrecy matters, RICO and white collar crime (including representation of numerous European victims of Bernard Madoff and his various offshore "feeder funds".
He's an educated man, whom I believe would steer clear of the media considering his position... yet we apparently have an odd statement not confirming whether his daughter was the girlfriend in an official capacity just after Dr Vincent Tabak's arrest...
Why would Geoffrey Morson even bother to divulge this information?? It doesn't make sense to me ... Her parents, speaking from their Cambridgeshire home, confirmed she had a relationship with with Tabak.
Confirmed?? why bother or is it accurate that they were just boy-friend and girl- friend as in the context that is suggested by Geoffrey Morson??
We have nothing to confirm or deny that Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson were partners either.. No-one at trial describing there loving relationship... No-one in the papers telling their story of this romance between them..
Where was the gossip and kiss and tell stories about Dr Vincent Tabak?? We are told he never had a girlfriend before Tanja, so maybe that could account for it.. yet someone could have made comments as to his inappropriate behaviour.... Tanja too... where were the stories of boyfriends or friends worried about her connection to the Dutchman.... They were strangely lacking also....
If Geoffrey Morson could not go on record to state that his daughter Tanja was the live in girlfriend of Dr Vincent Tabak.. that should have us asking questions...(imo)
Why be so evasive as to the nature of your daughters relations ship to The Dutchman?? when....
Not Commenting would have been a better course of action for a man of his education and experience...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/28/joanna-yeates-case-vincent-tabak
http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/8805420.Dyson_worker_s_boyfriend_arrested_in_murder_case/
https://www.linkedin.com/in/geoffrey-morson-48214a7/
-
Not one persons confirms that Dr Vincent Tabak went to Cambridge at Christmas .... There was no independent verification of this trip to Tanja Morsons parents home at trial whatsoever... No-one verifies anything that Dr Vincent Tabak says on the stand at trial..
Statements are made and read out but they are not in court to verify anything that is said...
Nothing at trial to verify anything in relation to Dr Vincent Tabak....
(1): Nothing to verify his job
(2): Nothing to verify his relationship to Tanja Morson
(3): Nothing to verify his mobile phone records
(4): Nothing to verify his computer use
(5): Nothing to verify which computers had what searches done upon them
(6): Nothing to verify his mental state at any given time
(7): Nothing to verify that he did not know Joanna Yeates in any capacity
(8): Nothing to verify his visit to Asda at a said time
(9): Nothing to verify he didn't know Greg Reardon
(10): Nothing to verify that he had been away working for 6 weeks in America
(11): Nothing to verify his visit to Cambridge for Christmas
(12): Nothing to verify he was a social person
(13): Nothing to verify he entered Flat 1 on 17th December 2010
(14): Nothing to verify that he actually did kill Joanna Yeates
(15): Nothing to verify that he was actually at Canygne Road on Friday 17th December 2010
(16): Nothing to verify that he and Tanja were an item
(17): Nothing to verify which Flat Number he lived in
(18): Nothing to verify any car journey that night
(19): Nothing to verify he drove the car Reg Number RY51 RDU
(20): Nothing to verify that he was seen by anyone
(21): Nothing to verify his Police Interviews on Video tape
(22): Nothing to verify his phone call from Holland
(23): Nothing to verify the text messages between them
(24): Nothing to verify the landline calls
(25): Nothing to Verify the Timeline of events for Dr Vincent Tabak
(26): Nothing to verify he went to work on Friday 17th December 2010
(27): Nothing to verify that he caught the train to Bath
(28): Nothing to verify he cycled
(29): Nothing to verify he arrived home at a certain time
(30): Nothing to verify he drove around looking for somewhere to dump a body
(31): Nothing to verify witness's credentials
There no Official verification of anything really in relation to Dr Vincent Tabak.... We have a Dutchman sat at trial spilling his beans, and everyone around him in this room is content to accept everything that has been said without any verification of anything...
A media happy to report daily on what must be an agonising trial for The Yeates and never once stop to question why the Defence hasn't spent time cross examining witness's..
A Master of Defending who for me... Sat back and watched it all happen, A Defence who did not clarify what credentials the Prosecutions witness's had... They were all allowed to tell their tale as far as i can see ... And, then the next witness was moved onto..
How have the media sat back and allowed this travesty to go ahead?? How were the media just content with an approximate story of what may or may not have happened to Joanna Yeates that weekend, without any concrete evidence to back it up??
The confession idea I am not sold completely on... Hard concrete facts are needed...To substantiate a claim of an action... And they were lacking... Or should I say none existent..
The Prosecution cannot have it both ways.... Either Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates in the manner that they were happy to go along with or he did not.....
And this supposed struggle he had with Joanna Yeates should have left some evidence in The Flat of said struggle... Dr Vincent Tabak should have transfered something from the crime scene and something from the crime scene should have gone with Dr Vincent Tabak to his Flat...
Just to say that your happy he's admitted it.. Isn't good enough... The evidence should also back this claim that he has made.... If we haven't been able to establish as fact that "Tanja Morson" was Dr Vincent Tabaks girl-friend... as her father has shown he had a little problem with it.... Then how can we accept as fact that she is indeed the girl-friend of Dr Vincent Tabak...
The media told us this info... The media have told us lots of info and the media were fed info by the Police...
How does a Defence Lawyer accept a witness statement from a nurse, about an injury that Dr Vincent Tabak had on his person when she apparently examined him?? What relevance to this actual trail did this Injury have...??
An Injury that could have happened a day or two before his arrest... And an Injury he certainly did not receive on the 17th December 2010.... An Injury he could not have had for 5 weeks!!
What was the point of Nurse Ruth Booth- Pearsons statement, when it bore no factual relevant evidence to the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak.. Why would a renowned Defence Lawyer even accept this statement into evidence?? That evidence should have been laughed out of court!!
Evidence is brought to trial to support the events that took place on any given occasion... And I cannot see where any evidence was brought to prove what Dr Vincent Tabak laid claim to, when he took the stand at Bristol crown court...
There was nothing at court to prove any of the statements made by Dr Vincent Tabak.... And Nothing to verify anything that was claimed about what he supposedly did...
And at the end they bury him up to his neck in doo- doo and leave him to rot in jail.... And the media continue the circus and do nothing to Investigate why even the basic's appear not to have been followed in court...(imo) And why a renowned lawyer did not defend his client, but instead insulted him on many many occasions...
Here is the list of witness's that couldn't substanciate anything as they were not at trial to be cross examined by anyone...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg417648#msg417648
We only know that Dr Vincent Tabak apparently attended a party, because apparently invisible witness's said so... They were not there at trial to confirm anything.. They made a statement, which is hearsay....
Just reminded me of the time when the Police said that Greg Reardon was a "Witness" and it was Splashed all over the papers.... What did he witness??
"Nothing"... he wasn't there according to his testimony... But at least he was in court, which is more than can be said about anyone else who apparently added to what happened over Dr Vincent Tabak's weekend.... They just sent in a doctors note instead.... And didn't attend....
So can someone verify anything that was said on the stand by Dr Vincent Tabak?? Or are we all happy just to see someone swing?? Doesn't this not make the media curious to how our Justice System has been run??? Or will you just accept a Dr's Note!!!
-
BDP...... I always thought it was a bigger premises that this firm had... But I was mistaken... I had found an image of the Offices and just presumed that it must have been only one floor that they photographed, but I was mistaken... (image attached)
Property Address Help with this page (opens in a new window)
Second Floor 7 Hill Street City Centre Bristol BS1 5RW
Print
Address Property History (0) Constraints (3) Map
Full Address: Second Floor 7 Hill Street City Centre Bristol BS1 5RW
Property Number: 7
Street: Hill Street
Town: Bristol
Postcode: BS1 5RW
Ward: Hotwells & Harbourside
Neighbourhood Partnership Area:
Now If BDP is on the second Floor, does the building have a "Lobby area" ????
'We met just before 5pm downstairs in the lobby area. We had a bit of a kiss and a cuddle, said goodbye and I left.
If this office that Greg Reardon and Joanna Yeates worked together was on the same floor why would the need to meet in a "Lobby Area"???
Did Greg Reardon and Joanna Yeates actually work together in the same Bristol Office on Hill Street ??
Did Greg Reardon go to work on the 17th December 2010 at the BDP Office on Hill Street in Bristol??
Did Joanna Yeates go to work on the 17th December 2010 at the BDP Office on Hill Street in Bristol??
Because why would he meet Joanna Yeates in The Lobby If they worked in the same Office on the same floor of the same building?????
Somebody wasn't in that Office on Friday the 17th December 2010 working...
As 7 Hill Street is a shared building did the Police ever Interview anyone from any other company??
Imperial Business Systems is also located at this address and was at this address before 2010... So did anyone from this business know or see Joanna Yeates ??
Why is everything so vague about Joanna Yeates work place and Colleagues, or Possible Individuals that Joanna Yeates may have crossed paths with on a daily basis....
Imperial Business Systems were never mentioned as being in the same building as BDP why?? What did the Police know that made them exclude anyone who worked at this business ever coming into contact with Joanna Yeates??
What evidence have the Police always had that no-one from the media was parked outside BDP asking questions of anyone coming and going from 7 Hill Street Bristol ?? Did the Police ever question the occupants of the Flats opposite 7 Hill Street Bristol.. Flats that look directly onto that building ???
There are always more questions.... But I would like to know If Joanna Yeates and Greg Reardon both worked in the Office of BDP at 7 Hill Street Bristol as their everyday place of work...
Looking at that Office space.. everyone who work for BDP at that time in Bristol... should, would and could know, who worked there... The Office workers would hardly have any space for not knowing what was going on.... Everyone at that Office should have known that Joanna Yeates was going to be on her own because Greg was going away....
And looking at the size of the Office.... I cannot see how Greg Reardon would not have come into contact with the small group of workers there and not mentioned his visit to Sheffield...!!!!
But no-one from BDP has ever aid that Greg told them he was going to Sheffield....
Did the jury get to see BDP's Office?? It's tiny like the flat.... Maybe they would have had a better idea as to why Greg Reardon would need to meet Joanna Yeates in the lobby of that building when they should have been a stones throw away from each other on that day !!!!!
Did The Defence ever look at that Office of BDP's ?? Why didn't they ask Greg Reardon , why Joanna Yeates had chosen to meet him in the lobby... Or did Greg Reardon arrange to meet in the lobby?? Why meet in the lobby?? You both work in a small space and can see each other ???
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2050063/Vincent-Tabak-strangled-Jo-Yeates-20-seconds-stifle-scream-arm-her.html#ixzz52YI2tdQd
http://planningonline.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/propertyDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=L2M5NMDN0RP07
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Tabak came up for discussion yesterday as an agenda item.
The main points are:
1. The reasoning and methodology evident in his answers as to how he killed Yeates and handled the body appear to be an imaginative answer to the questions you would expect investigators to put. They are far too simplistic and only serve to provide an answer, any answer. If you sat down and tried to provide those types of questions with answers that would bring the questioning to an end, that’s what you would do.
2. Nine’s analysis of the timings suggests Tabak did not have the opportunity to carry out what was claimed.
3. The police reaction is all wrong, they are downbeat, beaten in fact. They had to accept what Tabak was saying.
4. The main thrust of the exchange of views, however, centred on another approach independently taken by one of our number who reported back to the meeting. This centred on the idea of mistaken identity, that the flat was being targeted to attack someone else, not Yeates. As any endeavour is to applauded, whatever the outcome, and as a group we don’t have any reason or facility to direct each other, it was considered that we would put more information (largely opinion, admittedly) on this forum in respect of this particular incident.
One particular item of interest is that we had one individual on a list compiled some years ago that had been entirely overlooked, or rather filtered for relevance to another situation, the compiler sadly no longer with us, the reasoning lost also. Out of sheer coincidence a previous resident of 44 Canynge Road is an immediate relative.
For what it’s worth we don’t do coincidences!
AH
-
Tabak came up for discussion yesterday as an agenda item.
The main points are:
1. The reasoning and methodology evident in his answers as to how he killed Yeates and handled the body appear to be an imaginative answer to the questions you would expect investigators to put. They are far too simplistic and only serve to provide an answer, any answer. If you sat down and tried to provide those types of questions with answers that would bring the questioning to an end, that’s what you would do.
2. Nine’s analysis of the timings suggests Tabak did not have the opportunity to carry out what was claimed.
3. The police reaction is all wrong, they are downbeat, beaten in fact. They had to accept what Tabak was saying.
4. The main thrust of the exchange of views, however, centred on another approach independently taken by one of our number who reported back to the meeting. This centred on the idea of mistaken identity, that the flat was being targeted to attack someone else, not Yeates. As any endeavour is to applauded, whatever the outcome, and as a group we don’t have any reason or facility to direct each other, it was considered that we would put more information (largely opinion, admittedly) on this forum in respect of this particular incident.
One particular item of interest is that we had one individual on a list compiled some years ago that had been entirely overlooked, or rather filtered for relevance to another situation, the compiler sadly no longer with us, the reasoning lost also. Out of sheer coincidence a previous resident of 44 Canynge Road is an immediate relative.
For what it’s worth we don’t do coincidences!
AH
Fanatastic AH..... I always wondered what material you had...
Looking at Point 4: Be good to have something else to consider, maybe it could lead somewhere... It did make sense to "A" Comment that has been in the media at the end of the trial.
He has sympathy for Tabak’s fiancee Tanja Morson. With one arm around his wife Teresa, 58, he said: “Who knows whether Tanja had a lucky escape?
That could add weight to the fact that maybe it was Tanja who was the actual target... possible?? I won't comment on this much more, until you have added to the forum...
Looking forward to reading.. And seeing how that would pan out if that was the real motive behind Joanna Yeates death..
Edit... Maybe start a thread for your topic AH
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/280592/Tabak-was-always-going-to-kill
-
Looking again at the little clips from the news media, I came across a rather curious comment..
Did the media know something we didn't ?? Was there another location ????
At 1:43 of the video clip...
It seems the continuing Forensic Examination, here and elsewhere, will be the key to solving this case. Test results are coming back all the time, but detectives are still waiting for that vital bit of evidence.
Where is Elsewhere?? Elsewhere is NOT "Longwood Lane" or the reporter would have said so....
Here Is Canygne Road as he is reporting from that location... So what is Elsewhere on the 2nd January 2011 ?? That the Police have not divulged this other possible location
If there is indeed another location that the Police were Forensically testing, was this location a house? an outdoor area or a vehicle???
Is this the reason we always see vehicles being removed from Canygne Road.... ??
I will also add that if they had been testing "Elsewhere" why wasn't this other location/ possible scene of crime, brought to trial as part of the evidence against Dr Vincent Tabak???
Dr Vincent Tabak apparently had only just returned back to England on the 2nd January 2011 and at that point in time the evidence the police had, could not link Dr Vincent Tabak in anyway to this Crime.....
What is Elsewhere?? It has to be significant enough for the police to be Forensically Testing this 'new" location....
Just before the reporter makes that statement they show a shot of Longwood Lane.... Is Elsewhere actually inside the quarry itself?? Taking us back to the Fire Services attendance and the rope access guys working there...
Either way.. It changes what has been said at trial..... Dr Vincent Tabak couldn't possibly have dumped Joanna Yeates on Longwood Lane on a Grass verge, If The Police where Forensically testing Elsewhere on the 2nd January 2011 (imo)
Edit... Listening to it again.... Continuing Forensic examination here and elsewhere
How many days had this Forensic testing been done for? When did they start Forensically testing Elsewhere? This had to have a viable connection to Joanna Yeates (imo) or else they wouldn't be continuing to Forensically test this 'Illusive Place"....
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/police-in-bristol-have-renewed-their-call-for-help-from-news-footage/107853537
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Defence Counsel: You went to the University of Technology in Utrecht. Did you have to
leave home then? Utrecht is about 30 kilometres away.
Tabak: Yes. I lived away. I studied architecture for seven years.
So did Dr Vincent Tabak attend the 'University of Technology in Utrecht?? Dr Vincent Tabak doesn't clarify anything here, he clarifys that he lived away from home and The Defence Council say Utrecht is 30 kilometers away...
But "what" is 30 kilometers away from Utrecht??
Joanna Yeates murder: man arrested
Joanna Yeates murder: man arrested; NETHERLANDS: Eindhoven: EXT General views of Eindhoven University of Technology
Credit: ITN
Clip #: 655482290 SD
Collection: ITN
Date created: 20 January, 2011
Licence type: Rights-ready
Release info: Not released. More information
Clip length: 00:00:21:00
Location: Netherlands
The video clip shows the TU/e Institute, the clip is from the 20th January 2010...
From Uden to The TU/e Institute it is 33 kilometers
From Uden to Utrecht is around 80 kilometers
So which is correct???
He attended a University 30 kilometers away from home or...
He attended Utrecht University and he didn't live in Uden
Why did the media show the University ot TU/e on the day of Dr Vincent Tabak,s arrest ?? One University that would be 30 kilometers away from his home in Uden?? (If Uden is indeed his home town)..What relevance is the University of TU/e
Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e) plays a prominent role at both national and international levels through its research and educational programs in the engineering science and technology domain.
What is the relevance of the University of TU/e ???
The media are not just going to put a random University in its report... It's like someone attending Birmingham University, but showing Manchester University Instead.... Not likely!!
The TU/e intends to be a research-driven, design-oriented university of technology, with the primary objective of providing young people with an academic education within the engineering science & technology domain. The primary task is the training of engineers (at Master of Science level) possessing a sound scientific basis and depth of knowledge, as well as the necessary competences that will enable them to develop successful careers in a wide range of fields and functions within the community. The bachelor?s programs (BSc) are intended to serve as a basis for further education at Master?s level. The TU/e also trains teachers (at Master of Science level), designers (at the Professional Doctorate in Engineering level) and researchers (at Doctor of Philosophy level). In addition, it provides postacademic programs and courses. In the research field the TU/e prefers to focus, within the engineering science & technology domain, on the specific areas in which it takes or can take a significant role in the international scientific world, and in which it can make meaningful contributions to the knowledge-intensive industries and other sectors of the community with a high, or rapidly developing, technology intensity.
Or should I say "who" does the University of TU/e have a connection too??
https://www.topuniversities.com/universities/eindhoven-university-technology
http://drtherapat.eu/consortium/eindhoven-university-of-technology/
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/man-arrested-netherlands-eindhoven-ext-general-views-of-news-footage/655482290
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Defence Counsel: Then you sought employment? Where were you employed?
Tabak: My first employment was at Buro Happold in Bath, England.
Defence Counsel: Had you been to England before?
Tabak: Yes, on holiday several times.
Defence Counsel: And do you consider that you were fluent in English then?
Tabak: Yes.
Defence Counsel: When did you begin your employment at Buro Happold in Bath?
Tabak: I began in September 2007.
Defence Counsel: What was your job title at Buro Happold in 2007?
Tabak: I was employed as a people flow analyst.
Defence Counsel: What was your job title in 2010?
Tabak: People flow analyst.
Does that mean that Dr Vincent Tabak still worked for Buro Happold in 2010 ?? Or simply that he was still a "People Flow Analyst" in 2010??
He states his "First" employment was with..Buro Happold"... So he must have had another?? Did Dr Vincent Tabak still work for Buro Happold in December 2010???
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
Defence Counsel: Where was the car?
Tabak: On the street.
Defence Counsel: Then you took the body out to the street?
Tabak: No. I backed the car into the drive.
Defence Counsel: Was the car facing Canynge Road?
Tabak: No. The back of the car was facing Canynge Road.
I couldn't see how this was possible before, But there is a way in which it could happen..
Did Dr Vincent Tabak actually live at 42, Canygne Road ?? It is the only property on the street where it would be possible to back a car off the street and still have the boot of the car facing Canygne Road..
Image attached ... I have circled both gates....
Would also make sense of the police arriving at 42,Canygne Road on the 31st December 2010, coincidentally the same day as Dr Vincent Tabak was being Interviewed in Holland...
Late on Friday Mr Stanley left his flat accompanied by a plain clothes detective. He drove his own maroon BMW car away from his home next door to the house where Miss Yeates lived.
The officer had been speaking to Mr Stanley inside his flat during the day. He emerged at 3.15pm with four large brown evidence bags which he put into his own car boot.
Ten minutes later he was seen carrying a laptop case and spare evidence bags. Less than 30 minutes later eight uniformed officers were driven into the road in two large vans.
Image 2: Showing the boot of Peter Stanleys car facing Canygne Road and a Police Officer guarding Peter Stanleys home....
Image 3: A detective (centre) briefs police officers prior to leaving the home of Peter Stanley, 56, who lives in a flat in the mansion to the right of Chris Jefferies on Canynge Road and who worked to start the car of Joanna Yeates' boyfriend,...More
December 31, 2010 Licence
The Detective is Jon Hook.....
What was the purpose of "Peter Stanley"?? He was of no evidentiary value to the trial.... Yet he's all over the media on a day the 'Dutchman" is being questioned...!!!
Peter Stanley has been strangley quiet too on this subject.... No Leveson for him.... So why the "Wall" of silence from "Peter Stanley"?????
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8234313/Joanna-Yeates-murder-neighbour-interviewed-by-police-over-boyfriends-flat-battery-incident.html
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Ground Floor Flat... 44, Canygne Road.......
Land Registry sold prices
Ground Floor Flat, 44 Canynge Road, Bristol, City Of Bristol BS8 3LQ
Sale Date Property Price Paid Source
05 Mar 1999 Flat, Leasehold £97,500 Land Registry
30 Sep 1996 Flat, Leasehold £61,500 Land Registry
17 Nov 1995 Flat, Leasehold £73,500 Land Registry Previously listed on Rightmove on May 2017
1 bedroom property
(http://media.rightmove.co.uk/dir/73k/72658/65287373/72658_26852903_IMG_01_0000_max_656x437.jpg)
(http://media.rightmove.co.uk/dir/73k/72658/65287373/72658_26852903_IMG_02_0000_max_656x437.jpg)
(http://media.rightmove.co.uk/dir/73k/72658/65287373/72658_26852903_IMG_03_0000_max_656x437.jpg)
(http://media.rightmove.co.uk/dir/73k/72658/65287373/72658_26852903_IMG_04_0000_max_656x437.jpg)
(http://media.rightmove.co.uk/dir/73k/72658/65287373/72658_26852903_IMG_05_0000_max_656x437.jpg)
(http://media.rightmove.co.uk/dir/73k/72658/65287373/72658_26852903_IMG_06_0000_max_656x437.jpg)
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/detailMatching.html?prop=65287373&sale=31580664&country=england
So is this the real layout for Joanna Yeates Flat??? Notice the bathroom has it's own window.... not at the bottom of any hallway...
Also the kitchen appears to be on a different level also.... What "staged Flat" did they show us???? This 'IS" The Ground Floor Flat.... So what did we see as 'The Crime scene" ????
I have also attached the images incase these go Missing"...
Edit... Isn't this the property that CJ was supposed to have bought in 1999.... If that is the case... It has to be Flat 1.... So what does it say about Flat 1??
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
CJ at The Leveson......
Mr Jay
Might it be said, if I could be forgiven for being devil's advocate, that the press couldn't have got this from the police because the police, had they leaked it to the press, would have said, "Mr Jefferies couldn't identify even whether it was a woman's voice, let alone Ms Yeates"? Do you see the point?
Mr Christopher Jefferies
Yes, I do see the point. There is a range of possibilities as far as the source of the information is concerned, including somebody who was not actually an officer to whom I had given the statement, who had seen the statement in any detail, but had nevertheless heard about it.
Who is CJ talking about ????
Is he talking Anne Reddrop ?? The Head of The Complex Crime Unit who was active on this case from late December 2010... So is that whom CJ is referring too as in the person whom was not an Officer to whom he had given the statement??
Who else could it be ??
Or one of the many members of 'Staff' and Voluntary Staff" that the Police used and use...
Wasn't it DC Karen Jones the person who took CJ's statement??? Is CJ referring to her not being an Officer??
http://leveson.sayit.mysociety.org/hearing-28-february-2012/mr-christopher-jefferies#s46278
-
the presence of the aggravating factor is already reflected in the penalty for the offence and cannot be used as justification for increasing the sentence further.
How did Judge Field add extra years to Dr Vincent Tabaks sentence ???
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/explanatory-material/item/aggravating-and-mitigating-factors/
-
‘Some will describe their meetings and conversations with him over the following days.
Some talk of his normality, some the pressures and strains he was displaying. The police
saw him on a number of occasions and his behaviour is important. When alone at work or
at home his internet activity became ever more consumed, following news items as if
almost following the police investigation as it unfolded when Greg Reardon gives evidence
on Monday 17 October 2011.
Nigel Lickley continued:
‘Vincent Tabak put his hand around Jo Yeates's throat for 20 seconds to stop her
screaming’.
Now That first paragraph appears to be talking about Greg Reardon..... Am I mistaken??? Greg Reardon is not going to be giving evidence as to Dr Vincent Tabak's demeanour....
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
I want to go back to this post above....
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg438674#msg438674
This (imo) has to be the Flat that CJ bought... going from the dates of sale... And if that is the case, when did he buy the basement Flats?? It is not CJ's Flat.. we have seen CJ's Flat for sale before and the rooms are clearly bigger...
The bedroom from the advert is on the next floor, so is the kitchen and the bathroom... The sitting room must be on the next floor also... I presume by ground floor they must mean the floor where the front door is.... making that property the one above what we know as Flat 1... But.... The front room windows do not appear that long as the property above Flat 1....
Also missing is the alcoves.... why has the basement flat got alcoves when this Flat has none, thus taking up space, not needed..
What exactly is the basement Flat.... Was it really where Joanna Yeates lived... Or is this the Flat that Dr Vincent Tabak lived in?? Did Dr Vincent Tabak rent his Flat from CJ ??? Thus Making the whole of the basement one Flat, which would explain why the media had already been taking video footage of the back of Canygne Road and images of the glass panelled door....
Also if this is the Flat that Dr Vincent Tabak lived in, then he wouldn't be passing Joanna Yeates kitchen window to go to the street.....
This Flat has to be the one that CJ refers to.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETW8z8kwB_A at around 42 seconds...
Which Flats does CJ own or did CJ own in that building...
(1): http://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/detailMatching.html?prop=65287373&sale=31580664&country=england (The flat CJ should have bought)
(2): http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-27696067.html (Flat1)
(3): http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-32871173.html (CJ's home)
(4): http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-29859883.html (Flat 2)
So which 3 properties from that list does CJ own ??? Am I correct in stating that the Basement Flat was just one Flat??? meaning Property 1 on the list is where Dr Vincent Tabak lived??
I'll just add a link to an old post ,where I try an establish who owns which flat....
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8056.msg418454#msg418454
Edit.... So am I back to the Bay window being Joanna yeates ?? The whole of the basement being Joanna yeates.... The basement where the bay windows were Forensically examined before Joanna yeates body had even been discovered... The glass panelled door being videoed by the news crew before Dr vincent Tabak was even a suspect... The snow all around showing that this was before Dr Vincent Tabak was a suspect... The Intercom panel still in place on Flat 1 which was removed on the 29th December 2010, the day before Dr Vincent Tabak or anyone else called the Police from Holland... No reason for the imagery of what they call Flat 2... It has to be Joanna yeates Flat (imo) meaning Dr Vincent Tabak didn't live there....
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/police-forensics-officers-working-at-the-flat-that-yeates-news-footage/659296240
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/joanna-yeates-murder-trial-defendant-vincent-tabak-gives-news-footage/656385638
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
For leonora
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DSuVOfYXcAAYrHs.jpg)
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Defence Counsel: Then you sought employment? Where were you employed?
Tabak: My first employment was at Buro Happold in Bath, England.
Defence Counsel: When did you begin your employment at Buro Happold in Bath?
Tabak: I began in September 2007.
Defence Counsel: What was your job title at Buro Happold in 2007?
Tabak: I was employed as a people flow analyst.
Defence Counsel: What was your job title in 2010?
Tabak: People flow analyst.
Defence Counsel: When did you leave for Los Angeles?
Tabak: I left for Los Angeles on 14 Nov and returned on 14 Dec 2010.
Now, I missed a trick here.... Skimming, I am still guilty of it....
Buro Happold.... Now Dr Vincent Tabak may have worked in the Bath Office... But I also believe that he worked in the Los Angeles Office... And that was the reason for his trip to America... He could well have been freelance for all we know....
As our anchor office on the West Coast, BuroHappold Los Angeles offers innovative integrated engineering services to the city’s world renowned design community. Since opening in 2006, the Los Angeles team has worked on a number of award winning projects around the world. Our significant local portfolio includes the city’s most iconic projects such as the Los Angeles County Museum of Art Building for the Permanent Collection and the Academy Museum of Motion Pictures, currently under construction.
As the Los Angeles Office has been open since 2006, it is extremely possible that Dr Vincent Tabak was a regular visitor/worker at these Offices....
The Defence did not produce Dr Vincent Tabak's passport, or any ESTA(Electronic System for Travel Authorization) applications for travel that Dr Vincent Tabak would have needed for his trip to America....
The Prosecution have always lead us to believe that they looked at Buro Happolds computers.... Well did they check the computers at the Los Angeles Office ???
I always had this vision of Dr Vincent Tabak sat in a little motel somewhere in the middle of nowhere with his own laptop and a Tv in the room....
Now Dr Vincent Tabak would not have needed to take his laptop with him to Los Angeles (imo).. There must be programs were he can access everything at the Bath office via a password... Therefore eliminating the need for a laptop... But whilst we envisage him sat bored in his hotel room emailing Tanja daily, we never stopped to think that he may have had another alternative access to the Internet.. That being by Buro hapolds own computers at their Los angeles Office ....
Brings a different complexion to things....
So did the prosecution produce Buro Happolds computers at trial.... NO!! Did they ever contact the Los Angeles Office .... NO!! Whom in the Los Angeles Office could vouch for Dr Vincent Tabak and his behaviour ???? Who in the Los Angeles Office knew anything about Dr Vincent Tabak???
There is so much more to discover about Dr Vincent Tabak and his work, I believe we have just touched the edges.... Was Dr Vincent Tabak actually in the country when Joanna yeates and Greg Reardon moved into Canygne Road ???? How do we know he was ????
A man who travels for his work.... goes to different Buro happold Offices around the world, and we do not know whether or not he was in England when these two people moved into Canygne Road....
How comes I still have questions??/ Are these not the type of things that The Defence should have been cross referencing ???
Now Buro Happold is an "Engineering Firm"... They are NOT architects... I had that word stuck in my head for years... If Buro Happold were architects they would have made it to the AJ100... http://aj100.architectsjournal.co.uk/view/overview/2010/view.aspx
And of course they are NOT there.... But as firms they do team building exercises .... And Buro Happold do partake in these activities, which the likes of BDP do attend....
Now I know many people have said in the past that it was wuite possiblre for either Greg Reardon or Joanna Yeates to come into contact with Dr Vincent Tabak because of ..
(A): Their work would need collaboration, and it was possible for them to get togethr..
(B): A Team Building exercise, where both companies where involved...
But.. what if Dr Vincent Tabak was out of the country a lot of the time working at various Buro Happold Offices around the world, he would more than likely have not come into contact with them because of his absence, rather than any other reason ....
Now how many "People Flow Analyist did Buro Happold employ at their Bath Office ?????
Because we have a lady by the name of JINU VARUGHESE
Senior People Flow Analyst Bath.... (2010)
Jinu is a Senior People Flow Analyst within the Smart Space team at BuroHappold, with extensive technical knowledge and modelling experience on various projects involving flow of passengers, pedestrians and crowds, in sectors ranging from cultural to sport stadia, and particular expertise in the education sector.
After completing a Bachelor’s degree in Architecture and a Master’s degree in Construction Management, Jinu joined BuroHappold in 2010, being inspired from her thesis relating to people movement behaviour in buildings. Since joining BuroHappold, Jinu has been leading the technical analysis in people movement projects and helping clients design buildings optimised for people flow.
She has been working in her position since 2010....
So what of Dr Vincent Tabak???? What was he doing in 2010 in Bath??? I am not sure he worked for the Bath Office anymore... He very well could have worked abroad.... Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to be so good at his job that he helped everyone in the Office... Well why have we a Jinu there also... How many "People Flow Analysts " of a senior or any position do "Buro Happold " employee in any Office ??
Jinu didn't testify to knowing Dr Vincent Tabak or that they worked together in the Bath Office ....
Tabak: I had been working on a very big project- A Holy Mosque in Mecca- I was doing
some analysis on it – the flow of pilgrims to the Holy Mosque. This was a project that
Buro Happold was tendering for.
Dubai
Rolex Tower
OF3001
30/F DIFC
Sheikh Zayed Road
+971 (0) 4 518 4000
info.dubai@burohappold.com
Abu Dhabi
Office 512, 5th Floor
Al Khazna Tower
Al Najda St.
Abu Dhabi
United Arab Emirates
+971 (2) 6711127 ext. 312
I Cannot find this Mosque Dr Vincent Tabak was working on... But why aren't the Offices nearer to Mecca doing the work?? Did Dr Vincent Tabak ever work at these other Offices ???
The trial gives us very little insight into Dr Vincent Tabak... It allows us to believe that he just gets up every morning and cycles to work and that is it... When in reality i believe that his job was far more complex than that...
So who truly knew and worked with Dr Vincent Tabak??? Maybe the people who could vouch for his character lived far and wide across the world... And that didn't come into "The Base Metal Service" that The Defence allowed....
Edit.... Did Dr Vincent Tabak travel alone when he went to Los Angeles... Or was he accompanied by another Buro Happold employee????
https://www.burohappold.com/contact/
http://www.gcsolutionsltd.co.uk/index.php/our-projects/12d-design/129-mecca-saudi-arabia
https://www.burohappold.com/people/jinu-varughese-2/
https://www.burohappold.com/contact/office/los-angeles/
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
I Cannot find this Mosque Dr Vincent Tabak was working on...
It's just as well you aren't a Muslim! The Holy Mosque at Mecca is where every Muslim tries to make a pilgrimage at least once in his/her life. It is an enormous place. What is more, Saudi Binladin Group is the sole contractor for all the building work that goes on there. It's a site with enormous flows of pilgrims, and VT's group were tendering for the contract to model their flows.
-
It's just as well you aren't a Muslim! The Holy Mosque at Mecca is where every Muslim tries to make a pilgrimage at least once in his/her life. It is an enormous place. What is more, Saudi Binladin Group is the sole contractor for all the building work that goes on there. It's a site with enormous flows of pilgrims, and VT's group were tendering for the contract to model their flows.
No i am not being ignorant... I am trying to find what happened in 2010..... I have this ....
https://www.burohappold.com/projects/jabal-omar-development-project/
But that 2016
Ans this http://www.gcsolutionsltd.co.uk/index.php/our-projects/12d-design/129-mecca-saudi-arabia
2014
I was just trying to identify what he was referring to....
Or we have a high speed rail link....
http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20111117-the-futurist-saudi-arabia-to-get-high-speed-rail
2011
i was just trying to find the exact project.....
-
When The Yeates make their appeal on the 18th January 2011, they believe that Joanna Yeates was acquainted with her killer... There must be a reason for them to believe this... Dr Vincent Tabak apparently did not know Joanna Yeates... no acquaintance in any shape or form...
Please help us to identify the killer, Jo was probably acquainted with her killer , we are sure that the killer will be brought to justice
And on the 20th January 2011 Dr Vincent Tabak is arrested.... with what "evidence" I have never been able to establish!
Seeing as Dr Vincent Tabak could not gain access to Flat 1.. They did not know his movements at this time... There was NO Forensics connecting him to Flat 1.. Dr Vincent Tabak didn't know Joanna Yeates...
They had less evidence against Dr Vincent Tabak when they arrested him than they had against CJ when they arrested him in December.... With CJ we knew he had the keys to the Flat.. But what did Dr Vincent Tabak have or do for the Police to arrest him on the 20th January 2011... Any evidence they apparently had against him never made it to trial!
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/man-arrested-lib-int-david-and-teresa-yeates-chris-yeates-news-footage/655516924
-
William Clegg
Tabak's barrister, William Clegg QC, began his speech by telling the jury members he was not going to ask them to like Tabak. "There's nothing to like," he said.
Nor did he ask them to have any sympathy for the Dutch engineer. "He deserves none," Clegg said. He added that there would be no excuses for Tabak's "disgusting" behaviour in hiding Yeates's body as he tried to get away with the crime.
Clegg said he realised Tabak would lose a popularity contest, but he told the jury they had to return a verdict that reflected the evidence.
Tabak's barrister went on to challenge the idea that the attack was premeditated. He said evidence that Yeates invited Tabak into the flat caused the prosecution "a great deal of trouble" and "destroyed" the notion the attack was planned. He added that Tabak could not have known Yeates was alone until he was asked in.
Watched by members of Yeates's family, Clegg asked the jury to reject the theory that it was a sex attack. He reminded the panel that a pathologist, Nat Cary, had described this as speculation.
Clegg told the jury that Yeates had died of cardiac arrest caused by obstruction to her airways. This was, he argued, a "very short, fast-moving incident". He also described it as a flash, a few seconds of madness.
Clegg suggested his client's inability to remember exactly what happened was the result of trauma. Twice Clegg reminded the jurors of their oath to try Tabak on the evidence put before them.
He concluded by telling them that they had much to reflect on, asking: "Has the prosecution proved to you that he had the intention the law demands before a man can be convicted of murder?"
Apart from the distain Clegg shows for his client, how did the Jury come to a guilty verdict... If it was based on what the Prosecution said....
Now what was contained in the 1300 page document??? Was The porn still there??? did the jury see that ???Because the Prosecution proved nothing at trial....(imo)... They had NO EVIDENCE to connect Dr Vincent Tabak to Joanna Yeates.... No timestamps nothing....
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/26/vincent-tabak-joanna-yeates-trial
-
In a statement that never mentioned Tabak by name they said: "We attended the trial of Jo's murderer not to see justice handed out to him but to find out as much as we could about what really happened. We never considered this trial as a process of 'Justice for Jo'.
"There was never any doubt in our mind that Jo had been murdered and we fully expected him to lie if he went into the witness box. We came here with little hope or expectation of hearing what happened on 17 December, but needed to see him and hear what he had to say first hand.
So who were they hoping to hear??? Obviously not Dr Vincent Tabak.... As they said... They never considered this trial as a process of "Justice for Jo"... Well I agree with them on that score.... I believe the information that was contained within the trial, was something close to what took place, but It wasn't Dr Vincent Tabak's words... Or searches, or texts.. (imo)! I think you all should really consider what the Yeates mean when they say that they "Never considered this trial as a process of 'justice for Jo"..." Because I believe it speaks volumes....
Also they never mention Dr Vincent Tabak by name... also telling.... I believe their statement was directed at someone else entirely... (imo)
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/28/joanna-yeates-murder-vincent-tabak
-
On Friday 17th December 2010, CCTV captured pictures showing Joanna Yeates and Greg Reardon setting off for work through the snow.
Have you any images of this leonora.... Is there anyway in which you could describe what was on the CCTV footage?? Where are the images taken from???
If they had these images from Canygne Road... why didn't they show Dr Vincent Tabaks movements on Canygne Road....???
Are we sure that the images are from Friday 17th December 2010 and not the Saturday or a day when it had snowed???
http://vincent-tabak-is-innocent.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/boyfriend.html
-
"From a distance he saw features that indicated that a human body was buried in the snow ... a patch of skin and some denim."
Mr Lickley added: "The missing person inquiry that had commenced became a murder inquiry from that moment."
Now that is a strange statement from Mr Lickley.... Why was it from the moment that The Birches discovered a body that it had become a "Murder Inquiry"??
We know that they were treating this from the 20th December as fowl play... As they had already started taking items from the Flat...
There had to be some information that they had been told, that made them say that it was a "Murder Inquiry" The minute her body had been discovered !
Whom had they Interviewed at this point?? Amongst the statements that the Police had in their possession by the 25th December 2010, The person who killed her had to be amongst those statements...(imo)...
They only had statements to go by.. They knew what they did or her movements.. But to say that this is a "Murder Inquiry" as soon as she was found, suggest that someone gave them a statement about Joanna yeates that didn't ring true.... (imo)
This cannot be Dr Vincent Tabak (imo).. Because you are not going to jump from a neighbour, who states he never saw Joanna Yeates that evening to him having Murdered her.... There would be no connection to the two events....
So there must have been Information in there possession that showed someone had lied.... And therefore they Knew that she had been "Murdered" when they found her....
So what could be in the statement.... And who's is it!!!
Edit... I say it has to be a statement..... If they had information that it had been an accident, then the fact that her body had been discovered buried, would lend them to believe that it was deliberate, therefore Mr Lickley stating from the moment the body was discovered, it had become a Murder Inquiry.... The Police had to have in their possession Information that claimed an accident had happened...
And we didn't know about any accident until trial....!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8817687/Vincent-Tabak-strangled-Joanna-Yeates-then-sent-text-saying-he-was-bored-court-hears.html
-
BDP.... And Buro Happold, apparently never the twain shall meet, yet that has to be an untrue statement....
Buro Happold and BDP work together on many Projects... and have done for some Years...
Buro Happold are listed as one of BDP's clients:
CLIENTS
CONSULTANT
Bilfinger GVA, England, London
BLP, England, London
Buro Happold, England, London
Burofour, England, London
Carter Jonas, England, London
CBRE, England, London
Cushman Wakefield, England, London
David Chipperfield Architects, England, London
Deloitte LLP, England, London
So what is the likelyhood that Dr Vincent Tabak and Joanna yeates actually came into contact through there work?? Highly likely I would say... These two companies are connected and all of the imagery points to there connection...
The Harbourside Centre for the arts" (Concert Hall)... A Buro Happold project in Bristol...
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1pz7AQAAQBAJ&pg=PA163&lpg=PA163&dq=Buro+Happold+bristol+harbourside&source=bl&ots=cA3tqYug-f&sig=cBje3RFhGF5_ayEXmhP-4zA-RK8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQuMKlxMrYAhUKBsAKHXOtAcgQ6AEIVTAH#v=onepage&q=Buro%20Happold%20bristol%20harbourside&f=false
(Image attached)
Although the parties involved were all satisfied with the scheme, it could not have proceeded without the £58 million of lottery funding towards the £89 Million needed for construction. In July 1998, after two years of work by the architects, the final year which involved Buro Happold structral engineers,max Fordham environment engineers,BBM Muller acoustic engineers,Theatre project consultants who carried out sight line analysis, and other specialist, The Arts Council Panel turned down the £58 Million Lottery application...
Again Coincidence cannot be ignored.. This project wanted lottery funding, and If i am not mistaken Greg Reardon apparently wished he had won the "Lottery" Instead of the misfortune that had come into his life...
He "cursed the probability of the situation" and said: "Why couldn't we win the lottery instead? It's probably just as feasible as getting murdered by your next-door neighbour."
Now why did we have this information made available during The Joanna Yeates Inquiry, when Dr Vincent Tabak would not have been aware of any Lottery Application or Buro happolds involvement with this project,... Yet everyone and his dog are all pointing to..
(A): The Harbourside
(B): Buro Happold
(C): The Lottery
Even The Pitcher and Piano is at "The Harbourside, were apparently Dr Vincent Tabak spent an evening...
Maybe we need to ask the questions what does
(1) Buro Happold
(2) The Harbourside Bristol
(3) Joanna Yeates
(4) The Lottery
(5) BDP
All have in common?? There has to be a link... And I don't believe the link is Dr Vincent Tabak!
http://www.bdp.com/en/sectors/urbanism/clients/
http://www.bdp.com/en/latest/news/2005/bdp-selected-to-design-yorkshire-hospitals/
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/dec/14/joanna-yeates-boyfriend-talks-sun
Edit...
BDP SELECTED TO DESIGN YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS
24/04/2008
Mid-Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust has selected Consort Healthcare as their preferred bidder to replace the existing Pinderfields General Hospital and Pontefract General Infirmary under a £250M PPP project. The new hospitals are set to deliver a new step-change in patient-environment driven design.
Building Design Partnership are the lead architects, interior designers and landscape architects working in conjunction with Avanti Architects for the Balfour Beatty, Haden Young and Gleeson joint venture.
BDP will be responsible for the design of the new 90,000m2 acute hospital on the Pinderfields site on the edge of Wakefield, while Avanti are architects for the 20,000 m2 diagnostic and treatment centre at Pontefract.
Tim Wilkins, BDP Project Director, said of the announcement:
"This is excellent news for BDP, Avanti and the Balfour Beatty joint venture, who worked in close partnership on this winning bid.
"Our designs built on the innovative and inspiring design brief prepared by the Trust and their advisors, including the Prince's Foundation. Both projects focus on the patient and staff environment utilising shallow plan space and courtyards to deliver daylight and views to all occupied rooms. Our primary aim has been to put people at the heart of our design process and provide a world-class environment for patients, staff and visitors."
At Pinderfields the new build acute hospital will comprise a pair of in-patient hotels, a women's and children's centre, rehabilitation institute, an acute services building and a diagnostic and treatment centre. Pontefract will provide, A&E, inpatient rehabilitation and maternity services along with an outpatient based diagnostic and treatment centre.
It is expected that the new Pontefract Hospital will open in 2008/9 and that the new Pinderfields Hospital will open in 2009/10.
Other members of the design team include clinical strategists Rawlinson Kelly Whittlestone, civil & structural engineers White Young Green and M&E engineers Buro Happold.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg435140#msg435140
Think I said something along those lines...... 'Stop the Clock" Interviewing outside Police Station....!!
It reminded me about a similar conversation I had with another officer some years ago. ‘Why is it so quiet?’ I asked. He laughed and said ‘because we have found a loophole that avoids having solicitors. We don’t need to call you if we interview ‘off station’. Nothing you can do about it’ .
http://thejusticegap.com/2018/01/keep-investing-failure/
First published on January 15, 2018
-
Throughout the whole time i have looked at this case, I have used Information from the media and The "Sally Ramage Papers..."
These papers hold information that would not have been available if "Sally Ramage hadn't published these pages over a few years....
"Sally Ramage: as we know is
Legal researcher and writer
Company NameLexisNexis Butterworths
Dates EmployedJan 1987 – Dec 2012 Employment Duration26 yrs
KELLY'S DRAFTSMAN and
ENCLYCOPEDIA OF FORMS AND PRECEDENTS, LEXISNEXIS, BUTTERWORTHS.
Chief Editor- Criminal Lawyer; Current Criminal Law; Criminal Law News
Company NameBloomsbury Professional Chief Editor of the Criminal Lawyer (formerly a Butterworths series)
Dates EmployedDec 2001 – Present Employment Duration16 yrs 2 mos
LocationWet Midlands, United Kingdom
Expert comparative criminal procedures.
Sally Ramage is more than qualified... Yet... And it has been pointed out before... There are many errors within the pages about Dr Vincent Tabak....
And as i am not the sharpest tool in the box it has taken a while for it to eventually twig......
Examples of errors:
From: https://philarchive.org/archive/RAMTMT-4
Joanna Yeates was a 25 year old woman who was murdered on 15 December 2010. Her body was
discovered on 26 December 2010 and on 23 January 2011 her next door neighbour Dr Vincent
Tabak, a highly qualified Dutch architectural engineer (working in Bath, England, United Kingdom)
was arrested and charged with her murder.
15th December 2010... (we know it was 17th December 2010)
Miss Yeates and Mr Reardon had recently moved into the next-door Apartment 1 in November
2010. During the time between Joanna Yeates move to 44 Canynge Road and the day before her
disappearance, Dr Tabak was out of the country, working in Los Angeles, United States (US).
October 2011 was when they moved into Canygne Road... It says that Dr Vincent Tabak was out of the country the day before Joanna Yeates disappeared.....
Now either Sally Ramage has seen evidence to prove that Dr Vincent Tabak was out of the country, the day before when Joanna Yeates went missing, or this is another deliberate mistake...
When looking through the 2 different papers that I have linked, it is littered with errors..... Now there very well may be many legal errors within these papers, but as i am not legally minded, I don't know what has been quoted in these papers is correct or not....
I have just given a few examples... And at one point I felt disheartened when I knew that I had heavily relied upon Sally Ramages papers for many arguments.... But I had also spent many hours sifting through video's and images which also backed up what I had said....
But I want to go back to Sally Ramage.... She is highly regarded in her field... She write books and legal journals... many people reference her work... And suddenly out of nowhere... Sally Ramage, appears to have the capability of someone who has no education... Someone who doesn't know how to correct any errors...
You are not telling me that her work doesn't get proof read... I am the sort of person who may make errors when I loose concentration.... But I do not believe that Sally Ramage is... I believe as a highly educated person who is in the legal field, she knows exactly what she is doing....
And what i concluded was.... Her errors were deliberate... who is ever going to question what is held between those pages... Who ever is going to question them???
Certainly no-one in the legal field.... Why has the publication of the papers on Dr Vincent Tabak's trial never harmed Sally Ramages reputation?
I mean in the sense of errors that are clear to see, error I know are there and so do many many people....
Sally Ramages writes legal material:
Sally Ramage
Chief EDITOR: Criminal Lawyer; Current Criminal Law; STATUTE ANNOTATER ; CORPORATE CRIME LAW WRITER; TM UK, US, INDIA.
Bloomsbury Professional LLM, University of Staffordshire
Why has NO-ONE ever publicly called her out on her errors within the document that is from the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak???
That brings an even deeper more troubling question... What was Joanna Yeates trial really about ?? Dr Vincent Tabak did not kill her (imo).. With all of the evidence of a staged Flat .. a media playing along with the narrative that is supposed to be the reasoning Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates....
Yet no-one says anything... not even when Sally Ramage deliberately..(imo) makes errors within her publication...
The all fall silent... They all stay quiet.. Not one person ever speaking up to point out that, Sally Ramages document is incorrect in parts... Or maybe most of it is... i do not know... But it is rather revealing that no-one questions, Sally Ramages ability to Edit her own document , when she is an editor.... It's almost laughable if it wasn't so serious....
And by that I do not mean anything against Sally Ramage...
So what is so secretive that no-one is willing to talk about The Joanna Yeates case or Dr Vincent Tabak... what is so secretive, that Sally Ramage, can make endless errors in her publication and no-one utters a thing about it....
What is so secretive that we had a Placid Dutchman sat at trial not making any sense in his tall tale of what took place...
You see the question really should still be ... Who killed Joanna Yeates?? As there has been many extremes that have been gone to to put away the Dutchman, and brush the rest under the carpet... The media for example, will not answer a direct question about Dr Vincent Tabak... CJ too has been silenced.. Now the reason for that cannot be because of a simple murder committed by a Dutchman...
What has been covered up?? And why did the whole media go along with it...??
I still stand by Dr Vincent Tabak being Innocent... But the real question must be ....
Why? Who? or What? was so important, that they fooled the nation into believing a story told at trial.. A story that doesn't make sense... And didn't follow many protocols, that were visible for us to see?
And whilst this was all going on... NOT ONE Media outlet ever questioned the validity of this trial or the procedures that took place...
All i knew when I started this, was that I believed Dr Vincent Tabak was Innocent and believed that his Defence helped bury him and i couldn't understand why... I just like fair... Well something is massively unfair in the whole of this charade....
And it's about time more people started to question what really happened to Joanna Yeates... And not the falsehoods we have been told...
Someone whom was in the middle of this Inquiry needs to be honest enough to start the ball rolling.. And give the public the truth of what is known... And that applies to the media to... Or maybe you all signed an agreement with Avon and Somerset Police to stick with their tale.... Because I cannot understand why you all kept quite and are still keeping quiet...
What will it take for "The Real Truth" about Joanna Yeates Murder to be made public?? And i do not fancy waiting until Dr Vincent Tabak has finished his sentence either... I think it needs to be addressed sooner...
So who has the ability to get this ball rolling and who dares too?? because it appears to me people are afraid to speak out about this case... And I do not understand why????
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
https://philarchive.org/archive/RAMTMT-4
https://www.linkedin.com/in/criminallawyer1/
-
An Interesting quote from a forum member at webslueths..
edgedweller's Avatar
edgedweller said:
05-04-2011 06:57 PM
I think he will plead not guilty. Also i hope he does, purely for selfish reasons as i really want to know the circumstances of that night... it is intriguing. Poor Jo, whatever the outcome.
if he pleads guilty, and chooses never to confess or make any admissions, does that mean we never get to hear what evidence the police had against him?
What evidence did we ever get to hear that the Police had against Dr Vincent Tabak??
* Partial DNA
* Evidence of shopping
* Evidence of what else?? Nothing Evidence of Nothing...
No Forensic Evidence putting him at the crime scene...
No sobbing girl evidence...
No CCTV of him driving to and from ASDA
No CCTV of him driving to Longwood Lane
No witness's putting him at the scene of the crime
No girlfriend to support or deny anything Dr Vincent Tabak said...
No Character Evidence good/bad
No Gps readings of him being on Longwood Lane
Nothing they had apparently arrested him with appeared at court... He just made the story up as he went along apparently... So if the "Prosecution" didn't know what he was going to say... How could they have any evidence to put him at the scene of the crime or on Longwood lane??
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?129675-UK-Joanna-Yeates-25-Clifton-Bristol-17-December-2010-13/page21&styleid=21
-
Whilst searching R v Tabak I came across Dean Armstrong at Bedford Row...
For such a high profile case he has little to say on the subject!
William Clegg QC led then junior counsel Dean Armstrong, on behalf of the defendant accused of murdering Joanna Yeates who went missing following an evening out with colleagues. Suspicion initially and erroneously fell on her landlord before police finally arrested Tabak who was living in her neighbouring flat.
Category: Cases | Date: October 2011
Why even mention 'The Landlord"???
Isn't this supposed to be the biggest case in Dean Armstrongs career... ? It was so high profiled.. And it's just skimmed over!
Edit... Every time I put Tabak in the search on their website... It takes me back to that small mention that I have just quoted... I thought I might have at least landed on Cleggs page , but NO..!!
I checked the archive for October 2011 and again, there is that tiny paragraph about this highly publicised case...
Is he trying to distance himself from it??? Think Clegg's chucked the hot potato!
Oy Dean... "Catch"!
https://www.2bedfordrow.co.uk/r-v-tabak/
-
William Clegg... Now this quote is from a different Case, But one William Clegg acted upon... A very Interesting statement.....
William Clegg QC appeared on behalf of Leslie Huggins who was granted special leave to appeal his conviction in Trinidad on the grounds that prejudicial comments made by a prosecuting counsel in his closing speech rendered the trial unfair.
Now William... lets remind ourselves what "YOU" said about "YOUR" own "CLIENT"...
1: his conduct after Yeates died when he hid the body was “frankly disgusting” and had caused untold anguish and agony to her family.
2: “I’m not going to ask you to like Vincent Tabak. There’s probably nothing to like.”
3: And Miss Morson seems to agree, having failed to make a single appearance at court.
4: He had told “lie after lie to the police.
5: “did everything he could to cover his tracks”.
6: He added that he would not try to justify Tabak’s actions after her death, saying his client was “living a lie” by attending dinner parties and attempting to carry on his life as normal.
7: “I’m not going to ask you to have any sympathy for him. He deserves none.
8: “I’m not going to ask you to excuse his conduct. There can be no excuse.
9: “If I was to set out to win a popularity contest I would lose.
10: He told the court: “Of course, afterwards his behaviour is utterly disgraceful. It’s not going to be justified by me
Now if that isn't prejudicial comments made by "The Defence" I don't know what is....
William... let me get this right.... Comments like the ones that you yourself made at trial are 'Prejudicial"... Are you admitting to everyone , that Dr Vincent Tabak didn't receive a FAIR TRAIL?????
https://www.2bedfordrow.co.uk/privy-council/
-
Is this a telling statement by Rupert Evelyn??
Rupert Evelyn
@rupertevelyn
Follow Follow @rupertevelyn
More
Sadly, can't help but think the only people who came out of #joyeates murder with dignity entirely intact were those who loved her.
12:49 PM - 10 Dec 2014
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/542783265862860800
-
Did Joanna yeates "BOOTS" ever get brought to trial???
Martin BruntVerified account
@skymartinbrunt
Follow Follow @skymartinbrunt
More
Def: Missing sock #JoYeates? She may have taken it off because she had a hole in her boot.
5:38 AM - 25 Oct 2011
https://twitter.com/skymartinbrunt/status/128812762796277760
-
SWNS.com
@SWNS
Follow Follow @SWNS
More
He claims he spoke to Chris Jefferies on that night - before he killed Jo. #joyeates
Kirsty Gardner
@KirstyGardner
Follow Follow @KirstyGardner
More
Tabak says he spoke to Christopher Jefferies when he came back from his walk. They may have discussed mildew in his flat. #joyeates
6:54 AM - 20 Oct 2011
When it was claimed that Dr Vincent Tabak was trying to incriminate CJ about the car changing position, we have here a statement claiming Dr Vincent Tabak saw CJ that evening..
So when CJ went to the GYM.. And returned... It is very likely his car was in a different position to that which it had been early on in the evening when Dr Vincent Tabak went for a walk..
Why didn't the defence pick up on this obvious answer??
Still don't understand why CJ was never in court??
The only answer i can come up with... Is CJ isn't Dr Vincent Tabak's landlord!
https://twitter.com/KirstyGardner/status/127019871962791936
https://twitter.com/SWNS/status/127020239845195776
-
Interesting tweet from SWNS news...
SWNS.com
@SWNS
Follow Follow @SWNS
More
Tabak: "She indicated somehow through the front door" can't remember how though. He's just demonstrated her wave to the court #joyeates
4:30 AM - 20 Oct 2011
Now does this add to the fact that I believe that Joanna Yeates lived in the entire ground Floor... ?? The door around the back of the building were they lead us to believe Dr Vincent Tabak lived, had glass panels..
Because there is no way.. by waving through the door of Flat 1 he would have been seen... The only way to indicated anything through that door, would be to use the Intercom.
https://twitter.com/SWNS/status/126983501751914496
-
SWNS.com
@SWNS
Follow Follow @SWNS
More
Tabak: "I was trying to get to Bristol Explore but I was more thinking of everything that had happened, what I had done." #joyeates
3:40 AM - 20 Oct 2011
What is "Bristol Explore"??
https://twitter.com/SWNS/status/126971026138607616
-
I wonder what the British press wanted to know from Paul Vemeij??
Paul Vermeij
@paulvermeij
Follow Follow @paulvermeij
More
british press calls for info ( i do not have) from around Eindhoven/NL #vincent #tabak #JoYeates
2:12 AM - 20 Oct 2011 from Breda, Nederland
https://twitter.com/paulvermeij/status/126948836081012736
-
Paul Vermeij ... When did he stop representing Dr Vincent Tabak ?? Thought he was Dr Vincent Tabak's PR man??
Paul Vermeij
@paulvermeij
Follow Follow @paulvermeij
More
Vincent T's family has decided to no longer give any comments at all.
Statements will be made by his solicitor Ian Kelcey #vincent
#yeates
1:20 AM - 5 May 2011
He was retweeting the trial... images attached..
https://twitter.com/paulvermeij/status/66054669461495808
-
How did Paul Vermeji start to represent Dr Vincent Tabak before his first appearance at court?? How comes he was even contacted?? Quite honestly it could have been thrown out... Evidence they used against Dr Vincent Tabak to charge him was never brought to trial??
Family Vincent T. believes in innocence
PRINSENBEEK - The family of Vincent T., suspected of murdering Joanna Yeates in England, is convinced of his innocence. The family let that know via Paul Vermeij, the spokesman who was hired. The family, who has 'full confidence' in the good result, says that they are very happy with the relatives of the victim.
The family was besieged this weekend by mainly British press and therefore the professional spokesperson. "The family is obviously very affected," he reports. Through him the relatives of the murder suspect make an 'urgent appeal' to the press to keep their distance.
Media spectacle On
Monday, Vincent T. is brought before a judge in Bristol. According to the reporter of the NOS in England Arjen van der Horst, the press will not keep it at bay. "It will be a great media spectacle in the best British tradition", predicts Van der Horst. "This case is intriguing, especially the British scandal press, which has been pleading for the past few weeks and even today we saw the picture of the suspect on the front page"
Overwhelming power
It is the sudden media attention that the family spokesman Vermeij has taken on. "The family is totally unexpectedly confronted with many journalists who try to speak to the family at any time of the day," Vermeij spokesperson told Omroep Brabant. "Apart from the emotion that is associated with the fact that a family member is suspected of murder, which is already a shocking experience, the media is also acting with overwhelming force."
The case
The 32-year-old T. is accused in Bristol of the murderon his 25-year-old neighbor Yeates. The woman disappeared on 17 December. Her body was found strangled on Christmas road a few miles from her home in Bristol on Christmas Day.
Publication: Sunday, January 23, 2011 - 5:47 PM
Author: Nick Renders
http://www.omroepbrabant.nl/?news/1493821003/Familie%20Vincent%20T.%20gelooft%20in%20onschuld.aspx
-
Now this changes the timeline of phone calls ... Steven Morris of The Guardian..
steven morris
@stevenmorris20
Follow Follow @stevenmorris20
More
Greg Reardon called #joyeates parents at 12.36am then emergency services, police arrived 2am
6:35 AM - 17 Oct 2011
Edit... If Greg called the Yeates at 12:36am and the Police around 1:00am... The Yeates were travelling from Southampton to Bristol....
What made the Police turn up at the Flat at 2:00am, before The Yeates arrived????
What was said to the POLICE about this Missing adult??
What was said to the Police to make them arrive within an hour???
Did the Yeates ring the Police to tell them of their concerns.... ???
https://twitter.com/stevenmorris20/status/125928034569175040
-
Who's Micheal McParland.. and what did he have to do with the trial ??
Lorna Dunkley
@LornyDunkley
Follow Follow @LornyDunkley
More
Barrister Michael McParland says jury couldn't hear strangulation porn evidence cos it would imply guilt and not allow fair trial. #JoYeates
Standing in the witness box and saying what happened more than implies some form of guilt!!
https://twitter.com/LornyDunkley/status/129941425860263937
-
Rob Mayor
@robmayor
Follow Follow @robmayor
More
Judge - prosecution say Tabak defence statements are important as they did not mention facts he later relied on in court. #JoYeates
4:14 AM - 26 Oct 2011
https://twitter.com/robmayor/status/129153843807260672
Martin BruntVerified account
@skymartinbrunt
Follow Follow @skymartinbrunt
More
Judge #JoYeates: His no comment to police doesn't prevent you from drawing conclusions from his silence.
https://twitter.com/skymartinbrunt/status/129153441841950720
Martin BruntVerified account
@skymartinbrunt
Follow Follow @skymartinbrunt
More
Judge to jury #JoYeates: You must not assume that because he lied he is guilty
4:09 AM - 26 Oct 2011
https://twitter.com/skymartinbrunt/status/129152792001650690
Now if Dr Vincent Tabak made "NO COMMENT" to the Police.... How could he have lied?????
-
Isabel WebsterVerified account
@SunriseIsabel
Follow Follow @SunriseIsabel
More
#JoYeates' parents turn to glance at #Tabak in the dock behind them and then watch intently as the jury take oath.
4:23 AM - 26 Oct 2011
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
https://twitter.com/SunriseIsabel/status/129156249118973952
Now forgive me if i am lost here.... But don't the jury take the oath at the start of trial and not at the end??
-
Tabak is being shown pictures inside the kitchen on Flat 1. He "can't remember" where they were #joyeates
https://twitter.com/SWNS/status/127007505564962816
There's 2 or 3 foot of space in the kitchen we have come to know as Joanna Yeates kitchen... What pictures did they show Dr Vincent Tabak...?? He should have easily been able to say where he was !!
-
Heart West News
@HeartWestNews
Follow Follow @HeartWestNews
More
Statement from dog walker Robert Birch describes the moment he saw Joanna Yeates body on Longwood lane. #joyeates
2:17 AM - 14 Oct 2011
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet Like Direct message
https://twitter.com/HeartWestNews/status/124775840960622592
Then a correction... So we know the full name of Mr Birch...
Heart West News
@HeartWestNews
Follow Follow @HeartWestNews
More
Correction: Dog walker is Daniel Robert Birch. Now hearing evidence from police forensic coordinator. #joyeates
2:34 AM - 14 Oct 2011
https://twitter.com/HeartWestNews/status/124780001253007361
-
James BealVerified account
@JamesSBeal
Follow Follow @JamesSBeal
More
Put in a shift at the crown court today for Tabak. Some incredible details revealed. #tabak #joyeates
1:11 PM - 10 Oct 2011
https://twitter.com/JamesSBeal/status/123490925375791104
Is this when the porn was revealed to the media???
-
Thought I would add Tweets from Avon and Somerset Police before they vanish..
Avon&Somerset PoliceVerified account
@ASPolice
Follow Follow @ASPolice
More
#joyeates #joannayeates Thanks to Jo's family and Greg for their assistance in the most difficult of circumstances http://bit.ly/i9eb3e
https://twitter.com/ASPolice/status/28942967095955456
What did they do to help??
Avon&Somerset PoliceVerified account
@ASPolice
Follow Follow @ASPolice
More
#JoYeates #JoannaYeates Man charged with the murder of Joanna Yeates (Failand): Detectives investigating the dea... http://bit.ly/i9eb3e
https://twitter.com/ASPolice/status/28930791404736513
Obviously no longer on Avon and Somersets website.
Avon&Somerset PoliceVerified account
@ASPolice
Follow Follow @ASPolice
More
#joyeates #yeates We have charged Vincent Tabak with the Murder of Joanna Yeates: http://bit.ly/icvwVE
1:29 PM - 22 Jan 2011
https://twitter.com/ASPolice/status/28927292038193152
Avon&Somerset PoliceVerified account
@ASPolice
Follow Follow @ASPolice
More
#JoYeates #JoannaYeates Warrant of further detention obtained. (Failand): This afternoon, police have been to co... http://bit.ly/dJeP0u
https://twitter.com/ASPolice/status/28490880641925120
Avon&Somerset PoliceVerified account
@ASPolice
Follow Follow @ASPolice
More
#JoYeates #JoannaYeates Police granted extra time to quiz man over Jo death (Failand): Update to Jo Yeates murde... http://bit.ly/fjcANl
https://twitter.com/ASPolice/status/28358987619500032
Failand gets mentioned a lot... ?
Avon&Somerset PoliceVerified account
@ASPolice
Follow Follow @ASPolice
More
#JoYeates #JoannaYeates Man arrested in Joanna Yeates murder investigation (Failand): Early this morning a 32 ye... http://bit.ly/eNk12N
12:53 AM - 20 Jan 2011
https://twitter.com/ASPolice/status/28012288401219584
-
This curious tweet back in 2011, has Dr vincent Tabak's age different... very strange..
Josie EnsorVerified account
@Josiensor
Follow Follow @Josiensor
More
Although, according to 192 search of 2010 electoral role, Vincent Tabak is the 40-44 age band? http://bit.ly/ehNfCK #joyeates
7:01 AM - 20 Jan 2011
https://twitter.com/Josiensor/status/28104792735744000
-
Our barristers have unrivalled experience in all types of homicide cases.
With sixteen QC’s, including current and former senior Treasury Counsel, as well as a large number of senior leading juniors, Chambers can ensure that whatever the nature of the case an experienced counsel can be provided, tailored to the circumstances of the case.
Members both defend and prosecute in the entire range of homicide cases, including:
Terrorism
Gangland executions
Multi-handed murders
Baby shaking murders
Infanticide
Familial homicides
Sexually motivated murders
Gross negligence manslaughter
Corporate manslaughter
Where does Dr Vincent Tabak fit into this.... Dr Vincent Tabak never said anything until trial... So how would they know what catergory he would fit into?
https://www.2bedfordrow.co.uk/practice-areas/murder-and-manslaughter/
-
Why is this Image supplied by "Enterprise News?? (attached)
Enterprise News is an American paper.. Very odd!
http://metro.co.uk/2011/10/30/vincent-tabaks-ex-girlfriend-declares-sympathy-for-joanna-yeates-family-201599/
Is the metro part of Enterprise News?
-
Where is the Radiator in Joanna Yeates kitchen??
Must have been freezing in there when she returned home.. Surprised she didn't leave her coat on....
Her Green Fleece and Jacket were off.. I cannot imagine her taking them off if that kitchen is ICE cold
"Joanna went into her flat. She took off her coat, she took off her green fleece that she was wearing under her coat and put it on a chair, she took off her boots and she went into the kitchen.
How does Clegg know her Green Fleece was on the chair?? And why has it been removed from the crime scene?? Also he say she takes off her boots.... The house is FREEZING!!
The kitchen has no heating!!
Edit... We don't even know if the heating was ever switched on!
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02024/kitchen_2024938i.jpg)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8836324/Vincent-Tabak-strangled-Joanna-Yeates-after-she-invited-him-in-for-a-drink.html
-
What did they originally arrest Dr Vincent Tabak with?? ( They only had a partial DNA sample at time of arrest)..
I want to look at this again.. William Cleggs practice... Our barristers have unrivalled experience in all types of homicide cases.
With sixteen QC’s, including current and former senior Treasury Counsel, as well as a large number of senior leading juniors, Chambers can ensure that whatever the nature of the case an experienced counsel can be provided, tailored to the circumstances of the case.
Members both defend and prosecute in the entire range of homicide cases, including:
Terrorism
Gangland executions
Multi-handed murders
Baby shaking murders
Infanticide
Familial homicides
Sexually motivated murders
Gross negligence manslaughter
Corporate manslaughter
Familial homicides
Familial homicide is a form of homicide recognised in England and Wales by the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 and carries a prison sentence of up to 14 years.
The Act closes a legal loophole that allows those jointly accused of the murder of a child or vulnerable adult to avoid prosecution by remaining silent or blaming each other; it puts a clear legal responsibility on adults who have frequent contact with a child or vulnerable adult to take reasonable steps of protection if they knew or should have known the child or vulnerable adult was at significant risk of serious physical harm from members of that household.
Justice Field....
Field said his murderous attack was "a dreadful, evil act against a vulnerable young woman in her own home".
Was that it??? Was that how they managed to arrest Dr Vincent Tabak?? Joanna Yeates was a Vulnerable adult?
Was the household shared??
Is that why he felt responsible???
The sex angle seems wrong to me... Joanna Yeates letting a stranger in... Dr Vincent Tabak story that doesn't add up... The Prosecution not having any solid evidence to support the idea it was a "Sexually Motivated Murder"..
I think the idea of the "Sexually motivated Attack' came later...
Thinking back to CJ... Is that another reason why they arrested him? He was the Landord and had rented a property to a vulnerable adult??
Now lets think about what type of people CJ would allow in his property... He's not going to have any Tom dick or Harry renting... He must have some type of recommendation...
Bristol Housing for Vulnerable People... Was CJ on some type of list?? As a suitable landlord for Vulnerable Adults??
Would make sense why the Investigation focused entirely on that house!! And why CJ was arrested...
Thinking about it... Tanja Morson could been seen as a vulnerable adult...
Is that why Dr Vincent Tabak and herself constantly kept in contact with each other ?? And why she has kept herself away from all of what has gone on in this trial... That also could be the reason that she never attended court... She was being protected because she is a Vulnerable Adult.. That too would make sense ....
So did CJ only rent to people who were Vulnerable? as a household that was a safe haven for adults in that situation?? Where there was an alarm in place and an Intercom with a door that was doubled locked at all times.....
CJ would have lost out massively, if he was a landlord on a list for vulnerable Adults to rent a property from.....
The polices attention at 44,Canygne Road from the minute that Joanna Yeates was reported 'Missing" was full on!! And the only other possible reason I can think of why that would be was Joanna yeates was classed as a Vulnerable Adult .. Making the fact that they turned up an hour after Greg rang them make lots of sense..
The Police act swiftly for Vulnerable Adults who are "Missing"... And the circumstances in which her belongings where left in the Flat only added to the heightened concern for her well being... (imo)..
Is that the reason "Paul Cook" dropped Dr Vincent Tabak? His firm are maybe not experienced in "Familial homicides?"... It's a possibility...
I can now see why "Tanja Morson" wouldn't attend court or be harrassed by the media... lets face it, she's made no statements to speak of and her father initially spoke for her... The media kept away from her and still do....
So it's a possibility that everything to do with the Investigation, was because, 44, Canygne Road, was a property that Vulnerable adults rented.. Therefore putting CJ at the top of the suspect list as he would be head of the household being the landlord!!
And if they were "protecting" vulnerable adults we can see why maybe the motive appeared to change...
One question that was never asked... Did Tanja Morson know Joanna Yeates ?? Now that is a big question... Which leaves me with many more question because of it..!!
Was The "Old Bailey " appearance to discuss about protecting someone ?? His case number bothered me (u20110387)... And the fact that it was held at court room 2... A court room for terrorist and special cases, supports the idea that someone was being protected... !!
So what is the real story of what happened to Joanna Yeates ??? Because I know we haven't been told!!!!!
Edit.. Is the reason that Joanna Yeates didn't answer her texts immediately something to do with her vulnerability?? She could have had some kind of syndrome herself... We know very little about Joanna Yeates ..
https://www.bristol.gov.uk/social-care-health/supporting-vulnerable-people
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/28/joanna-yeates-murder-vincent-tabak
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Familial_homicide
-
The Act closes a legal loophole that allows those jointly accused of the murder of a child or vulnerable adult to avoid prosecution by remaining silent or blaming each other;
From the above post.....
Now is that not shouting loudly enough, why Dr Vincent Tabak remained Silent through out all of his Interviews!!!!
Oh yes... lets not forget they told us he tried to lay the Blame on CJ!!!!!
I think it's a strong possibility why Dr Vincent Tabak kept silent...!!
-
Maybe that is also the reason we never heard the 'Phone call" from Holland... Because it was actually Tanaj Morson who made the call... And Dr Vincent Tabak took responsibility for it...
Maybe they Interviewed Tanja.. And Dr Vincent Tabak was protecting her.... All very possible..(imo)
I think from this moment forward I will refer to Tanja as TM... if she is a vulnerable adult then her name splashed all over the site wouldn't be fair for her...
I am sorry TM if i have upset you... Nine
-
I have to admire your perseverance but could you please keep the posts down to a reasonable size.
-
Did Dr Vincent Tabak still work at Buro Happold December 2010???
This from Dr Vincent Tabak Thesis... copyright 2008... Notice the words "EX" Colleagues
I wish to express my gratitude to my friends and (ex) colleagues in the SMART group at
Buro Happold, namely Laurent Giampellegrini, Al Fisher, Rob(ert) Hart, Julia Bush, Jay
Parker, Andrew Dixon and my boss Shrikant Sharma. They welcomed me and helped
me to adjust to my life in a new country and new working environment.
Where did Dr Vincent Tabak work December 2010 ???
I don't think it is "Buro Happold"
Who did Dr Vincent Tabak work with more to the point!
Was he freelance ??
In 2010..... JINU VARUGHESE
Senior People Flow Analyst Bath.... (2010)
Jinu is a Senior People Flow Analyst within the Smart Space team at BuroHappold, with extensive technical knowledge and modelling experience on various projects involving flow of passengers, pedestrians and crowds, in sectors ranging from cultural to sport stadia, and particular expertise in the education sector.
After completing a Bachelor’s degree in Architecture and a Master’s degree in Construction Management, Jinu joined BuroHappold in 2010, being inspired from her thesis relating to people movement behaviour in buildings. Since joining BuroHappold, Jinu has been leading the technical analysis in people movement projects and helping clients design buildings optimised for people flow.
She has been working in her position since 2010.... I had posted about it....
Shrikant Sharma, Tabak’s team leader at the Bath office of global engineering consultancy Buro Happold, said Tabak confessed to having ‘difficulty concentrating’.
Yes.. back in 2008 when he lost his father..... But not 2010!!
Now I know why Shrikant Sharma, was not in court... He couldn't be !!!! Could he Mr Clegg!!
Now what do people think about the Trial!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2050063/Vincent-Tabak-strangled-Jo-Yeates-20-seconds-stifle-scream-arm-her.html#ixzz54zfJMEy5
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg439312#msg439312
http://alexandria.tue.nl/extra2/200910371.pdf
-
Architects’ JournalVerified account
@ArchitectsJrnal
Follow Follow @ArchitectsJrnal
More
AJ News: Former Buro Happold engineer guilty of Yeates murder: Vincent Tabak has been found guilty of murdering ... http://bit.ly/w1qhp9
10:00 AM - 28 Oct 2011
Then....
Former Buro Happold engineer guilty of Yeates murder
28 OCTOBER, 2011
Vincent Tabak has been found guilty of murdering his next-door neighbour Joanna Yeates
Again...
arhitectura
@arhitectura
Follow Follow @arhitectura
More
Former Buro Happold engineer guilty of Yeates murder: Vincent Tabak has been found guilty of murdering his next-... http://bit.ly/tGUYLW
11:43 AM - 28 Oct 2011
https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/former-buro-happold-engineer-guilty-of-yeates-murder/8621838.article?referrer=RSS&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed
https://twitter.com/ArchitectsJrnal/status/129965723006156800
https://twitter.com/arhitectura/status/129991683592044544
-
I have to admire your perseverance but could you please keep the posts down to a reasonable size.
I'll try John, It's difficult sometimes, because I need the links and the quotes.. ?{)(**
-
Did Joanna Yeates go to Dr vincent Tabak's for help??
SWNS.com
@SWNS
Follow Follow @SWNS
More
Tabak: "She indicated somehow through the front door" can't remember how though. He's just demonstrated her wave to the court #joyeates
4:30 AM - 20 Oct 2011
https://twitter.com/SWNS/status/126983501751914496
Remember Joanna Yeates mum saying that it wasn't a wave it was more of a "Beckon".... That she was Beckoning him....
-
John sorry for this long post... I believe it's important to have the video transcript quoted... I'll do it in parts...
Part 1... The suitcase
I was just remembering about the 'suitcase' and had an article ready when I was pointed to this news video.. I have transcribed it because things go "missing"...
But when listening and re-reading it brought more questions..
Headlines from a Telegraph article :By Andy Bloxham7:28AM GMT 20 Jan 2011
Jo Yeates killer 'could have taken her from flat in suitcase'
Jo Yeates, the architect murdered in Bristol, may have been carried from her flat in a suitcase or holdall, it has been reported.
And lets not forget the image from the Crimewatch program, where a suitcase is visible on top of the car that they say is Dr vincent Tabak's... (image attached)
A suitcase went with the image I have of Joanna Yeates and why she was in a foetal position.. She hadn't been alive on Longwood Lane as far as we know... But if she was put inside a Suitcase or Holdall, you can understand why she was in that position..
Below is the transcript of the news video...
Police in Bristol say that they have made a significant break through in the hunt for the killer of Joanna Yeates, after arresting a 32yr old man.. The suspect was detained in the early hours of this morning, specialist teams have spent the day searching a neighbouring flat in the block where the 25 yr old lived believed to be the the home of a man born in Holland who worked in the South West.
Darasha Soni is in Bristol.
Early this morning a Forensic team arrived at the Victorian House where Jo Yeates Lived in Clifton.
Scaffolding was erected and a green tarpaulin tent, to shield the work of the Officers inside.
The Flat that's being searched belongs to Jo Yeates neighbour, an architechtural engineer named Vincent Tabak. who lives here with his girlfriend.
Vincent Tabak was born in Holland in 1978. He holds a masters degree, in architecture, building and Planning.
Mr Tabak moved to Britain in 2007 and worked at an engineering firm in Bath.
Two years later he moved to Canygne Road next to Jo Yeates.
On his C.V the 32 yr old lists his interests as, hiking, sailing, photography and sailing.
This footage shows Mr Tabak in the middle receiving a Phd for his research into the built enviroment.
The latest arrest comes after a reconstruction was staged of Jo Yeates last known journey home. On the 17th December after a drink with work colleagues the 25 yr old walked back through this well to do suburb of Bristol.
We understand that the last few days Police have made a significant break through in their investigations. On Tuesday Miss Yeates parents read a carefully worded statement, it was designed to appeal to the conscience of anyone who may be shielding the killer.
"You know someone who has been behaving out of character"
After the statement detectives received over 300 calls with Information.
The Avon and Somerset force haven't named their latest suspect, he was arrested at a different location to Jo's flat.
We understand that this is where the suspect was arrested in the early hours of this morning. Forensic teams are searching a ground floor flat in this block on a residential street less than a mile from where Jo Yeates lived.
The media were told very little about todays arrest, the police reacting perhaps to criticism following some coverage of their first suspect Miss Yeates landlord.
Christopher Jefferies solicitor told this program last week that he'll now be seeking compensation from some newspapers.
Search teams are still inside the neighbouring flat this evening. It's reported that Miss Yeates body could have been transported in a suitcase... or large holdall. It was dumped 3 miles away and found on Christmas Day by a couple out walking their dogs...
Jo Yeates parents said they're pleased that an arrest has been made and that the investigation is moving forward.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8270593/Jo-Yeates-killer-could-have-taken-her-from-flat-in-suitcase.html
https://www.channel4.com/news/joanna-yeates-murder-police-search-neighbours-flat
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
It's the next to last paragraph, which is mind blowing... Firstly a confirmation of a suitcase come holdall, but the biggest WOW is what it says...
That is the significant piece of evidence...." It's reported that Miss Yeates body could have been transported in a suitcase... or large holdall. It was dumped 3 miles away and found on Christmas Day by a couple out walking their dogs..."...
The quote tells us it is the "Suitcase" that has been found!!!!
I've attached an image of an aerial view from the video in the above post...
The couple walking their dog found The Suitcase.... They don't mention this in court... But that information could have been in their statement.. It just wasn't read out at trial... !
So no bicycle cover rubbish... Joanna Yeates had been put in a suitcase/holdall
Again from the Telegraph.. Police are said to be working on the theory that Miss Yeates, 25, was killed inside the flat, put inside the bag then transported into a vehicle where she might have been left for several days.
The Police knew that Joanna Yeates hadn't been on Longwood Lane laying there unseen..
The question now is.. Where there 2 sets of Dog walkers?? One who found Joanna Yeates and one who found the suitcase/holdall
Or did the dog walkers find both, did they see Joanna Yeates inside the suitcase??
The Possibility is the events were two seperate events... and that is why we have 2 different areas along the wall in Longwood Lane photographed.. Those images have sent me mad...
What if the suitcase was at one point of the wall and Joanna Yeates was at the other point along the wall... making complete sense of the images that look similar!
That video was quite revealing.......
Edit... If the police found a suitcase/holdall then this proves that the bicycle cover/bag story is utter tosh!!
Therefore proving Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent!! (imo)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8270593/Jo-Yeates-killer-could-have-taken-her-from-flat-in-suitcase.html
https://www.channel4.com/news/joanna-yeates-murder-police-search-neighbours-flat
-
Part 2....Eureka!
There was some significant statements made in that transcript, and as always either skimmed over or no listened too properly..
I'll quote from the transcript and question what they mean....
Police in Bristol say that they have made a significant break through in the hunt for the killer of Joanna Yeates, after arresting a 32yr old man.. The suspect was detained in the early hours of this morning, specialist teams have spent the day searching a neighbouring flat in the block where the 25 yr old lived believed to be the the home of a man born in Holland who worked in the South West.
Now it doesn't say "Dutch National" It says the home of a man born in Holland.. That could be anyone and not Dr Vincent Tabak.. We just assume it as as the news of the time was always reporting and mention Dr Vincent Tabak by name in this video..
There's other evidence to support that I do not believe that they are talking about Dr Vincent Tabak....
The Flat that's being searched belongs to Jo Yeates neighbour, an architechtural engineer named Vincent Tabak. who lives here with his girlfriend.
That line is a "Eureka moment"... Dr Vincent Tabak owned That Flat!! doesn't mean he live in THAT FLAT! the reporter just says lives here too... she is stood on the street at Canygne Road when she says that...
He may have lived in the building and I believe that is true... But remember the image of a man entering the main house I said was Dr Vincent Tabak coming to collect his belongings... I'm sure it is him even more so...
further down the quote... The Avon and Somerset force haven't named their latest suspect, he was arrested at a different location to Jo's flat.
We're again assuming Because Dr Vincent Tabak is Dutch and that his name has been mentioned within the new article, he must be the suspect that the Police have arrested... But the quote tells us different... The media were warned NOT to name anymore suspects, and I donot believe that they did... We the public made our own mind ups...
I believe that Dr Vincent Tabak is The Landlord... This has always been about Police gaining access... They were stood outside Flat 2 within a day or so of the media reporting Joanna Yeates "Missing" and I never understood how they had access to that Flat, especially as we can see them doing the Forensics on the bay window, before Joanna Yeates has been found...
Yes they twisted it later to suit themselves,.. But.... I believe Dr Vincent Tabak cooperated with the Police giving them access to the Flat he owned, and not that he lived in that Flat... So in essence Dr Vincent Tabak was Joanna Yeates next door neighbour, in name only...
From the telegraph about CJ: By Martin Evans, Caroline Gammell and Victoria Ward 7:00AM GMT 31 Dec 2010
“He has a set of keys for all of the flats he lets out. I had a word with him and told him to only come in if it was pre-arranged."
But it doesn't confirm which Flats he owns or lets out!! Are the people even talking about CJ??
I think it's possible that it was Dr Vincent Tabak who owned that other property...
The questions now have to be:
* Who did Dr Vincent Tabak rent his property too??
* Who was born in Holland??
* Who did they arrest that they did not name ??
Another little gem that nearly slipped by...
Vincent Tabak was born in Holland in 1978. He holds a masters degree, in architecture, building and Planning.
Mr Tabak moved to Britain in 2007 and worked at an engineering firm in Bath.
Two years later he moved to Canygne Road next to Jo Yeates.
And worked at an engineering firm at Bath... Past tense... He no longer worked there... They are not naming the suspect... They are naming the Landlord and his details... and what he did since coming to Britain...
Don't forget The Media were warned after the CJ fiasco not to name an arrested suspect and I do not believe they did... why would they... So therefore I can conclude that Dr Vincent Tabak is the Landlord in this report and NOT The suspect as we have been lead to believe... (imo)!
Edit... I am not trying to find out who killed Joanna Yeates, that is for the Police to do... I am trying to show how and why I believe that Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent and the trial was a sham!!!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8232412/Joanna-Yeates-murder-suspect-Christopher-Jefferies-let-himself-into-tenants-flat.html
-
To prove a point that the person who was born in Holland is not Dr Vincent Tabak , I'll transcribe part of the CRIME DOCUMENTARY - VINCENT TABAK (THE MURDER OF JOANNA YEATES)...
Again within this Documentary I believe that they talk about a boy who was born in Holland and was known there...
From the video starting at: 2:43 of the video...
The Flat at Canygne Road that they had chosen to share, was already home to Vincent Tabak, a young Dutchman working his way up a career ladder.. He left Holland for Britain after studying at Eindhoven .. His expertise is in the field of "People Flow in Public spaces" a specialised skill.. much in demand in Britain.
He grew up in a rural area of Southern Holland..
"Uden is a very small town in the south of the Netherlands, very normal, very quiet, typical southern town, where people celebrate carnival in February... very traditional...
He was this normal kid really... Didn't have a lot of friends, we know this, he played alone, a lot of the times.
Neighbours remember the youngest of 4.. he has 2 sisters and a brother, and they recall a pleasant, quiet, private boy.
"Just an ordinary guy, as 100 other guys, little bit Introvert...errr... To himself,.. Yer I would say Introvert"
Below from the speech Dr Vincent Tabak made when he received his Phd..
I would like to thank the people who are closest to me, namely my parents, Sonja and
Gerald, my sisters, brother and in-laws, Ilse & Frans, Marcel & Paulie, Cora, Eileen &
Bart,
So we have 3 sisters Ilse, Eileen and Cora.. One brother ,Marcel...
The part of the quote that I have put in bold tells us they are talking about a different person to Dr Vincent Tabak... because that boy only has 2 sisters and one brother....Just like the News video I have posted about, this video tells us more information...
The boy that is spoken about whom was Introvert, and private... isn't Dr Vincent Tabak.. (imo)
And the Dutch female journalist Alice Van Der Plas tells us that they Know this they have information themselves about the case I believe...
Not only that.. The image behind her, shows Dr Vincent Tabak with Dutch text below him... Yet we also have another image just above her which says in English: Police Closed And along side CCTV of what looks like a white van at a petrol station and someone stood there... Why would she have that behind her... Dutch do Dutch....
I could speculate that it is the white van the Police were looking into... But I will stay with what brought me to this video... That The Boy they are talking about is NOT Dr Vincent Tabak... (imo)
They again allowed us to believe that it was by editing the information and seeing an image of Dr Vincent Tabak on the screen behind her...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POViqsh72Ek&t=385s
http://alexandria.tue.nl/extra2/200910371.pdf
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
20 JAN 2011 UK
Joanna Yeates murder: police search neighbour’s flat
Following the arrest of a 32-year-old in connection with the murder of Joanna Yeates, police search a flat belonging to Dutch national Vincent Tabak. Channel 4 News looks at his background.
Further confirmation that the Flat belonged to Dr Vincent Tabak... They could have arrested any 32 yr old!
Dutch architect Vincent Tabak, 32, is registered as living at the address with his girlfriend.
He may have been registered at that address, didn't mean he lived at that address..
Remember they were not allowed to name the person that they had arrested !!
https://www.channel4.com/news/joanna-yeates-murder-police-search-neighbours-flat
-
SWNS.com
@SWNS
Follow Follow @SWNS
More
Tabak: "She indicated somehow through the front door" can't remember how though. He's just demonstrated her wave to the court #joyeates
4:30 AM - 20 Oct 2011
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Reply Retweet Like 1 Direct message
Was there some kind on CCTV on the panel at the door?? How can you wave at someone through a solid wood door with no letter box opening?? There's a spy hole but Dr Vincent Tabak would have had to have his face pressed against the door, and no evidence of him touching that door came to court!
(The letter box furnishings are visible, but there is no opening on the other side)
Edit... The only other way it would be possible to wave through the door is if there was an Internal door that connected the two flat!!
https://twitter.com/SWNS/status/126983501751914496
-
Have you seen this article before leonora... can't remember if I have already posted it...
22nd December 2010
GVs of police searching Joanna Yeates' home on Canynge Road, Clifton, Bristol.
Police searching for a young woman missing for nearly a week are examining new CCTV footage. Yesterday the parents of Joanna Yeates, 25, made an emotional appeal for information regarding her whereabouts.
http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/8752942.GVs_of_police_searching_Joanna_Yeates__home_on_Canynge_Road__Clifton__Bristol_/
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Looks like Joanna Yeates keeps her keys in the door of her front door looking at this picture... I have also attached image and circled the keys!!)
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01804/emma_1804273c.jpg)
So why were the keys found in her bag or rucksack at Canygne Road?? (they can't make their minds up which bag they were in!!)
She needed the keys to let Dr Vincent Tabak in... and he needed them to exit!!
-
This is not Joanna Yeate's kitchen. Her kitchen had grey sides not white'ish sides.
-
Sorry Joanna's flat had white not greyish sides. As you would say Nine, woops!
-
This is not Joanna Yeate's kitchen. Her kitchen had grey sides not white'ish sides.
Hi Nina
No.... I Know it is not the kitchen at Canygne Road... I am pointing out that was it her regular habit to leave the key in the door lock..
She shared a house with her friend Emma...
-
Hi Nina
No.... I Know it is not the kitchen at Canygne Road... I am pointing out that was it her regular habit to leave the key in the door lock..
She shared a house with her friend Emma...
I don't think you can know this, seriously Nine. The obvious is that none of us was there so we don't know. The next is Greg R or parents didn't say anywhere that her keys were in the door. All seem to say that they were in her bag.
So I don't really think that you should say that it was a "regular habit" of Joannas to leave the keys in the lock.
-
No.. I can't know that Nina..
But you can't deny she needed 2 keys to enter her property... And someone would have needed A key to exit the property.... So how did they end up in her bag??
-
No.. I can't know that Nina..
But you can't deny she needed 2 keys to enter her property... And someone would have needed A key to exit the property.... So how did they end up in her bag??
You do have a point there Nine, but again we don't know for sure. I need two keys to enter my property from the outside but need none to open the door and shut it from the outside without a key.
So were Joanna's different from the `normal' type of key? I'm sure that you will have investigated this already, but I have not read for a while, due to family. So a small'ish post pointing out what Joanna's lock was like and why you needed a key to get out would be appreciated.
-
You do have a point there Nine, but again we don't know for sure. I need two keys to enter my property from the outside but need none to open the door and shut it from the outside without a key.
So were Joanna's different from the `normal' type of key? I'm sure that you will have investigated this already, but I have not read for a while, due to family. So a small'ish post pointing out what Joanna's lock was like and why you needed a key to get out would be appreciated.
Both locks would lock on exiting the door when closing it from the outside... But you would need a key to open the bottom lock, and turn the Yale knob at the same time to exit in the first place... The bottom lock would deadlock... It is attached to the intercom system...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg433895;topicseen#msg433895
-
Both locks would lock on exiting the door when closing it from the outside... But you would need a key to open the bottom lock, and turn the Yale knob at the same time to exit in the first place... The bottom lock would deadlock... It is attached to the intercom system...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg433895;topicseen#msg433895
Thanks for that Nine. Do you have any pictures of the inside of the front door. I would like to see the locks for myself.
-
Her's some images... Door open, door closed , both side of door one with panel intact, one with it being removed..
-
Ok... Looking to see what else I could find....
Image 1: Tweet from media at the trial Greg saying about Joanna Yeates always locking both locks
Image 2: The Intercom
Image 3: From video clip
Every time I look at the media video's of them going down the path.. The door is always open.. It's not on the latch... I believe it's because the second lock , locks when the door is closed..
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/vincent-tabak-found-guilty-of-murder-lib-ext-clifton-ext-news-footage/656462828
-
Anyone know what sort of vehicle it is on the other side of the road on Canygne Road...?? Yes i know it's a Police vehicle of some sort...
It looks like a motor home?? Is it needed on site? (image attached)
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/vincent-tabak-makes-first-court-appearance-bristol-news-footage/655100596
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
A Headline that says it all...
Jo Yeates murder trial: Vincent Tabak’s online ‘cover-up’
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/830193/jo-yeates-murder-trial-vincent-tabaks-online-cover-up/
Something is being covered up and that is for sure... Because nothing adds up in this case... at all!
-
Cat trays ... why the cat trays?? I can't understand why we have litter trays... The cat went outside,
Mr Hardyman said he had met Miss Yeates and her boyfriend Greg Reardon, whom she shared her flat with, on three occasions while he was working in the garden.
"I have had a friendly conversation with Joanna about her cat who I like to see in the garden," he said.
We have 2 litter trays...
There were also two cat litter trays for the couple's pet, Bernard.
Body decomposition..
He researched "body decomposition time" and an article about a man who strangled his wife and pleaded diminished responsibility.
Could never understand why Dr Vincent Tabak who research body decomposition times... They say she was frozen... But not immediately.. Cat litter usage was NOT brought to trial...
Did someone use Cat Litter to hide the smell of body decomposition?? Because Dr Vincent Tabak sure didn't !!
Had the body started to decompose? Or was it from the body fluids?? What did they have that we didn't see in evidence?? (plenty) But I mean as in direct evidence that Cat litter was possibily used as a decontaminate? Was there cat litter in the Suitcase/Holdall? (tent bag)?
From the becky Watts trail...
Jurors were told that Becky's torso was wrapped up in a shower curtain inside the plastic box - containing cat litter, which can be used as a decontaminator.
Was Cat Litter used as a "Decontaminator"???
Seems odd that the litter trays are there for a cat that goes out.... A Cat that should got out because he is one year old!!!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/19/vincent-tabak-joanna-yeates-death
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-15433658
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8822459/Jury-shown-inside-Joanna-Yeates-flat.html
http://www.itv.com/news/2015-10-07/teenage-girl-was-cut-up-with-power-saw-after-violent-struggle-with-step-brother-trial-hears/
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8194.msg443483#msg443483
Continuing from the above link...
Mr Lickley said Tabak told the chaplain: “I’m going to tell you something that will shock you – I’m going to plead guilty”.
The prison chaplain asked him “What for?” and Tabak allegedly replied: “For the crime that I have done.”
When he was asked if he meant “the young lady in Bristol” he said “Yes” and the chaplain asked: “Are you sorry?”
Mr Lickley told the court: “He said he was. The chaplain asked: ‘Are you sure?’ Tabak said he was.” After Tabak’s arrest he was initially held at Bristol prison before being moved to Long Lartin in Worcestershire.
For the Crime that I have done!!
Tabak, who had been under 24-hour supervision at HMP Long Lartin, was said to have told Mr Brotherton of his plan to plead guilty on February 8 - three weeks after his arrest.
8th February- three weeks after his arrest..
During cross-examination, Tabak's QC William Clegg claimed Mr Brotherton's comments differed from a statement he gave on February 16.
Now do we have 2 statements here ??? Did "Brotherton" make 2 statements about what took place with him and Dr Vincent Tabak??
Did the jury see these statements?? How many written statements did "Brotherton" give??
If the statements differ... there must be at least 2 of them.... So where are they!!
Mr Clegg said: "Let me suggest to you there was no suggestion of 'changing my plea'. 'I am going to plead guilty' - that's what he said.
"You said 'What for?'. And he said 'For the crime I have done'."
Going to plead "Guilty".. why is the defence putting ideas into the Jurys mind??
Yes the Crime of wasting Police time....
After Tabak said "I am going to change my plea", Mr Brotherton asked him: "Are you sorry what you have done?"
Tabak was said to have replied: "Yes."
Did Dr Vincent Tabak say that he had killed Joanna Yeates in his statement of the 22nd January 2011 to shut them all up??
Did this statement on the 22nd January 2011 say anything about a plea??
What were the dates that 'Brotherton" saw Dr Vincent Tabak?
Tabak, who admits manslaughter but denies murder, was said to have made the confession on their third encounter.
Had "Brotherton" seen Dr Vincent Tabak before he went to Long Lartin?? Did "Brotherton" in his spare time also become a 'Police Officer".. Was he ever a "Civillian" Police Officer.. like Andrew 'Civilian" Mott??
Was Brotherton present when Dr Vincent Tabak made his 3rd statement on the 22nd January 2011??
There are so many "Civilian" Police Officers assuming all sorts of roles in this case, I would like to know if 'Brotherton" has ever been a "Civilian" Police Officer??
Because that image that we see of him leaving court.. I have always said he looks like a Police Officer who is a little rotund..
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murder-trial-vincent-275142
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murder-trial-jury-84889
-
What is prejudicial?? Anything that stops someone from receiving a fair trial...
Nigel Lickley QC, summing up the opening for the prosecution, said: ”On May 5 this defendant admitted killing Joanna Yeates – he pleaded guilty to her manslaughter.
”He accepts he unlawfully killed her. Therefore, ladies and gentlemen, by that plea of guilty the issue of who killed Joanna Yeates was no longer in doubt.
There was only "Murder" as an option for the Jury on the table.. "Manslaughter" was not given for the jury to choose between the two...
We now have a massive issue... By Nigel Lickley telling the jury in his opening speech, that Dr Vincent Tabak had already admitted to "Manslaughter".. The jury were prejudiced... Whether Dr Vincent Tabak got on the stand or didn't.. The Jury were already Prejudiced by the statement that The Prosecution made...
How is any Jury in the land going to let a man go free, if they know that he has already pleaded guilty to "Manslaughter??"
Put yourselves in the Jurys position... You have a man saying I killed someone, I did all these terrible things... But it was an accident...
Now as the jury you would probably be stuck with what to do... It is a great dilema.... "The man has admitted his guilt" ..The prosecution have said so... The man has sat in trial and explained how he managed to kill this person...
So as a Jury what do we do??? If we say Not Guilty.... does that mean he walks FREE!!
Remember the jury couldn't make up their minds as to Dr Vincent Tabak's guilt and sent a note to the Judge... What did this note say?? Did the jury ask if they found him "Not Guilty" of Murder then would Dr Vincent Tabak walk free"???
Because that would make sense as to why all these people found him guilty.... They wouldn't want someone walking the street who had admitted to "Manslaughter" and told them how he apparently did it, even if the evidence didn't support Dr Vincent Tabak's story... The Jury would always find him "Guilty"..
So how can The Prosecution get away with Prejudicing the case in his opening speech, and not only the Defence didn't say anything..... But the judge didn't throw the case out from the start!!
We have him telling the Jury that: Therefore, ladies and gentlemen, by that plea of guilty the issue of who killed Joanna Yeates was no longer in doubt.
So faced with that option of only finding him "Guilty of Murder" what are the Jury going to do????
Find Him Guilty of course!!!!!
The trial was prejudiced from the start..
Tainted with them all Not upholding our Judicial System... And making a mockery out of all our citizen's to show us all how they can NOT follow the law, but get away with it too... (imo)
Truly disgusting!!
https://stories.swns.com/news/jo-yeates-strangled-by-cold-and-calculated-vincent-tabak-21328/
-
He accepts he unlawfully killed her. Therefore, ladies and gentlemen, by that plea of guilty the issue of who killed Joanna Yeates was no longer in doubt.
”The issue is the state of mind when he killed Joanna Yeates and what he wanted to do when he held her for long enough to kill her.
”How he was in control – how he could have stopped but did not. We suggest he did not panic or lose control. He was cold and calculated.
”We have seen him on film a time later, beginning to make decisions to cover his tracks.
”He killed her. We say that is what he wanted and intended to do and it is our case that he is guilty of murder.”
What film were the jury shown of Dr Vincent Tabak making decisions to cover his track??
They didn't say CCTV... They definitely said film!!! who is The Prosecution talking about....
I do not believe that there is any FILM of Dr Vincent Tabak making a decision to cover his tracks!!!!!
They must mean someone else entirely... !!! (imo)
What film was shown to the JURY!!
https://stories.swns.com/news/jo-yeates-strangled-by-cold-and-calculated-vincent-tabak-21328/
-
The Dutch born person they have spoken about with 2 sister and 1 brother isn't Dr Vincent Tabak... we have established this....
So I thought I would revisit this...
The Dutch architect arrested on suspicion of the murder of Joanna Yeates recently split up with his girlfriend, it was claimed yesterday.
Still cannot be Dr Vincent Tabak... as he was an Engineer and not an Architect... So who is the person who was born in Holland with 2 sisters and 1 brother, that was an architect that had Split up from his girlfriend???
Because as sure as eggs is eggs they are NOT talking about Dr Vincent Tabak... !!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349356/Joanna-Yeates-murder-suspect-Vincent-Tabak-split-girlfriend.html#ixzz55hO6tAOv
-
The Dutch born person they have spoken about with 2 sister and 1 brother isn't Dr Vincent Tabak... we have established this....
So I thought I would revisit this...
Still cannot be Dr Vincent Tabak... as he was an Engineer and not an Architect... So who is the person who was born in Holland with 2 sisters and 1 brother, that was an architect that had Split up from his girlfriend???
Because as sure as eggs is eggs they are NOT talking about Dr Vincent Tabak... !!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349356/Joanna-Yeates-murder-suspect-Vincent-Tabak-split-girlfriend.html#ixzz55hO6tAOv
If you had included the next line of this quote it reads "The Dutch architect arrested on suspicion of the murder of Joanna Yeates recently split up with his girlfriend, it was claimed yesterday. Vincent Tabak, 32, had lived with 34-year-old Tanja Morson in the flat next door to Miss Yeates."
Doesn't it seem more likely that they have got his job title wrong than that they are referring to someone other than Tabak? Seems pretty obvious to me that when they say the dutch architect they mean Tabak.
But don't worry Eggs are still Eggs.
-
Where there other prosecutions for Murder at this time??
Crown Prosecution Service case outcomes by principal offence category - October 2011
Published by Crown Prosecution Service. Licensed under [Open Government Licence] Open Government Licence.
Openness rating: Open Data Certificate: Bronze Level
Crime & Justice
Monthly publication of criminal case outcomes in the magistrates' courts and in the Crown Court by principal offence category and by CPS Area
Download
RESOURCE: “Principal Offence Category Avon and Somerset October 2011”
Principal Offence Category Avon and Somerset October 2011
PREVIEW
Preview is currently available for files such as CSV, spreadsheets and plain text. This file is previewed from the data.gov.uk archive.
A Homicide
CPS outcomes by principal offence category _and_somerset
* Number of Defendants convicted 1
* Convictions Percentage 50.0%
* Number of Defendants Unsuccessful Prosecutions 1
* Unsuccessful Prosecutions Percentage 50.0%
Edit..... Who was the unsuccessful prosecution in October 2011 and was it related to this case ??
https://data.gov.uk/dataset/cps_case_outcomes_by_principal_offence_category_october_2011/resource/f4da3f12-3bcd-4837-b089-8978f48555ef
https://www.cps.gov.uk/data/case_outcomes/october_2011/principal_offence_cat_avon_and_somerset_october_2011.csv
-
If you had included the next line of this quote it reads "The Dutch architect arrested on suspicion of the murder of Joanna Yeates recently split up with his girlfriend, it was claimed yesterday. Vincent Tabak, 32, had lived with 34-year-old Tanja Morson in the flat next door to Miss Yeates."
Doesn't it seem more likely that they have got his job title wrong than that they are referring to someone other than Tabak? Seems pretty obvious to me that when they say the dutch architect they mean Tabak.
But don't worry Eggs are still Eggs.
Yes Baz.. But as we know.... "Nested Loops"!!
-
Has there been some kind of gagging order placed on Journalist etc... ??
It seems really strange no-one will talk and comment on the obvious...!!
-
Why did the Police stick with 44, Canygne Road when Joanna Yeates obviously didn't reach home??
Another thought... Her parents searched over walls, Banging on car boots... What about that massive shed in the garden.. It's in plain sight but never gets a mention... Why??
What was the shed used for ??
-
Who did this Case number really belong too???
U20110387.. I do not believe that is was for Dr Vincent Tabak... I do not believe that at all...
The Yeates family are sat in a court of law of this land before any trial has taken place to watch (apparently) Dr Vincent Tabak confess to the Manslaughter of Joanna Yeates..
They shouldn't have been there... common sense dictates this... They easily could have been called as witness's...As I have said before , they witnessed as much ads Greg... So they could have been called...
Yet.... we have them sat in the court watching someone on a screen saying that they are guilty of Manslaughter"...
I remember leonora saying it was an imposter... and he could be right but I do not think so.....
I believe that they used Dr Vincent Tabak's name in the reporting... But the person who this number U20110387 belongs too .. Isn't Dr Vincent Tabak.... Dr Vincent Tabak already had his case number.... T20117031
I think they held 2 hearings on the same day... One for Dr Vincent Tabak but used just Dr Vincent Tabak's name...
Going back to clio's quote Clio said:
05-04-2011 11:17 AM
Courtserve listing for the Old Bailey for tomorrow (5th May) states
Court 2 - sitting at 10:00 am
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE FIELD
For Mention (Defendant to Attend)
U20110387 Vincent TABAK
Via PVL - Bristol Crown Court Case - T20117031
Wonder why it says "For Mention" rather than "Plea and Case Management"...
http://www.courtserve2.net/courtlist...T110505.01.htm
So he cannot appear at both... And he didn't... (imo)
The person who appeared at The Old Bailey I think is the real killer of Joanna Yeates... And I believe that's why the Yeates were at court that day... Some kind of deal was taking place (imo).. And they got to see The Killer admit to killing her... But that wasn't Dr Vincent Tabak.... (imo)
So does the number U20110387 actually belong to someone else ??? Lets not forget Court room 2 is a special court for special things like terrorist etc... Immunity..etc...
So who did The Yeates see at The Old Bailey , when in all reality... they shouldn't have been there.... Unless it was for them to at least see the killer admit his guilt!!!
-
Ok help me here.... If a special arrangement was made with regards say... "A" another.. that they had immunity from the prosecution of killing Joanna Yeates... But if they committed another crime of any description, then they would be done for the crime of killing Joanna Yeates....
Then they would Execute A Bench Warrant?? (Think thats American) Or something along those lines....
Is it still possible to prosecute the real killer of Joanna Yeates ???
-
I just noticed that a post had been edited .. I was looking for the PDF about William Clegg 'Master Defender"..
The only reason I was looking for it was because for some reason on Bedford Rows website, the link to that article had gone...
Now the pdf has gone... Why is that? Maybe it was me who forgot to attach it??..
It would have been in this issue...
East Anglian Daily Times, Suffolk, Issue 108, May 2nd 2009.
Now that what I call strange...
Edit.. John you had edited my post... Now that could be for a variety of reasons... Is the pdf not allowed to be on the site??
https://www.2bedfordrow.co.uk/william-clegg-qc-the-master-defender/
-
William Clegg did an Interview and he never mentions The case against Dr Vincent Tabak... But he says something of Interest...
At about 1:33
At the other end of the spectrum, you may have a case it is clear to everybody who was "Responsible" for the killing.
But his legal responsibility has to be decided by the court
Now I remember Dr Vincent Tabak using the phrase that he was responsible.... I don't think those words are his.... Are they the words of a case at 'The Other end of the spectrum"??
How could someone not be legally responsible?? Is there a way in which this could happen??
he goes on to say:... Erm... There are other examples as well... I've defended a number of soldiers who killed during the course of active service both in Northern Ireland where I've defended Private Clegg who was accused of murdering a girl at a roadside roadblock, when he shot into the car as it drove through the roadblock.. I've also defended soldiers who have returned from Iraq... And been accused of murdering civilians in the course of their deployment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=102&v=aH3-78zMMvU
-
I thought Darragh Bellew was a close friend of Joanna Yeates and that was why he was there for the prosecution...
Now he only started working for BDP in December 2010.....
(https://image.slidesharecdn.com/862cb0dd-0f02-4132-9b8a-68b74b54aafb-160926135119/95/darragh-bellew-portfolio-reduced-6-638.jpg?cb=1474897929)
Now did he know Dr Vincent Tabak if he had worked with engineers before?? I don't think they asked him that...
The first witnesses to give evidence at Tabak's trial told how Yeates spent the early part of the evening of 17 December in the Ram pub on Park Street, near Bristol city centre.
Darragh Bellew, a colleague, said Yeates bought him a pint of beer at the Ram and told him she was planning to bake cakes and bread over the weekend. Bellew said Yeates had been in good spirits.
When the prosecution barrister Nicholas Rowland asked him whether she was drunk, Bellew told the jury: "Not at all, just jovial, her usual self."
Bellew told how colleagues and friends from an Irish Gaelic football team were joining them in the pub, which was packed with Christmas revellers.
When asked whether she left before other drinkers, Bellew said: "She would always leave before most of us – when we would go on drinking she would go to be with Greg [Reardon, her boyfriend] really."
Bellew said he had asked her what she had planned for the weekend.
"She replied that she was going to bake some cakes and bread over the weekend because Greg was away," he told the court.
"We had a joke and said she was going to bring them into the office on Monday morning."
we have more employment:...
December 2010 – December 2014: BDP, Bristol
September 2010 – December 2010: EDP, Landscape Planning and Design
* Joanna Yeates died on the 17th December 2010
* She had been off work for 4 days and gone back on the 14th I believe
* Darragh Bewell worked at EDP and BDP in those 10 days..
How could Darragh Bewell know Joanna Yeates well enough to make a court statement about her being her usual jovial self?? he cannot have been great friends, there must have been someone else in the Office that knew her better that was at The Ram Pub that evening....
N:B I think I have spelt his name incorrect in some posts.... (Sorry)
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/13/joanna-yeates-jovial-night-died
https://www.slideshare.net/DarraghBellew/darragh-bellew-portfolio-reduced
http://www.edp-uk.co.uk/expert-witness.html
-
Just to get things clear in my head....
(https://chandoo.org/img/n/2010-calendar.png)
* Friday 17th December 2010
* Friday 10th December 2010
* Friday 3rd December 2010
When asked whether she left before other drinkers, Bellew said: "She would always leave before most of us – when we would go on drinking she would go to be with Greg [Reardon, her boyfriend] really."
So he has 2 dates to make that statement about... How would he know that much information about Joanna yeates if he only had worked with her at BDP for a short time...
That is really odd.... Well to me it is... maybe not others... It doesn't state that he knew Joanna yeates in any other capacity other than being her colleague at BDP....
Remember in that time he has to have worked at EDP also....
Edit.. The real question here needs to be .. when did Darragh Bellew stop working for EDP Landscape Planning and Design and start working for BDP... what dates in December 2010 did this occur??
-
A clearer image of his employment history...
(https://image.slidesharecdn.com/08867efe-4d25-4eae-9aa8-a0cf14eed8aa-160215082944/95/darragh-bellew-resume-08022016-1-638.jpg?cb=1455524994)
https://www.slideshare.net/DarraghBellew/darragh-bellew-resume-08022016-58264804
(https://image.slidesharecdn.com/08867efe-4d25-4eae-9aa8-a0cf14eed8aa-160215082944/95/darragh-bellew-resume-08022016-3-638.jpg?cb=1455524994)
-
From the helpfindjo website....
Detectives in the Joanna Yeates investigation are appealing for information to locate a piece of clothing that has not been found since the discovery of her body in Longwood Lane, Failand near Bristol.
Since then detectives on Operation Braid have been working tirelessly around the clock to carry out detailed forensic examinations at not only the site where she was found but at Canynge road.
Detective Chief Inspector Phil Jones confirmed that: “When Jo was found at the site in Longwood Lane her coat and boots were missing. These were later found at her flat in Canynge Road.
“One of her socks was missing and we have yet to find this. It is described as a light grey sock with lighter detail on the toes, heel and shin.
“We have not located this sock at the scene or at Jo’s home. I am keen to find it, so I would appeal to anyone who may know where it is to contact my team. You can do this on 0845 456 7000 or via http://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/jo”.
Anyone with information is asked to contact the Operation Braid incident room on 0845 456 7000 or go to http://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/jo
You can also contact Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111 – no one will ever know you called, no personal details are taken and calls are not traced or recorded and you will not go to court.
There are 3 distinct pieces of information in this article that I have skimmed before....
(1): Detective Chief Inspector Phil Jones confirmed that: “When Jo was found at the site in Longwood Lane her coat and boots were missing. These were later found at her flat in Canynge Road.
Who put them there ???? Who had access to put her clothes back in her Flat after she was found?? Is that the reason we see the Small camera in the window of the kitchen??
(2): The site?? He does say firstly "IN" Longwood Lane, then afterwards refers to it as "The Site"... Now is that The Quarry or The woods ??
(3): No one will ever know you called, no personal details are taken and calls are not traced or recorded and you will not go to court.
That statement... "You will not go to court".. who was that aimed at???
Who is the Statement meant for?... It is aimed directly at someone, Crime stoppers do not put "You will not go to Court" on their posters... The day that the article is written is the 19th January 2011... It just happens to be the day that The sobbing girl rang".... Did she ring immediately?? Is that why people have said that it is 'Tanja Morson" who was The sobbing girl....
I don't believe it was...
What information did the person who rang reveal...?
What were they after in terms of promising someone they would not have to go to Court??
There must have been some specific information that they were looking for... How could they say .....You Will Not Go to Court.... on the 19th January 2011?? When apparently they had no idea how, when and where Joanna Yeates came to her end...
Was Joanna Yeates with someone ?? Is that why they know about Friday 17th December 2010... had someone contacted them before??
https://helpfindjo.wordpress.com/page/2/
-
Part 1...
Timeline we have been told, since Greg arrive home.
These timelines I have from tweets from News media at trial and video interviews from The Yeates ,CJ and Rebecca Scott.. Also using the facebook posts of friends. And CJ's Leveson statement.(image attached)
* Greg arrives home at 8:00 pm (Sunday 19th December 2010)
* Greg rings Joanna Yeates phone 9:00pm
* Greg rings CJ at 12:00pm
* CJ told the Leveson that Joanna Yeates had been reported "Missing" on Sunday 19th December 2010
_______________________________________________________
* Greg Rings The Yeates at 12:36am (Monday 20th December 2010)
* Greg Rings Police at 12:45 am
* Police arrive at 2:00 am
* Yeates arrive at 2:00am
* The Yeates go looking around the neighbourhood at ???
* The Yeates see Tanja Morson on the lawn at ????
* The Yeates go banging on car boots at ????
* Rebecca Scott receives a message from Police at 4:00am
* Rebecca Scott ring Jo's phone straight away and Greg answers. 4:00am
* Isabel Rennie posts a news link to Avon and Somerset Police news article 18:37pm
* Darragh Bellew Posts that Joanna Yeates got home on Friday, keys, purse and mobile at home.. He has a link to an Avon
and Somerset article.. "Missing Bristol woman" on Avon and Somerset website. 23:05 pm
__________________________________________________________________
* CJ is Interviewed at home and house searched gives statement. (21st December 2010)
* CJ Rings the Police in the evening about seeing people ... (21st December 2010)
* CJ gives Police a written statement when they come round to his house on 22nd December 2010
_________________________________________________________________________________
* DS Mark Saunder makes an appeal outside 44, Canygne Road on 22nd December 2010
__________________________________________________________________________
The Police were already acting like this was something far more serious than just a Missing Person Inquiry...
The Information about her being a Missing Person was already available on their website on 20th December 2010.
I believe even before CJ made his statement.. they were already aware of what had happened to Joanna Yeates, and a story started to formulate..
I do not know if CJ's second witness statement contain the identity of persons who were there ...or... Is it smoke and Mirrors?? have we been chasing wildly this Illusive statement??
If CJ rang the Police on the 21st December 2010, then why did it take them until the next day being the 22nd December 2010, to take a written statement from him??
The house had Police there 24/7 from the moment she was reported Missing ... There must have been someone available to take a statement from CJ straight away as this apparently was valuable information about a possible sighting of Joanna Yeates on Friday 17th December 2010.
-
Part 2...
I will say that the lack of response to CJ's phone call tells us that they already knew what had happened to Joanna Yeates , I believe they Knew exactly what had taken place and CJ's second witness statement is part of the Smoke and Mirrors.
Darragh Bellew has already said what was in her Flat on the 17th December 2010.. He could have got the information from Avon and Somerset Polices website, we don't know.. But the stage was set at Avon and Somerset Polices website by the 20th December 2010.
The taking of witness statements from ALL of the tenants on the 21st December 2010 is telling.. What time were these statements taken??? Ordinarily they wouldn't take written statements at this early stage from people who hadn't seen or heard anything..
It is DCI Jones that decides to arrest CJ.... He took over on the 27th December 2010.... He had the help of Ron Hansen ACC.. This is why CJ's arrest i believe was Smoke and Mirrors, they had the information for a week.. The Police had a presence at the address from the moment Joanna Yeates was reported "Missing" by Greg as they tell us on Monday 20th December 2010....
Whilst we all concentrated on CJ, what was really happening behind the scenes??
CJ was just a distraction with the media.. nothing else was reported over those 3 days apart from CJ's arrest and then the papers went into over drive about what they perceived about his character..
Keeping CJ's second witness statement secret only adds to what we perceive had taken place at Canygne Road.. But it cannot be as simple as that.. We have gone over and over whether Joanna Yeates reached home and CJ cannot be the person who confirms this information...
They had already decided on the 20th December 2010 that Joanna Yeates did indeed reach her home on Friday 17th December 2010... Darragh Bellew confirms this in his facebook post dated 20th December 2010... he states she was last seen on Friday night and she made it home....
This is a whole day before CJ telephone the Police with his secondary piece of information that he apparently saw people at the gate ....
With the lack off immediate action from the Police in relation to CJ's phone call, they were already aware of her arriving back at Canygne Road on the 17th December 2010..
If everything is "Smoke and Mirrors"... what we do know is that Greg had called the Police and they responded,Or so they will have us believe, I believe that they had already arranged to meet The Yeates family at Canygne Road and that was the reason that the Yeates set of from Southampton....there had to be something that told the Police that she had arrived home on the 17th December 2010 other than her possessions being in the Flat...
Something other than the witness statement of CJ had told them she arrived home on the 17th December 2010 as CJ's second witness statement came after they had announced on the 20th December 2010 on their website that she was Missing and Darragh Bellew telling us on that day she had arrived home...
The Private CCTV footage would show whether she returned home... But they didn't receive that immediately.. So what information did they have that Joanna Yeates did indeed return home to her Flat on Canygne Road on Friday 17th December 2010?
CJ very well may have seen people at the gate... People he could identify.. Maybe when they remembered about CJ's statement it put a spanner in the works... The stage had already been set... And whoever was in charge before DCI Phil Jones had not seen CJ's second witness statement important enough to act upon.... As I said they took until the next day being the 22nd December 2010, to interview him about his phone call to the police the night before....
CJ tells us Joanna Yeates had been reported Missing on Sunday 19th December 2010.. We need to know who reported her "Missing" and from what location was she reported "Missing"?? When and where was she expected to be over that weekend??
Joanna Yeates brother Chris confirms CJ's Leveson statement on the helpfindjo webpage:
“From December 19th onwards I entered into a surreal hole of despair".
-
Part 3...
So who is the Person/organisation that reported Joanna Yeates "Missing" Why does her brother know that she is "Missing" by the 19th December 2010.. But the parents do not receive the phone call from Greg until the 20th December 2010 at 12:36am.. has someone else informed them about their daughter??
If Chris is in a surreal hole of despair on the 19th December 2010... what has Greg Reardon got to do with this episode?? He hasn't told the Yeates till the day after... So what is his part in this?? When did they decide he needed to play his part?? It cannot have been her phone ringing in her pocket at 9:00pm on Sunday the 19th December 2010 that first alerted greg Reardon something was amiss... Because Chris Yeates know something untoward has happened to his sister on that very day, and as we know there is no record of Greg Reardon ringing Chris Yeates to inform him that Joanna Yeates isn't at her Flat after he has been away....
There has to be more to this than Dr Vincent Tabak killing his next door neighbour he didn't know, (which they want us to believe.) Dr Vincent Tabak is away when DCI Phil Jones takes over.. Nothing has changed.. .. Apart from DCI Jones being in charge.. The fact that Chris Yeates is already aware that his sister is "Missing " on the 19th December 2010, before Greg Reardon contacts the Police at 12:45am on Monday the 20th December 2010 makes me believe the Police already knew of her disappearance before... If not the Police, what body had informed Chris Yeates that his sister was "Missing on the 19th December 2010? Other phone calls or text messages had to have happened with The Yeates family before Greg called them.. Or did Chris Yeates decide not to tell his parents?? I don't think so...
It is the mystery caller of the 19th December that is more important than CJ's second witness statement (imo) even though i agree with leonora that the contents of CJ's second witness statement is important, did it only contain information saying nothing more than he saw people at the gate, but couldn't identify them as the bushes were in the way... Is CJ's witness statement just that.... He says exactly that at The Leveson... he tells Sky News that what he had told the Police was far vaguer than that! Did the Police create the myth that CJ's second witness statement had far greater value than it had... Did they want us to concentrate on that statement?? And forget that Joanna Yeates had actually been reported Missing in exceptional circumstances for her brother Chris to be in a surreal state of despair from the 19th December 2010....
It is DCI Jones who puts in his log book that they will arrest CJ on the 30th December 2010, he has written this note on the 29th December 2010.. That's why we know it's staged.. The media outside Canygne Road questioning CJ... Dr Vincent Tabak is away not saying anything... Nothing in the Flat to indicate that Dr Vincent Tabak had been there.. i say that because that information should have come to trial....
So the cover-up starts before CJ's 2nd witness statement and the Police using the media and the media are helping to carry these stories ...... (Whether they are aware or not)
All the other information comes after the Police first inform the Public that Joanna Yeates is Missing on the 20th December 2010.. They have to have had enough time to formulate a strategy before they put the information on there website on the 20th December 2010, that why I believe someone did indeed report her Missing on or before the 19th December 2010.. we just don't know who... If Greg is telling us at trial he didn't call the Police before the 20th December 2010.. And Chris Yeates is saying on the helpfindjo web page , that his sister was reported "Missing on the 19th December 2010.. Then there had to be a call from someone who has not yet been identified...
Rebecca Scott telling us that she spoke to Joanna Yeates and that her things were in her Flat.. she tells us this on the 22nd December 2010 in a newspaper interview... We shouldn't really know this stuff... But we do.. And it's because they are setting a scene to hide the truth..(imo)
Virtually everything that was reported or said after the 19th December 2010 was some sort of "Smoke and Mirrors" to make us believe a story that obviously isn't true... As Chris Yeates had said.. he was in a surreal hole of dispair from the 19th December 2010...
It brings me back to why the Police knew that tJoanna Yeates was 'Missing" from the Friday the 17th December 2010.. And I believe it is highly likely that someone had informed them of this on Friday 17th December 2010 and they had followed procedure and waited 48 hours before her being an Official "Missing Person".. And I think it is very possible that it was the Police themselves who contacted the Yeates family about their daughters disappearance on the 19th December 2010 and that is why we have Chris Yeates, being in a "Surreal hole of despair" from that date...
-
Part 4...
Even if the Yeates had set off earlier than we believe on Sunday 19th December 2010, they would not have been able to gain access to Flat 1 as Greg had his keys and Joanna Yeates keys were inside the Flat...
But it has brought a possibility to mind... Did CJ allow the Yeates into Joanna Yeates Flat?? Is that what is contained in his second witness statement?? Is that when Mrs Yeates grabbed Joanna Yeates diary?? Is that when she found the receipt in Joanna Yeates pocket??
The actions of the Yeates when they arrive at Canygne Road do NOT include Greg... They are the ones looking in the Flat.. They are the ones searching the streets ...They are the ones banging on car boots... Had Greg left the Flat at some point on the 19th December 2010? Where were The Yeates family when Greg called them??
I believe it is very possible that CJ omitted plenty... Were the Yeates waiting at CJ's ?? They never sayGreg opened the door to them or Greg helped search... Did the Yeates only go into the Flat after the Police arrived.. Or had CJ let them in??
There is a blurred line between the arrival of The Yeates and what took place with Greg.. And nothing is filling it in...
The Yeates have already left for Bristol before Greg rings I believe... Because someone (I believe the Police) besides Greg had to inform the Yeates that Joanna was already Missing on the 19th December 2010...
And maybe CJ's role is that he too knew that Joanna Yeates was Missing because her parents had arrived in Bristol... followed shortly by the Police.. We assume Greg's phone calls are made when he is at the Flat... But that doesn't have to be the case... I can't see him sat there for nearly 4 hours before he tells the Police she is "Missing"...
They obviously already know this info.... So where was Greg Reardon when the Yeates family arrived at Canygne Road?? Did the Yeates go to see CJ.. Or did they just use the time to search until the Police arrived??
Maybe it was CJ who let the Police and the Yeates into the Flat?? I could be wrong... But there is information Missing between "The Yeates knowing that their daughter has been reported "Missing" by the 19th December 2010 and Greg Reardon phoning them on the 20th December 2010..
And it is between the hours of The Yeates finding out that she is Missing on the 19th December 2010 and The Police arriving at Canygne Road on the 20th December 2010 that the important missing detail... The information may be contained in CJ's second or even first witness statement... And that is the reason why we don't know the content...
Dr Vincent Tabak has not had time to be considered any type of suspect at this juncture... That is why I believe he has been scapegoated.. The only reason that Dr Vincent Tabak could be seen as a suspect, is whoever originally reported her Missing on what I believe could be the 17th December 2010 has some how implicated Dr Vincent Tabak.... But I don't think that is the case...
There has to be far more to Joanna Yeates Murder than a Placid Dutchman happening upon his neighbour when he passed her kitchen window on the 17th December 2010...
It cannot be coincidence that The Yeates and the Police are at Canygne Road at around the same time... Was it the Police whom had arranged with The Yeates family to meet them at 44,Canygne Road and that was the reason they set off from Southampton... To me it seems the most logical solution as to what made The Yeates family rush to Bristol that weekend come Monday Morning panicking ... And banging on Car Boots telling everyone they believed she had been abducted!!
And not the apparent phone call from Greg Reardon, who appears to be a bit late in the day informing The Yeates family that Joanna Yeates is not at the Flat... Because we already know they knew this information as Chris Yeates said...
“From December 19th onwards I entered into a surreal hole of despair".
https://helpfindjo.wordpress.com/
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122175642/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Second-Witness-Statement-of-Christopher-Jefferies.pdf
-
Is the importance of Greg's phone call about Joanna Yeates possessions being at the Flat when he calls and tells the Yeates and the Police on Monday 20th December 2010, more do do with the fact that they were not at the Flat when she was originally reported "Missing"
Remember on the helpfindjo website ... DCI Phil Jones does say that they found her coat and boots in the Flat "AFTER" they found her on Longwood Lane"..
So does the same apply to her "Phone", Keys and Purse"?? Were they put in the Flat after she was reported "Missing"...
It's something to consider... And I am not making any inferences to any individual I am trying to understand what their role was and how it played out... And how much info the Police twisted so we did not really know what happened and when it happened...
Did someone have a set of keys to Joanna Yeates home?? Someone who had the ability to put into the flat at various times, various items...
That would indeed give cause for the Police to suspect CJ... and how important him having a set of keys was... It wasn't his second witness statement that made them arrest him... Rather I believe that items had been returned to the Flat after the time she had:...
(A): been reported Missing
(B): been found on Longwood Lane..
That is what is important.. How did someone manage to access her flat when there was a Police presence at ALL times ?????
CJ, we know was proven Innocent... And they knew he was... But that also tells us they also knew who did this... Because they had to work out who had accessed Flat 1 on more than one occasion to keep returning items back there...
And i don't think it was Dr Vincent Tabak!! Or else that information would have come to court too......
Edit.... Ann Redropp says that when Joanna Yeates phone rang in her coat pocket... that was the start of Greg's nightmare...
Now Greg does say he comes home and then leave to go to his car.....
Had someone entered the Flat in between that time and returned Joanna Yeates mobile phone ??
That would cause concern, to anyone.. Especially if you had been ringing it prior and you hadn't heard it...
Is the real reason the Police only ever concentrated on 44, Canygne Road, because someone returned and entered the property on more than one occasion, returning items and maybe moving things in the Flat also....
It never occurred to me till now that someone could have come back to Canygne Road.. There had to be a reason why they Police presence was always there.. And why they never shifted there Investigation beyond that House...
With the prospect that someone returned items on more than one occasion.. we can see the frustration with the Police... And why they believed that it had to be someone in that house that was doing it!!!!!
Double Edit.. If someone has the ability to return items to Flat one, then maybe that is why we have Dr Vincent Tabak saying that the DNA/Blood evidence was planted... Did he know that items had been returned to Joanna Yeates Flat?? had he been told ?? or did he work it out????
Is this the reason Greg keeps adding items to what was at the Flat in the original articles?? We get a stripy Jumper.. we get a green fleece.. all later..
Even the information about the rucksack... That comes in later... we have her items originally found in her bag... Did that also get returned??
Are the Police just getting Greg to say these statements or are the Police reporting in the media that this is what Greg saw... Is this why Greg's statement keeps changing?? Because items are getting returned to the Flat after she is reported Missing??
-
Taking seriously the idea that someone was returning items to Flat one... Is this the reason that the Police allow Rebecca Scott to say that her coat was there??
Because it wasn't ??
By revealing information to the media they are telling the killer that items left at her home to try to indicate she had arrived home were not enough to prove she did, because there were still "Missing" Ingredients.. And only the killer, who was following ever step of the Investigation, could know that they hadn't returned her coat home...
Therefore making sense of DCI Phil Jones saying her coat and Boots were found in the Flat "After " she was discovered on Longwood lane....
Only the killer would try to play the Police ta there own game, by returning the items... Because as far as we were aware, those item should have already been in the Flat....
I never understood why the Police gave away so much Information in the early stages.... Information under ordinary circumstances should not have been given away by the Police....
Back to the Pizza... were they hoping that the killer would return that also?? Same with the "Missing Sock" are these items mentioned because they want to see if someone will return them??
On the 27th December 2010, The Ram received a note and a Pizza label... This item was never linked to Dr Vincent Tabak...He also was away on that date and the post I imagine would have had to be delivered by hand seeing as the 25th and 26th of December Christmas and Boxing day fell on a weekend, giving Monday as a none postal day...
Is the reason that Ron Hansen ACC, gets involved to install camera etc?? he is know for his surveillance and under cover work... Did he set up a recording device inside Flat One , hoping to catch someone returning any more items to the Flat... Is this the reason that they decided to arrest CJ and keep him for 3 days?? It gave them the opportunity to put the hidden cameras inside Flat One?? Because no member of the public is going to suspect anything different happening at that house other than them collecting supposed evidence from CJ's Flat... And when they see police re-entering Joanna Yeates Flat the public suspect nothing!
Was the Pizza the Missing Sock the Police goading the killer?? Same with the bottles of Cider.... When did Greg first tell us about Joanna Yeates having a sip from one of the bottles...
Did the killer remove Joanna Yeates Christmas Tree?? That too should have been in the Flat that was Frozen in time...
Does this explain why the images we see on the internet keep changing... Because the Flat and its contents kept changing??
The killer therefore has to have close contact with the Police in some shape or form, to stop returning items after a certain time .....
They know what originally was inside Flat one, on the first day Joanna Yeates was reported "Missing"... Not only that but know what they themselves had left behind...
Ann Reddrop says that the killer was clever , cunning and manipulative... trying to keep one step ahead of the investigation... Well returning items would certainly keep them one step ahead...
But thinking about that does that and could that really apply to Dr Vincent Tabak???
I don't think so!!
Edit... Just another thought... we see someone removing the panel from the outside of the house on the 29th December 2010, the same day as they remove Joanna Yeates door... Was this the day that the Police were installing surveillance did they place something in the panel area to try to catch someone out?? And couldn't replace the panel later because the media may ask questions???
-
Christopher Jefferies witness statement to the Leveson.. I have normally used Christopher Jefferies second witness statement, and went looking for his first.. Can what it says be true or have they made an error...
Christopher Jefferies first witness statement was made in November 2011
Mr Jay
We, of course, know about the horrific murder of Joanna Yeates which led to the conviction for murder of Vincent Tabak in July this year. Joanna Yeates disappeared, so we have our bearings, on 17 December of last year; is that right?
"July"?
Did they have a trial in July that we didn't know about??
Was the trial in October even more of a show trial than we know it was??
Was that the reason that the media could tweet so fast what had taken place??
CJ States in the Leveson"
I was startled to hear the editor of the Scotsman, one of the papers sued by me for libel and himself a member of the PCC, describe his paper's coverage of my arrest as a mistake.
So I went to the Scotsman to see if I could see there apology..
Yesterday The Scotsman and other newspapers apologised in court for having wrongly suggested that Mr Jefferies was involved in the killing of Joanna Yeates. We had also wrongly suggested that he had acted in an inappropriate, oversexualised manner with his pupils in the past and that he invaded he privacy of his tenants in his capacity as a landlord of two flats. We accepted in court that these allegations were untrue and that Mr Jefferies had no involvement in Ms Yeates' killing. In recognition of the distress caused, we have agreed to pay substantial damages to Mr Jefferies plus his legal costs.
The timing of CJ's suing of the media is important.. Mr Jay had stated that the trial was in "July" and Dr Vincent Tabak was convicted of "Murder"...
That statement must be true.... I will say, how on earth would CJ, be able to sue the papers if there hadn't already been a conviction in 'July" ?? Until there is a conviction there is no evidence to catergorically state that CJ is an Innocent man!! (No offence meant CJ..)
Mr Jay
We know there was a statement in open court on 29 July of this year.
Mr Christopher Jefferies
Mm-hm.
Mr Jay
The newspapers admitted liability, gave the standard apologies on these occasions --
Now I cannot find the pdf of CJ's first witness statement and luckily the statement is available through the link at the bottom... But is the reason that CJ's statement is sealed for 84 years, because they actually held Dr Vincent Tabak's trial in "July 2011"?
It would make sense that a trial had already taken place...
The Scotsman could not state on the 1st August 2011 that CJ was an entirely Innocent man... As the trial we were told was to take place in October 2011..
The Police had believed there to be an accomplice, and until someone else was convicted of this crime, CJ could always potentially have been implicated...
In August 2011, Dr Vincent Tabak still hadn't said anything.... He didn't sign his enhanced statement until September 2011, nothing as far as I am aware stated how he had entered Flat 1.... It is not until the apparent trial in October 2011, that Dr Vincent Tabak gives his version of events... And of course he apparently was invited in....
So... CJ still could have been seen as a suspect by the Police right up until October 2011 as he was the landlord with the keys to Joanna Yeates Flat and they had no idea how entry had occurred...!
The Police did not apologise until 2012 to CJ and cleared him at that time Officially...
I'm aware CJ could confidently feel he could take the papers to court, but he would need something concrete to establish that the hole fiasco in the newspapers was outrageous and he had proof that he was indeed an Innocent man...
After the apparent trial of Dr Vincent Tabak's it did not stop the media from totally vilifying him, with talk of Porn.. prostitutes and his interest in child porn...
So the media's attitude hadn't changed.
CJ wouldn't and couldn't take the media to court at the end of July 2011, without having Dr Vincent Tabak convicted..(imo) The papers would not bow down and just pay him any cost and then state that he was wholly Innocent... They would fight their corner and state that until a trial and conviction, he still could be a suspect..
Is this the reason that No-one wants to talk about Dr Vincent Tabak's trial and conviction?? Because they had already had a trial and convicted him??
Did the "Manslaughter Plea" stand?? Was Dr Vincent Tabak convicted of "Manslaughter" in July 2011 and The October 2011 trial was just for show??
CJ.. has to be confident that he can win his case hands down!! And The apologies to CJ start in court on the 29th July 2011...
Article dated 29th July 2011
"Christopher Jefferies is the latest victim of the regular witch hunts and character assassination conducted by the worst elements of the British tabloid media.
Many of the stories published in these newspapers are designed to 'monster' the individual, in flagrant disregard for his reputation, privacy and rights to a fair trial.
These newspapers have now apologised to him and paid substantial damages."
I missed a trick... Dr Vincent Tabak's conviction had to be settled before CJ took the papers to court, he wouldn't have won and no apology would have been made.. He has to have everything in the bag to be able to stand up in court and say, that there is proof I did not have anything to do with the Murder of Joanna Yeates...!!
I am not surprised that No-one will talk of this case, I am not surprised that the media do not say anything... They probably all got a gaging order in July 2011.. It has been staring us in the face all this time.. CJ.... CJ who has tried time and time again to show us that the case against Dr Vincent Tabak is false...
Not only does he sue the paper, he appears at the Leveson and then the documentary.. But we the public are not listening ...we the public are waiting on a selacious trial.. And we got one... With bells on it...
Now I understand why there were 20 written witness statement that were read out.. Why would you go to a trial if you have already been... That is why Tanja Morson was away on holiday... She didn't need to be there.... It wasn't real...(imo)... Every person whom you expected to take the stand didn't...
* No DCI Phil Jones...
* No CJ...
* No Tanja Morson
* No Peter Stanley
* No Good Character witness's
* No work Colleagues
* No tenant or resident of 44, Canyne Road
* No Firemen
Nobody who should have been at the October trial was not there!! And that I believe is because the trial took place in July... But the papers cannot tell us, this is what happened.. But CJ does in his 'First Witness Statement at The Leveson"... No wonder that trial made no sense at all....
Talked about behind closed doors... Well I am not surprised in the least!!!!!
"Oh what a tangled web we weave.." They got that right!
I would just like to add, and I am not being rude to CJ... But.... Why would the media apologies, pay him money and then a documentary is made about "The Lost Honour of CJ"???
At the end of the day.. CJ is simply a retired teacher, who owns a couple of properties, basically a nobody... Yet he manages to wield so much attention his way... Attention that he did not want apparently... I believe all the CJ reports from the Leveson and the documentary .. where to get us to sit up and take notice....
Well CJ... "I Have".... !!!
Read more at: https://www.scotsman.com/news/apology-christopher-jefferies-1-1777461
http://leveson.sayit.mysociety.org/hearing-28-november-2011/mr-christopher-jefferies
https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2011/jul/29/joanna-yeates-national-newspapers
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
"I think she was abducted after getting home to her flat ... I have no idea of the circumstances of the abduction because of what was left behind ... I feel sure she would not have gone out by herself leaving all these things behind and she was taken away somewhere". Her keys, phone, purse and coat were left behind at her flat.
The coat, keys, phone and purse, i do not believe that they were the reasons that they thought she had been abducted. Their insistence that Joanna Yeates had been "Missing" from Friday 17th December 2010
The possible conclusion for why The Yeates knew that there daughter had been abducted or felt that she had been adbucted, has to be in what was left behind..
The Bruises that were not all attributed to Joanna Yeates being attacked on that day...
Ignoring cameras.. ignoring everything else I believe it comes down to her taking medication.. And possibly "Insulin"
Having to take Insulin Injection daily would cause concern if it had been left behind..
The bruises on her body could easily be explained by site marks for the Injections..
There has to be something that was inside the flat, that she "Left" behind.... And I believe The Coat, Keys. Mobile Phone and purse could easily be explained away... And they would not give the Police a date of her disappearance..
But "Insulin" would....
Could explain the headaches
Could explain the diary and why The Yeates were allowed to keep it
Could explain possible heart condition , reaction to medication
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8048.msg393119#msg393119
https://medlineplus.gov/druginfo/meds/a682611.html
-
Tweet from 20th October 2011
ADULT PORN NEWS XXX
@ALL_THINGS_PORN
Follow Follow @ALL_THINGS_PORN
More
#ADULT #NEWS - Vincent Tabak: Sex with Joanna Yeates was not on my mindVincent Tabak ... http://bit.ly/pvZ6D0 - #porn #sex
3:37 PM - 20 Oct 2011
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
A subtle way of informing everyone about porn... Attach to an adult porn site and add a couple of names, and everyone will know...
I did click the link and that link is dead.. images attached.
And they tell us no one knew about the porn??
That tweet was never removed, So how many more tweets were there about "Porn"!
20th October 2011... Wasn't that the day that Dr Vincent Tabak was on the stand when he apologised to The Family
The attorney general is considering whether to take action over a tweet revealing Vincent Tabak's interest in hardcore pornography that was posted during his trial.
During the four-week trial orders were in place to stop the media reporting Tabak's interest in pornography depicting women being strangled during sex.
It was feared that if the jury knew of Tabak's interest in such material it would be unfairly prejudiced against him and make a fair trial impossible.
But during the trial a man was arrested after he posted a tweet revealing the existence of the pornography.
Here the tweet link:
https://twitter.com/ALL_THINGS_PORN/status/127151455563022336
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/31/attorney-general-tweet-tabak-porn?CMP=twt_fd
-
Now this changes the timeline of phone calls ... Steven Morris of The Guardian..
Edit... If Greg called the Yeates at 12:36am and the Police around 1:00am... The Yeates were travelling from Southampton to Bristol....
What made the Police turn up at the Flat at 2:00am, before The Yeates arrived????
What was said to the POLICE about this Missing adult??
What was said to the Police to make them arrive within an hour???
Did the Yeates ring the Police to tell them of their concerns.... ???
https://twitter.com/stevenmorris20/status/125928034569175040
The questions you pose are very pertinent indeed, but we have known the timings of Greg's calls and the police's response ever since Counsel for the Prosecution opened his case on the trial's first two days. There is nothing new there.
In the course of Mr Lickley's speech, a recording perporting to be Greg Reardon's 999 call (which allegedly lasted 12 minutes) was played to the court. A transcript of a small part of what he said was reproduced by some of the news media, but we don't know how they got it. If the recording were a complete fake, no one would be any the wiser. Greg was not in court himself until he came to testify, several days later. None of the police witnesses testified to the authenticity of the recording. Neither Mr & Mrs Yeates nor the police officer who came to the flat testified in person (though he statement was read out).
-
By JO WILLEY
PUBLISHED: 00:00, Sat, Jan 22, 2011
However, yesterday, Tanja’s Harvard-educated US attorney father Geoffrey branded the claims “absurd”.
A blue Ford Mondeo arrived at his house in Cambridge at around 9.30am yesterday morning.
Two men dressed in smart suits, believed to be police officers, went into the house clutching papers before leaving at 10am and driving away.
Why did the Police attend "The Morson's" family home in Cambridge??
The media must have been camped out at The Moron's home to know that at 9:30am a blue Ford Mondeo with two men dressed in smart suits, whom the paper believes to be Police... where at the Morsons home in Cambridge.. Yet parently no-one in the media knew that it was Dr Vincent Tabak that had been arrested .... odd that... !
On his website, Tabak has spoken of his fondness for Tanja.
Does anyone know what website they are referring too??
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/224633/Girlfriend-standing-by-lovely-Vincent-Tabak#ixzz1BkRtsYCW
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
From The Criminal Law and Justice Weekly....
This is a new one on me....
A case in point is that of Christopher Jefferies, the unfortunate landlord of murder victim Joanna Yeates, who faced a media circus of innuendo following his arrest as the result of a hate comments started by Vincent Tabak, the man subsequently convicted of her murder.
What hate comments did Dr Vincent Tabak say about CJ??
Does this support Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson being the couple who told the papers about CJ letting himself into their Flat?? But it was supposed to be EX- Tenants... But If they rented from someone else in the building then they would be EX- Tenants..
Otherwise I do not know what they are referring too in this article!
https://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/features/Rape-Defendant-Anonymity-Part-2
-
I have found this recording of DCI Phil Jones in 2014.. He is on the radio...
https://audioboom.com/posts/2564217-dci-phil-jones
DCI Phil Jones speaks to BBC Somerset's Ben McGrail about a hit and run in Bruton in which a man in his 80s was killed.
Now it doesn't sound like the DCI Phil Jones we know....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSjd-UPHg2A
I did say before That the man we see isn't the real DCI Phil Jones..(imo).. Did that man just assume the role of DCI Phil Jones for TV purposes?? Reminds me of "Brotherton" assuming the role of Chaplain!!
When I did the linkedIn of DCI Phil Jones, The image of him was completely different.. (images attached)..
To me they sound like 2 different people ....
I know they look like 2 different people..
I'll imagine that the audio link will get removed....
How many DCI Phil Jones are they in Somerset??
(https://media-exp2.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/shrinknp_200_200/AAEAAQAAAAAAAApxAAAAJDNiNWQwZTNjLWI5NTQtNDA5ZS1hOTZlLTQ5YWU4M2ZlNzUyOA.jpg)
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=12819;image)
I found the link for the interview here:
BBC SomersetVerified account
@bbcsomerset
Follow Follow @bbcsomerset
More
The police have given us more details about the hit and run in Bruton - listen here to DCI Phil Jones: http://bbc.in/11mDtCC
https://twitter.com/bbcsomerset/status/522321825628712960
-
How many DCI Phil Jones are there in that vicinity??
South Wales PoliceVerified account
@swpolice
Follow Follow @swpolice
More
#swpawards the final award at Cardiff City Hall goes to DCI Phil Jones who has stepped down after more than 30 years of great police work.
1:16 PM - 30 Sep 2011
Notice the date ?
https://twitter.com/swpolice/status/119868196282056705
South Wales PoliceVerified account
@swpolice
Follow Follow @swpolice
More
#swpawards the final award at Cardiff City Hall goes to DCI Phil Jones who has stepped down after more than 30 years of great police work.
1:16 PM - 30 Sep 2011
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet Like Direct message
https://twitter.com/swpolice/status/119868196282056705
How many Phil Jones... can't be this one because he got sent to prison.... Or is Phil Jones just a generic name that gets used????
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/former-south-wales-cid-chief-1930856
-
"Killer kept Sock as a Trophy"
The Police had this as an idea from the begining.. The only person who would keep a sock as a trophy would be a "Serial Killer"
Did The Avon and Somerset Police believe that there was a Serial Killer in their midst??
-
leonora you like your idioms..
From The guardian...
Christopher Jefferies, the retired school teacher caught up in the Joanna Yeates murder case, has told the Leveson inquiry that he was forced into a "hole-in-the-corner existence" by the hostile press coverage that followed his arrest at the end of 2010.
hole-in-the-corner
hole-in-the-corner
Shady and secretive, typically to hide illicit activity. Primarily heard in UK. You can be sure there's some hole-in-the-corner activities going on in that private club.
Farlex Dictionary of Idioms. © 2015 Farlex, Inc, all rights reserved.
hole-in-the-corner or hole-and-corner BRITISH, OLD-FASHIONED
If you describe an activity or an event as hole-in-the-corner or hole-and-corner, you mean that it is kept secret, usually because it is dishonest or shameful. You deserve better than a hole-in-the-corner relationship like this. His visit was a hole-and-corner affair, and treated like a guilty secret.
Did CJ actually say that??
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/hole-in-the-corner
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/nov/28/leveson-inquiry-christopher-jefferies
-
Joanna Yeates suspect Vincent Tabak faces her parents in court
Metro News Reporter Wednesday 21 Sep 2011 8:54 am
David and Teresa Yeates were at Bristol crown court for a pre-trial hearing for Vincent Tabak. Tabak admits manslaughter but denies murder (Picture: London News Pictures) The couple have not seen Tabak in person in court before as the defendant has appeared by videolink from prison at previous hearings.
They arrived and left court hand in hand, accompanied by two police officers. Tabak, a Dutch engineer, has admitted the manslaughter of Miss Yeates, a 25-year-old graduate, but denies her murder. The charge states that he ‘unlawfully killed’ her between December 16-19. Tabak, who sat hunched in the dock, spoke only once during the hearing. The clerk asked him: ‘Are you Vincent Tabak?’ He replied: ‘Yes I am.’ He was remanded in custody. The four-week trial will begin on October 4.
Why are Mr and Mrs Yeates attending a pre- trial court hearing??
That is twice that they have attended a court hearing for Dr Vincent Tabak... Here it is stated they never saw him before... But They have since said on video interviews that they meet (him) and Tanja on the Grass at Canygne Road..
Why is everything opposite of what it is supposed to be ??
http://metro.co.uk/2011/09/21/joanna-yeates-suspect-vincent-tabak-faces-her-parents-in-court-157220/?ito=cbshare
Edit...
Det Chief Inspector Phil Jones, who led the Avon and Somerset investigation, sat behind the barristers but immediately in front of the defendant.
Why is DCI Phil Jones in court as well as The Yeates being in court at a hearing for Dr Vincent Tabak.. surely none of them should be there??
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2039495/Joanna-Yeates-parents-David-Teresa-face-Vincent-Tabak-court-1st-time.html#ixzz58Delfhr1
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Mon 2 Mar 2015 17.51 GMT Last modified on Wed 29 Nov 2017 22.31 GMT
Tabak was summoned to court from his prison cell in relation to those images during a hearing at Bristol magistrates court in December 2013. He was due to stand trial at Bristol crown court on Monday but entered guilty pleas after judge Neil Ford QC, the recorder of Bristol, rejected an application by his defence to stop the case.
Do they wheel this Judge out as a joke??
The former recorder of Bristol Crown Court revealed that he once doodled a 'very large phallus' on an old court computer system.
The naughty drawing led to everyone's pens being confiscated, he said.
He also admitted filling an associates' bag with small bottles of gin on the train back from a trial in Reading, during which they played a rude version of hangman.
During the light-hearted farewell ceremony held in a courtroom packed with leading lawyers, he provoked fits of laughter by revealing how his 'out of office' on the screen used for showing evidence was the drawing of a fist - with its middle finger stuck up.
And this is what we get as a person passing Judgement on others... The whole Justice system is a mockery...(imo)!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4100350/I-m-guilty-doing-rude-doodle-judge-confesses-retirement-speech.html#ixzz58nzZUdpl
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/02/vincent-tabak-admits-possessing-indecent-images-of-children
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I am no expert and what I write is my opinion... But I have a possible theory for the silence......
What did they originally charge Dr Vincent Tabak with??
With all of the outrage and talk of hanging Dr Vincent Tabak, this being even before he had sat at trial, being guilty before being proved guiltier....
I still cannot get that concept out of my head, the presumption of Innocence seems to have failed in this case....
When they arrested Dr Vincent Tabak in January 2011 and subsequently charged him, what did they charge him with?? Murder?.. we don't really know, which is odd in itself... we have again presumed that must have been the case....
Did the Prosecution miss a trick?? They shouldn't have..
Dr Vincent Tabak has only ever had one charge apparently brought against him... And realistically they could have brought more charges...
More charges that would have added to his already life sentence... And I am amazed that they haven't...
Why not accept the Manslaughter Plea then add on the charge of Obstructing a Coroner -
Preventing the Burial of a Body?? Obstructing a coroner or preventing a Burial if the disposal of the body is more serious than the unlawful act which caused the death.
And as we do not know really what happened to Joanna Yeates (imo) and they don't know what happened to Joanna Yeates, that charge would have been the icing on the cake... Dr Vincent Tabak could have said it was an accident in a sexual context.. He could have said it was an accident full stop.. It was seconds according to the trial, not what you would expect to cause someones death, so quickly..(imo)
Joanna Yeates was removed from her home apparently... Concealed.. hidden ...
Twice Clegg said the jury would hear no excuses from him about Tabak's "disgusting" behaviour after he killed Yeates. The decision to hide the body – which remained concealed for eight days – had caused untold anguish and agony for her family. Tabak, he said, had shown himself to be very calculating.
Clegg (imo) should never had Dr Vincent Tabak on the stand... they obviously never knew what had happened to Joanna Yeates....
Obstructing a Coroner - Preventing the Burial of a Body
Any disposal of a corpse with intent to obstruct or prevent a coroner's inquest, when there is a duty to hold one, is an offence. The offence is a common law offence, triable only on indictment and carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and/or a fine.
The offence of preventing the burial of a body (indictable only, unlimited imprisonment) is an alternative charge. Proof of this offence does not require proof of the specific intent required for obstructing a coroner.
The offences of obstructing a coroner and preventing the burial of a body may arise for example, when a person decides to conceal the innocent and unexpected death of a relative or friend or prevent his burial. Such cases inevitably raise sensitive public interest factors which must be carefully considered.
When the evidence supports a charge of involuntary manslaughter, it may be necessary to add a charge of obstructing a coroner or preventing a burial if the disposal of the body is more serious than the unlawful act which caused the death.
Obstructing a coroner may also amount to an offence of perverting the course of justice. Regard must be had to the factors outlined in General Charging Practice, above in this guidance and Charging Practice for Public Justice Offences, above in this guidance, which help to identify conduct too serious to charge as obstructing a coroner, when consideration should be given to a charge of perverting the course of justice.
So we have a far more serious Charge available to The CPS... yet they fail to charge Dr Vincent Tabak with this extremely serious offence... But what they did manage to do, was get Dr Vincent Tabak to admit to moving Joanna Yeates body from her Flat at 44, Canygne Road to Longwood Lane when he was at trial in October 2011.....
That in itself is an admission of Obstructing a Coroner -Preventing the Burial of a Body??.. So what charges were possible to bring against Dr Vincent Tabak to make sure he spent endless extra Years in Jail..
* Obstructing a Coroner -Preventing the Burial of a Body
* Murder
* Perverting the course of Justice...
Perverting the Course of Justice
Perverting the course of justice is a serious offence. It can only be tried on indictment and carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Plenty there to secure his fate bringing multiple life sentences.... And it brings many questions... Either they know that Joanna Yeates was 'on Longwood lane ' from when she went Missing, and not where they say she was therefore her body hadn't been moved...
Or alternatively, they have the option to still charge him with the "Obstructing a Coroner" and Preventing the Burial of a Body ... which carries a hefty sentence..
And maybe that is the possible reason that Dr Vincent Tabak has kept quiet.... Even if his sentence was reduced to "Manslaughter" would he risk being charge with the "Obstructing a Coroner on top, of a Manslaughter Sentence?? Still leaving him in prison for many many years.. Or even a life sentence for 'Perverting The Course of Justice'..
We know that when the child porn charges came they kept counts on file..
Two other counts of making indecent photographs, relating to 23 images found on external hard drives, were ordered to lie on file.
If The Obstruction of the Coroner isn't the reason that Dr Vincent Tabak has kept quiet... Is it the fact they could choose to charge him with "Perverting The Course of Justice'?? And these are the reasons why Dr Vincent Tabak has kept his head down and not made any noises about Innocence??
Perverting The Course of Justice was admitted by Dr Vincent Tabak in his story on the stand... They had no idea what happened to Joanna Yeates until Dr Vincent Tabak took the stand and told that ridiculous story in October 2011... If they knew what had happened to Joanna Yeates when the trial started.. Dr Vincent Tabak would have had more charges laid against him and could have had more charges laid against him....(imo).. But those charges do not happen when the trial commences... But unbeknown to Dr Vincent Tabak, by taking the stand and making the admissions he did, he therefore has opened up a charge of Perverting The Course of Justice.... Not once but twice... (CJ)
Dr Vincent Tabak gains nothing by taking the stand and telling the world he killed Joanna Yeates... No reduction on sentence ... absolutely nothing... If he had kept quiet and said nothing, it would have been up to the prosecution to prove that Dr Vincent Tabak had "Murdered Joanna Yeates... They already had rejected The manslaughter Plea..
So Dr Vincent Tabak could have just sat there quiet and Clegg should have advised him of that (imo).. And I do not understand why Clegg did not advise his client of that... Especially as he admits to "Perverting The Course of Justice by admitting to moving Joanna Yeates body...And implicating CJ..
So yes I can see Dr Vincent Tabak and his family and anyone else keeping quiet about what really happened to Joanna Yeates... Maybe thats why CJ never mentions what he knows, maybe he is protecting Dr Vincent Tabak too...
It's a lot to risk.. Everyone believes he is guilty.. I am not one of those... But when the system has shown itself to be unfair to a defendant, why would he risk being imprisoned for any longer... Therefore his family wouldn't want to say anything either... They wouldn't want to make it any worse for him...
I believe even if they let Dr Vincent Tabak go free tomorrow, he would not say anything in fear of having other charges brought against him... So on saying that, no-one will ever find out the truth in this case... And the Yeates family will never get real justice (imo).. The real killer walks away scott free and the Placid Dutchman knows not to speak out...(imo)
Is it possible that they could still charge Dr Vincent Tabak with either "The offence of preventing the burial of a body' or Perverting the course of Justice.... ( For my theory to add weight to why Dr Vincent Tabak is silent)
All the prosecution needs to prove is that there is a possibility that what the complainant has done "without more" might lead to a wrongful consequence, such as the arrest of an innocent person
As we know CJ was arrested,but the Police have made us believe that the phone call from Holland was important in the detention of CJ... the Attorney General even stated in July 2011 that CJ was a wholly Innocent man... which brings me back to why they didn't bring the charge of 'Perverting The course of Justice' against Dr Vincent Tabak in the first place... They Insisted that he tried to implicate the landlord... On The Law Pages it says that he tried to implicate the landlord and that the landlord was arrested ..... The Attorney General says CJ is wholly Innocent when the Newspapers are brought to court in July 2011....
I think Dr Vincent Tabak and everyone else is stuck between a rock and a hard place.....
Why didn't they charge Dr Vincent Tabak with "The offence of preventing the burial of a body (indictable only, unlimited imprisonment) as an alternative charge. "??
He's never coming out of prison on that charge... If they choose the unlimited prison option... But they don't charge him with that... Involuntary Manslaughter would support the ability to add this extra charge..
Yet for the public's satisfaction they give him life in prison instead and use unsubstanciated evidence that he was into strangulation porn after the trial to turn the public against him... To me they just wanted to shut him up and teach him a lesson and lead the general public into believing a true monster killed Joanna Yeates and not a Placid Dutchman... Or did they want the information out there for some other reason??
Did Dr Vincent Tabak really kill Joanna Yeates??
I don't think so...(imo)...
They really could have thrown the book at him and they didn't.... why not??
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/false-allegations-rape-andor-domestic-abuse-see-guidance-charging-perverting-course
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-31700109
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/public-justice-offences-incorporating-charging-standard
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/19/vincent-tabak-joanna-yeates-court
-
I am no expert and what I write is my opinion... But I have a possible theory for the silence......
What did they originally charge Dr Vincent Tabak with??
With all of the outrage and talk of hanging Dr Vincent Tabak, this being even before he had sat at trial, being guilty before being proved guiltier....
I still cannot get that concept out of my head, the presumption of Innocence seems to have failed in this case....
When they arrested Dr Vincent Tabak in January 2011 and subsequently charged him, what did they charge him with?? Murder?.. we don't really know, which is odd in itself... we have again presumed that must have been the case....
Did the Prosecution miss a trick?? They shouldn't have..
Dr Vincent Tabak has only ever had one charge apparently brought against him... And realistically they could have brought more charges...
More charges that would have added to his already life sentence... And I am amazed that they haven't...
Why not accept the Manslaughter Plea then add on the charge of Obstructing a Coroner -
Preventing the Burial of a Body?? Obstructing a coroner or preventing a Burial if the disposal of the body is more serious than the unlawful act which caused the death.
And as we do not know really what happened to Joanna Yeates (imo) and they don't know what happened to Joanna Yeates, that charge would have been the icing on the cake... Dr Vincent Tabak could have said it was an accident in a sexual context.. He could have said it was an accident full stop.. It was seconds according to the trial, not what you would expect to cause someones death, so quickly..(imo)
Joanna Yeates was removed from her home apparently... Concealed.. hidden ...
Clegg (imo) should never had Dr Vincent Tabak on the stand... they obviously never knew what had happened to Joanna Yeates....
So we have a far more serious Charge available to The CPS... yet they fail to charge Dr Vincent Tabak with this extremely serious offence... But what they did manage to do, was get Dr Vincent Tabak to admit to moving Joanna Yeates body from her Flat at 44, Canygne Road to Longwood Lane when he was at trial in October 2011.....
That in itself is an admission of Obstructing a Coroner -Preventing the Burial of a Body??.. So what charges were possible to bring against Dr Vincent Tabak to make sure he spent endless extra Years in Jail..
* Obstructing a Coroner -Preventing the Burial of a Body
* Murder
* Perverting the course of Justice...
Perverting the Course of Justice
Plenty there to secure his fate bringing multiple life sentences.... And it brings many questions... Either they know that Joanna Yeates was 'on Longwood lane ' from when she went Missing, and not where they say she was therefore her body hadn't been moved...
Or alternatively, they have the option to still charge him with the "Obstructing a Coroner" and Preventing the Burial of a Body ... which carries a hefty sentence..
And maybe that is the possible reason that Dr Vincent Tabak has kept quiet.... Even if his sentence was reduced to "Manslaughter" would he risk being charge with the "Obstructing a Coroner on top, of a Manslaughter Sentence?? Still leaving him in prison for many many years.. Or even a life sentence for 'Perverting The Course of Justice'..
We know that when the child porn charges came they kept counts on file..
If The Obstruction of the Coroner isn't the reason that Dr Vincent Tabak has kept quiet... Is it the fact they could choose to charge him with "Perverting The Course of Justice'?? And these are the reasons why Dr Vincent Tabak has kept his head down and not made any noises about Innocence??
Perverting The Course of Justice was admitted by Dr Vincent Tabak in his story on the stand... They had no idea what happened to Joanna Yeates until Dr Vincent Tabak took the stand and told that ridiculous story in October 2011... If they knew what had happened to Joanna Yeates when the trial started.. Dr Vincent Tabak would have had more charges laid against him and could have had more charges laid against him....(imo).. But those charges do not happen when the trial commences... But unbeknown to Dr Vincent Tabak, by taking the stand and making the admissions he did, he therefore has opened up a charge of Perverting The Course of Justice.... Not once but twice... (CJ)
Dr Vincent Tabak gains nothing by taking the stand and telling the world he killed Joanna Yeates... No reduction on sentence ... absolutely nothing... If he had kept quiet and said nothing, it would have been up to the prosecution to prove that Dr Vincent Tabak had "Murdered Joanna Yeates... They already had rejected The manslaughter Plea..
So Dr Vincent Tabak could have just sat there quiet and Clegg should have advised him of that (imo).. And I do not understand why Clegg did not advise his client of that... Especially as he admits to "Perverting The Course of Justice by admitting to moving Joanna Yeates body...And implicating CJ..
So yes I can see Dr Vincent Tabak and his family and anyone else keeping quiet about what really happened to Joanna Yeates... Maybe thats why CJ never mentions what he knows, maybe he is protecting Dr Vincent Tabak too...
It's a lot to risk.. Everyone believes he is guilty.. I am not one of those... But when the system has shown itself to be unfair to a defendant, why would he risk being imprisoned for any longer... Therefore his family wouldn't want to say anything either... They wouldn't want to make it any worse for him...
I believe even if they let Dr Vincent Tabak go free tomorrow, he would not say anything in fear of having other charges brought against him... So on saying that, no-one will ever find out the truth in this case... And the Yeates family will never get real justice (imo).. The real killer walks away scott free and the Placid Dutchman knows not to speak out...(imo)
Is it possible that they could still charge Dr Vincent Tabak with either "The offence of preventing the burial of a body' or Perverting the course of Justice.... ( For my theory to add weight to why Dr Vincent Tabak is silent)
As we know CJ was arrested,but the Police have made us believe that the phone call from Holland was important in the detention of CJ... the Attorney General even stated in July 2011 that CJ was a wholly Innocent man... which brings me back to why they didn't bring the charge of 'Perverting The course of Justice' against Dr Vincent Tabak in the first place... They Insisted that he tried to implicate the landlord... On The Law Pages it says that he tried to implicate the landlord and that the landlord was arrested ..... The Attorney General says CJ is wholly Innocent when the Newspapers are brought to court in July 2011....
I think Dr Vincent Tabak and everyone else is stuck between a rock and a hard place.....
Why didn't they charge Dr Vincent Tabak with "The offence of preventing the burial of a body (indictable only, unlimited imprisonment) as an alternative charge. "??
He's never coming out of prison on that charge... If they choose the unlimited prison option... But they don't charge him with that... Involuntary Manslaughter would support the ability to add this extra charge..
Yet for the public's satisfaction they give him life in prison instead and use unsubstanciated evidence that he was into strangulation porn after the trial to turn the public against him... To me they just wanted to shut him up and teach him a lesson and lead the general public into believing a true monster killed Joanna Yeates and not a Placid Dutchman... Or did they want the information out there for some other reason??
Did Dr Vincent Tabak really kill Joanna Yeates??
I don't think so...(imo)...
They really could have thrown the book at him and they didn't.... why not??
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/false-allegations-rape-andor-domestic-abuse-see-guidance-charging-perverting-course
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-31700109
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/public-justice-offences-incorporating-charging-standard
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/19/vincent-tabak-joanna-yeates-court
I think your theory stretches credulity, unless I have misunderstood it.
Are you suggesting that a wholly innocent man, serving a life sentence for a murder he didn't commit, refuses to claim he is innocent in case they add on more charges against him? As none of the possible charges you refer to are worse than the murder charge he already has against him I'm not sure how the threat of more charges are really going to ensure his silence?
Also, it doesn't explain why he confessed in prison and on the stand to be responsible for her death.
Do people who are charged with murders like this usually get charged with perverting the course of justice and obstructing the coroner or are these considered superfluous when pursuing a murder charge?
I have also been trying to find a British example of someone confessing on the stand who was later found to be innocent and can not find any. False confessions, as I understand it, come about due to or just to put an end to less than scrupulous police interrogations.
-
I think your theory stretches credulity, unless I have misunderstood it.
Are you suggesting that a wholly innocent man, serving a life sentence for a murder he didn't commit, refuses to claim he is innocent in case they add on more charges against him? As none of the possible charges you refer to are worse than the murder charge he already has against him I'm not sure how the threat of more charges are really going to ensure his silence?
Also, it doesn't explain why he confessed in prison and on the stand to be responsible for her death.
Do people who are charged with murders like this usually get charged with perverting the course of justice and obstructing the coroner or are these considered superfluous when pursuing a murder charge?
I have also been trying to find a British example of someone confessing on the stand who was later found to be innocent and can not find any. False confessions, as I understand it, come about due to or just to put an end to less than scrupulous police interrogations.
Do you not find that mighty strange Baz... That there is no other case in this country where someone confesses on the stand...It's a very American idea... It's almost like they have used laws from America and laws from this country to try Dr Vincent Tabak.. And that can't be right...
Mix that with people shouting for the death penalty and what have you got?? A F**ing Pantomine!!
You wonder why I have ended up all over the place with this case, and have come up with idea's that may appear to some as ludicrous.. DCI Phil Jones still niggles at me... I have seen that guy somewhere else before... I can't put my finger on it...
Did you know that Dr Vincent Tabak is described as a 'Fictional' Character by google.. (images attached)
See results about
Vincent Tabak (Fictional character)
Played by: Joe Sims
TV show: The Lost Honour of Christopher Jefferies
What is it about this case?? It is so wrong... And no-one says anything about it?? The Yeates.. The Tabak's ... The Press and lawyers... no-one will say anything....
And I am left more confused than when I started... Yes.. Complex is the correct way in which to describe this case,,, even though it shouldn't be...
* Why did they all play a part??
* Why is everything back to front??
* Why does everything contradict itself?
* Why is the Defence not defending their client and the prosecution asking for a change of venue??
* Why are they telling the world that Dr Vincent Tabak pleaded guilty to manslaughter before he stands trial for
Murder.
* Why is Dr Vincent Tabak guilty before being found guiltier?
* Why no presumption of Innocence..
* Why are The Yeates family allowed behind the Crime scene tape on Longwood lane on the 27th December 2010?
* Why are the press allowed to walk down Joanna Yeates path and around the back of Canygne Road before Dr
Vincent Tabak was even a suspect in December?
* Why have they used random builder to do forensic work and not follow protocol?
* Why are they doing forensics on the bay window before Dr Vincent Tabak is even a suspect??
* Why are sky news tweeting imaginary witness's ( DCI Mark Luther )
* Why no good character evidence??
* Why the release about the porn when it wasn't evidence and hadn't been proved to be evidence
* Why did Crimewatche have a re-inactment after the event!
I don't understand what has gone on with this case Baz... But it doesn't seem legal to me ... How has everyone got involved... what was the case in October 2011 about?? It was all across the media everyone knew about it... yet no-one in the legal field said anything about it....
I really do not understand how William Clegg could stand there and not defend his client... This entire trial was a mockery... And i am wondering if it was even a real trial at all... Was it a moot trial??
Again you probably think I am off my head, but quite frankly I'll do a Rhett Butler!
Avon and Somerset Police know who killed Joanna Yeates (imo) and not Dr Vincent Tabak.. I know there are lenty of plods out there but they cannot be that ham fisted as to create an impossibly Clean Crime scene for everyone to believe that was apparently what Joanna Yeates Flat looked like frozen in time... Is everyone blind!!
The Crime Scene Cleaners had been into that flat... The staging is all wrong... for a fight and struggle to have taken place, everything is extremely tidy.. and apparently Joanna Yeates wasn't tidy...
Something went pear-shaped before they arrested Dr Vincent Tabak (imo)... Even before they arrested CJ... They had already started cocking everything up forensically by the 29th December 2010 by having bob the builder on site, not following any protocols, which i have posted about... And having the media walk around and onto said Crime Scene taking video and photo's of the side path and back of 44, Canygne Road...
I do not know what this is about Baz.... It's shocking.. I have 'No" faith in the Justice System whatsoever or the Police... And i was brought up to respect The Police... Now I ask why?? Shame really ...
You yourself Baz must see that this case is unlike anything that has gone before.... And therefore should be headline news.. It should be all over the News... MP's should be talking about this case... DCI Phil Jones shouldn't be describing Dr Vincent Tabak as Placid... The judge shouldn't be telling people to "Please make due allowance for the stress the defendant is under, facing this very serious charge and bear in mind this defendant gave his evidence in English, which is not his first language."
In fact the summing up that was reported was a Joke...
Mr Justice Field initially began summarising all the evidence heard during the three-week trial.
The judge said the prosecution did not accept Tabak's plea to manslaughter, which he had entered in May at the Old Bailey.
'They contend that Vincent Tabak intended to kill Joanna or at the very least intended to cause her really serious bodily injury and is therefore guilty of murder,' the judge said.
'It is your charge to decide whether he is guilty or not guilty of that charge.'
The judge warned the jurors to put out of their minds any newspaper or television reports they may have seen about the case.
'Consider the evidence you have heard and only the evidence you have heard and reach your verdict in a calm, dispassionate and rationale way - justice requires nothing less,' he told them.
He also said it was for the jurors to carefully weigh up all the evidence they had heard.
'It is for you to decide which evidence you accept and which evidence you do not,' the judge said.
'Please make due allowance for the stress the defendant is under, facing this very serious charge and bear in mind this defendant gave his evidence in English, which is not his first language."
The judge continued: 'If after considering all the evidence you are sure the defendant is guilty you must return a verdict of guilty.
'If you are not sure your verdict must be not guilty.'
Again Baz... This is a is a disgrace .. A joke... And unbelievable...
My head is cabbaged with all this ... It's a minefield and it is meant to be... As I said Baz I don't give a flying Fig what people think anymore... If they can with all honesty look at everything to do with this case and tell me it is not a sham trial... Then I will listen to their reasoning behind that...
But it is a sham...(imo)... And the system is broken... I am at a loss.... !!
Edit... For clarification... I believe that William Clegg didn't represent his client to the best of his abilities... he is supposed to be the Master Defender... But (imo) behaved more like an apprentice!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2053703/Joanna-Yeates-trial-Judge-tells-jury-accept-majority-verdict.html#ixzz59BJ0utf6
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
CourtNewsuk tweets..
CourtNewsUK
@CourtNewsUK
Following Following @CourtNewsUK
More
Vincent Tabak looks like newsreader at a desk as he appears on Old Bailey videolink http://courtnewsuk.co.uk
2:13 AM - 5 May 2011
I'll attach the image I believe that they are referring too... That link just takes you to their front page and obviously that story isn't there anymore..
There is nothing on the trial in October 2011 from CourtNewsUK and obviously May's appearance by video link creates a response that tells us this is one big joke.. I believe CourtNewsUk covers The Old Bailey, But I had hoped that they would have done a follow up of the trial... Maybe they didn't need to do a follow up of this strange case..
The only tweets available from CourtNewsUK about Dr Vincent Tabak are only from his appearance at the Old Bailey..
CourtNewsUK
@CourtNewsUK
Following Following @CourtNewsUK
More
Vincent Tabak will be tried in Bristol for the murder of Jo Yeats http://courtnewsuk.co.uk
2:29 AM - 5 May 2011
And this one..
CourtNewsUK
@CourtNewsUK
Following Following @CourtNewsUK
More
Vincent Tabak has admitted killing Jo Yeats http://courtnewsuk.co.uk
2:20 AM - 5 May 2011
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet
Their website has only one story on Dr Vincent Tabak
SEARCH RESULTS FOR: TABAK
CM NEWS
TABAK: ‘I DID KILL JO’
BRISTOL
A Dutch engineer admitted killing Bristol landscape gardener Jo Yeates when he appeared at the Old Bailey today (Thurs).
Vincent Tabak, 33, denied murder but pleaded guility to the mansl
Read More
I find their response to this case is making a mockery.. I agree that the image they refer to does remind me also of a Newsreader.. but really that isn't the point.. knowing what we know now about this case I view their tweet as a joke... Just like the rest of this trial...(imo) It's supposed to be an extremely serious case... A murder has taken place.. Yet CourtNewsUK.. have fun with the fact that Dr Vincent Tabak is appearing via video link looking like a newsreader....
The Experience and Credentials of CourtNewsUK makes that tweet astounding... I would not have expected that from an agency that in their words say that they have "fought hard to build their reputation for 20 years"....
Our experience/credentials:
Coutnewsuk is the only specialist courts and tribunals agency operating within the UK. We have been supplying the national, regional and local press for more than 20 years and have built a hard fought reputation as one of the country’s best news agencies.
Our current clients:
Our client list includes national newspapers, radio and TV stations, and effectively every major provincial paper within the UK.
I am not trying to discredit CourtNewsUK, rather I am making the point that they too must be aware of something just like the rest of the media..(imo) that this case is not what we believe it to be.... If they can poke fun at Dr Vincent Tabak's plight when he is facing a very serious charge.. `then I can only assume that they too are in the know about this case....
What is wrong with this case??
Why won't anyone say something!!
http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/about-us/
http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/?s=tabak
https://twitter.com/CourtNewsUK/status/66068005062316032
https://twitter.com/CourtNewsUK/status/66072055396839425
https://twitter.com/CourtNewsUK/status/66069681844391936
-
Do you not find that mighty strange Baz... That there is no other case in this country where someone confesses on the stand...It's a very American idea... It's almost like they have used laws from America and laws from this country to try Dr Vincent Tabak.. And that can't be right...
You've misunderstood my point. There are plenty of cases in this country where people detail their crimes when on the stand in order to try and lessen their culpability just as Tabak did. What I meant was that I can find no case in which someone pleads guilty in a court of law (even though he only pleaded guilty to a lesser charge!) only to be later exonerated. You can understand this happening in the USA due to their "plea deal" system so some one will plead guilty to get a lower sentence even though they are innocent because it's better than getting the worse sentence. We don't have the same system here, as I understand it. People usually falsely confess to end abusive/lengthy interrogations by police but will then deny their confession in court. I can't find anyone in the uk who pleaded guilty to their crime in court and were later exonerated... do you understand my point now?
-
I really do not understand how William Clegg could stand there and not defend his client... This entire trial was a mockery... And i am wondering if it was even a real trial at all... Was it a moot trial??
He absolutely did defend his client. We have been through this before, I believe. He wasn't trying to persuade a jury that his client was innocent because his client had already confessed, pleaded guilty to being responsible for her death and would be taking the stand to try and persuade the jury that he hadn't intended to kill her.
-
Tabak is one of the oddballs you get. I know a few people like him and if anything they have a tendency to ignore any consequence of their actions in order to know, entirely in their own minds, that they have won. Rational, as an adjective, rarely gets used to describe them, bizarre often does.
Tabak is faced with a bunch of inept fools who cannot see any other argument than the one in front of them, the same questions come around again and again, even with a change of moron asking the questions. Tabak knows he didn't do it but he has a weapon in his arsenal equivalent to a nuke, he just claims responsibility and the cretins are dispatched into oblivion, they have no comeback and the real killer walks free, Tabak in his own world, wins. The result is irrelevant, he can spend his life developing his math ideas and come back to it later in life. Win-win.
AH
-
Tabak is one of the oddballs you get. I know a few people like him and if anything they have a tendency to ignore any consequence of their actions in order to know, entirely in their own minds, that they have won. Rational, as an adjective, rarely gets used to describe them, bizarre often does.
Tabak is faced with a bunch of inept fools who cannot see any other argument than the one in front of them, the same questions come around again and again, even with a change of moron asking the questions. Tabak knows he didn't do it but he has a weapon in his arsenal equivalent to a nuke, he just claims responsibility and the cretins are dispatched into oblivion, they have no comeback and the real killer walks free, Tabak in his own world, wins. The result is irrelevant, he can spend his life developing his math ideas and come back to it later in life. Win-win.
AH
????
-
????
The reasoning is part of why this complex situation has risen out of nothing.
-
Tabak is one of the oddballs you get. I know a few people like him and if anything they have a tendency to ignore any consequence of their actions in order to know, entirely in their own minds, that they have won. Rational, as an adjective, rarely gets used to describe them, bizarre often does.
Tabak is faced with a bunch of inept fools who cannot see any other argument than the one in front of them, the same questions come around again and again, even with a change of moron asking the questions. Tabak knows he didn't do it but he has a weapon in his arsenal equivalent to a nuke, he just claims responsibility and the cretins are dispatched into oblivion, they have no comeback and the real killer walks free, Tabak in his own world, wins. The result is irrelevant, he can spend his life developing his math ideas and come back to it later in life. Win-win.
AH
An intelligent man would chose a life sentence just to get one over on some people he barely knows? He's the loser in that situation. Even though, in your scenario, he is the only one to know the truth and therefore he 'wins' he loses decades of his life, everyone he knows believes him to be a murder, his career he had worked so hard for is gone and all so he can (in his mind) beat the police? How is that remotely win-win??
Sorry, but I don't think that theory makes any sense at all.
-
An intelligent man would chose a life sentence just to get one over on some people he barely knows? He's the loser in that situation. Even though, in your scenario, he is the only one to know the truth and therefore he 'wins' he loses decades of his life, everyone he knows believes him to be a murder, his career he had worked so hard for is gone and all so he can (in his mind) beat the police? How is that remotely win-win??
Sorry, but I don't think that theory makes any sense at all.
I have to agree with you on this, Baz.
-
You also have to consider his nationality, hardly the easiest of peoples. I think he's wiped the floor with the numpties, he'd certainly have the arrogance bred into him, that's why his sentence was so harsh, hardly a pre-planned event even if you went along with all the bull. Nope, sorry but the system wanted revenge, that case was put where the sun don't shine and plod couldn't fish it back out with a bent coat hanger.
-
From Twitter.....
Rupert Evelyn
@rupertevelyn
Follow Follow @rupertevelyn
More
Judge asks jury to return tomorrow at 1030 tomorrow. Bill Clegg QC won't be here tomorrow as he's reqd in court of appeal
8:15 AM - 27 Oct 2011
Jury could come to a verdict and you won't be there to congratulate or commiserate with your client... Not there to offer advice on possible appeal or anything ??
Is it normal practice for The Defences Lawyer not to be at court when the jury could come back at any minute with a verdict ?
I don't understand why he would be at the court of appeal when he was already busy with a Murder Trial.... Couldn't he postpone that??
Could someone please explain if this is normal practice.....
Now I have just re-read that tweet, and I am slightly confused,.. It's because of the timestamp... And Timestamps have caused all sorts of problems in this case....
The time of the tweet is 8:14am is that correct as in UK time ??
The tweet is for Thursday 27th October 2011 and tomorrow makes it Friday the 28th October 2011..
So Bill Clegg would be absent on the day the jury return with a verdict.. Justice Field originally wanted a unanimous verdict but decided on a majority
The jury in the trial of Vincent Tabak has been told it can return a majority verdict.
The trial judge, Mr Justice Field, called the jury back into court one at Bristol crown court at noon after it had been deliberating for 11 hours.
He told the jury to continue to try to reach a unanimous verdict on whether Tabak was guilty of murdering Joanna Yeates.But he said if they could not, he would accept a verdict on which at least 10 agreed. The jury was sent back to continue deliberating.
We then get this event taking place....
Earlier on Friday, the jury had passed a handwritten note scribbled on a page of a torn-out notebook to Field. In response to the note, the judge repeated parts of his summing up relating to the intention of Tabak, a Dutch engineer.
If The Tweet does refer to the Friday isn't it even more important for Bill Clegg to be there when the jury were sending notes to the judge as they must have be called back into court to have this response...
Field told the six men and six women on the jury that the issue to be decided was the defendant's intention when he used "unlawful violence" against Yeates. The question they had to address was: "Did he intend to kill her or cause her really serious bodily harm?"
Field told them they had to examine the evidence they had heard. "I emphasise it is the evidence you heard and nothing else."
The judge said if the jury was sure that, when he strangled Yeates, Tabak had intended to kill her or cause her really serious harm, the verdict would be guilty. If they were not sure, it had to be not guilty.
I don't understand... everything appears wrong with this trial for me...
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/129577070517944321
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/28/joanna-yeates-vincent-tabak-trial
-
Rupert Evelyn
@rupertevelyn
Follow Follow @rupertevelyn
More
Bill Clegg QC asks if Joanna Yeates was killed elsewhere and taken to Longwood Lane. Nickson replies "yes".
There must have been evidence that Joanna Yeates body had been moved, yet we fail to establish how they knew that her body had been moved to Longwood Lane.. It is important to establish the reason for Tanja Nickson to make that statement, without us knowing how she came to that conclusion..
Possible reasons to know that the body had been moved...
* Lividity
* Re-dressed
* No body fluids
* Body had been washed
* Longwood Lane had been searched previously
* Joanna Yeates had been abducted and held
* Was there evidence that the body had started to decompose and then was frozen
Also where is elsewhere??
Why wouldn't Clegg press Nickson on her belief that the body had been moved? It is fundimental in establishing when Joanna Yeates had been left on Longwood Lane and whether Dr Vincent Tabak had the time in which to kill her and dispose of her body..... If lividity was how they determined that Joanna Yeates had been moved, where on her body had the pooling happened??
I say this for instance... If someone had her sat in a passenger seat of a car, the blood would first go to the feet..I presume, as gravity determines where the signs of lividity appear.. Lividity could tell us many things about Joanna Yeates body being moved.. But I do not remember it ever being mentioned at trial!
The same applies to whether or not Joanna Yeates body had started to decompose before she was frozen and how much decomposition had taken place... (imo)
Stage One: Autolysis
The first stage of human decomposition is called autolysis, or self-digestion, and begins immediately after death. As soon as blood circulation and respiration stop, the body has no way of getting oxygen or removing wastes. Excess carbon dioxide causes an acidic environment, causing membranes in cells to rupture. The membranes release enzymes that begin eating the cells from the inside out.
Is there anyway in which they can measure excessive carbon dioxide?? Wouldn't that and the membranes in the cells rupturing give an indication as to when Joanna Yeates body began to freeze??
William Clegg (imo) should have pressed Nickson more about how she knew that Joanna Yeates had been moved to Longwood Lane in her professional opinion..!
I did notice that William Clegg had not established that Joanna Yeates had been moved from her Flat at Canygne Road to Longwood Lane, he says 'Moved from elsewhere".. Surely if they and he believe that his client had killed Joanna Yeates in her Flat he would say Canygne Road... Elsewhere could be anywhere...
Why does everything in this case seem slap dash!!
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/126232593854234624
http://www.aftermath.com/content/human-decomposition
-
You also have to consider his nationality, hardly the easiest of peoples. I think he's wiped the floor with the numpties, he'd certainly have the arrogance bred into him, that's why his sentence was so harsh, hardly a pre-planned event even if you went along with all the bull. Nope, sorry but the system wanted revenge, that case was put where the sun don't shine and plod couldn't fish it back out with a bent coat hanger.
A weirdly prejudiced posting there. I've been to Holland a few times and have always found the people to be very friendly and accommodating.
The system wanted revenge for what?
-
Sorry for the long posts.. I believe they hold vital information...(imo)
Part1..
How did William Clegg collect evidence for Dr Vincent Tabak's trial and who did he have helping him with these complex issue??
* Did he collect GPS Coordinates?
* Did he collect the evidence from the phone company of the logs from the text messages and phone calls?
* Did he have an Independent Computer Analysis, check and verify Dr Vincent Tabak's Laptop
* Did he have a Independent Scientific Analysis, check the DNA that apparently linked Dr Vincent Tabak to Joanna
Yeates murder?
* Did he check whether or not it was Physically Possible for Dr Vincent Tabak to actually Lift and carry a dead weight
so many times and in the allotted time??
* Did he check the computer searches that cast doubt that they were Dr Vincent Tabak's searches when he couldn't
make 2 of the searches as he was not in his Flat at the time... (1:46am and 1:47am on the 18th December 2010)
* Did he take witness statements from Tanja Morson? Dr Vincent Tabak's live in girlfriend.
* Did he take a witness statement from Greg Reardon??
* Did he take a witness statement from anyone whom Dr Vincent Tabak knew??
* Did He take a witness statement from CJ to asertain whether or not Dr Vincent Tabak had seen him at all??
* Did he visit Longwood Lane?
* Did he visit Canygne Road?
* Did he have his own photographs taken of Longwood Lane and Canygne Road..
* Did he notice that there were 2 area's of the wall at Longwood Lane photographed, which looked exactly the same
but were yards apart?
* Did he not question why there were several Fire Trucks in attendance at Longwood Lane ??
* Did he not wonder why all of those Serious Crime Officers were at the scene of Longwood lane for a "Missing
Person Inquiry??
* Did he go to Holland to talk to anyone who knew Dr Vincent Tabak??
* Did he question the Tabak family as to Dr Vincent Tabak's history??
* Did he have an Independent Psychological evaluation of Dr Vincent Tabak's mental state??
* Did he here about DCI Mark Luther ?
* Did Check that there weren't any error by LGC?
* Did he check and Interview any neighbours at Canygne Road and surrounding area??
* Did he see the images of the kitchen tiles that had been painted??
* Did see the original CCTV Footage of Joanna Yeates in Tesco's??
* Did he see the original CCTV Footage of Dr Vincent Tabak apparently on Park street??
* Did he ask to see the Private CCTV footage from Canygne Road??
* Did he check the CCTV Footage from Clifton Suspension Bridge, to see if the Police were telling the truth as to how
unclear it was ?
* Did he know about the Nero Cafe CCTV??
* Did he not question the Police about The Trainer that was found under the sink at Canygne Road??
* Did he know whether Dr Vincent Tabak had taken his laptop whilst he was in Holland to make searches, that were
used at trial??
* Did he Interview anyone at Buro Happold ??
* Did he have the Information from Buro Happolds Computers Independently Analysed??
* Did he have the Information from the Mobile phone company of Joanna Yeates phone records/.. texts.. phone calls
etc..??
* Did he not question why Dr Vincent Tabak hadn't been cautioned in Holland in his 6 hour Interview with DC Karen
Thomas
* Did he hear "The Sobbing Girl " telephone call??
* Did he hear Dr Vincent Tabak's call from Holland??
-
Part 2...
* Did he not see that the media were all over a Scene of Crime from day one of The Investigation, walking down
Joanna Yeates path and taking Forensic samples from Dr Vincent Tabak's Bay window, also standing in the back
garden taking video of Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat, when he wasn't even a suspect..
* Did he not question were the surf boards in The Hallway were that Justice Field had spoken about at the trial of Dr
Vincent Tabak... When he visited the Flat with the Jury?
* Was it the first time that he stepped inside Flat 1 Canygne Road on the Jury visit??
* Had he collected his own photographic evidence of Flat 1??
* Did he visit Dr Vincent Tabak in Long Lartin??
* How many actual witness statement did he take??
* Did he Interview Brotherton??
* Did he Interview the Yeates family about what the had witnessed when they arrived at Canygne Road??
* Did he view the post mortem images of Joanna Yeates ??
* Did he view the Crime Scene photo's of Joanna Yeates on Longwood Lane ??
* Did he check Dr Vincent Tabak's movements from 27th December 2010 to the 22nd January 2011?
* Did he interview all the people that Dr Vincent Tabak had been in contact with in that time frame??
* Did he read the report from the Fire Service and question why they had been at the scene for 4 days??
* Did he view the CCTV from Asda in Bedminster??
* Did he look at the car park CCTV from Asda in Bedminster??
* Did he view the original CCTV Footage from The Ram Pub in Bristol??
* Did he speak to Daragh Bewell?
* Did he speak to "Civilian Officer" Andrew Mott??
* Did he speak to PC Martin Faithful??
* Did he check anybodies credentials ??
* Did he check why The Complex Crime Unit were Investigating Dr Vincent Tabak in late December 2010 when he
wasn't even a suspect!
* Did he check the phone records of Greg Reardon to the Police?? ( We have different days of reporting of Joanna
Yeates being "Missing"..)
* Did he check the timings Rebecca Scotts phone call with Joanna Yeates??
* Did he see the full Police Interview of Rebecca Scott with Avon and somerset Police ?/
* Did he Interview any taxi drivers if they had seen Miss Yeates that evening??
* Did he establish that Joanna Yeates was actually killed on the 17th December 2010??
* How did he establish that Joanna Yeates reached her home ??
* Did he question the removal of the Intercom Panel??
* Did he question random builders being allowed onto a Crime Scene on the 29th December 2010 to remove Joanna
yeates door??
* Did he question why the press were allowed to print that Dr Vincent Tabak had pled guilty to Manslaughter when it
wasn't accepted by The CPS and should never have been known to the public till after the trial..
* Did he check to see if the blind worked in Joanna Yeates kitchen Flat??
* Did he check whether it was possible for Joanna yeates to see Dr Vincent Tabak through her kitchen window...
* Did he go to Canygne Road at night to see if the lights worked on an evening outside Flat 1??
* Did he check who the Renault Megane was registered too?
* Did he ever see Joanna Yeates car??
* Did he see Bernard ??
* Did he go and look at the main house at 44, Canygne Road??
* Did he check Dr Vincent Tabak's credentials ??
* Did he check what time and place Tanja Morson's Christmas party was at??
* Did he check if Dr Vincent Tabak attended the party??
* Did he speak to the media ??
* Did he check when Dr Vincent Tabak returned from Holland??
-
Part 3....
* Did he check what mode of transport Dr Vincent Tabak took to Holland??
* Did he confirm that Dr Vincent Tabak was actually in Holland at this time ??
* Did he confirm that Dr Vincent Tabak went to Cambridge ??
* Did he talk to Tanja Morsons family??
* Did he ask Gunter Morson about the twitter message??
* Did he time how long it took Joanna Yeates to reach Canygne Road after her shopping trips and visit to the pub??
* Did he look at the Hophouse Pub CCTV from inside it's premises??
* Did he know what the last positive sighting of Joanna Yeates was ??
* Did he Interview the Birches??
* Did he get an Independent check of Joanna Yeates stomach contents??
* Did he get an Independent blood Analysis Of Joanna Yeates blood??
* Did he Interview Nurse Ruth Booth Pearson?
* Did he Interview any other person at The Ram Pub??
* Did he speak to Robin Payne at Bargain Booze?
* Did he see the Original CCTV Footage from Bargain Booze ??
* Did he get the Cider bottles Independently tested??
* Did he view all of the Forensic Evidence that was Collected??
* Did he speak to other shop owners in the area about Dr Vincent Tabak??
* Did he see any CCTV footage of Dr Vincent Tabak riding his bike back home on from the railway station Friday
17th December 2010??
* Did he ask any of the neighbours on both sides of Canygne Road if they knew Dr Vincent Tabak??
* Did he check which CCTV there were from The Ram Pub to Canygne Road??
* Did he check if Dr Vincent Tabak's car had been picked up on CCTV Footage anywhere besides the Park Street Clip
on the 17th December 2010?
* Did he visit Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat before trial??
* Did he check if anyone had seen Dr Vincent Tabak on Friday 17th December 2010??
I am sure I could go on and on and on.... And the questions I pose I believe are important in disproving The Prosecutions Case against Dr Vincent Tabak... I believe these are questions we assume would be asked or Investigated by The Defence for them to undermine The Prosecutions Case against their client...
Obviously The Hundred Questions Thread shows how "This Complex Case" needed robust Investigations done... How the evidence that was gathered wasn't used at trial... How hearsay evidence was allowed... Why I have been questioning this Case for so long....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFjm4goJco4
-
Part 4....
I was watching The Rachel Nickell Case that was on TV and Interestingly Fiona Bruce Interviews William Clegg QC in this program...
I always prefer video evidence of someone speaking and not taking someones word for it... But William Clegg surprised me greatly... The Master Defender at work...
At 34:46 on the video..
William Clegg Says talking about The Rachel Nickell Case:
But.. It went much further than that ... The Police were actually actively briefing the press, that erm.. Colin Stagg was guilty, after he had been found not guilty... They were actually telling evrybody that he was a guilty man who had got off on a technicality.
Fiona Bruce says..
Do you have Evidence that the Police were briefing the press in that way?
William Clegg
I know they did
Fiona Bruce
How?
William Clegg
They Told me. [The Press].
Well If Fiona Bruces face didn't just say it all... That last statement from William Clegg did for me....
So according to William Clegg he believes what the press tells him is the case.. And not having solid "Evidence" to support The Presses claims... Which coming from... The Master Defenders own mouth is extremely worrying (imo)...
Supporting Evidence of any claim is paramount in securing any conviction of anyone... And for The Master Defender to openly admit that he takes the word of The Press as Evidence that The Police divulged Information that Colin Stagg was Guilty is frankly shocking!!
I would have expected greater proven facts from William Clegg in his statement... Yet he happily tells Fiona Bruce that the press have told him what the Police believe....
Is he as green as he is cabbage looking?? That is a school boy error in my opinion... And not what I would expect from the man they have named "The Master Defender" Or Number 1 barrister....
Is someone having a giggle by naming this man this title??
Because Lord help us if The Master Defender can say on record that he as accepted the Presses word that the Police Informed them of certain Information and he takes that as gospel, rather than having evidence to back the presses claims up... Then maybe everyone can understand why we have always questioned How William Clegg actually defended Dr Vincent Tabak on The Murder Charge he was facing....
And what evidence William Clegg collected Independently to prove his clients Innocence.... Because it is not until Dr Vincent Tabak's confession at trial that anyone has any idea how apparently Joanna Yeates came to her demise...
And we know only too well that Dr Vincent Tabak had been held in one prison or another since his arrest in January 2011.. And he had kept silent all that time...
This case is a travesty from start to finish... A young woman who has been Murder.. A Police Investigation falling well short...(imo) A Defence Lawyer who Insults his own Client...
And the very same Defence Lawyer whom which we have just discovered says that the Press telling him that the Police had informed The Press... that Colin Stagg was a 'Guilty man even though the case collapsed.. Is evidence that The Police did actually Inform the Press of that Information....
Do you honestly believe that is good enough as a way of evidencing Information... To take someones word without any proof that what they say is actually the truth..
That is why we have courts... To prove by "ACTUAL' Solid Evidence that someone committed a Crime... And not on someone elses word....
-
Part 5.......
Did The Defence just take Dr Vincent Tabak's word that he had killed Joanna Yeates???? Or did they put under the Microscope all the the evidence available to show how it was Impossible for Dr Vincent Tabak to have committed this Crime in The way it has been stated and in the allotted time he apparently had...
Not forgetting the massive feat of removing a body by carrying it to different locations in a small window of opportunity and how difficult that feat would be as not to have any drag marks on the body...Whilst leaving NO Forensic Evidence behind at Joanna yeates Flat or any Forensic Evidence that Joanna yeates had been inside Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat....
But... we have more from the video featuring William Clegg... and his deductions are frightening (imo)...
At 29:33 of the video Fiona Bruce says:
QC Bill Clegg was about to lead Colin Stagg's Defence.. when he first heard about the Murders of Samantha and Jasmine.
Bill Clegg
I remember Reading it in The Papers in Chambers and within about 2 or 3 hours I came out of the room and said to my clark..Um.. I reckon that's the man that killed Rachell Nickell. It seemed to me to be perfectly obvious...
Statistically it's extremely rare for a mother to be murdered in the presence of a young child.
Well that took my breath away... where do i start with that one...
Statistically.... Where id that come from... The top of his head??? Woman have been killed in front of there children on many occasions, especially I would sumise in domestic abuse issues... So for Bill to say it is a statistic that it is extremely rare for a mother to be killed in front of a child and make the presumption after reading the papers that , this person must have killed Rachell Nickell also in less than 3 hours is astounding.....
How the hell is it obvious?? Where is the evidence to support that the person who killed Samatha and Jasmine, also killed Rachel Nickell at that point in time??? It took years for them to finally charge Robert Napper with the murder of Rachel Nickell and good old Bill solves the crime in less than 3 hours...
Isn't it supposed to be about evidence and not what is apparently obvious.... Did Bill know where Robert Napper was at the day and time that Rachel Nickell was Murdered on Wimbeldon Common, when he so obviously discovered in 2 to 3 hours after reading the papers that Robert Napper must have killed Rachell Nickell... Is this man for real??
I am horrified that The Master Defender makes these claims on TV about how he deduced that same man who killed Samantha and Jasmine must have been guilty of Rachell Nickells Murder...
2 to 3 hours... I have spent the best part of 15 months cross referencing every piece of Information i can find about Dr Vincent Tabak and The Joanna Yeates Murder Case.... Some days I have been at the computer for 18 hours solid... I have quoted.. screen shot... transcribed and provided links to support any information I have posted about.. Yet Bill Clegg can read the papers and know that the same person who killed Samantha and jasmine was responsible for Rachel Nickells Murder also....
Somebody give me strength.... Is the man a magician?? Why would he admit to such a thing... Is his ego that big.. That he believes what ever comes out of his mouth no-one will question because of the reputation he has....
But if William Clegg believed that the person who killed Jasmine and Samantha was Rachell Nickells Killer, then why this.....
Colin Stagg; and William Clegg QC, one of the most experienced criminal barristers in the country who holds the unique position of having defended both the acquitted Colin Stagg (in his trial for the murder of Rachel Nickell) and Robert Napper, who was eventually convicted of Rachel’s murder, in his trial for the murders of Samantha and Jazmine Bisset.
So Bill Believes that what he read in the papers about the killing on Samatha and jasmine must be the same person that killed Rachell Nickell... He discovered this after 3 hours of reading the papers in chambers... Whilst he was Defending Colin Stagg for The Murder of Rachel Nickell.. ( As The video implies)...
* Colin Stagg was arrested 7th August 1993 and was held in custody for a year
* Napper was arrested in May 1994
So we can see how it was possible for "Bill "to read about Napper in the papers as he was preparing Colin Staggs case... But without any concrete evidence, he had decided Napper must have killed Rachell Nickell... So why would he then represent Napper???
Doesn't make sense ....
Why would Clegg defend Napper ??
MAY 1994: Napper’s fingerprints are identified from Bisset house, he is charged and his DNA sample is taken by police.
JULY: Napper is charged with two rapes and two attempted rapes.
SEPTEMBER: The case against Stagg is thrown out after Justice Ognall who refused to use the undercover officer's evidence before a jury.
OCTOBER 1995: Napper admits two charges of manslaughter, one rape and two attempted rapes. One rape charge is dropped but he is detained at Broadmoor Hospital.
So we do not see anything from the trial of Robert Napper.... He admits his Guilt to Manslaughter... (Where have I heard that before??)
But when we look at Dr Vincent Tabak's admission to Manslaughter, the Prosecution wouldn't accept it.... I am now going to do a "Bill" and presume with what I know and have read that The Prosecution were actually trying to show up "Bill Clegg!! (I could be wrong) But it is a conclusion I have come to with the evidence I have got...
And Bill himself did divulge on video that it was the papers he was reading that he drew the "OBVIOUS" conclusion that it was the man who had killed Samantha and Jasmine had killed Rachel Nickell...
So why did Clegg defend Napper?? I do not understand... Isn't it a conflict of Interest in some way?? What Investigations where done by Bill to prove Nappers Innocence?? Again I am doing a Bill... I am interpreting from what comes out of his mouth on video that I have linked, If Robert Napper is the person that Bill Clegg is referring to when he says that.... Whilst he was in the middle of Defending Colin Stagg..
(QC Bill Clegg was about to lead Colin Stagg's Defence.. when he first heard about the Murders of Samantha and Jasmine.)
I remember Reading it in The Papers in Chambers and within about 2 or 3 hours I came out of the room and said to my clark..Um.. I reckon that's the man that killed Rachell Nickell. It seemed to me to be perfectly obvious...
Statistically it's extremely rare for a mother to be murdered in the presence of a young child.
Because it seems Perfectly Obvious to me, that Robert Napper is the person that Bill Clegg is referring to in that Interview with Fiona Bruce....
If Bill Clegg can deduce.... So can I...!!
Edit... Should Bill Clegg have ever represented Napper when he believed at the time of Colin Staggs trial... That the person who killed Samantha and Jasmine also had killed Rachel Nickell??
If he believed that why was he allowed to represent Napper at all?? Can someone explain if this is even legal?? As I don't know the law and no-one from the papers is telling me anything I need someone with experience to tell me whether or not Bill Clegg should have taken Robert Nappers case !!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFjm4goJco4
https://www.itv.com/presscentre/ep1week10/rachel-nickell-untold-story
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/dec/18/rachel-nickell-robert-napper-murder-guilty
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5758951/samantha-bisset-daughter-jazmine-robert-napper-murder/
-
To add a little more.. quotes from my above posts...
But.. It went much further than that ... The Police were actually actively briefing the press, that erm.. Colin Stagg was guilty, after he had been found not guilty... They were actually telling everybody that he was a guilty man who had got off on a technicality.
No... The case was thrown out on the first day of trial by Mr Justice Ognall... Different from being found Not Guilty by a Jury ..... After he read the trial papers and re-read those same trial papers and deduced that there was no case....
Terminology used at trial is important... And Clegg saying that Colin Stagg was found not Guilty is an untrue... (imo)
There was no case for Colin Stagg to answer for... No Jury found him not guilty... Rather a smart Judge read the case and decided that there was NO Case....
Just for Clarification I am not pointing fingers at Colin Stagg... what I am doing is asking why Bill would say that Colin Stage was found not Guilty, when that was not the case... But what happened was the judge threw the case out instead...
For the past 16 years, Mr Stagg’s entire life has been defined by his arrest over Miss Nickell’s murder and the year he spent on remand in prison, charged with murder, before a judge caused a sensation by throwing out the charges on the first day of his trial.
You may think I am being pedantic and splitting hairs about how Colin Stagg came to be a free man at his trial... But I feel it is important that we know the difference between a case being thrown out and a person being found NOT Guilty...
It isn't until Robert Napper is convicted Of Rachel Nickells Murder some many years later that Colin Stagg finally gets an apology..
Earlier this year Mr Stagg was paid a record £706,000 in compensation for his wrongful arrest and prosecution, but it is only now that he has received something equally valuable - a public apology from the Metropolitan Police.
Crown Prosecution lawyer Rene Barclay has also written to Mr Stagg expressing "regret" that the case was brought against him.
With Napper’s confession, the world now knows that Colin Stagg was innocent all along.
It shouldn't be a confession of guilt from someone else that proves another persons Innocence.. But evidence that conclusively proves a persons guilt or Innocence and not just because someone said so.... (imo)... Therefore the wrongful arrest and incarceration of Colin Stagg should be a reminder to us all.. That hard facts are needed to arrest and convict someone of a Crime especially one as serious as Murder... And hard evidence is used to convict the right person for the Crime that has been committed...
We shouldn't be happy to accept that Dr Vincent Tabak just told everyone what he did when there was no hard evidence to support the story he told and Bill Clegg told at trial.... We should demand to see the evidence, whether Forensically it is finger prints or CCTV Footage with the Time Stamp visible. And not just take someones word that they have committed a crime which is totally out of Character for a Placid Dutchman!!
I personally would like to see Dr Vincent Tabaks apparent statements he made and all the evidence that apparently linked him to The Murder of Joanna Yeates... And not just take someone elses word for it....
Because this case doesn't make sense... It never has... And I still stand by my belief that Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent... and until someone gives me some hard evidence to prove otherwise... I will not be changing my mind anytime soon...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3813219/Rachel-Nickell-killing-verdict-Colin-Stagg-finally-shakes-off-cloak-of-suspicion.html
-
Part1..
Blatant... why is everything so blatant??
I always believe that I miss a trick.. but probably the amount of Information available out there is difficult to collate.. So I always mis-read articles or don't take all if the information in....
I have got extremely giddy in the past about The Leveson Inquiry, now if I actually look at certain statement that where made at the time that are available online, then the Information is there.. Or isn't... which I believe is really the point...
CJ.. The illusive second witness statement.. Who ever he saw or didn't see is extremely important, but the fact that this crucial piece of evidence is missing from trial is more important.... And it is the trial that should be questioned... I wonder if that is the point... The trial and what did and didn't happen...
A huge public trial that grew massive media interest, yet with so much lacking and no-one speaking of it I keep looking for the answers....
I have been all around the houses on more than one occasion and got myself in knots trying to fathom what is wrong with this case... which there seems always to be more than one answer... I go back in my mind to what I have read or posted about and what others have said...
No-one will confirm or deny anything and I have had to try to read between the lines to deduce what I believe to be some of the answers to this case and trial... They appear to be two Individual things... The Murder of Joanna Yeates and the Investigation also the Trial...
Back to the Leveson and CJ.... i don't know how many times I had read CJ second witness statement at the Leveson that is available on line and like many things have actually missed what has or hasn't been said time and time again...
I will quote from CJ's Leveson statement
I make this statement in my capacity as a Core Participant to assist the Inuiry in
relation to Part 1 Module 2 which deals with the relationship between the press and
the police and the conduct of each.
Where the contents of this statement are within my
own knowledge they are true and where the contents are not within my own
knowledge I indicate the source of my belief and believe them to be true. I attach as
Exhibit CJ2 a bundle of relevant documents to which this page references in this
statement refer.
Now the bundle that CJ refers to is held by the National Archive and is closed for 84 years..(image attached)
Exhibit CJ2 has fascinated me... I have every possible conclusion to what is kept within these documents rattling around my head...
Why should the contents of Exhibit CJ2 be closed?? Realisitically what CJ is referring to should have no reason to be kept from the public...
That day, Wednesday 29 December 2010, some reporters filed articles (for
publication the next day) which firmly pointed the finger of suspicion at me. For
example, The Dally Mail published the article at pages 1 to 12 of CJ2 entitled: "Could
landlord hold the key to Joanna’s murder?". This contained the words:
Her CJ refers to page 12... The Pdf document which I am viewing is from The National Archive, but only has 11 pages... So my confusion lies with the document i have.. and the Exhibit CJ2... i am presuming that they are 2 seperate pieces of Information... But are they??
If within page 12 pf CJ's bundle is the Information about the Daily Mail's reports of the time, that information we already know.. It is not worth sealing for 84 years... It is already a matter of public record...
Within the bundle we get this
"Bachelor Chris Jefferies, 65, apparently told police he saw three people,
including Miss Yeates, walking away together and talking in hushed tones. ’"
I am presuming that CJ's second witness statement to The Police is held within this bundle.. But i do not believe that it is...
We have no way of knowing how many pages are within Exhibit CJ2 and for all I know they may be blank.. There could be 1300 pages there of nothing.... But it draws our interest because it has been sealed... And time and time again that important piece of evidence that CJ saw people at the gate never made it to trial....
Whether CJ saw the milkman, the postman, Carol Singers, any occupants of the household, should not be an issue and should have been disclosed... If I was Dr Vincent Tabak's lawyer CJ would be one of the first people that appeared on the stand to establish whether or not whom he saw had any relevance to Joanna Yeates disappearance or not... We don't even know if CJ saw Dr Vincent Tabak that evening... yet it has been suggested that he may have done....
-
Part 2...
It brings me back to Clegg... Did he read CJ's 2nd witness statement... Everyone knew that CJ had been arrested and the relevance of what the reasoning behind his arrest should be paramount to The defence...(imo)
Clegg The Master Defender it's a joke to me, because it is not funny when you have someones life in your hands and what you do or do not do will set in motion a series of events, which peoples liberty are at stake..
The TV program "Rachel Nickell The Untold Story" featuring "Bill Clegg" Master Defender has me questioning everything again..
Clegg says in the program that with 2-3 hours of reading the papers, he had worked out that The man that killed Samantha and Jasmine also killed Rachell Nickell... WoW.... How can Clegg deduce that from reading some papers that are not related to the Rachell Nickell case??
The Murders were very different and the only common denominator that I can see from what Clegg goes on to say, was that a child was present at the scene of both crimes..
On 3 November 1993, Robert Napper forced his way into Ms Bisset's one-bedroom basement flat in Plumstead, stabbed her by the front door, and sexually assaulted and suffocated Jazmine. He dragged Ms Bisset's body into the lounge, stripped it and disembowelled the corpse, taking part of it away as a trophy. Napper arranged her body on a cushion, stabbing, cutting and carving her body more than 60 times, leaving her as if "gift-wrapped like a present".
Did Clegg see these horrific pictures when he read the papers??
What happened to Rachel Nickell?
On July 15, 1992, Rachel was walking with Alexander on Wimbledon Common when serial sex offender Robert Napper lurched from bushes and attacked.
The killer stabbed Rachel 49 times in the frenzy and sexually assaulted her in front of her son before fleeing.
Little Alexander was found pleading for his mum to get up.
Rachel's throat had been slit, with cuts on her hands showing she had put up a fight. Many of her other injuries were inflicted after she was dead.
Her jeans and pants were pulled down to her ankles after she had been sexually abused.
Little Alex had stuck a piece of paper on his tragic mum like a plaster "to make mummy better".
No one had heard her scream.
From the description alone of these two horrendous Murders in my mind if the perpetator was the same person, they appear to have change "MO"... and although Napper was a rapist, he appears to have jumped from that to extremely violent Murders in a relatively short space of time...
To me nothing from these violent attacks are similar... I am no expert, but the similarity stops at the point of children being present...
* One Murder out doors
* One child Murdered
Just a couple of examples of where they differ...
* Was the same knife used?
* Did Napper bring a knife to Samantha Bisset's or use one of her knives??
* Was her throat slit??
* Did Napper know any of the victims?
* Why suffocate Jasmine??
* What window of opportunity did Napper have??
* had he been watching Samantha Bisset??
The few question i raise I believe are just the start and i don't want to do the list I have done for Dr Vincent Tabak and end up completely off topic, but i am sure i could produce a list just as comprehensive as the lists and questions i have asked about Dr Vincent Tabak...
And there is the point.... How on earth did Clegg on reading the papers decide that these murders were committed by the same person??
He's a Lawyer not a Detective... I can understand someone like myself getting it wrong as I keep saying i have no experience in these matters.. But common sense should tell everyone that jumping to the conclusion that Napper had killed Rachell Nickell after a read of the papers that were not related to the Rachell Nickell case, no-one could deduce that the same person who killed Samantha and Jasmine had also killed Rachell Nickell..
Does Clegg have a crystal ball?? An all seeing eye?? what knowledge could Clegg possibly have to know who killed Rachell Nickell at that juncture??
He can't have... He knows as much as me about that conclusion at that time.. Which is nothing!
Which brings me back to CJ... and questioning whether "nothing" was held in the Exhibit CJ2... who is to know seeing as they have been sealed??
I am beinging to wonder whether who was at the gate is of importance or rather that The Investigations by the Defence appeared to be lacking... By not checking if the people at the gate were of relevance to Joanna Yeates disappearance or not... It should have been the first port of call for Clegg (imo).. establishing if Joanna Yeates left her home... Which of course would prove that Dr Vincent Tabak did not kill her when they said he did in court...
I can only come to one conclusion that is Perfectly Obvious ... which is akin to what Clegg said about Rachell Nickell and that is Clegg had not Interviewed anyone of importance in this case... He had not read what CJ's second witness statement contained... He was slack at best... (imo)
-
Part 3....
Is it libilous to question what someone may or may not have done?? Because I want to question exactly what Clegg did for Dr Vincent Tabak's Defence... And with what i have investigated for such a long time, I have come to a conclusion just like Clegg came to a conclusion with what he read...
It appears to me that Clegg did nothing for Dr Vincent Tabak... (apart from seal his fate... imo)
Whether you agree with me or not is your “Prerogative”... but i am deducing from what was available at the time and what happened or didn't happen at trial....
Clegg happily deduces that the person who killed Samantha and jasmine Bisset also must have killed Rachell Nickell because it was a "Murder" and a child was present..
If he is The Master Detective he obviously believe he is, then why didn't he Detect in The Case of Dr Vincent Tabak??
Why didn't he go onto find the killer??
Ordinarily as leonora has pointed out before, the first suspect is always the partner/ boyfriend, followed by friends and associates and anyone Joanna Yeates may have been in contact with... Meaning the people at the gate were paramount!
But as far as I can see Clegg appears to have failed on all counts.. He seemed happy with a Scape-goat as many have described Dr Vincent Tabak... (imo) Because I cannot see from the evidence we have what actual work Clegg put into this case... What Investigations and cross referencing he made whilst he was representing Dr Vincent Tabak....
Its a crowd pleaser isn't it.... A huge juicy case.. everywhere everyone waiting in anticipation as to why a Placid Dutchman, would for no apparent reason, kill his next door neighbour he didn't know... It has been said before... Why "Sh*T on your own door step.... And that it literal... Why would you?? If Dr Vincent Tabak had been out and about taking photographs... why didn't he stalk the street for his victim?? Instead of doing it on his own doorstep... makes no sense... And why would Joanna yeates let him in to her home!
But the story that is told at trial kind of fits what some may believe to be what took place, but anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that it isn't the case...
There was no proof that Joanna Yeates arrived home... The private CCTV footage that DS Mark Saunders viewed tells us she cannot have reached home... Yet Clegg appears happy that Joanna yeates was killed in her Flat because Dr Vincent Tabak said so at trial... But that cannot be true..(imo). So Dr Vincent Tabak cannot have killed Joanna Yeates..period!
Are the events at trial more to do with Clegg than Dr Vincent Tabak?? And what wasn't presented and who wasn't present tells us more about Clegg than Dr Vincent Tabak...
I'll tell you what it reminded me of... In America there are lawyers who never actually go to trial on Murder one cases and they plea bargain their client out so the real evidence never makes it to a jury and the defendant takes the stand to tell us his version of events as to what took place in the vain hope that he/she will get a reduction in their sentence... These lawyers don't ever complete a trial of someone accused of Murder.. They just pleas bargain cases always....
But the difference with Dr Vincent Tabak, although he tried to plea, that didn't happen.... The Prosecution wouldn't accept it, when they should.... So does that tells us more about Clegg than Dr Vincent Tabak???
If Dr Vincent Tabak didn't speak, what evidence did Clegg Investigate for his client?
You can't just assume because he was in the same building as Joanna Yeates that he must have killed her.... especially when there was no evidence that Dr Vincent Tabak was anything other than Placid..
So many other potential people in Joanna Yeates life could have been the killer before Dr Vincent Tabak was on the list of suspects...
This is the case with NO Evidence... But a tall story on the stand... with No evidence to back this story up... And a host of possible suspects who could have possibly fit the bill before Dr Vincent Tabak could...
So where was Clegg?? I mean where was his head at?? Why didn't he get this case thrown out! Why did he persist in taking to it;s conclusion when there shouldn''t have been one in the sense that a conviction occurred without evidence to support that conviction (imo)... The most unfair trial ever...
For someone whom is described The Master Defender he should have had that case thrown out quick sharp... He hadn't even apparently recieved the 1300 page document until the 7th October 2011 which contained the text messages , email etc of four people...
But he happily allows for this trial to continue when it is Perfectly Obvious to me he didn't know what was in those 1300 pages to prove or disprove his clients guilt.. He just continued with the case as if it didn't matter..... Well it does!
-
Part 4...
I am now going to ask the question, what evidence did Bill Clegg read?? What Investigations did Bill Clegg do for his client??
I can only conclude he didn't... but that is my opinion... Because if the 1300 page document contained the text messages of 4 people and possibly the search information then that tells me he didn't look himself at the case before he went to trial... Or had limited information upon which he relied upon for him to conclude that Dr Vincent Tabak had killed `joanna yeates.. Because thats what this trial seems to me... Clegg believed that Dr Vincent tabak was guilty....
Clegg had ample opportunity (imo) to argue why Dr Vincent Tabak shouldn't be held on remand... I still don't understand with what evidence he was charged with.... Shouldn't Clegg have argued that this Client be released on bail??
Did Clegg see the statement from Brotherton before trial?? As we know Dr Vincent Tabak didn't confess he killed Joanna Yeates to Brotherton... Dr Vincent tabak didn't confess anything.... And the claims made by Brotherton are spurious at best.. Which a GOOD Defence Lawyer should have shot down in flames....
But the persistence that this NAFF case goes before a jury without proper evidence is odd... Where there other powers in action at this point... Is it more about Clegg than Dr Vincent Tabak this trial,?? because it is the only Obvious conclusion i can draw.... Because (imo) Clegg failed his Client time and time again... By not challenging anything that The Prosecution brought forth... He doesn't challenge anything but agrees with them, which is evident at trial...
I cannot remember the phrase that leonora said... But it was along the lines of " something for the greater good"... And was that what this trial was about?... Clegg seems inept to me... Yet his reputation apparently says the opposite... The lack of supporting evidence that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna yeates is shocking, but a baying public will be happy to see anyone swing for the crime... just like they were happy when Colin Stagg was arrested..
But they do not question the obvious or the basic like did he actually commit the crime... they just want someone to pay... anyone to pay...
As the general public are we allowed to question the abilities of a lawyer.. do we just accept because we have been told someone is brilliant at their job that they are.... I cannot see any evidence that Clegg was brilliant at his job when he defended Dr Vincent Tabak (imo).. quite the opposite in fact... And if Colin Staggs case is anything to go by ..Clegg didn't need to defend him as the case was thrown out...
Same with napper... Napper pleads guilty to manslaughter..... So where does the title of "Master Defender come from??? It has to be a p*ss take... (imo), because he appears to have failed completley with Dr Vincent tabak and didn't have to go to full trial with Stagg...
Was the point of the trial to show up Clegg's inability as a Good defence Lawyer?? I am starting to question if that was the case.... At every juncture Clegg failed his Client (imo)... And Dr vincent Tabak taking the stand is evidence of that.... If Dr vincent tabak says nothing like he had done all along and doesn't take the stand to explain himself away and this absurd notion that he killed Joann yeates... Then there is no case to answer....
* No evidence putting Dr Vincent Tabak at Joanna Yeates Flat
* No evidence at what time Joanna yeates may or may not have been killed
* No evidence of how she became to be killed
* No evidence that Dr vincent tabak was violent
* No evidence that Joanna Yeates was in The Car that apparently Dr Vincent Tabak drove.
* No evidence if any sexual activity had taken place between Joanna yeates and anyone else
* No coobarrating evidence from Tanja Morson as to what she was doing at anytime with or without Dr Vincent
Tabak.
* No evidence that the blind in the kitchen was broken
* No evidence that Dr Vincent Tabak didn't know Joanna Yeates
* No evidence as to whether Tanja Morson knew Joanna Yeates,..
* No evidence showing us the inside of Dr Vincent Tabaks flat
* No evidence of a struggle taking place inside Joanna Yeates Flat
* No Evidence of Joanna Yeates being inside Dr Vincent Tabak's flat
* No body fluids inside Joanna yeates Flat
* No Body fluids inside Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat
* No evidence of what happened to the pizza
* No evidence as to what happened to The Missing Sock
* No evidence that Dr Vincent Tabak could actually lift a dead weight so many times in the alloted time.. ( could he
even lift a dead weight)
* No Time Stamp evidence on CCTV footage
* No evidence of when Joanna Yeates actually died...
* No evidence as to who was really the last person to see Joanna yeates alive
* No questioning peoples credentials
* No Calling any witness's for Dr Vincent tabak
* No medical report on Dr Vincent Tabak's mental state...
The list is endless... and it shouldn't be... As The Hundred questions thread indicate.. Which so far has over 1000 questions and i could add more..... Nothing Clegg does at trial gives me confidence... Confidence that he fully represented his client.... He disparages his client , he makes the jury believe that his client must be guilty by his own lack of support for his client... It was Clegg's own words that brought me to question Dr Vincent tabak's guilt when he states....
1: his conduct after Yeates died when he hid the body was “frankly disgusting” and had caused untold anguish and agony to her family.
2: “I’m not going to ask you to like Vincent Tabak. There’s probably nothing to like.”
3: And Miss Morson seems to agree, having failed to make a single appearance at court.
4: He had told “lie after lie to the police.
5: “did everything he could to cover his tracks”.
6: He added that he would not try to justify Tabak’s actions after her death, saying his client was “living a lie” by attending dinner parties and attempting to carry on his life as normal.
7: “I’m not going to ask you to have any sympathy for him. He deserves none.
8: “I’m not going to ask you to excuse his conduct. There can be no excuse.
9: “If I was to set out to win a popularity contest I would lose.
10: He told the court: “Of course, afterwards his behaviour is utterly disgraceful. It’s not going to be justified by me
Those same 10 comments that are at the start of this thread... They were enough for me to sit up and listen and start to look more closely at the conviction of Dr Vincent Tabak.... My lack of education cannot be confused with stupidity.... I for one wouldn't want someone as my Defence lawyer who could make statements such as these.... Anyone could easily confuse those statements as being made from The prosecution... But they are from The Defence... which is extremely worrying...
-
Part 5...
Why didn't Clegg give Dr Vincent Tabak a full and deserving Defence? Why does it appear that he hasn't Investigated anything with regards to Dr Vincent Tabak? Did he think it would be an open and shut case ??? Did he not bargain on Dr Vincent Tabak being a very clever man??
Did common sense not prevail?? If a highly educated man has committed a serious crime such as Murder, and the only apparent evidence connecting him to said Murders are his apparent Confession and a list of searches done on a computer... Then this highly educated man would have dumped said computer in the largest body of water when he went to Holland to visit his family...
If he kept the sock as a trophy and wanted to get rid of that evidence then he too could have dumped that in a body of water in Holland... Same with the pizza box.... Dr Vincent tabak's car is NOT searched until he is arrested... So all of the evidence.. Bicycle cover/ sock /pizza etc... could have been disposed of in Holland... which is the logical option for an educated man , whom apparently was not flustered by what had taken place....
No-one was looking in the car.... Dr Vincent tabak could have had it valeted in Holland if he was so worried that there may be a minute piece of evidence left behind... Now that would be covering his tracks.... But we don't get this....
We get Dr Vincent Tabak behaving like an imbicile.. unable to cover his tracks apparently and not only that, volunteering the supposed method and demise of Joanna Yeates. He's apparently cooly shopping in Adsa after this murder buying nothing of importance... Nothing that would indicate he had committed a crime... If he is that cool and collected... why didn't he just dispose of everything in Holland, instead of leaving it on his doorstep in some bins somewhere in Clifton...
What or who should we be questioning when it comes to this case?? I personally am questioning Clegg's ability as a Defence Lawyer, because he doesn't appear to be up to the job....(imo) We as the general public believe that those in a position of power are qualified to be in those positions of power... But this case says otherwise (imo)..
Andrew "Civilian " Mott... not qualified to give evidence at trial as to what condition Joanna Yeates body was or was not in... Same with PC Martin Faithful.... Anyone who could quantify evidence in this case seem not to be at trial with the exception of the limited testimony of Dr Delaney and Dr Carey.... And instead we are left with Dr Vincent Tabak admitting without evidence to back up what he is saying , that he killed and disposed of Joanna yeates in the manner stated in court....
I'm sorry but for me it is not good enough..... I''m now questioning Clegg's ability to be a Criminal Defence Lawyer... I am now questioning When he passed all his exams in relation to Criminal Law he may have done I don't know.... Lawyers specialise in different aspects of Law... Clegg seems to have every aspect of law under his belt and i don't know how....
Overview
William Clegg QC frequently advises foreign governments, international corporations, trade unions and individuals resident here and abroad in relation to all aspects of regulatory offences, compliance, corporate manslaughter, health and safety corruption and sanctions. Has acted for Balfour Beatty, B.E.A. Sainsbury, Mabey & Johnson, Barclays Bank and the Alstom Group.
Has appeared on over 125 cases in the Supreme Court, Administrative Court and Court of Appeal which can be accessed using Lexis Nexis search engine.
Frequently works in partnership with lawyers abroad and has acted with lawyers in the United States, Brunei, Dubai, Russia, The Netherlands, Spain and Bosnia.
Also practices in the field of general crime and has defended journalists employed by “The Sun” and the Head of Security at News International on charges of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and for paying public officials for news stories.
He also defended in numerous cases of current and historic allegations of sexual abuse, murder, manslaughter and general crime.
William Clegg has both chaired and appeared before public inquiries including the inquiry into Ashworth Special Hospital.
What the overview states on 2 Bedford Row's website only covers the basics... It doesn't tell us How and when he was qualified in representing Defendants in Murder trials.... And I apologise for my ignorance, if that is what it is ... But shouldn't you be qualified to represent such clients!
We have lawyers who specialise in different aspects of law for a reason, because no one lawyer could possibly know the Law on everything.... And (imo) Clegg's past record for Defending someone accused of Murder isn't evidence of his ability to Defend Dr Vincent Tabak in this case.... Saying that the high profile cases are evidence of the ability to defend.. are evidence of Clegg's ability to be a Good defence Lawyer doesn't stack up (imo)....
Now if he had done a trial such as OJ Simpson.. then i could clearly see that he was more than capable... But we have nothing like that.... We should have had... The lack of evidence supporting Dr vincent tabak was none existent (imo) and that should have lead to the trial of the century not happening... But that is not the case... It was like a damp squib... The ends only gave us a conviction and not Justice.... (imo)
It is only my opinion that I believe that Clegg isn't qualified to Defend anyone on a serious charge such as Murdrer... And I have a right to have my opinion.... He had proved to me that he is incapable of defending anyone in that position.... And as Clegg himself has said... It's Pefectly Obvious!
It is perfectly obvious that this case needs looking at again... And Perfectly Obvious that people should question what qualifications Clegg has to Defend Murder cases... Because if i can still find fault with this case and no-one will speak of this case... It is perfectly Obvious that it isn't really about Dr Vincent Tabak and whether or not he killed Joanna Yeates... But about the lack of Defending his Defence lawyer did... (imo)
We are at the mercy of people in positions of power and we rely on their education and knowledge to assist us... We are supposed to believe that the truth will prevail and the person who is representing us is fit for such a position... But again I will say for me personally, The Defences lack of Investigating and lack of supporting evidence, suggests to me they didn't have a scooby.... When at the very least Tanja Morson should have taken the stand and not forgetting CJ whom Dr Vincent tabak was apparently trying to implicate....
I could have defended Dr Vincent Tabak better.... I have no formal qualifications, but that doesn't change the fact that I could have Investigated fuller, what Dr Vincent Tabak could or couldn't have done in relation to this crime... Or questioned the evidence that The prosecution brought forth... Or the lack of evidence from the Police linking Dr Vincent Tabak to this crime...
It doesn't change the fact that i could question more than Clegg appears to have done, I shouldn't still be able to post anything on this case... It's frightening to know that someone who has your life in their hands hasn't covered the basics as far as I can tell... But is applauded for there greatness...
So who should we be questioning??? I for one want to question Clegg... Because it appears that not enough was done to Defend a Placid Dutchman who apparently didn't say anything until trial... And therefore i want to know where the evidence is that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna yeates... Because the prosecution didn't have any evidence to support that claim....
And Clegg is left holding the baby... He puts his client on the stand when he shouldn't in my opinion... because without Dr Vincent Tabaks testimony there is no case to answer for!!! (imo).
From what has been made available in this case, I think it only stands to reason why people would question it.... And personally i do not know how Clegg came to be known as The Master Defender... I find myself questioning that opinion especially since Dr Vincent Tabak's Case as of October 2011...
No-one has questioned Cleggs ability.... But maybe they darn't or can't... But I'm just the general public... And i feel we should all start to question what we are told.. instead of relying on what we have heard, because it is my opinion if we just accept any version of events without evidence to support it... Anyone of us could find ourselves in Dr Vincent Tabaks's position... And that is a scary thought!!!
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/28b474f733f0437e895ea7b0ed4a496d
https://www.2bedfordrow.co.uk/barrister/william-clegg-qc/
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/mother-and-child-died-together-in-ritual-slaughter-6837683.html
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3580773/rachel-nickell-murder-killer-robert-napper-son-alex-hanscombe/
-
Does anyone have a list of the 80 questions that Dr Vincent Tabak failed to answer??
The Headline from The Mirror
Jo Yeates murder trial: Killer Vincent Tabak failed to answer 80 questions
Puzzling....
Prosecutor Nigel Lickley QC told the jury in his closing speech: “There are more than 80 ‘can’t remembers’ in his evidence.
“Sometimes we can’t remember but sometimes it’s a case of won’t remember because it doesn’t suit our purpose to remember. It’s calculating – a convenient device to avoid giving an answer.”
Or a case of he doesn't know because he didn't do it!
Do they mean 80 questions put to him at trial or do they mean 80 questions he was asked when Interviewed by the Police ???
If it was at trial, where are the list of 80 questions.... anyone know ??
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murder-trial-killer-87830
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Does anyone have a list of the 80 questions that Dr Vincent Tabak failed to answer??
The Headline from The Mirror
Puzzling....
Or a case of he doesn't know because he didn't do it!
Do they mean 80 questions put to him at trial or do they mean 80 questions he was asked when Interviewed by the Police ???
If it was at trial, where are the list of 80 questions.... anyone know ??
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murder-trial-killer-87830
The first line of the article says: "Joanna Yeates's killer deliberately avoided answering more than 80 questions in the witness box, his trial heard yesterday." (Emphasis is mine!)
-
The first line of the article says: "Joanna Yeates's killer deliberately avoided answering more than 80 questions in the witness box, his trial heard yesterday." (Emphasis is mine!)
Baz... It is not that I am not aware that it says it in the first line of the article... Doesn't mean it's correct though...
Take @skynewsgathers tweet at trial
12:10 PM - 19 Oct 2011Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
DC Mark Luther now giving evidence in the #Tabak trial. He is the officer in charge of the case.
Now we know that DC Mark Luther is a figment of someones imagination.... He was not in charge of the case... Doesn't exist...
So me asking whether it was actually put to Dr Vincent Tabak at trial these 80 questions by the prosecution, isn't an unreasonable response...
I would like a list of these 80 questions please 8)--))
http://live-news.sky.com/Event/Live_Updates_Vincent_Tabak_Trial_Continues
-
The youtube video that I linked about The Rachell Nickell story that was on TV recently has been removed, and the account that showed the video has been terminated...
Most Baffling....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFjm4goJco4
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Are they referring to his "no comment " police interviews, or are they referring to the answers that he claimed not to remember?
-
Baz... It is not that I am not aware that it says it in the first line of the article... Doesn't mean it's correct though...
Take @skynewsgathers tweet at trial
Now we know that DC Mark Luther is a figment of someones imagination.... He was not in charge of the case... Doesn't exist...
So me asking whether it was actually put to Dr Vincent Tabak at trial these 80 questions by the prosecution, isn't an unreasonable response...
I would like a list of these 80 questions please 8)--))
http://live-news.sky.com/Event/Live_Updates_Vincent_Tabak_Trial_Continues
Do we know that DC Mark Luther doesn't exist or is this something you have decided upon?
-
Do we know that DC Mark Luther doesn't exist or is this something you have decided upon?
Sorry I should rephrase that.... There is no other connection to a man named DC Mark Luther in regards to The Joanna Yeates Case/ Dr Vincent Tabak trial... (imo) He was not the lead SIO on the case... Nowhere else on the Internet is he mentioned in connection to this case.. He is tweeted about in the 10 minute break window.. He has never been photographed as far as I know.. He... I believe is a figment of someone else's imagination... If someone can show me whom DC Mark Luther is then I will eat my hat...
I am sorry occasionally I get sarcastic and my humour doesn't transfer well on here when I say he doesn't exist... I can find no evidence of this person.. And no evidence other than the tweet that he had any connection to The Joanna Yeates Murder Investigation.. He might be another civilian for all we know... Or as I believe a figment of someones imagination..
Edit.. I posted before on DC Mark Luther... I believe it is an Anagram of Murder Chalk T...
-
(http://murderpedia.org/male.T/images/tabak-vincent/vincent-tabak-4.jpg)
(http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/resources/images/1804941.jpg?display=1&htype=100000&type=responsive-gallery)
(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/1234297.main_image.jpg?strip=all)
(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/vincent-tabak-32-runs-in-the-stroud-half-marathon-on-october-25-2009-picture-id108259307)
The images I have attached are all supposed to be of Dr Vincent Tabak.... They look photoshopped to me... And i do know that images have been photoshopped...
* How did they verify that the man in these images is actually Dr Vincent Tabak??
* Where was Dr Vincent Tabak's Passport??
* Where was Dr Vincent Tabak's Driving license ?
* Who positively identified the man in the photo's as Dr Vincent Tabak??
For all we know Dr Vincent Tabak could be of African decent, he could be mixed race, nothing other than the media has told us that the person in the images are Dr Vincent Tabak... They already look so different...
Image 4 is defo photoshopped... look at the edge of his hair next to the guy in black.. you can even see a white edge to it were it has been cut!!
I would like to know how they identified the person who was arrested as Dr Vincent Tabak, especially in his video appearances..
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
(http://murderpedia.org/male.T/images/tabak-vincent/vincent-tabak-4.jpg)
(http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/resources/images/1804941.jpg?display=1&htype=100000&type=responsive-gallery)
(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/1234297.main_image.jpg?strip=all)
(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/vincent-tabak-32-runs-in-the-stroud-half-marathon-on-october-25-2009-picture-id108259307)
The images I have attached are all supposed to be of Dr Vincent Tabak.... They look photoshopped to me... And i do know that images have been photoshopped...
* How did they verify that the man in these images is actually Dr Vincent Tabak??
* Where was Dr Vincent Tabak's Passport??
* Where was Dr Vincent Tabak's Driving license ?
* Who positively identified the man in the photo's as Dr Vincent Tabak??
For all we know Dr Vincent Tabak could be of African decent, he could be mixed race, nothing other than the media has told us that the person in the images are Dr Vincent Tabak... They already look so different...
Image 4 is defo photoshopped... look at the edge of his hair next to the guy in black.. you can even see a white edge to it were it has been cut!!
I would like to know how they identified the person who was arrested as Dr Vincent Tabak, especially in his video appearances..
I don't think that is photo-shopped for two reasons.
1) That white line is where the light is hitting his head and there are no white lines anywhere else around him.
2) Why would they Photoshop Tabak into that photo?
-
Look at the older man to VT's left, he also has a white line on the right hand side. So I'll go with you Baz re: the light.
-
Yes well spotted nina... The old man looks photoshopped too.....
(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/vincent-tabak-32-runs-in-the-stroud-half-marathon-on-october-25-2009-picture-id108259307)
He is wearing a T-shirt which says Chris Brasher memorial 10 k run..
That particular event was held in 2004.... Dr Vincent Tabak wasn't with Tanja Morson in 2004, he was also in Holland in 2004
Chris Brasher Memorial Run 10K
Sunday, 20th June 2004 11:00am
(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/vincent-tabak-runs-with-his-girlfriend-tanja-morson-in-the-stroud-picture-id108259311?s=612x612)
Here we see Tanja in the same event..... The lady with the green top is there....
Yes
RACE DESCRIPTION
The Chris Brasher Memorial 10K is a one off run on Sunday 20 June in Richmond Park, organised by Sweatshop to raise funds for the Petersham Trust. The aim is to raise £162,000 for the Petersham Trust (founded by Chris Brasher) in order to preserve Petersham Meadows and ensure that the historic view from Richmond Hill is saved for future generations.
Awards/mementos:
Medal
Winners' prizes
Engraved memorial tankards for 1st
2nd
Venue facilities:
Changing
Toilets
Refreshments
Supervised bag storage
They don't look like they are running in a park... !
Edit.... The marathon is supposed to be the Stroud Run 2009 ... even the information on that is incorrect... So we have 2 different marathons married together in a photoshopped image that is perfectly obvious to see that it has been photoshopped... I believe the woman in green is also photoshopped.....
below is a link to my Storud Run Post..
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8056.msg408866#msg408866
https://www.runnersworld.co.uk/event/view/chris-brasher-memorial-run-10k-23152
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Oh Nine, the older gent is not photoshopped look at the guy behind him in the red, grey and white t-shirt, he also has white down the right hand side. Also look at the official in black on the right hand side of the road, he is positively glowing on his head from the light.
Also there is no rule that says you can't wear the same t-shirt more than once, there seems to be a variety of tops on view, worn by the runners.
You really are clutching at straws, if I am reading you right you are trying to prove that VT is not VT ! Don't Nine, you have done so much good research and you know that what you are posting now is not right.
-
Is it coincidental??
The media have obtained these apparent images of Dr Vincent Tabak as early as 9th February 2011?
Sliding the mouse over the picture it reveals this text about each image.
* Image 2... The date of this images is 9th February 2011 the supporting text below attached to the image tell us
Vincent Tabak Found Guilty Of Joanna Yeates Murder***Exclusive*** *** U750 MINIMUM REPRODUCTION FEE *** NO INTERNET USE UNTIL 5:00pm 30th October 2011*** MARBURG, GERMANY- 1996: Vincent Tabak stands quietly at the back as the youth camp volunteers pose for a photo on a weekend shopping...
Same with image 3 (attached)
Vincent Tabak Found Guilty of Joanna Yeates Murder*** Exclusive*** *** U750 MINIMUM REPRODUCTION FEE ** *** NO INTERNET USE UNTIL 5-00pm 30th October 2011*** MARBURG,GERMANY -1996: Volunteer Youth Camp workers at Palmengarten public gardens IN Frankfurt, Germany: Dutch Vincent Tabak can be...
The 8th February is the date that apparently Dr Vincent Tabak confessed to Brotherton... which no supporting evidence of this confession we have seen. A day later the media upload these images of Dr Vincent Tabak as a young man...
Peter Brotherton, a voluntary Salvation Army chaplain at Long Lartin prison in Worcestershire said the Dutchman had unburdened himself on February 8 this year.
When was the text written for the images... Am I correct in believing that it would of been at the same time as the date that they uploaded the images onto their website??
By the 31st January 2011 the media had reported that the trial was preliminary set for October.
Yeates spoke after the man accused of killing his daughter, Dutch national Vincent Tabak, appeared in court for the third time and a trial date was provisionally set for October.
Which would support the idea that by the end of October the trial would be over...
Where these images uploaded on the 9th February 2011 with the supporting text?? Or was the text added at a later date ??
Why state that they couldn't be used until 5:00pm 30th October 2011??
These images are very perplexing...
____________________________________________
[Note]:I have seen the images of Dr Vincent Tabak as a youth before, but i cannot find the article with the images at the mo... The article if I remember correctly, was about Dr Vincent Tabak and him signing an autograph book of a girl at the camp and basically how odd Dr Vincent Tabak was... if my memory serves me right..
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jan/31/joanna-yeates-funeral-vincent-tabak
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8834133/Vincent-Tabak-confessed-Joanna-Yeates-killing-in-emotional-meeting-with-prison-chaplain.html
https://barcroft.mediashowroom.com/medias/appnb/displaySearch.do#search/0
-
Oh Nine, the older gent is not photoshopped look at the guy behind him in the red, grey and white t-shirt, he also has white down the right hand side. Also look at the official in black on the right hand side of the road, he is positively glowing on his head from the light.
Also there is no rule that says you can't wear the same t-shirt more than once, there seems to be a variety of tops on view, worn by the runners.
You really are clutching at straws, if I am reading you right you are trying to prove that VT is not VT ! Don't Nine, you have done so much good research and you know that what you are posting now is not right.
How did Barcroft have an image of Dr Vincent Tabak as early as October 2009 ?? (image attached)
The image upload date appears to be then?? Unless you can explain to me why the date of the image says October 2009 on Barcrofts website?
Am I missing something here ???
Edit.... When I search again there is an image of CJ with the date when he apparently first appeared for the leveson... The upload date and the image text correspond... So what does that say about the other images??
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Verdict of 10-2 majority... Does that apply to the killer?? ...I have always believed that Dr Vincent tabak is innocent and the real killer is still out there.. The lack of Interest by the media to talk about this case or question this case is surprising.. No-one says anything, it's like everyone knows but dare not speak...
But for those that understand law, they must know that everything about this case is wrong... it sticks out like a sore thumb...
* You cannot be as blatant as to state that the defendant on the stand is "Guilty" before he faces a jury, by letting
them know that he had already plead guilty to Manslaughter...
* You cannot suspect someone of Murder and not caution them before a 6 hour interview..
* You cannot stage a crime scene
* You cannot have random builders collecting evidence at a crime scene (I could go on)
Really there should be an outcry... But there isn't... why isn't there??
I always think that there are clues out there for someone who knows enough about law or someone who is connected to someone who knows enough about law to be able to read between the lines of what is meant..
For instance the talk about hanging... It is known that the Yeates had made such a statement at the end of trial, but I believe that this idea was brought whilst the trial was taking place... And DC Mark Luther who was mentioned by @skynewsgather in a tweet,
12:10 PM - 19 Oct 2011Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
DC Mark Luther now giving evidence in the #Tabak trial. He is the officer in charge of the case.
I believe it was mentioned for someone who would understand its meaning... I have mentioned before that I believe that DC Mark Luther is an anagram of Chalk T Murder / Murder ~Chalk T... which is the chalk mark that is put on the trap door for the person whom is to be hung to put his/her toes...
[AH] has talked of serial killers and the 'Anagram " was the name of a Police Operation which involved a serial killer..
I don't think these little gems are coincidental, I believe they are meant for someone... I always have thought that the statements made in the press were aimed at someone.. and that someone wasn't Dr Vincent tabak... So applying that very thought I prepose that the jury verdict of 10-2 is no coincidence either...
Reconsidering a Prosecution Decision
We need to start at section 10..
Section 10 of the Code for Crown Prosecutors explains that occasionally there are special reasons why the prosecution service will overturn a decision not to prosecute or to deal with the case by way of an out-of-court disposal or when it will re-start the prosecution, particularly if the case is serious. It states:
I had believed that they had interviewed the real killer and for whatever reason could not or would not proceed with the prosecution, and with my belief that The Joanna Yeates Cases is a "Cold Case" ... which i had been informed of, then the idea that the images the press write ups, are all for someone to know that they have no forgotten that they are responsible for this murder...
Hence section 10.2 of the "Reconsideration for Prosecution"
These reasons are set out at 10.2 of the Code and include:
cases where a new look at the original decision shows that it was wrong and, in order to maintain confidence in the criminal justice system, a prosecution should be brought despite the earlier decision;
cases which are stopped so that more evidence which is likely to become available in the fairly near future can be collected and prepared. In these cases, the prosecutor will tell the defendant that the prosecution may well start again;
cases which are stopped because of a lack of evidence but where more significant evidence is discovered later; and
cases involving a death in which a review following the findings of an inquest concludes that a prosecution should be brought, notwithstanding any earlier decision not to prosecute.
Section 23(9) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 sets out the power to reinstitute proceedings after a case has been discontinued.
Does this connect to what I have said before... That there is still an on going Investigation into the Murder of Joanna Yeates and that is why the media or anyone does not speak about this case... Because they would be in contempt of court to say anything other than what we have all been lead to believe is the 'story" of what happened to Joanna yeates ...
I maybe incorrect with my theories, but an interesting concept.... Because My ideas that the media and everyone else were aware of what was going on and said nothing is proven by the lack of them standing up to be counted when it is perfectly obvious that the law has not been followed and still after all these years no-one will speak about this case...
A Case were the victims family still talk about when they may lay the headstone at their daughters burial site 7 years after her death... Personally I believe that they are still waiting for Justice... Many people have long forgotten the case and they will only recognise it if you mention 'The Lost Honour of CJ".. which in itself is a shame.. But i believe that it is time for people to be counted and stand up and speak of what they know... And show how our Justice system is broken... Show how the procedures were not followed and how an Innocent man was sent to jail on NO EVIDENCE.... With the Prejudice of all ready being labelled a killer after we all were informed that Dr Vincent Tabak plead guilt to Manslaughter in may 2011, with this vital piece of information flying around the internet daily as the trial in October 2011 took place... And a jury well aware before they made their decision , that Dr Vincent Tabak was Guilty!!!
So... 10:2 of the Reconsideration for Prosecution may well have been meant for someone who is aware of the law... And even if you think my theory is off the wall.. Consider this....
If it wasn't a message for the real killer... The information is out there now... and I believe the real killer is aware of that prospect..People are not sitting back anymore... And I believe others will start to question... When they really consider how the presumption of Innocence was not applied in this case and Dr Vincent Tabak stood trial as a Guilty man... to be found even Guiltier!! And that is only the tip of the Iceburg.....
Because everyone knows that this case is wrong.... It's Perfectly Obvious...
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/872390/jo-yeates-mother-teresa-lay-headstone-grave-seven-years
http://live-news.sky.com/Event/Live_Updates_Vincent_Tabak_Trial_Continues
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/reconsidering-prosecution-decision
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
When I said that Coldplay meant something to this case, I thought I would add my own song....
With the talk of "Butterfly Gardens and Butterflies I thought this apt...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXQrmaHVU_k
The day the real culprit is brought to Justice... Joanna Yeates can be truly welcomed home....
Danyel Gerrad "Butterfly" 1971
[Note..] For those who may know the song or don't know the song... I have changed the lyrics slightly... from
I'll come home to you one day... (too)
Welcome home to you one day!
-
Maybe I should have posted this here: ?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8056.msg454016#msg454016
-
I found this long buried article.....
As for news, the Express publishes its brief interview with Mr Tabak:
“I only come back here at weekends for now with all the upset. I wasn’t here on the night she went missing, I was away and I don’t know anyone who saw or heard anything. It’s very upsetting that something like this has happened. This is a nice, safe, friendly area.
“The feeling around here is not a nice one now, it’s as if the area has been blighted by what happened. We are all very sad about it, and although I didn’t know Miss Yeates, I am deeply saddened by what happened.”
Now this is where it gets interesting.... Again the express article doesn't hold the story and we have one about Scarlett Johnson... With an image of Dr Vincent Tabak and the text underneath his image says:
Vincent Tabak gave his only press interview to the Sunday Express....
It reminded me of Coldplay and the image of the Yeates.....
The Anorak article give you a link to The Express's Article, which subsequently turns into the Scarlet Johnson Article... I an hazzard a guess at when the article changed to Scarlett Johnson, as according to good old wiki the film adaptation was confirmed in Novemebr 2011.....
Going back to the link.... What I did notice was a fraction of a second before the article loaded, the webpage address for the article was different.... Which I managed to screen shot.... Took me a few attempts.... (image attached)
This is what the address of the article said....
www.express.co.uk/posts/views/224746/Jo-Yeates-Day-I-met-Vincent-Tabak#ixzz1BqEnhNUJ
When you click on the link the page shows a 404 error.....
How did the Express manage to change the article?? which realistically should have lead to an article about an interview with Dr Vincent Tabak...
The article puts Dr Vincent Tabak away from his Flat on Friday 17th December 2010 and therefore he could not have killed Joanna Yeates..
How do we describe the web page that no longer has the article available to view?? A ghost page?? There is a footprint there for this article... By Clicking the link I have quoted, it does take you to a now defunct page... But it was there.... There for everyone to see.... The article that Anorak quoted is still visible on Anorak's website... So I take it the media had spoken to Dr Vincent Tabak... Which they surely would have evidence of this Interview.. there must be a taped copy of the Interview... unless the reporter did it the good old fashioned way and used shorthand!
Dr Vincent Tabak says he only comes back to the Flat at weekends is an interesting bit of info.... Is that why we have the footage from Crimewatch of Dr Vincent Tabak's car being directed where to park?? With the image of a man stood at the main door of 44, Canygne Road looking remarkably like Dr Vincent Tabak....
For a man that was supposed to be distancing himself from a crime scene, it appears odd that he would return on a weekend... This information was not disclosed at trial.... Everyone presumed that Dr Vincent Tabak must have moved to Aberdeen Road to escape what was taking place at Canygne Road never to return again....
Does Dr Vincent Tabak telling us that he only returned to Canygne Road on a weekend tell us that the Police were only there during the week??
Did Clegg hear this Interview with The Reporter or see their notes??? Did he not question where Dr Vincent Tabak really was???
There is another point to this article...... The date of the article is 00:00 23rd January 2011
Obviously they cannot have spoken to Dr Vincent Tabak on that date as he had been charged and was in custody.... We also have Dr Vincent Tabak talking as if he is at Canygne Road... If he only goes to Canygne Road at weekends then the Interview had to be before the 23rd January 2011.... The earliest they could have interviewed Dr Vincent Tabak would have been the Saturday before..... Being Saturday 16th January 2011, or Sunday the 17th January 2011.... this is before The Yeates Emotional Appeal and the phone call from the Sobbing Girl.... Which apparently was the catalyst for arresting Dr Vincent Tabak in the first place.... How on earth did they pre-empt that !!!!!
I therefore have to question how the Sunday Express would know to Interview Dr Vincent Tabak before either of these events took place?? Putting out information that clearly has him nowhere near Canygne Road on 17th December 2010...
Who told The Express to interview Dr Vincent Tabak?? When had they planned Dr Vincent Tabak's arrest??? Now DCI Phil Jones says on one of the Documentaries that they did not get the DNA results back until the 20th January 2011.... So no evidence linking Dr Vincent Tabak to Joanna Yeates was available apparently... (I'll link my post about that )...
This is a quote from DCI Phil Jones from the Judge Rinder Program..
It was around the 20th January, that erm... we positively identified there were components in the mixed DNA.. of Vincent Tabak
What or who tipped off the press?? Why take such an Interest in Dr Vincent Tabak??/ They haven't Interviewed Tanaj Morson about her neighbour at this point!!... Or many many other residents of 44,Canygne Road...
Is this proof as Dr Vincent Tabak had said that they tampered with the DNA??? If they have no results until the 20th January 2011, there is no reason for Dr Vincent Tabak to actually be of Interest to anyone... Seeing as he wasn't there.... But magically we have an article written about an interview with Dr Vincent Tabak printed the day after he was charged.... !!
Is there video footage of this Interview with Dr Vincent Tabak???
Come on people... they don't magically interview every single person in the vicinity of Canygne Road on the vague off chance this person will turn out to be the Murderer!!
Why hasn't more been said about this Interview... Why wasn't the recording/ taping/ notes of this said Interview brought to trial... Lets not forget... Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to be following every twist and turn of this Investigation on his laptop... Then why wasn't there a "search" looking for the article in anticipation of it being printed??
If they suspected him as early as December 2010 as Ann Reddrop has stated... then why not publish the article sooner?? why not let the suspected murderer see himself in the news?? It's a ploy that has been used before to see how a Murder would react..... Why wait until he has been charged????
The media were obviously aware of plenty more than they have ever let on.... That article tells us that for sure (imo)... So I will ask again.... It cannot be just a coincidence that the article was written before Dr Vincent Tabak was arrested... Or any evidence against him was available....
Someone (imo) must have leaked the information to the press, which makes me question who?? Who wanted Dr Vincent Tabak to be the scapegoat for the Murder of Joanna Yeates ?? Someone must have already decided his fate... (imo) Therefore making me question The DNA sample that apparently ties Dr Vincent Tabak to this Murder!
If Dr Vincent Tabak is telling the media he was away on the 17th December 2011... why haven't the media or anyone else...
* Given this Interview to The Defence??
* Spoken up since the trial??
* Shown evidence of where Dr Vincent Tabak was on that date...??
* Shown evidence of him being on Canygne Road ??
* Shown that Dr Vincent Tabak was still away in America or elsewhere??
Who set Dr Vincent Tabak up?? The article leads me to believe this... as I cannot see how they would know to Interview Dr Vincent Tabak before there was any evidence pointing to him as a suspect.... And if this important article has Dr Vincent Tabak giving an Interview to The press.... Then why have they removed it?????
Why did they not use this information of proof that he was a liar on the stand... that he said he wasn't at Canygne Road on the 17th December 2010 but was away..... Perfect proof he was a liar for the prosecution... But we have nothing other than Dr Vincent Tabak's unsubstantiated story on the stand at trial..... That he was home and killed Joanna Yeates on the 17th December 2010.... And Clegg telling us all that he was bored..... Well he may have been bored if he was away from home on that date in America and was Missing Tanja Morson!!!
Does this mean that it's perfectly obvious that Clegg didn't check Dr Vincent Tabak's whereabout on the 17th December 2010??.. Because according to the article.... He wasn't at Canygne Road!!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summer_Crossing
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg369062#msg369062
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/224746/Johansson-focused-on-directorial-debut#ixzz1BqEnhNUJ
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/223433/Coldplay-to-beam-live-Corbijn-film-around-the-world
http://www.anorak.co.uk/271329/reviews/joanna-yeates-vincent-tabak-was-caught-on-twitter.html#more-271329
-
Part 1...
Article dated 23rd January 2011
Jo Yeates - Cops quiz Tweeting brother
DETECTIVES are set to question the brother of Vincent Tabak’s girlfriend after he boasted he was “100% certain” who would be charged over Joanna Yeates’ murder.
Careers adviser Gunter Morson, 33, declared in a tweet that he had been told who was going to be accused.
But the following day Gunter – younger brother of Mr Tabak’s long-term love, treasury analyst Tanja, 34 – had to correct himself. He said: “My source is an idiot and wrong!!”
A source close to the inquiry said police had been informed of Gunter’s comments on Twitter and added: “We will try to establish where the information came from.”
Since Mr Tabak’s arrest Gunter, who lives in Cambridge, has protected his tweets and changed his user name from Gunter Morson (Uni_Start) to another profile.
Meanwhile, we can reveal that one of our reporters spoke to Mr Tabak six days before he was arrested.
During a trawl of potential witnesses and neighbours in Bristol, we contacted the Dutchman on his mobile phone.
He said: “Hello, Vincent speaking” in clear English but with a Dutch accent.
But as soon as Mr Tabak was told he was speaking to a journalist working on the hunt for Joanna’s killer, he hung up.
Subsequent calls to his mobile went unanswered.
Meanwhile, friends of the 32-year-old architect told us of their shock at last week’s arrest.
Mark Dankers said: “He’s a friend of my wife. She studied with him.
“He’s a nice guy. I would say he’s a quiet person but a nice person.
“We had dinner a few times and, when he moved to England, we stored some things for him, like furniture, pots and pans.
“His girlfriend Tanja is nice too.”
Pal Daan Willems said: “He’s a very talented young man. Very professional.
“Just a very nice guy. He was always very dedicated to the task that he was doing.”
Six Days before his arrest the Daily Star had spoken to Dr Vincent Tabak... That being the 14th January 2011
What reason would The Daily Star have to want to speak to him about?? The tweet?? When was the tweet originally noticed... I was under the impression that it was supposed to basically implicate CJ... If it is as late as January 14th or the 23rd January when the article is published... them it is not implicating CJ... But trying to show that Dr Vincent Tabak is a gossip and an idiot...
But the article also states that the Police were trying to find out the source from Gunter of where he had got his information from... But we have been lead to believe that the information came from Dr Vincent Tabak and that may not be the case.....
So where is the Interview with Gunter Morson with the Police?? When did the Police speak to Gunter Morson?? Important questions.....
Why did they try to talk to him about the Murder of Joanna Yeates ??
Webslueths have a post for the article and the date is for the 23rd January 2011.
Marc D. Marc D. is offline
Registered User
Join Date
Jan 2011
Posts
53
Quote Originally Posted by Patticake View Post
Bringing my last post over:
Oh this is interesting:
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view...eting-brother/
JO YEATES - COPS QUIZ TWEETING BROTHER
DETECTIVES are set to question the brother of Vincent Tabak’s girlfriend after he boasted he was “100% certain” who would be charged over Joanna Yeates’ murder.
Careers adviser Gunter Morson, 33, declared in a tweet that he had been told who was going to be accused.
But the following day Gunter – younger brother of Mr Tabak’s long-term love, treasury analyst Tanja, 34 – had to correct himself. He said: “My source is an idiot and wrong!!”
We know where they found it, just like the photos of the race.
Poor journalism, because they do not mention CJ. They make it sound like it happened a couple of days ago and that it concerns VT. If they knew the whole thing, this is simply a lie.
another post from webslueths..
01-22-2011, 08:54 PM#15 Luna15's Avatar Luna15 Luna15 is offline
Registered User
Join Date
Jan 2011
Location
Hertfordshire, UK
Posts
545
Quote Originally Posted by jigzy View Post
Can someone clear something up for me please: Did VT go to Holland after the 17th - and when exactly?
Thanks in advance
Martin Brunt mentioned on Sky News earlier (after VT had been charged) that they knew he had been at work the day Joanna disappeard (17th) - whether they got the information from a work source, I'm not sure, but it seemed a given that he was at work on that day.
Not to help justice in her need would be an impiety ~Plato~
Well if the article I posted about was the only known interview with Dr Vincent Tabak and they say he wasn't home on that weekend, yet according to this say he was at work... Then it's perfectly obvious to me that he was working away!
So if the boasting took place and the article reads from the 23rd January 2011, why did it take the Police weeks to Investigate this claim??
Again a webslueths post puts this happening in December 2010- 1st January 2010
01-20-2011, 10:09 PM#265 martinformation martinformation is offline
Registered User
Join Date
Jan 2011
Posts
6
I have researched some information that needs further questions:
first i typed GF name of VT into Google Real-Time search
tanja morson - Google Search
a twitter user: johnnydav29 @Uni_Start are u related to tanja morson from Canynge Road?
Twitter - 8 hours ago
looking at the Uni_Start name: Gunter Morson from Cambridge
his last two twitter posts:
My source is an idiot and wrong!!!
3:04 PM Jan 1st via web
I am 100% certain that Chris Jefferies, under suspicion for the murder of Jo Yeates, will be charged with murder within the next 12 hours.
10:09 AM Dec 31st, 2010 via web
I then find out that Geoffrey Morson [the father of T] lives in Cambridge
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-sto...5875-22864361/
so the question is Gunter Morson related [son of Geoffrey?] and sister to T. Why else would someone living in Cambridge have a source of event happening in Bristol?
Did TM [his sister] communicate to her brother hoping that the landlord would be charged with the murder, and therefore VT would be absolved ?
since then Gunter Morson hasn't tweeted
Are the police intelligent enough to do this research?
But I am unsure about this post... simply because it was last edited on the: Last edited by KateB; 06-21-2015 at 09:59 AM. Reason: repair url tag.
I really would have liked to have seen the tweet dated...
The tweet from @johnnydav29 I have found on twitter and that is dated the 20th January 2011 the same day as the post....
J Dav
@johnnydav29
Follow Follow @johnnydav29
More
@Uni_Start are u related to tanja morson from Canynge Road?
9:52 AM - 20 Jan 2011
Now the question has to be how did he know to ask if the person he was speaking to was related to Tanja Morson the partner of Dr Vincent Tabak as early as 9:52am on the day that Dr Vincent Tabak was arrested?? When we knew very little about Dr Vincent Tabak and what he had done or not done by this time... And who or what he was connected to ??
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?126025-UK-Joanna-Yeates-25-Clifton-Bristol-17-Dec-2010-10
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/173235/Jo-Yeates-Cops-quiz-Tweeting-brother
https://twitter.com/johnnydav29/status/28147949552799744
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?125800-UK-Joanna-Yeates-25-Clifton-Bristol-17-Dec-2010-8/page18
-
Part 2...
Randomly out of a hat this person wants to know this info..... When I look at the twitter account of @Uni_Start, it says they joined twitter in January 2017
But obviously the earlier tweets show that this account must have been active before.... But how does @johnnydav29 know that @Uni_Start is Gunter Morsons account?? There is only one other tweet that says Gunters name from @AskAmex... which I post next...
I will post all of the tweets for @Uni_Start on another post....
So where is the evidence that the original posts that were said on Webslueths were of this time??
his last two twitter posts:
My source is an idiot and wrong!!!
3:04 PM Jan 1st via web
I am 100% certain that Chris Jefferies, under suspicion for the murder of Jo Yeates, will be charged with murder within the next 12 hours.
10:09 AM Dec 31st, 2010 via web
You need to see the time and date of the tweet about CJ.... 31st December at 10:09am... I don't know if the time is correct... But you have to consider that the 31st December 2010 is the day that Dr Vincent Tabak was questioned for 6 hours by DC Karen Thomas... So why would Gunter be tweeting this info?? And at such a time... Surely he would have the common sense not to make such a bold statement, when it hadn't been clarified...
It seems and odd tweet for a University lecturer to go public accusing CJ and being positive that he would be charged!!
Why would he say such a thing... and why would it take @johnnydav29 "20 days" in which to respond to this tweet??
Why would he ask Gunter this on the day that Dr Vincent Tabak is arrested?? Coincidence??
Gunter would not know that the information that Dr Vincent Tabak said about a car changing position would be enough evidence to put CJ away for the Murder.... People moves there cars all the time...
What did Gunter believe he was told that the information guaranteed 100% that CJ would be charged with the Murder of Joanna Yeates??
Everyone assumed that the source had to be Dr Vincent Tabak.... But why??? Because they go on to arrest and charge him???
Well that doesn't have to be the case, and it can't be the case (imo) The changing of the position of a car is not enough to guarantee anything... It's circumstantial at best... But with a 100% conviction that CJ would be charged with Joanna Yeates Murder... The source that Gunter is referring too has to be someone else with different knowledge... Knowledge that would 100% prove CJ was going to be charged.....
Gunter does not say anything about Dr Vincent Tabak or that Dr Vincent Tabak and his sister are being or going to be interviewed by the Police....
We do what they expect us to do and assume the connection ourselves... makes life easy for them doesn't it... But there is NO evidence that the @Uni_start is Gunter Morson or that Dr Vincent Tabak was the source of the information saying that CJ would be charged with Murder...
Dr Vincent Tabak would either have to have tweeted the information to Gunter .. text the information to Gunter or contacted Gunter Morson in some shape or form....
Think about it.... why on the day that Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson Gunters sister are about to be Interviewed by DC Karen Thomas would the tweet happen.... Think of the timing....
There is an information overload and where people are at that time is vitally important.....
* Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson apparently see CJ has been arrested and this event is what is the catalyst for them to apparently ring Avon and Somerset Police and tell them about the car changing position.... The dutifully ring the Police who send out DC Karen Thomas to Interview Dr Vincent Tabak for 6 hours....
We do not know at what time this interview took place between DC Karen Thomas and Dr Vincent Tabak... which makes the timing of the tweet at 10:09am on the 31st December 2010 baffling.....
Everyone has forgotten where Gunter Morson is at this time ???? Well I think they have....
He is not in Holland, where Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson are..... I hadn't really thought about it before and just assumed he was in the same room as Dr Vincent Tabak when he recieved the information..... And that cannot be correct!
He would have had to be told this Information when Dr Vincent Tabak was in Cambridge for that to be the case.... And apparently Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanajs Morson had left for Holland before CJ's arrest and before CJ's interview about his second witness statement....
So Gunter cannot have been in the room with Dr Vincent Tabak to find out that information .... And no-one would know that CJ would be arrested before Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson left for Holland except the Police....
DCI Phil Jones had a note on his pad that they were to arrest CJ.. this note was written on the 29th December 2010..( He told the Leveson This info) CJ had apparently told the Police the week before about his second witness statement... Making that the 22nd December 2010.... The details important... As Joanna Yeates was only a Missing Person at this point ....
So what prompted someone to inform Gunter Morson about CJ?? He had to hear the information after the 30th December 2010 when CJ was arrested for it to have any significance...
Therefore... there was either a phone call between Gunter and Dr Vincent Tabak.. or there had to be some on-line/ message between the two about CJ going to be charged with Murder.... Meaning that there should still be evidence of this communication....
If this was supposed to be proof that Dr Vincent Tabak had implicated CJ why wasn't it used at trial??? It on first glance is quite damning...
But thinking about it again.... why would Dr Vincent Tabak contact Gunter Morson and tell him that CJ would be charged with murder?? why would Dr Vincent Tabak be apparently so convinced of that outcome with his statement about a car changing position....
He is in Holland with his family trying to enjoy the festive break, if he was unsure whether to tell the Police in the first instance about the car changing position, then why would he go and contact Gunter Morson to tell him CJ is going to be charged?? There was NO evidence to prove that would happen either way ..... And it appears to be a bit gossipy which I wouldn't expect from either Gunter Morson or Dr Vincent Tabak....
If Dr Vincent Tabak didn't tell Gunter Morson on the morning of the 31st December 2011 and didn't communicate with Gunter Morson whilst he was in Holland.... Is the idiot Tanja?? Did she ring her brother?? If so where is the evidence of any communication between Tanja and Gunter... ??
Or is the "Idiot" someone connected to the Investigation??
Is @Uni_Start really Gunter Morson?? And what prompted @JohnnySav29 to ask him if he was related to Tanja Morson??
By the 20th January 2011 Tanja Morson wasn't even mentioned in the papers and if @JohnnySav29 was so interested in the case... where are his other tweets about Joanna Yeates either being Missing or Murdered??
The tweet before that from @Johnnydav29 is on the 16th December 2010.... And no other information about The Missing or Murdered Joanna Yeates appears on his twitter timeline... (look at part 1 attachements)
So the only evidence that remains about the tweet and when it was posted.. was by the webslueths member on the 20th January 2011
The tweet is starting to look extremely suspicious (imo) And I cannot understand how Gunter Morson would be so sure at 10:09am on the 31st December 2010 that CJ would be charged with Murder...
-
Here are the tweets that were made at ... @Uni_Start which is supposed to be Gunter Morson..
J Dav
@johnnydav29
20 Jan 2011
More
@Uni_Start are u related to tanja morson from Canynge Road?
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet Like Direct message
dee kasim
@d_estralita
20 Dec 2010
More
@Uni_Start love this Matt Damon picture of yours G :)
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet Like Direct message
Ask Amex
Verified account
@AskAmex
18 Dec 2010
More
@Uni_Start Your welcome Gunter....keeps me grounded - if u know what I mean. ^B
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet Like Direct message
alejandro santos
@wonderfullone
15 Dec 2010
More
@Uni_Start Twenty-five Peruguian Judges review the case and all agreed with the guilty verdict. Appeal same conclusion.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet Like Direct message
Barbie Latza Nadeau
Verified account
@BLNadeau
11 Dec 2010
More
@Uni_Start there was not enough material on the blade to double-test it the first time so they can only re-examine the results.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet Like Direct message
Tristram Hooley
@pigironjoe
8 Sep 2010
More
@Uni_Start http://bit.ly/b8127l Hard Times? Building and Sustaining Research Capacity in UK Universities
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet Like Direct message
No replies to any of the tweets at... @Uni_Start
Is @Uni_Start Gunter Morson??? Or does someone want us to believe that it is???
https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&q=%20%40Uni_Start&src=typd
-
The Defences Office.... Clegg stated on the TV Program about Rachell Nickell that he had read The Papers and within 2-3 hours he had concluded who had killed her.... (Have posted on this)
I have been trying to ascertain which papers Clegg meant... The Newspapers or The case papers... When I first watched the program I must admit I thought he meant the Newspapers, which was worrying...
I found on The Firms website a barristers overview of a case... This Barrister works with Clegg and both had worked on a case to do with "BYLock"..
Quote from The Guardian.....
The legal opinion was commissioned by a pro-Gülen organisation based in Europe. The two British lawyers involved, William Clegg QC and Simon Baker, are experienced barristers.
Then from The Firms website......
Simon Baker secures suspended sentence in fatal driving case
Simon Baker represented Karol Michta, the world renowned free-runner who had performed at 10 Downing Street, in his prosecution at the Central Criminal Court for causing death by careless driving. Mr Baker initially persuaded the Court to defer sentence to enable Mr Michta to complete his under-graduate engineering degree, and then to impose a suspended sentence.
Mr Baker was instructed by James Devane of HKH Kenwright & Cox.
For further information, please see:
The Sun
Daily Mail
Evening Standard
Category: News | Date: July 2017
Well blow me down...
I have attached a screenshot of the page..... Is it me or does that appear to be totally unprofessional??
Where is the judgement??
Wouldn't that be more appropriate way to get potential clients to have confidence in your abilities.. Why would a professional outfit use the media as their source of an outcome of a trial?? Not only that the tabloids!
Why have links to these Articles in The Newspapers??
I'm flabbergasted... Why would they use the Newspapers on their website?? Whether that is free advertising or not I think it's an extremely unprofessional way to conduct oneself... It's almost laughable, What connection does The Defences have to the Newspapers? Do they have a connection?? Or do they just like to see their name in The Papers??
It's a serious question... Clegg had stated that he knew The Police had spoken to the press about Colin Stagg and it was because The Press had told him so..... (he states that on camera).. So are the Press he is referring to from 'The Sun.. The Daily Mail and Evening Standard?? And does that go with the possibility that when Clegg talks about the papers he is referring to The Newspapers.... I could do a Clegg and say it's Perfectly Obvious... But i am unsure... The use of the Newspapers as a source of Information about a Case the firm has been involved in has me very concerned.... I would have expected links to Law Based Material and not The Press....
It is truly unbelievable... Top Law firm advertising 3 newspapers as the source for people to get the Information for a case that they have been involved in.....
I may appear to have gone off topic, but I don't believe so... As I have many concerns to The Defence of Dr Vincent Tabak....
Is that normal practice to use Newspapers in this way??
If the law Firm uses The newspapers as a source of Information for Their prospective clients to see the outcome or back story of a case, wouldn't that make a client run for the hills??
I know that i have used The Newspapers for my sources of Information about Dr Vincent Tabak's Case, but i am not a legal expert who has access to other sources.... So for The Firm to use The Newspapers as a source of Information for potential Clients I find astounding...
Why did they just not bother with the links?? There are No Links to the Newspapers about Dr vincent Tabak's case and there are plenty of stories written about The trial and case in general...
I had little to no confidence in The Defence when I started on this forum... and the last months revelations have only added to that belief.....
Why would you link The newspapers For Further Information??? Totally Unprofessional (imo)... Leaving me with even less Confidence in Dr Vincent Tabak's Defence with a Firm who likes the media spotlight, like a media grabbing starlet...
It shouldn't be what grabs the headlines that shows what a great Defence lawyer you are... It should be the cases you have won and your ability in the court room that secures confidence in you.... But that's just my opinion!
If the media circus of Dr Vincent Tabak's Case is anything to go by, I would be hiding under a rock.... And disassociating myself from The Media... Not providing links for Further Information on any case......
The links to the 3 articles that The Firm use as their source....
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2857864/judge-lets-student-who-killed-pedestrian-in-horror-smash-complete-degree-before-sentencing/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4219428/Freerunner-killed-pedestrian-allowed-finish-degree.html
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/freerunner-faces-prison-for-death-crash-in-speeding-car-a3459096.html
Are these Newspaper Articles really the way in which to show potential clients your abilities??
I don't think so.. And I am sure Dr Vincent Tabak would agree!! Seeing as he landed a mighty prison sentence after the trial of the century was a media circus from start to finish and Having been put on the stand as a Guilty Man, with The Presumption of Innocence thrown completely out of the window...
We should not be a country where it is trial by media... But a Country where it is trial by evidence.... And i still want to see what evidence they had to charge Dr Vincent Tabak in the first place...... As a low profile DNA sample is only good enough if the other evidence supports the sample in the first place.... But that's another story....
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/11/turks-detained-encrypted-bylock-messaging-app-human-rights-breached
https://www.2bedfordrow.co.uk/simon-baker-secures-suspended-sentence-fatal-driving-case/
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg451573#msg451573
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg451572#msg451572
-
From The Guardian.....
23 December
Yeates's parents make a second appeal, revealing their fears that their daughter has been abducted. Her father begs his daughter's potential kidnapper: "If she's dead, please tell somebody where she is. I think she was abducted after getting home to her flat. I have no idea of the circumstances of the abduction because of what was left behind.
The abduction idea and the wording of the statements has always had me concerned....
Abduction?? Removed from her residence not by her own consent.... But it is the last sentence that makes me question what is actually meant...
We have an adult female missing from home.... No finger pointing of her Boyfriend whom should be the prime suspect... But Police surrounding the building immediately and not leaving that building... What was left behind that made this case different from other woman that had left home and never returned.....
It's this image that makes me think differently about what was left behind....
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/02/26/article-0-0C9B6DF9000005DC-512_233x423.jpg)
If you look closely at the image you can see a supporting hand touching what is effectively "Bernard" The imposter Cat... No-one supports a cat being held by its owner in that way... It's ridiculous to even suggest that is the case....
But that image coupled with the statement has me wondering if Joanna Yeates had a child....
"What was left behind".... That for me would explain the Polices reaction to Joanna Yeates Missing and them being around the building.... It would explain why her parents believe she had been taken and her leaving wasn't voluntary...
There has to be something that the Police kept from the public about this case.... They would not reveal all....
From the transcript of Rebecca Scott..
And Greg... Greg answered the phone.... I knew something was wrong... er I think, we all did.
Erm.. (pause)(licks lips) As soon as I found out her possesions were in the flat, you know , that was it.. I knew that hadn't left the house of her own intention.
Possesions being in the Flat are not really enough to say that someone had left the flat by her own intensions....
Was a child left on it own?? I don't know... But that would add to the Polices immediate attention to this case and them being camped outside Canygne Road from day one.....
Even the wording of the Rebecca Scott Interview is strange... she tries her hardest not to reveal something of great importance... Is it possible that Joanna Yeates had a child?? We don't know... The Autopsy and Inquest should have revealed if she had given birth.... But little is known of These two reports....
There has to be more to this than Joanna Yeates leaving one coat a pair of boots and her bag behind with her money to make The Police her parents and her friend believe that she had been taken from the Flat.... As we know Joanna Yeates had been found in different Clothing... Se had also taken money from an ATM.... She must have owned more than one coat.... So using these as evidence of her leaving her flat not by her own intention, tells me that there is more to this than meets the eye....
I tried to understand why the Police always knew and insisted that Joanna Yeates had reached home on the 17th December 2010.... There had to be a way in which they knew this....
If I go with the possibility that Joanna Yeates had a child did someone speak to said child on the phone?? That would place Joanna Yeates in her Flat on the 17th December 2010...
There is something missing from this case..... Something that catergerically puts Joanna Yeates inside her Flat on the 17th December 2010... If not that .... Something that makes Joanna Yeates a "Missing Person from Friday 17th December 2010... It has to be emphatic... It has to be concrete for them to have insisted that Joanna Yeates went '"Missing" on the 17th December 2010....
If someone was child minding and had expected Joanna Yeates to turn up on that day.... that would be evidence of the 17th December 2010 being the day she went Missing...
Am I correct in questioning the idea that Joanna Yeates could have had a child?? Because the language that is used and the photoshopped image with Bernard has me questioning this as a possibility...
That surely would be evidence that the Police had kept to themselves!!!
"What she had left behind... rings in my ears....
I have no idea of the circumstances of the abduction because of what was left behind.
Does that statement sound like her parents are talking of keys, boots coat etc....
It sounds more personal to me... and not about inanimate objects.... !!
Edit.... Is Joanna Yeates actually holding a child in that photograph and it has been photoshopped with an image of a cat????
Or is Bernard the cat concealing something in that image?? the hand around the cats neck , now I look at it agin doesn't appear to be Joanna Yeates either ..... (imo)
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8056.msg422287#msg422287
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/dec/30/joanna-yeates-disappearance-murder-timeline
-
Whilst my theories may appear wild and wonderful, I find myself having to question so many different possibilities... With the lack of answers I have to many questions, most of the time I try to ascertain what other outcomes are possible with this Case.
The amount of Missing information in this case, one can only try to draw conclusions from the trail around the internet. With Joanna Yeates Inquest closing and not fulfilling it's need to gather all evidence that would pertain to her death and all medical evidence related to her in life also.... We are left with an extremely vague picture of Joanna Yeates.
My post about her maybe having a child would have been easily answered by the Autopsy or Inquest, the medication she had been prescribed and for what ailment would also have been made available... No direct question were asked of Dr Delaney or Dr Cary as to whether Joanna Yeates body had been washed...
No direct questions about the clothing she had been found in and how it differed from The Ram Pub CCTV...
No direct questions as to The time of death... Or the Missing body fluids... Nothing to establish whether Joanna Yeates body had started to decompose before it had frozen and the amount of decomposition which surely would give them a greater idea as to when she had been deposited on Longwood lane....
I have spoken of lividity..... The pooling of blood that occurs when the heart stops pumping, which settles at the lowest point... Which would give an indication as to whether her body had been moved, and how many times it had been moved.....
Maybe there were many indications of lividity that had not been spoken of.... I put that Idea forward based on the amount of times Dr Vincent Tabak apparently moved Joanna Yeates body... There really would be no reason to move Joanna Yeates so many times and for Dr Vincent Tabak to take her into his Flat.... And with most questions i have.. I can only assume there had to be a need for Joanna Yeates to be moved several times, and lividity would show the signs of her body being moved....
For an extremely Intelligent man.. why would he cause himself to be connected to her death by taking her to his flat and placing her there, with the possibility of leaving evidence from a body who's fluids he could not control.. He could have brought his car from the street and back it up to the pavement and place the body directly inside the boot, having brought the Bicycle bag from his home and taken it around to Joanna Yeates Flat to stop any more cross contamination.... But from the testimony we know that is not what happens... he even places her on the ground at the back of the building before taken her into his home.....
So are there signs of lividity that tells use how many times Joanna Yeates body had been moved?? A question I have longed wanted to know the answer too... And is this why we have Dr Vincent Tabak telling us he moved her several times...
I keep saying the evidence does not support the story on the stand, and I believe that to be true... The stomach contents do not reveal cheesy chips... her stomach I believe is empty.. The conclusion is drawn from what they assume is Joanna Yeates last meal rather than from evidence of what her stomach actually contained... If as has been suggested she was abducted... what is to say that didn't die later and had actually eaten something else??
The stomach contains and the blood alcohol levels are vague at best... No drug test have been performed as far as I am aware, these tests were not in court... But surely they must have done drug tests upon her body, which at the very least would show the prescribed/Pharmacy medication that Joanna Yeates had been taking... a course of antibiotics for instance... Anything... But we have NO tests on what else was in the body of Joanna Yeates... were there any injection sights?? I'm saying that because we don't know if she attend a doctors surgery whilst she was ill or if she had given a blood sample...
Where did the story of the significant injuries originate from?? When DCI Phil Jones first spoke he said that there were NO significant injures.... Did someone just count the marks on her body from the photographs and claim that these were significant injuries, without knowing how Joanna Yeates came to have such injuries??
There were marks on her body from the removal of her from Longwood Lane as they need a winch to gain access to her and also straps were used... If the body had already started to Thaw as Andrew Mott and PC Martin faithful had stated in court then the tissue surrounding those areas from removal surely would be compromised by the evacuation of her body....
Each injuries to Joanna Yeates isn't individually catalogued at trial we do not know which injuries where on her person before she died... Had she bruised herself in the days prior to the attack upon her person?? Or the damage to any tissue that was sustained as evidence of the removal of her body....
Why wasn't more made of the fact we have apparently got blood on the wall?? Does a person not stop pumping blood once they have died?? How was that event even possible?? We have ares of blood on the top and the side of the wall... 2 areas which (imo) should indicate that Joanna Yeates was alive when she was on Longwood Lane... And a jury could be persuaded of that possibility (imo)... If There was enough blood to be deposited in 2 places on Longwood Lane, there should have been more evidence of this blood connecting Dr Vincent Tabak to it....
If Joanna Yeates was alive at that point... isn't it therefore possible that she had tried to move herself?? and leaned on this wall??
But there is not a good enough explanation of the blood that is on the wall in Longwood Lane.... I can think of other ways in which this blood was transferred to the top and side of the Wall.... Tanja Nixon who gave evidence about the collect of this blood was not at Longwood lane when the Fire Brigade were (imo) We already have Dr Delaney expressing that he was in attendance when her body had been removed by two Officers... We already have the testimony from Andrew Mott and PC Martin faithful staring that the body had started to thaw.....
In return then I suggest that the blood was deposited on the top of the wall and down the side as she was being evacuated from Longwood Lane .... We do not know to what extent and at what speed the thawing of Joanna Yeates body was taking place.... And if any fluids were leaving her body at this time ?? Andrew Mott and PC Martin Faithful were at the scene from the begining... It wasn't until hours later that Dr Delaney had attended the scene... In which time any amount of thawing could have taken place...
Are the images of the blood on top of the wall and down the side of the wall taken when Joanna Yeates is in situ?? Or are they taken after her removal??
Was the Police photographer called to give evidence ?? Surely he would have seen and documented the blood on the wall and down the side of the wall with Joanna Yeates in situ??
Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
A clot of blood and some drips of blood were found on the wall next to where Joanna's body was found. #VincentTabak
ReplyRetweetFavorite
10:46 AM - 18 Oct 2011Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
Further blood smears were found higher up on the wall according to forensic expert Tanya Nickson. #joannayeates
10:46 AM - 18 Oct 2011Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
Blood clot was likely to have been from Joanna's nose left during an attempt to put her over the wall, court told.
Clegg doesn't cross examine Tanja nixon on when she believes the blood was deposited... And if it was possibly deposited when they removed Joanna Yeates from her location... How would she know where the blood had come from?? Was Tanja Nixon on scene when the extraction of Joanna Yeates was taking Place... Did she herself take photographs of the extraction?? There must have been evidence of blood around Joanna Yeates nose for Tanja Nixon to determine that was where the blood came from.... Or did she slip up?? There was apparently blood in Joanna Yeates hair that could have easily clotted... Why would Tanja Nixon state it could have come from her nose?? Are there images of Joanna Yeates with a nostril blocked with blood?/ And images of this nostril free from blood??
I still want to know where the Police Photographer was on this day.... Because I believe the photographs that were taken by The Police Photographer would give us a better indication of the position of Joanna Yeates body and the extraction that was done of Joanna Yeates body on Longwood Lane .....
We have a whole host of images that should be available to view by the jury... Showing us exactly what Joanna Yeates looked like on discovery....
The idea that drips of blood were found isn't enough to state that someone tried to put Joanna Yeates over the wall.... The drips of blood themselves should be questioned... In what direction did these drips of blood lie?? Did they drop directly downwards... where there spots of blood directly below Joanna Yeates showing that her body was in a set position... or did these blood drip on the wall appear at an angle... Indicating movement of the body over the wall...
I cannot understand why Clegg didn't cross examine these so called experts about what they had seen at this scene of Crime.... And if Joanna Yeates nose was bleeding then why are there no drops of blood at Canygne Road???
Why did he not try to establish what had caused these drops of blood to appear on the wall at Longwood Lane .... At the very least I would have expected Clegg to try and establish the facts and when they could not produce the photographic evidence at court of them using said straps to remove Joanna Yeates body,he could have at least called in to question the chain of events that had taken place on the evidence gathering at Longwood Lane....
That is what I would expect from a man/woman defending me... i would want to have them prove and find any faults within protocols that were not followed or any chain of event that was not followed to cast doubt on the experts testimony,.... Clegg should have been aware of this from day one... Dr Vincent Tabak has kept silent.... he is supposed to be proving his clients Innocence.... He is supposed to be casting doubt, not supporting The Prosecution!
I can only conclude that the evidence wasn't tested by the defence..... And my wild and wonderful theories that appear to be off centre, have a purpose.... And if that purpose is only to prove that the Defence did not fully Investigate this case (imo).. then so be it.... i should still not be asking questions at this late stage in the game!!
http://live-news.sky.com/Event/Live_Updates_Vincent_Tabak_Trial3?Page=0
-
From The Guardian.....
The abduction idea and the wording of the statements has always had me concerned....
Abduction?? Removed from her residence not by her own consent.... But it is the last sentence that makes me question what is actually meant...
We have an adult female missing from home.... No finger pointing of her Boyfriend whom should be the prime suspect... But Police surrounding the building immediately and not leaving that building... What was left behind that made this case different from other woman that had left home and never returned.....
It's this image that makes me think differently about what was left behind....
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/02/26/article-0-0C9B6DF9000005DC-512_233x423.jpg)
If you look closely at the image you can see a supporting hand touching what is effectively "Bernard" The imposter Cat... No-one supports a cat being held by its owner in that way... It's ridiculous to even suggest that is the case....
But that image coupled with the statement has me wondering if Joanna Yeates had a child....
"What was left behind".... That for me would explain the Polices reaction to Joanna Yeates Missing and them being around the building.... It would explain why her parents believe she had been taken and her leaving wasn't voluntary...
There has to be something that the Police kept from the public about this case.... They would not reveal all....
From the transcript of Rebecca Scott..
Possesions being in the Flat are not really enough to say that someone had left the flat by her own intensions....
Was a child left on it own?? I don't know... But that would add to the Polices immediate attention to this case and them being camped outside Canygne Road from day one.....
Even the wording of the Rebecca Scott Interview is strange... she tries her hardest not to reveal something of great importance... Is it possible that Joanna Yeates had a child?? We don't know... The Autopsy and Inquest should have revealed if she had given birth.... But little is known of These two reports....
There has to be more to this than Joanna Yeates leaving one coat a pair of boots and her bag behind with her money to make The Police her parents and her friend believe that she had been taken from the Flat.... As we know Joanna Yeates had been found in different Clothing... Se had also taken money from an ATM.... She must have owned more than one coat.... So using these as evidence of her leaving her flat not by her own intention, tells me that there is more to this than meets the eye....
I tried to understand why the Police always knew and insisted that Joanna Yeates had reached home on the 17th December 2010.... There had to be a way in which they knew this....
If I go with the possibility that Joanna Yeates had a child did someone speak to said child on the phone?? That would place Joanna Yeates in her Flat on the 17th December 2010...
There is something missing from this case..... Something that catergerically puts Joanna Yeates inside her Flat on the 17th December 2010... If not that .... Something that makes Joanna Yeates a "Missing Person from Friday 17th December 2010... It has to be emphatic... It has to be concrete for them to have insisted that Joanna Yeates went '"Missing" on the 17th December 2010....
If someone was child minding and had expected Joanna Yeates to turn up on that day.... that would be evidence of the 17th December 2010 being the day she went Missing...
Am I correct in questioning the idea that Joanna Yeates could have had a child?? Because the language that is used and the photoshopped image with Bernard has me questioning this as a possibility...
That surely would be evidence that the Police had kept to themselves!!!
"What she had left behind... rings in my ears....
Does that statement sound like her parents are talking of keys, boots coat etc....
It sounds more personal to me... and not about inanimate objects.... !!
Edit.... Is Joanna Yeates actually holding a child in that photograph and it has been photoshopped with an image of a cat????
Or is Bernard the cat concealing something in that image?? the hand around the cats neck , now I look at it agin doesn't appear to be Joanna Yeates either ..... (imo)
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8056.msg422287#msg422287
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/dec/30/joanna-yeates-disappearance-murder-timeline
I'm pretty sure both hands in that photo are hers. And yet you've managed to turn the photo into evidence she had a secret child? Your theories are becoming more and more outlandish.
-
I have a theory...... (apologies for long post)...
The story repeated on 26th March 2018
It was December 2010 and the holiday season was in full swing.
There was snow on the ground in Bristol in the UK and with Christmas approaching, 25-year-old Jo Yeates was excited about spending time with her boyfriend, Greg Reardon, and her parents, David and Theresa.
Jo and Greg had met at the landscape architecture firm where they both worked and had recently moved in together.
On December 17, Jo and her colleagues finished work for the day and piled into a nearby pub for festive drinks. Greg had gone away for the weekend to visit his brother and Jo told her friends she planned to spend her time baking cakes for a party they were throwing the following Tuesday.
At around 8pm, Jo left the pub and went to a nearby supermarket where she purchased a pizza and two bottles of cider. Then she set off on the 20 minute walk back to her flat.
On 19 December, Greg returned from his trip. Upon entering the house, he found a half drunk bottle of cider on the table beside Jo’s handbag, glasses and keys. His girlfriend was nowhere to be found.
Repeat, repeat . repeat.... It's like a stuck record... There is no more information available the same info goes around and around and around....
When I think of other cases like The Wests for instance , there is a lot of background information available about the Wests... Programs fill us in on every detail of how they came to be the people they were....
But with this case there is nothing.... Zero.....
We have the day that Joanna Yeates went Missing apparently being the 17th December 2010.. We Have Forensic Officers at Canygne Road going round and round doing the same thing for weeks .... We have the trip to the supermarket played out, the CCTV footage having been put through another program to give us a time and date... We still have The Yeates talking about laying a headstone...
Why is everything on repeat??
Where is the detail??
Where are the Interviews? None of her friends have come forward.. There is never any new information...
They start the investigation and treat it as a Murder Inquiry without a proper "Proof of Life Inquiry"... They Interview no-one to establish where she was or had been.... All those people in The Ram and no-one is Interviewed... No direct appeal to anyone whom had been in the supermarkets at the same time as Joanna Yeates to come forward...
They have apparently hundreds of phone calls after appeals on TV, yet they do not follow them up... They can't have done, there too busy getting ready to arrest Dr Vincent Tabak without any evidence...
How can every procedure appear not to be followed, mistake after mistake is made... And no one says anything.... I have said before it is like they are all acting, everyone has a part to play.... I wondered if the trial was a Moot Trial...
AH.. mentioned in a post that the Forensics at Canygne Road looked like they were training...
The Police as AH pointed out look disinterested... Rebecca Scott herself arrives at court dressed like it doesn't matter.... So what was it all about.... A pointless exercise???
At what point did they stop Investigating The Case?? If as AH has suggested that Dr Vincent Tabak is questioned over and over again and then to shut them up he admits Manslaughter, The Investigation into what happened to Joanna Yeates stops....
So... Did Dr Vincent Tabak admit to manslaughter to shut them up in the Holland Interview?? Remember that Interview is 6 hours long.... And 6 hours going around in circles would annoy anyone...
Maybe that is it.... The Holland Interview is where it all changes..... They have NO evidence... they badger Dr Vincent Tabak for hours they come away with a DNA sample that they cannot use.... Or did he even give them a DNA sample?/ We only have their word he did and I do not believe the tripe that has come out of their mouths....
Without following up any leads, and lets face it people were ringing and were following this case from the begining... The Investigation has stalled... They let us know information yet it is not followed up as far as i can see... They cannot connect Dr Vincent Tabak to the Pizza and Note sent to the Ram in late December.. yet we are told of it's existence on the 10th January 2011... The appeal by the Yeates Family on the 18th January 2011 followed by the sobbing girl ringing with information.... Do they not follow up any more leads, is that why they arrest Dr Vincent Tabak on the 20th January 2011??
Do they arrest him because he admitted he had killed her when he was Interviewed in Holland,, halting the Investigation... And any lines of inquiry that the appeals may have brought they ignore?? They were due their review... Would their incompetence been exposed at this point... Did Dr Vincent Tabak unwittingly stop the investigation into Joanna Yeates murder ?? Is this why he apologises to the Yeates in court... because the real killer got away with the crime...
The Police have put away many innocent people .. we know this .. Stefan Kizco is just one example... They like to close cases and appease the public and Innocent Men have had their lives ruined....
The Confession has always played a part in this case.... But which Confession maybe is the key.... The tosh that Brotherton spoke of that tried to implicate Dr Vincent Tabak when he was at Long Lartin.. wasn't good enough to be believed that he was actually admitting to murder... We then get fooled into believing The Plea at The Old Bailey, which again he cannot have been Dr Vincent Tabak there to make this plea.. (I understand where leonora is coming from)
Dr Vincent Tabak as we know never spoke when he was arrested... So the story that we know, where did it come from?? I think it came from Dr Vincent Tabak.... I think it came from The Holland Interview.... I think he gave them a scenario that was NOT possible which is ....."The Admission To Manslaughter"...
The scenario he gave them he knew wasn't true.. (imo) he could prove it wasn't true, that is why he said it... That is why I believe the times do not add up... Why we have NO TimeStamps... Because the time Stamps would prove that Dr Vincent Tabak didn't kill Joanna Yeates... The timings are all wrong... we know they are... The ridiculous idea that he could carry a dead weight so many times on his own, when it would be physically impossible for him to do so.....
They arrest him just before The Crime Watch program is due to air.... So it doesn't add any information that is in the program is with held from the public... We do not know what it may have revealed.... So it appears that they went after Dr Vincent Tabak because he made fools out of them... And once that ball started rolling, it didn't stop......
Dr Vincent Tabak cannot answer over 80 questions, because he didn't kill Joanna Yeates... The s tory that I keep speaking of that was told on the witness stand is just that... A Story... But was it first told in Holland??
Did the Police spend there time trying to tie Dr Vincent Tabak to the murder of Joanna Yeates after The Holland Interview??
There was more circumstancial evidence connecting CJ at the time of his arrest than there was of Dr Vincent Tabak at the time of his arrest.... They do not get any so called evidence from Dr Vincent Tabak until after they have arrested him.... So did they arrest him to teach him a lesson and go with it??
Is the reason that no-one is attending court to give evidence because they don't want to?? CJ.. Tanja Morson the two most important witness's not there... Or was it that they didn't want them to appear in court because it would contradict the story that was said on the stand....
The huge holes in this case are ridiculous... Massive pieces of Information Missing ... Yet they push through a trial and for what ??? He's not guilty... They know he's not guilty....
Who is responsible for Dr Vincent Tabak's incarceration?? What prompted the need to have this trial asap?? There is no evidence gathering for Dr Vincent Tabak as far as I can tell... There can't have been... Tanja Morson at the very least should have taken the stand....
I have gone around and around in circles... It leads nowhere... Nothing changes and it should... Something different should have come to the surface by now and the same old story gets spun....
Why do we not see any programs about him... information about how he was as a youngster like we have seen about The Wests... Information proving he did indeed have relations with ladies of the night... That should be a great news spinner.... But the media say nothing ... It all stopped, even when they did make a couple of programs they were a rehash of each other... The same tail with no real detail...
The Nero cafe CCTV... none of us knew of it's existence until Colin Port spoke of it at The Leveson, the same with The Trainer..... If DCI Phil Jones didn't talk about it then we would not know about it...
But there has to be a reason for this Information being brought to our attention so late in the day... Why did they really keep CJ on bail for so long?? Where there some ranks within the Police hoping that the Case against Dr Vincent Tabak would be dropped... Were they planning to pursue CJ further?? Would Dr Vincent Tabak's admission stop any further Investigations into the Murder of Joanna Yeates...
Were there still Police who believed that CJ was guilty?? It sort of mirrors Colin Stagg in a way.... Arrested as a suspect and vilified in the media... They suggested to us that because of his age and Hardyman living at the same address there had to be a connection to Glenis Caruthers.... And allowed us to believe that a serial killer was in our midst and they have him in their custody... But we know CJ was exhonerated.... And in part I believe that is why Dr Vincent Tabak gets mentioned in July 2011 by the attorney general... If they have one man charged with this offence ... then it in turn makes the other man Not Guity....
But the evidence they had would prove that CJ wasn't guilty... They had tenuous links in the first place as far as CJ was concerned and never strayed from that property... Did the information that Dr Vincent Tabak gave in Holland also exhonerate CJ... Where the timings of what Dr Vincent Tabak said in support of CJ... They knew they had little to nothing on CJ when he was arrested... But i believe some had decided he was guilty... Because in their minds he was....
They were also of the impression that it was at least 2 killers.... had they decided that Dr Vincent Tabak must be CJ's accomplice?? Did he give CJ an alibi?? Was that a reason for going after Dr Vincent Tabak? Was The Holland Interview more to do with them believing Dr Vincent Tabak was a suspect was involved with CJ??
If that was their belief... Then The Holland Interview would go round in circles.... 6 hours of circles making Dr Vincent Tabak completely annoyed with their incompetence... At which point he tells them he did it... And as (AH )has stated.... they are scuppered.... Completely scuppered....
CJ should have been released from bail as soon as they charged Dr Vincent Tabak, but he is NOT... 4th march 2011 is when this actually takes place... I believe that they still had CJ in there sights, because they were blinded to the fact that he had access to these flats and had made a second witness statement... Which drew their attention to him in the first place...
But if Dr Vincent Tabak contradicts their beliefs, they could construe that as they were accomplices.... (imo) CJ has the backing of his solicitors to fight any ridiculous notion put to him.... But Dr Vincent Tabak has blown it..... He's blown it because he has admitted to Manslaughter, and they are not going to let that one go (imo)...
So they go with that idea.... And the case is put forward that he did indeed kill Joanna Yeates... he is indeed an evil man..... And we'll throw in some porn and child porn for good measure....
The Yeates family are none the wiser.... why would they be... They want Justice for their daughter.... The public just want to see someone swing, they are not interested in the truth.... And that is why it is easy to get them to believe the tosh that is stated at trial.... because they want to believe it, whether it is true or not....
I have stated before about the 6 hour Interview in Holland which is the time the Dutch Authorities have in which to charge or release someone... It cannot be coincidence that this Interview was for 6 hours and that Dr Vincent Tabak was being interviewed as a suspect... Why was this Interview conducted at the airport??? Where there any Dutch Authorities present??
If Ann Redrrop had insisted that from late December 2010 they were investigating Dr Vincent Tabak, then I believe that they were investigating him as an accomplice... I believe that information he gave on the phone to DC Karen Thomas around the 23rd December 2010 would support CJ..... The second witness statement was given by CJ on The 22nd December 2010.... is it me or is it just coincidence that DC Karen Thomas decides to ring Dr Vincent Tabak the day after?? Was she confirming what CJ had said in his second witness statement?? Did CJ see Dr Vincent Tabak that evening??
It isn't until they arrest CJ... that Dr Vincent Tabak becomes of Interest in this case.... If Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson were aware that CJ was arrested, then I suggest that they called the Police to help CJ and not to bury CJ...
And there is where it starts.... If that was a detail that they had left out of the interview at the Flat then they could assume he was involved as an accomplice.... And was covering for CJ... So we get them flying out to Holland to Interview Dr Vincent Tabak....he shuts them up by admitting to killing Joanna Yeates because he has had enough of their stupid questions... And lands himself in the middle of a S*** Storm...
Any Circumstantial Evidence can be interpreted in many ways... and I believe that is just what they did... It will make Dr Vincent Tabak look guilty no matter what.... Ignore the evidence.... and where it leads.... Lets satisfy the public that a bad man is locked up...
Does no-one else think that the arrest of Dr Vincent Tabak came too quickly after the arrest of CJ... With nothing pointing to Dr Vincent Tabak whatsoever....
Is the fact that everyone appears to agree that Dr Vincent Tabak admitted manslaughter correct... Are they telling us he really did.... So when i look at that I will say 'Yes"... but the real question has to be,......
When did Dr Vincent Tabak admit that he was guilty of Manslaughter??
And the only time that I can make any sense of is The Holland Interview.... Because I believe that was the only time Dr Vincent Tabak spoke and gave the Police a ridiculous story that he could prove was untrue.... (imo)
https://www.mamamia.com.au/jo-yeates-murder/
-
That Interview Fiona Bruce did with Clegg on The Rachell Nickell story keeps Playing around my head....
What idiot decides without any supporting evidence that the man that killed Samantha Bisset and her daughter also killed Rachell Nickell....
At what point does that bear any resemblance to supporting evidence..... After 2 -3 hours of reading the papers Clegg decided that the person who had killed Samantha Bisset and her daughter had killed Rachell Nickell....
So... Is that how it works.. Did Someone from Avon and Somerset Police decide that The Glenis Carruther Case had a marked resemblance to The Joanna Yeates Case.... And in that belief pursued CJ as a possible suspect....
We don't even know if CJ was around at the time Glenis Caruthers had been murdered or if they Interviewed him at the time.... Do they all eat the same idiot sandwich?? Do they all jump to a conclusion based on NO Evidence that the cases have to be connected and it must be the same individual responsible for all?? We have a number of cases of a similar nature they are investigating at the time... All of these investigators show their face around the Joanna Yeates Investigation.... Did they believe that they would solve at least 3 cases at once???
Because someone (imo)... Appear to have taken the same approach as Clegg admitted too... See the similarities and then cast aspersions.. making a connection that isn't there....
Did Dr Vincent Tabak stop this from happening by supporting CJ.... Were they ready to throw the book at CJ... Did they connect the dots and run out of ink??
They may appear similar, but are they.... CJ is the only person that could because of his age, be connected in some remote way to all 3 cases and only based on their similarity to each other..... Dr Vincent Tabak could not!!
So was the person who had the idiot sandwich at the start of the day, the one we should be looking at?? Was it their assumption that CJ had to be guilty of the Murder of Joanna Yeates, and possibly 2 other murders because all 3 woman are found on a Grass Verge... (so they say).. and CJ is of an age to cover all 3 cases.. Is The reason that they stayed at Canygne Road in the vain hope to connect CJ to the Murder of Joanna Yeates.... They have his second witness statement by the 22nd December 2010.... everything is good to go.... But Dr Vincent Tabak tells them differently (imo)... he alibi's CJ..??. But they don't want to listen... They are convinced that they have caught a serial killer .....
So do the police work on an assumption first?? Or did they in this case???
Did they always believe CJ was who they were after, because that appears to be what they did (imo)...
It's Perfectly Obvious!
-
The most important witness statement that there is in this case, and it is never brought to trial.... Leonora has always stated that this is the most important statement.....
What is contained within this statement... Who are the individuals that CJ saw that night?? Did CJ see or recognise Dr Vincent Tabak's voice?? Does CJ put Dr Vincent Tabak leaving Canygne Road at around 9:00pm on Friday 17th December 2010... Is that why Dr Vincent Tabaks says in the newspaper Interview he wasn't there.. ... Did he chat with CJ??
Why hasn't this 2nd witness statement from CJ come to light?? why should it be hidden??
Why hasn't CJ told us of its contents??
Is the reason CJ doesn't speak of its contents the proof that Dr Vincent Tabak is innocent, and if he divulges the contents it may put a future trial in jeopardy ?? Have all concerned in this case been silenced by an order of court??
Realistically CJ's second witness statement should have been made know... If not at trial after the trial when he has had many opportunities in which to tell us what he told the Police in that "Second Witness Statement"!!!.....
-
A theory about Time Stamps and tweets....
his last two twitter posts:
My source is an idiot and wrong!!!
3:04 PM Jan 1st via web
I am 100% certain that Chris Jefferies, under suspicion for the murder of Jo Yeates, will be charged with murder within the next 12 hours.
10:09 AM Dec 31st, 2010 via web
I thought about this the other day... And Time Stamps are vitally important... But my problem with the twitter timestamp I do not know if it is accurate.... What I mean is I do not know if the twitter accounts setting where set to London England time or a different Country's time...
So The first tweet is at 10:09 am on 31st December 2010... I'll start as if it is set to London time....
Apparently this information came from Dr Vincent Tabak... Even if Gunter goes straight onto social media to report this 12 hours from that time would make it 10:09 PM on the 31st December 2010... Therefore I would have expected his second tweet sooner....
Now I'll come to the second tweet... That is tweeted at 3:04pm on 1st January 2011
This is the tweet that has me thinking the time is incorrect.... CJ doesn't get released from custody until some 6 hours later... Also the statement read out at the waterfront doesn't mention CJ being released.... Which until it has been made official Gunter shouldn't know diddly squat....
It's a bit like the question what came first the chicken or the egg??
Has someone changed the time settings.. Is @Uni_Start really Gunter Morsons account?? Where was Gunter Morson when he tweeted?? Did he know about the tweets??
We get this info from the Independent and that is not until the Sunday Morning bang on midnight....
By Andrew McCorkell Sunday 2 January 2011 00:00 GMT The Independent...
The retired schoolteacher arrested in connection with the murder of Joanna Yeates was let go last night after being questioned by police for three days. Christopher Jefferies, 65, was released on police bail, pending further inquiries, more than 60 hours after his arrest on Thursday morning at his flat in the Clifton area of Bristol
What if the settings on Gunter Morsons account haven't been changed.... what if the settings are correct for the time zone he is in....
Here's a theory.... Gunter Morson is in Chilli possibly... there has to be more to mentioning Chilli so many times in the papers...
Eg:.. Emma who lived at Aberdeen Road went to Chilli for a Holiday and so did Tanja Morson when the trial happened...
Until 2015, Continental Chile used the time offset UTC−04:00 and Easter Island used UTC−06:00 for standard time, with daylight saving time roughly between October and March every year. In January 2015 the Chilean government announced that the entire country will keep the time offset used during daylight saving time permanently
Chilli or should I be more specific.... Easter Island would be -6 hours time difference from London making the first tweet
* 4:09 pm on the 31st December 2010 London Time
And the second tweet
* 9:04pm on the 1st January 2011 London Time
So why at 4:00pm would Dr Vincent Tabak tell Gunter that CJ would be charged ?? How would he know this info, Is Dr Vincent Tabak still being Interviewed at this point??
(imo) Dr Vincent Tabak could not be the source that we have been lead to believe Gunter Morsons speaks of.... Because Gunter Morson is either in Chilli at the time of the tweets or his twitter account is set to Chillean Time Stamp... (imo) I have another Or, so bare with me....
Also Dr Vincent Tabak would not know that CJ had been released at 9:00pm or 3:04pm on the 1st January 2011, as it wasn't reported as far as I can see until the Midnight on 2nd January 2011
So How would Gunter know CJ had been released?? Or should i say the account that is supposed to be Gunter Morsons....
If I take the timestamps as London.. The Statement on the waterfront doesn't say that CJ has been released.... So that cannot be correct.....
So I can only conclude that the Timestamps are not set to London time and maybe they are set to Chillean Time... There are too many coincidences here....
If Gunter Morson isn't in Chilli at that time who is???
The tweet also says via the web... now has the account been hacked?? or does that mean something else??? It is not until the 20th January 2011 that someone asks Gunter if he is related to Tanja Morson, then his account is deleted/blocked from view....
Did Gunter realise that his account had been hacked?? Because you would have expected more tweets to him around that time, In Fact there aren't many tweets from or at @Uni-Start full stop, therefore my question has to be did someone hack Gunter Morsons twitter account?? And he only noticed on the 20th January 2011 when the tweet about him being related to Tanja Morson was sent to him...??
Now that would make more sense.... So who is possibly in Easter island around this time and who possibly hacked Gunter Morsons account?? That to me is the only thing that comes close to why Gunter Morson's twitter account stated the two tweets it did...
Gunter was never called to give evidence or make a statement for trial... This was supposed to be damning evidence that Dr Vincent Tabak was trying to implicate CJ and knew that CJ would be charged because of the information he gave to the Police.... But a car changing position would not implicate anyone....
The Telegraph reports this tweet after the trial..
Tabak also began to tell friends of his certainty that the police had the right man in Mr Jefferies.
On New Year’s Eve, Gunter Morson used his Twitter account to post the message: “I am 100 per cent certain Chris Jefferies, under suspicion for the murder of Jo Yeates, will be charged with murder within the next 12 hours.”
The following day, after Mr Jefferies was released without charge, Gunter wrote: “My source is a complete idiot, and wrong.”
Tabak and Miss Morson returned to Bristol On January 3 but desperate to avoid the Canynge Road flat, which by now was the focus of round the clock media interest, he and Tanja arranged to move into a friend’s nearby apartment while she took an extended holiday in South America.
(We know that is Chilli)
Now as I have said the source of the information cannot be Dr Vincent Tabak, yet the media want to attribute the tweet to Dr Vincent Tabak, but if we apply logic to the timing of the tweet by starting at London Settings, then Gunter Morson could not have possibly know that CJ was released from custody at 3:04pm on the 1st January 2011, and neither would Dr Vincent Tabak know that CJ would be released....
So I am sticking with the idea that the tweet was set to Chillean time and Gunter Morsons account had been hacked...(imo)
Edit.. If I go with the idea that Gunter Morson account had been hacked, whoever hacked it must have been aware that The Police were about to charge CJ.... But what they wouldn't have known is that Dr Vincent Tabak had admitted to the Manslaughter of Joanna Yeates in the Holland Interview...(imo) Because The Holland Interview is the only thing that wasn't released by the press until the trial.... So no-one But DC Karen Thomas and her Colleague would know on 31st December 2010... what Dr Vincent Tabak had said.. or didn't say on that date... What ever was in that statement would be on a need to know basis only because that information is what sets it apart from any other information that is leaked and as I have said.... we only find out about the Holland Interview at trial.... So who ever tweeted about CJ didn't know about The 6 hour Interview in Holland....(imo)And you would have assumed that Tanja Morson would have spoken to her brother about the 6 hour interview of Dr Vincent Tabak her boyfriend... So that also leads me to believe that Gunters account may have been hacked....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_Chile
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg454304#msg454304
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg454329#msg454329
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8847771/Vincent-Tabak-carried-on-as-if-nothing-happened-after-murder-of-Joanna-Yeates.html
-
I knew that it had been reported about the tweet before trial and after Dr Vincent Tabak's arrest and charge..
Published 23rd January 2011
Careers adviser Gunter Morson, 33, declared in a tweet that he had been told who was going to be accused.
But the following day Gunter – younger brother of Mr Tabak’s long-term love, treasury analyst Tanja, 34 – had to correct himself. He said: “My source is an idiot and wrong!!”
A source close to the inquiry said police had been informed of Gunter’s comments on Twitter and added: “We will try to establish where the information came from.”
Since Mr Tabak’s arrest Gunter, who lives in Cambridge, has protected his tweets and changed his user name from Gunter Morson (Uni_Start) to another profile.Meanwhile, we can reveal that one of our reporters spoke to Mr Tabak six days before he was arrested.
During a trawl of potential witnesses and neighbours in Bristol, we contacted the Dutchman on his mobile phone.
He said: “Hello, Vincent speaking” in clear English but with a Dutch accent.
But as soon as Mr Tabak was told he was speaking to a journalist working on the hunt for Joanna’s killer, he hung up.
Subsequent calls to his mobile went unanswered.
Meanwhile, friends of the 32-year-old architect told us of their shock at last week’s arrest.
Mark Dankers said: “He’s a friend of my wife. She studied with him.
“He’s a nice guy. I would say he’s a quiet person but a nice person.“We had dinner a few times and, when he moved to England, we stored some things for him, like furniture, pots and pans.
“His girlfriend Tanja is nice too.”
Pal Daan Willems said: “He’s a very talented young man. Very professional.
“Just a very nice guy. He was always very dedicated to the task that he was doing.”
The tweet doesn't say about who will be accused... It states who will be charged... Didn't the paper see the tweet??
It is a source close to the inquiry that told the Police about the tweet, and if i'm understanding correctly what has been said... It is The Source, that is trying to establish where the tweets came from....
Did the Police ever talk to Gunter Morson about the tweets???
Maybe like CJ's second witness statement the tweets from the account of Gunter Morson are important!!
What does Gunter Sigolf Morson know about the case?/ What did his sister Tanja Tell him?? Why hasn't Gunter spoken about this either?? Am I correct in thinking that his twitter account had been hacked??
Questions questions... The more I look the more questions I have..... And I shouldn't still be asking questions....
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/173235/Jo-Yeates-Cops-quiz-Tweeting-brother
-
From The Independent
An Avon and Somerset Police spokesman said: "A 65-year-old man has been released on police bail pending further inquires."
Ms Yeates's family said yesterday that their daughter had been "stolen" from them but that they were confident the killer would be caught.
From The Telegraph
Saturday 1 January 2011
3pm
Mr and Mrs Yeates release a statement saying they have confidence their daughter’s killer will be caught.
9pm
Chris Jefferies is released on police bail without charge.
How before CJ is released from Police custody are The Police making a statement on behalf of the Yeates family and Greg Reardon??
3:00pm on the first January 2011 they are talking about being confident that the killer would be caught?? Isn't the apparent suspect in custody at this time??
Why would The Yeates know anything in relation to the Police Operation?? They should know a few details, but to make that statement before CJ is actually released strikes me as odd...
It's like they are one step ahead of the Investigation... That was the expression used by Ann Reddrop when she talked about Dr Vincent Tabak at the end of trial....
From Ann Redrrop:
He manipulated the Police by virtue of his In depth research on the internet.. to keep one step ahead of the Investigation, before his arrest, looking up extradition and medical details of decomposition.. he made very selective admissions surrounding the circumstances of Jo's death which sought to cast her in an Unfavourable light... And he kept this up even when he gave Evidence to the Jury...
Who within the police is putting the Yeates in a position to know what is about to take place.... It makes me wonder what has gone on... And trying too decipher what has taken place...
The Police are not blatantly going to stand there with the information they are reading out for the nation to see... No-one at the time of that Interview knew whether CJ had been released or not... But we discover he is released on at 9:00pm...
They cannot pre-empt an official discharge of a suspect on national television and state that they are confident that the killer will be caught... When the suspect is still in custody....
There is NO WAY that The Yeates family should be aware of what is about to happen with regards to the arrest of a potential suspect... and further more Gregs statement about as of yet innocent men, brings me to wonder if he is talking about Dr Vincent Tabak, as he was being Interviewed in Holland on the 31st December 2010.... None of them should know that CJ would be released....
I can only think that everything happened the day before..... But CJ's statement to The Leveson says that he was released on 1st January 2011...
CJ at The Leveson...
After my release on bail on 1 January 2011 the investigation continued to be of
enormous national interest and the press were still highly interested in me and in my
whereabouts
Everything is contradictory... Why? What am I missing??
So we have at this point ..The Yeates , Greg Reardon and The Police spokeswoman, who are putting themselves one step ahead of the investigation... By making that statement before CJ is released...
____________________________________________________________________________________________
This post I was going to make days ago..... and i didn't but it has been sat on my computer for days I have so many tabs open i loose myself....
But the post had got me thinking..... The basic question that has eluded everyone.... Who were the Polices Prime Suspect??? Where did they start with their Investigation.... And why they never left Canygne Road....
There has to be a common denominator in all of this... The only people at the moment I can think of that should have been questioned is The Yeates family themselves.... And because of the horrific crime that took place for them.. I believe no-one will say anything in fear of been seen as disrespectful....
But common sense dictates that you start with the people closest to the victim and work your way out from there, so i would like to explore what people think about what the Yeates knew and what they said.... I have to understand why this case appears complex and why nothing appears to add up.....
If I apply my sense of reasoning to each person involved, and what the Police do, and how Police Protocols are followed we all should have more questions than we already have....
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122175642/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Second-Witness-Statement-of-Christopher-Jefferies.pdf
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8051.msg408123#msg408123
https://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/landlord-held-in-yeates-case-released-on-bail-26610518.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8847912/Vincent-Tabak-found-guilty-of-Joanna-Yeates-murder-how-it-happened.html
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The date of the appeal on youtube is.... (23rd December 2010)
The TV Appeal made by Mr and Mrs Yeates... The TV Clip starts with DCI Beven
(DCI Bevan)
Erm Ok.... I believe Joanna reached her home address on Friday evening and this would have been at sometime shortly after 8:30pm in the evening. This is because erm.. We've found within the flat her coat her mobile phone and keys. Erm.. I know that from CCTV she went to Tesco's in Clifton Village and she purchased a pizza.. Erm.. I have here a Pizza which is similar in all respects to the I believe she purchased, which is a Tesco's finest erm, Tomatoe Mozzerella, basil ,pesto pizza.
Within the Flat we can find NO evidence of this Pizza or any of the wrappings,and so I would like to make an appeal, firstly for anyone who has any information about where Joanna was..is now or any information thats can indicate whats happened to her. I would also like to make an appeal to anyone who knows where this Pizza is or were there any of the wrapping are or where the box is..
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Reporter)
First of all can you tell me a little bit about Jo describe her to me ...
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mr Yeates)
(Big sigh) I think one of the papers used vivacious. and thats a really good description of her, she loved life, she loved doing things with her boyfriend, she liked doing things around the home, she liked making a home, buying things for the home. Erm.. She was a really loving daughter, there was a number of times she did touching things for me which I didn't expect, things she (inaudible) ,she had a lot on and she still did these, maybe small things for her.. (Sigh) used to bring a lump to my throat. I had to stop what I was saying because, she would thought whats wrong with em.. She's .................. Over the last couple of Years probably since she's meet Greg actually ,she's blossomed into a classy lady. She had style... erm.. If I had to pick a daughter , I couldn't pick anybody else. And I miss her terribly. It's breaking me up.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
(reporter)
I was going to say clearly your so distraught about this, what is it that you are Missing Most at the moment. Can I ask you Mrs Yeates.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mrs Yeates)
I'm Missing being able to hold her,and cuddle her and just every things alright, and I just want her back. where ever she is 'Jo.. my little Jo come back'.. And if anybody's got her don't keep her give her back to us. (Big Breath in Crying) We Miss her so much . I know thats obvious and nobody can feel the pain that we feel... But we want to sank everyone who has been helping us her school friends her best friends her, colleague friends they've just. Emma and Becky and all her friends and her cousins I just want to thank everybody for what they have done they have done posters and way beyond and and Greg and er.. Facebook which we know nothing about. But all the youngsters just done what they can with what they know. "Just come back Jo" (crying)
____________________________________________________________________________________________
(reporter) I'd like to just ask you a bit about the last time you were in contact with her and the last time you spoke to her
___________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mrs Yeates) (more composed)
Well erm.. I I I .. I came down to Bristol a couple of weeks ago coz I was going with a couple of friends to Deal or No Deal and I said to Jo can I come and stay the night.. I mean I don't assume anything and she said..'Great love to see you mum'.. And so really I spent the evening with her and Greg in the Flat and I stayed there and the next morning I went of quite early and um.. they were still there, we were possibly going to meet up later... erm we didn't because the thing ended quite early and er she had meetings... I just texted her and she text me saying 'Did you get there ok ... I sink that is the last time we I really had much contact with her.. I think we spoke a bit about Christmas and I said can you make some mince pies. (Heavy Sigh) And that was what she was going to do.. This weekend, she'd printed something off the internet I saw it in her diary(crying) And I knew she was going to do that (cry)
____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Reporter)
Because I understand that she was going to be with you at Christmas
____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mrs Yeates (nodding) Yer
____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Reporter)
I mean
____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mrs Yeates)
Coming up tomorrow
____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Reporter) How do you think you are going to be able to cope this Christmas?
____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mr Yeates)
Christmas is suspended as far as we're concerned
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mrs Yeates)
There's no Christmas
____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mr Yeates)
until Jo comes back.. So..(shrugs shoulder) Every things on hold. And Um(big sigh) It's its a difficult time but we cant celebrate anything when (inaudible) we celebrate. And er.. We don't want to be .. We just want to be with ourselves. Erm rather than with anybody else, and erm... I think basically because we, (heavy sigh) Greg. Chris and Allah all and the two of us , we share something, we close relations we share not(Inaudible) but not quite the same extent I don't think. Erm.... We just want to talk and think about Jo in her own way and er.. We just pray.. hope and pray that er... If she's being held by somebody please let her go (shakes his head) Um... (Continues shaking his head)
____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Reporter)
What.. sorry sorry
____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mrs Yeates ) (6 mins in)
No I have nothing to sa.. specific
____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Reporter) What do you think has happened to Jo?
___________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mr Yeates) I think , my personal feelings I think she was abducted... From her Flat after getting home from her flat, we cant.... we've got no idea of the circumstances of the abduction. But because of what was left behind the flat , we feel that she wouldn't have gone out by herself. Erm............. leaving all those things behind, maybe one of them and she was taken away somewhere... we don't know by whom or by what people erm...
___________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mrs Yeates) (interupting Mr Yeates talking)
She's sensible girl
_________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mr Yeates)
She's.. ( shakes head) (smacks lips looks irritated to me)
__________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mrs Yeates) (Interrupting again)
Shes very sensible
___________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mr Yeates) She a professional.. she's a professional lady..and erm...
____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mrs Yeates) She's 25 she's sensible.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mr Yeates) Sh (trying to speak)
__________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mrs Yeates) She wanted to be in that night and the whole weekend, and her plans were to be at home
________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mr Yeates) Sh (trying to speak again)
___________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mrs Yeates) She had a party Tuesday, It was a new Flat with New things , she would have wanted it to be special. (Big intake of breath.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mr Yeates) Christmas Plan.. Her plans for the weekend was for go Christmas Shopping.. Er.. And then to do some cooking and baking. Which she also enjoyed, for Tuesday I think when er her friends were due to come round they having their sort of Bristol Christmas party.. Erm... She wasn't she didn't have nothing planned, she did have the weekend planned.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Reporter) Obviously you're saying you did suspect thats she's been abducted..
____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mr Yeates) Yes.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
(Reporter) All sorts of things must have gone through your mind, have you thought at all the possibility that she may have chosen to go away...
___________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mr and Mrs Yeates) (In Unison)
No...
____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mr Yeates) No (shaking his head)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mrs Yeates) Absolutley not we have no reason......
____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mr Yeates) (interrupting) (grabbing a picture)
This is a picture of our daughter when erm.. she had her graduation which is a few days... A couple of weeks before... Her and Greg where totally in love they were devoted to each other, she had nothing to.. she didn't have... she she had all the space she wanted, she had no work worries, she had no money worries, she had nothing that was worrying her , if she went away, chose to go away, she would have taken er... some of her things with her like, er er er...
____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mrs yeates) (Interupting) She wouldn't, she wouldn't , she wouldn't have gone away..
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mr Yeates) Like her purse, phone etc, .... I don't .. I don't think for a second (shaking head) I never thought for a second that she would ever leave on.. on her own volition.. erm.. Greg has been away before.. and he's come back .. ev ev ev ...
(Mrs Yeates interrupts... Great family (inaudible) (Mr Yeates continues) speaking at same time
Every time he's come back Jo's been there. Er and this isn't the first time Jo Gregs gone away. or anything like that and (Mrs Yeates lets out a big sigh) Jo does sort of her own thing during the weekend ,be, always keeps in touch with Greg. And and this time, there was no answer when the phones rung. We actually rang her as well..
____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Reporter) Em.. You mention there that Greg tried to get in touch with her, you'd tried to get in touch with her, it was a long time between the Friday when we think she went Missing'.. To the Sunday when that was reported to Police. Ay what point did you start to worry that and what was going through your mind at that time.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mr Yeates) We only became aware that Greg (Blows out of his nose) That Jo , that Jo wasn't the.. (smacks lips) She didn't always answer her phone in a timely manner, lets put it that way.. Greg thought it was strange that he, she didn't respond to my .. apparently this is what he told me. Erm.. But it was con..
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mrs Yeates) (interrupting and talking over Mr Yeates) It was consistent with she could be like
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mr Yeates) It wasn't totally out of character, the concern was raised when after Greg had got back home.. And.............. After a bit of waiting for a couple of hours there was no sign of Jo.. And......... Then Jo lent.. Then Greg found the things that she would have carried with her.. and he came incredibly concerned.. and then he phoned us... And er... we talked to (Her? difficult to hear) very briefly and erm, then he phoned the police.... And a ... I am not sure what time it was , I think Greg got home about half past eight... Am am not sure what time.. Greg phoned us everything happened in..
____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mrs Yeates) about midnight... and when you get a call at midnight..
___________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mr Yeates)( speaking at the same time shaking his head) Everything was a blur.. We immediately decided that we have to come down, because something was definitley wrong ... And erm... We knew Jo wouldn't take off by herself. she's never done it before.. Um she's always had her own space, And er..... (shaking his head) It isn't her. she she loved the position she was in ... She adored it....
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Reporter) Obviously you must be turning this over and over in your minds and many scenario's must go through your minds... Has the thought occurred to you that someone close to Jo may have may have been involved in her disappearance.... and how do you cope with that?
___________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mrs Yeates) I don't think anybody close to her has been involved in her disappearance....
____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mr Yeates) Not close............. Unless something happened which something got out of control, but I, (mrs Yeates shakes her head) ... I don't know what close people Jo's got down here, erm........ But of the people we know down here, I I.... (shakes head with a big smile on his face) ..No No (Almost laughing).. Not for a second.....
___________________________________________________________________________________________
-
(Reporter) And again for give me for asking this, but when you go through all these scenarios you must have contemplated that there could be a dreadful outcome....
____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mrs Yeates) Yer,..
___________________________________________________________________________________________
(Reporter) How do you cope with that Mrs Yeates? I'll ask you that
____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mrs Yeates ) I go numb.... with all this snow around I sometimes picture her lying.. If for some reason she had collapsed or had been discarded and she was alive,( shaking her head) in all this snow and the cold... I just... (breaks down sobbing) can't bare the thought of it... I don't go with it.... (crying)
___________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mr Yeates) For me it's not the end, it's whats happened to her in between, ( Sharp intake of breath). .i stood outside having a cigarette, It was cold, thinking my daughter(head goes down) ... maybe she's out there somewhere... by herself in the snow... Frozen ( head turns to right looks up and) It breaks me up ... That I wasn't there to hold her.. oh... It's ...... (crying)...
____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Reporter) Do you believe that Jo is alive?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mr Yeates head is down and he's shaking like he is crying, wipes his nose,)
(Mr Yeates) (composing himself.. no tears) I've got to believe that she alive, she had too much life in her.... Um,.. If the inevit.. If it turns out that she isn't... I still want her back... we still want to hold her at least one last time... For we didn't.. ( shakes head)... (More forceful he says) I just want her back....
____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mrs Yeates ) Yer.......
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mr Yeates). That what I want ..... what ever state she's in... I just want her back....
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Reporter) Seeing you here together you obviously very close... How are you supporting each other and the whole family?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mrs Yeates) 100% ... we just (Mr Yeates lets out a huge sigh) Sometimes it's long periods of silence, sometimes it's thinking through scenarios, em... Were are all three of us sitting here (Mrs Yeates looks to her left) on the computers and I don't know what we are looking for, all of it's a comfort we are all in the same room , hours on end, just..... If one of us is upset them the others, take..
____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mr Yeates) Yer.... you have to keep leaving the room.. from time to time... It's just doing what we can, and to put things in motion, so to try and get people, at the 'p'... Their eyes and ears of people we just don't know, to help us..
____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mrs Yeates) And I'll have to say (Mr Yeates tries to speak) (Mrs Yeates Continues) Russ our liason Officer is excellent..
____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mr yeates) Yer...
____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mrs Yeates) He keeps in touch with us all the time ,
____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mr Yeates) He is
____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mrs Yeates) If we have got any questions we can ask him, we can call him
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mr Yeates) Yer...
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mrs Yeates) I think we need to say that The Police , we know that they are doing everything.. we just try to be as helpful as we can....
(Looking straight to camera... I think they are readying from an auto cue) If there is any body out there who's Wizz Jo... seen somebody who looks like her Or just heard something really unusual or weird or how ever small it is, please contact the relevant people, Um.. you may
_________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mr Yeates) (Interrupting) Please let her go....
___________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mrs Yeates) Just let her go if you've got her, (sniffle) let her go and let her come back and let her come back to me.. And .... (puts head on Mr Yeates shoulder) and her dad and her family (Big exhale) please
____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mr Yeates) (Head down) If you have if she is dead..... (raises head) Please tell somebody where she is... (Looks directly at camera and) We want her back..... (looks angry)
____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mrs Yeates) We want her back
____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mr Yeates) What ever
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mrs yeates) (leaning her head on Mr yeates shoulder) thats it
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mr Yeates) (It sounds like he says ) Cut.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Reporter) Thank you both much, very much indeed,
___________________________________________________________________________________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qliGy7Nn-V0
-
I have posted many transcripts of video's.... And to be honest, I have kept away from The Yeates for all this time.... I didn't want to appear disrespectful... But we cannot get a full picture if we do not look at all of the video's that were made at the time....
With the passage of time a different look at what is said... I remember at the time not wanting to question the grieving parents, even though thought went through my head.... That is why i have transcribed the video....
And will look at it in more detail....
-
Well as I have been transcribing it i have been making notes... And where do i start.... Pheeeew (Big Exhale)
Just watch the video I have linked and look at what is happening... I must say, i am speechless at the mo... But I won't be for long.....
There is so much to choose from , I don't know what to question first.... Lets have a look at my notes...
One of the first things that struck me, was when Mrs Yeates said, "Sink" instead of think.... and "Sank " instead of Thank......
To most of you you may not see the relevance.... but for me, it jogged a memory of the trial... where Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have text the word "Crisis" instead of Crisps..... And that apparently was a measure of Dr Vincent Tabak's guilt....
Again whilst I am typing other images are running around my head.... But that how my head works... "Sink" it brings the image of how clean the sink in the bathroom was and how the bath itself was black with fingerprint dust.... And I battle with myself wondering about the staged flat.... And why nothing makes sense......
You'd have to be au fait with The Case to even think about what has been said, but for me, alarm bells ring, maybe not for you, but for me they do.....
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I will dissect every part of that video and transcript..... But i will start with a couple of things that stuck out to me....
I came down to Bristol a couple of weeks ago coz I was going with a couple of friends to Deal or No Deal and I said to Jo can I come and stay the night.. I mean I don't assume anything and she said..'Great love to see you mum'.. And so really I spent the evening with her and Greg in the Flat and I stayed there and the next morning I went of quite early and um.. they were still there, we were possibly going to meet up later... erm we didn't because the thing ended quite early and er she had meetings...I just texted her and she text me saying 'Did you get there ok ... I sink that is the last time we I really had much contact with her.. I think we spoke a bit about Christmas and I said can you make some mince pies. (Heavy Sigh) And that was what she was going to do..
Now where do I start with this....... I'll just pick out bits and it will all come round....
I went of quite early and um.. they were still there, we were possibly going to meet up later... erm we didn't because the thing ended quite early and er she had meetings...I just texted her and she text me saying 'Did you get there ok ...
Now lets spot the obvious.... Well for me, I have to say i am thrown.... As I have said, I have avoided these interviews for a very long time, but I thought I'd go back to the start..... Anyway not to distract.....
I just texted her and she text me saying "Did you get there ok ??
Well I was under the impression that Joanna Yeates was hopeless with her phone.... she seems pretty on it at that time....
But later on in the interview Mr Yeates says..
(Mr Yeates) We only became aware that Greg (Blows out of his nose) That Jo , that Jo wasn't the.. (smacks lips) She didn't always answer her phone in a timely manner, lets put it that way.. Greg thought it was strange that he, she didn't respond to my .. apparently this is what he told me. Erm.. But it was con..
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mrs Yeates) (interrupting and talking over Mr Yeates) It was consistent with she could be like
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mr Yeates) It wasn't totally out of character, the concern was raised when after Greg had got back home..
So it (imo) is Mr Yeates who first tells us that Joanna Yeates was hopeless with her phone... contradicting what Mrs Yeates had just let us all know, that Joanna Yeates did answer her phone and texts promptly....
Now you can see why the bells are ringing around my head for those of you that know how I review things.... and send you potty with talking out aloud....
But.... It's a fair question really.... I just ask about what I see.... I'm not being rude... I need to understand why this all doesn't makes sense....... So i need to look at everyone...
So can someone answer me why Joanna Yeates is prompt one minute and then hopeless the next.....
My God... I'd be worried sick if my daughter was suddenly so hopeless with her phone.... But thats me.....
-
(Mr Yeates) Not close............. Unless something happened which something got out of control, but I, (mrs Yeates shakes her head) ... I don't know what close people Jo's got down here, erm........ But of the people we know down here, I I.... (shakes head with a big smile on his face) ..No No (Almost laughing).. Not for a second.....
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Two obvious things with this part of the Interview and I would recommend that you watch it.... Firstly..... Who are the people that Mr Yeates is referring to??
Now If The Yeates have their own friends in Bristol then surely they should have been suspects too.... if someone had a vendetta against the Yeates, then that would appear to be a good place to start..... I'm surprised that hasn't been looked at before......
But with Mr Yeates almost laughing, I'm trying to see what he means..... There are many options there.... which that could mean....
But you would have thought that these people would have been of great Interest to The Police.... If as they believe or tells us what they think that she has been abducted, then the people who they know in Bristol must be of significance... (imo)
I thought I was inappropriate some times... But why laugh?? Yes, people laugh when they're nervous... But it is an odd time for this to happen (imo)... I get the impression that he's reminiscing in his own head...As he is talking.... But as I say that's just me....
-
Sorry for the way I post... leonora has told me off many times before.... I tend to write what I am thinking and unfortunately for everyone, you have to put up with my odd way... I find it easier for people to understand my thought process by posting this way and use links and transcripts so people can follow where I end up...
-
I think we spoke a bit about Christmas and I said can you make some mince pies. (Heavy Sigh) And that was what she was going to do.. This weekend, she'd printed something off the internet I saw it in her diary(crying) And I knew she was going to do that (cry)
Ok... Again... Confusing ish....
I think we spoke about Christmas and I said can you make some mince pies
Now that shouldn't cause alarm,
Mr Yeates) Christmas Plan.. Her plans for the weekend was for go Christmas Shopping.. Er.. And then to do some cooking and baking. Which she also enjoyed, for Tuesday I think when er her friends were due to come round they having their sort of Bristol Christmas party.. Erm... She wasn't she didn't have nothing planned, she did have the weekend planned.
Were the Mince Pies for Tuesday for her friends or for Christmas??
Now Joanna Yeates (imo) wasn't making mince pies for her work colleagues... I say this because it is Mrs Yeates who suggests that Joanna bakes mince pies.....
This weekend, she'd printed something off the internet I saw it in her diary(crying) And I knew she was going to do that
Now I haven't misinterpreted that.... So Mrs Yeates apparently was aware that Joanna Yeates was going to do that.... what... print the mince pie recipe from the Internet... or bake Mince pies.... Now my little brain is working over time and I cannot comprehend how Mrs Yeates would know when Joanna Yeates printed The Recipe from The Internet..... How could she know that... Did it have a date on it?? I doubt that.....
But... what did she print off the internet.... because when I read it again Mrs Yeates talks of seeing it in her diary.... Now is she talking about a recipe or is she talking about Joanna Yeates printing off something else??
This weekend, she'd printed something off the internet I saw it in her diary(crying) And I knew she was going to do that (cry)
Looking at that again... What was Joanna Yeates planning to do "This Weekend"?? What was Joanna Yeates planning??
You see when we go further down we get Mr Yeates talking about shopping...... All I can think of is that she was buying presents... And of course I conclude what my brain decides , which is.... Was Jonnna Yeates going to by a prezzie for an Anniversary or something.... I could see if her mum saw that in her diary it would make her cry.... If there was some special anniversary for The family....
Edit.... How did Mr Yeates know what her plans for the weekend were???
-
Before I carry on with my last post... this jumped out at me as I was re-reading the transcript...
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Reporter)
First of all can you tell me a little bit about Jo describe her to me ...
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mr Yeates)
(Big sigh) I think one of the papers used vivacious. and thats a really good description of her, she loved life, she loved doing things with her boyfriend, she liked doing things around the home, she liked making a home, buying things for the home. Erm.. She was a really loving daughter, there was a number of times she did touching things for me which I didn't expect, things she (inaudible) ,she had a lot on and she still did these, maybe small things for her.. (Sigh) used to bring a lump to my throat. I had to stop what I was saying because, she would thought whats wrong with em.. She's .................. Over the last couple of Years probably since she's meet Greg actually ,she's blossomed into a classy lady. She had style... erm.. If I had to pick a daughter , I couldn't pick anybody else. And I miss her terribly. It's breaking me up.
Why is Mr Yeates talking about his beautiful daughter Joanna Yeates in the past tense??? She just supposed to be a Missing Person at this point in time.....
-
I was going to follow on from that post... But everything keeps jumping off the page, so you'll have to bare with me....
____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Reporter) Obviously you're saying you did suspect thats she's been abducted..
____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mr Yeates) Yes.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
(Reporter) All sorts of things must have gone through your mind, have you thought at all the possibility that she may have chosen to go away...
___________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mr and Mrs Yeates) (In Unison)
No...
____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mr Yeates) No (shaking his head)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mrs Yeates) Absolutley not we have no reason......
____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mr Yeates) (interrupting) (grabbing a picture)
This is a picture of our daughter when erm.. she had her graduation which is a few days... A couple of weeks before... Her and Greg where totally in love they were devoted to each other, she had nothing to.. she didn't have... she she had all the space she wanted, she had no work worries, she had no money worries, she had nothing that was worrying her , if she went away, chose to go away, she would have taken er... some of her things with her like, er er er...
____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mrs yeates) (Interupting) She wouldn't, she wouldn't , she wouldn't have gone away..
________________________________________________________________________
I thought about the picture of Joanna Yeates and her graduation... But her dad says..
This is a picture of our daughter when erm.. she had her graduation which is a few days... A couple of weeks before... Her and Greg where totally in love they were devoted to each other,
Please do not think I am being disrespectful.... But that quote is strange.... Was the Graduation a few days before???? What!!
A couple of weeks before???? What! Then he distracts by talking about Greg...
What does he mean?? A few days... A couple of weeks..... ?? I understand his head is mashed but... I thought her graduation was in November .....
Now the abduction.... Why are they both so positive that Joanna Yeates didn't do away???
It gets a bit contradictory....
Jo does sort of her own thing during the weekend
If Joanna Yeates does her own thing during the weekends, then why wasnt it possible for her to think.... Sod it Gregs away.. I'm off too??
But almost in unison they both say to the idea of her going away for the weekend.... "No"!!
Then Mrs Yeates says " Absolutely not we have no reason"
Hang on a minute here.... Why would you even have an incline what a grown woman would decide on the spur of the moment having really nothing of importance planned.....
Then Mrs Yeates insists that..... " She wouldn't, she wouldn't , she wouldn't have gone away.."
Again I'm not being rude or disrespectful... But how would her mum know ??? Joanna Yeates apparently doesn't live with them... So what??
How could they have any indication that a grown woman wouldn't meet up with an old boyfriend and have drinks and stay over??
I find that most odd......
-
(Mr Yeates) I think , my personal feelings I think she was abducted... From her Flat after getting home from her flat, we cant.... we've got no idea of the circumstances of the abduction. But because of what was left behind the flat , we feel that she wouldn't have gone out by herself. Erm............. leaving all those things behind, maybe one of them and she was taken away somewhere... we don't know by whom or by what people erm...
I think , my personal feelings I think she was abducted... From her Flat after getting home from her flat, we cant....
Well that ones swimming around the files in my brain....
So it is Mr Yeates personal feelings that Joanna Yeates was abducted.... No evidence to prove that Joanna Yeates was abducted...??.
From her Flat after getting home from her Flat.. That gives me visions of Joanna Yeates having 2 Flats... But as they say people say the strangest things when they are under stress...
-
Before I carry on with my last post... this jumped out at me as I was re-reading the transcript...
Why is Mr Yeates talking about his beautiful daughter Joanna Yeates in the past tense??? She just supposed to be a Missing Person at this point in time.....
Back to my train of thought....... Don't want to loose everyone.....
I just texted her and she text me saying 'Did you get there ok ... I sink that is the last time we I really had much contact with her.. I think we spoke a bit about Christmas and I said can you make some mince pies. (Heavy Sigh) And that was what she was going to do..
I sink that is the last time we I really had much contact with her..
So... don't berate me i am just following what is said.......
The last time they had much contact with her... and by her they mean their daughter Joanna Yeates... But this is where I question things....
According to their Interview..(appeal).. The last time they had contact with Joanna Yeates was when Mrs Yeates went down to Bristol to watch the filming of Deal or No Deal.... And this if I am interpreting what she says correctly is when they talk about Mince Pies....... And that is what she was going to do....
Arrrrg.... which way is my head gonna send me now.....
Deal or No deal... I keep getting the dates mixed up for that... I thought it was around the 11/12th December 2010... But if Mrs Yeates says that Joanna Yeates had meetings and they couldn't meet up it should be earlier....
I say this with confidence, because apparently Joanna Yeates had been away from work for a few days with "Headaches"...
Then she says:
I think we spoke a bit about Christmas and I said can you make some mince pies. (Heavy Sigh) And that was what she was going to do..
Well I can understand if she can't remember whether or not they spoke about Christmas almost a week before.... But I don't know who's more confused ... me or her.....
It is mixed... A week ago or before she went Missing..... You can understand my confusion can't you....
Did Joanna Yeates tell her mum nearly a week before about Christmas and did her mum tell her to bake Mince pies at this time??
Because if it's a week ago... How can Joanna Yeates be baking for her friends for the Tuesday as Mr Yeates says.....
(Mr Yeates) Christmas Plan.. Her plans for the weekend was for go Christmas Shopping.. Er.. And then to do some cooking and baking. Which she also enjoyed, for Tuesday I think when er her friends were due to come round they having their sort of Bristol Christmas party.. Erm... She wasn't she didn't have nothing planned, she did have the weekend planned.
You understand my meaning....
Now... I'm getting mixed messages here.... My head not yours.... It would make sense to me if Joanna Yeates was planning to bake some Mince Pies for when her and Greg go down to her parents home for Christmas... And Mrs Yeates asking her daughter to bake some Mince Pies would make sense.....
But... they don't say that.... She's apparently baking for her.... "sort of Bristol Party" Then Mr Yeates goes onto say ...She wasn't she didn't have nothing planned,she did have the weekend planned
Has someone posed a question we cannot hear??
Mr Yeates did she have something planned or not..... ??? That is a straight forward question.....
Now you should live in my head... It's a nightmare.... Because I cannot hear someone speaking.. which appears to strike a chord with Mr Yeates... I have this vision of someone holding a board with a question on it... Or it flashes across the auto cue..... As I have said... my head works in a strange way and as I have said before leonora tells me off for telling everyone what I am thinking.... But as I have said many times before it's how I post.... so i shall stop apologising for how I do things.....
Again something popped in my head... It was a fridge magnet my husband bought me years ago... It says...
I know I'm in my own world. It's OK, they know me here.... OK
-
(Mrs Yeates) (Interrupting again)
Shes very sensible
___________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mr Yeates) She a professional.. she's a professional lady..and erm...
____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mrs Yeates) She's 25 she's sensible.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mr Yeates) Sh (trying to speak)
__________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mrs Yeates) She wanted to be in that night and the whole weekend, and her plans were to be at home
________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mr Yeates) Sh (trying to speak again)
___________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mrs Yeates) She had a party Tuesday, It was a new Flat with New things , she would have wanted it to be special. (Big intake of breath.
She wanted to be in that night and the whole weekend, and her plans were to be at home
How would Mrs Yeates know Joanna Yeates wanted to be in that night and her plans were to be at home..... ?? They hadn't talked apparently... Greg was away... The weekend was her Oyster.... she could have done a spot of fly fishing for all we know ..... Joanna Yeates is a grown woman who has a mind of her own....
She's very sensible So she is not going to allow a random stranger into her home then is she...(imo)
She had a party Tuesday, It was a new Flat with New things , she would have wanted it to be special. (Big intake of breath.
(https://cdn-04.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/migration_catalog/article25797367.ece/2d186/AUTOCROP/w620h342/129063071)
Spot the obvious difference.... That Flat looks nothing like Mrs Yeates has described.... Loads of old things in there.... I did say that the flat was staged.... Why hasn't Mrs Yeates spoken up about the inaccuracies the images and tour of what Joanna Yeates Flat shows??
-
Just slightly off topic...... Going back some time now..... Remember this......
8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( 8)><(
And me like a donkey thought the pish was being taken... Well my knickers got well and truly knotted didn't they...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Juxv-4RnVCE
-
No my memory severed me slightly incorrectly.....
The emoji I need isn't there.... But you get the gist..... (image attached)
-
_______________________________________________________________________________________
(Reporter) How do you cope with that Mrs Yeates? I'll ask you that
____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mrs Yeates ) I go numb.... with all this snow around I sometimes picture her lying.. If for some reason she had collapsed or had been discarded and she was alive,( shaking her head) in all this snow and the cold... I just... (breaks down sobbing) can't bare the thought of it... I don't go with it.... (crying)
_______________________________________________________________
I think she is being honest there.... I think she did imagine, what if her daughter was alive... But we have to remember Joanna Yeates is supposed to be a Missing person and not a dead person.....
-
(DCI Bevan)
Erm Ok.... I believe Joanna reached her home address on Friday evening and this would have been at sometime shortly after 8:30pm in the evening. This is because erm.. We've found within the flat her coat her mobile phone and keys. Erm.. I know that from CCTV she went to Tesco's in Clifton Village and she purchased a pizza.. Erm.. I have here a Pizza which is similar in all respects to the I believe she purchased, which is a Tesco's finest erm, Tomatoe Mozzerella, basil ,pesto pizza.
Within the Flat we can find NO evidence of this Pizza or any of the wrappings,and so I would like to make an appeal, firstly for anyone who has any information about where Joanna was..is now or any information thats can indicate whats happened to her. I would also like to make an appeal to anyone who knows where this Pizza is or were there any of the wrapping are or where the box is..
Watching the video clip when DCI Bevan tells us about the Pizza , something dawned on me.....
The other day I suggested that the killer bought the Pizza..... But I believe Joanna Yeates bought The Pizza for her killer....
I know that from CCTV she went to Tesco's in Clifton Village and she purchased a pizza.. Erm.. I have here a Pizza which is similar in all respects to the I believe she purchased, which is a Tesco's finest erm, Tomatoe Mozzerella, basil ,pesto pizza.
Watching the clip again and wanting to see what I missed made me concentrate that little bit further....
There may have been evidence of a Pizza in Flat 1 Canygne Road... Just not evidence of the "Tesco's finest Tomato, Mozzerella, and Basil Pizza"
The Receipt is key..... The Receipt tells us that a Pizza was purchased, but does it tell us which Pizza?? Does it have the exact time and date displayed upon this receipt.....?? Yes but not the time we see on the CCTV footage...
From helpfindfo wordpress
They know that Joanna went to Waitrose on the Triangle and Tesco in Clifton village before going to her home in Canynge Road. She has not been seen since.
Police know that she bought a Tesco Finest Margherita Pizza as the receipt has been found in her house. However there is no trace of this pizza or its packaging in the property.
I believe DCI Bevan says it all, i have just Missed it...... I have here a Pizza which is similar in all respects
Helpfindjo says Tesco Finest Margherita Pizza
I have mentioned the Pizza before, many times and I believe mrswah commented briefly and said something about a Tomato, Mozzerella and Basil Pizza was a Margherita Pizza....
There is the point.... DCI Bevan tells us,.... Joanna Yeates bought a "Margherita Pizza"!! even though The Tesco's Finest Tomato, Mozzerella and Basil Pizza is similar...... it is NOT what she bought....
I have attached 2 images from Crimewatch Program of the Receipt... It just say Pizza on it.... But even if we disregard the Pizza Receipt we are aware that it was found in the Flat.... The importance of what DCI Bevan tells us is that who ever wrote the HelpfindJo website or gave the information for the helpfindjo website had to have seen the Pizza that Joanna Yeates purchased....(imo) That of course could not be Dr Vincent Tabak...(imo)
The Receipt and the Pizza are linked... Obviously, but I mean in the detail that the receipt reveals differs from what was actually purchased... And no-one should know what type of Pizza Joanna Yeates bought as we do not see the front packaging of this Pizza in the CCTV footage.....
The Pizza is the reason that they believe that Joanna Yeates died or was abducted on the 17th December 2010 and not because of stomach contents... But I believe it is because, only the killer would know what type of Pizza was purchased by Joanna Yeates and that is why they are linked...
I believe its possible Joanna Yeates had visitors and cooked The Pizza and had cider for them.... I believe that it was opened I believe the cider was drunk... Then something went wrong.... It is the only thing that makes sense... Did they try tidy up and her phone rang?? Is that when the receipt was discovered?? Which would show to them that Joanna Yeates would be on CCTV buying the Pizza.... So they dispose of the Pizza and leave the receipt in her pocket.... Knowing that Joanna Yeates would be on CCTV....That is why they are linked... There was no need to go looking for the Pizza and it's packaging because that was a ruse to unnerve the killer... Everyone in Bristol would be looking for the wrong Pizza Box..... (imo)
When Ann Redrrop says I think in he Crimewatch program about Joanna Yeates phone ringing at 9:00pm and thats when his nightmare begins... It supports the idea that that was when the killer realised that Joanna Yeates had been to Tesco's and would be on CCTV...
https://helpfindjo.wordpress.com/page/3/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtOST33-LjU
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
My scenario on how Dr Vincent Tabak is Guilty.... seeing as nothing adds up... this seems plausible to me ....
Everyone is convinced that Dr Vincent Tabak is guilty.... Some say guilty of Murder and some say Guilty of
Manslaughter.... I have always been of the opinion that he is Innocent.... But I have to bare in mind, that this case is not a normal case and many rules may apply to this that the ordinary person would least expect..... I myself believe now that I have been fooled.... But I didn't really realise I had ... It has taken along time to come to this idea....
I am that ordinary person and I find myself going round in circles and getting frustrated.... But there is a different way to apply the rules and how to come to the conclusion everyone else has that Dr Vincent Tabak is guilty... is if Dr Vincent Tabak is his alternative name,... (or he uses an alternative name and his real name is Dr Vincent Tabak....
The dates are always slightly off.... the basics are there... people have been made scapegoats.... Random images have appeared in the media that are photoshopped.... The Flat has been staged... The Interviews and appeals contradict each other....
This case has only ever been about a simple murder that was made complexed... But for that to be the case, you have got to have got to come under the 21 critera set out by The Complex case unit....
I keep chasing the elusive Dr Vincent Tabak.... The Man that I see as A Placid Foreign National.... who for all intense and purposes has NO other life... There has been speculation that he viewed porn ... and i have argued his case for along time now.... But sometimes I am slow on the uptake.... I have my own strange way in which i go about things... I have been delving more and more into ideas that may or may not be believable.....
We first have to ask the question 'Who is Dr Vincent Tabak"?? And the saying goes along the lines as a rose would smell as sweet by any other name.....
And I believe thats the point.... Dr Vincent Tabak is not the man I have come to believe , I have got to the point that he doesn't exist..... But I have missed what could be the most obvious answer, and that the name.. Dr Vincent Tabak is his original name and he now goes by another name or is know by another name.....
He may have been born that name... Or that is the name they gave him for the media debarcle..... The real killer has got off scott free..... I say Real killer.... I believe it was a Moot trial... I believe they fooled the public....
If someone has legally had there named changed then they cannot charge them using their former name.... But for an unsuspecting public, this sham of a trial plays out to all across the Nation ......
I believe the name Vincent Tabak was used so the story could be told to the world.... A change of name at some point in his life from say... Vincent Bernard... to Vincent Tabak... Meaning Vincent who smokes..... But that man goes by a completely different name now and that man killed Joanna Yeates... He has influencial friends (imo) and has managed to still be walking free amongst society... With everyone blindly believing that Justice was served on the 28th October 2011....
The media know who this man is (imo)... So does the law.... This man may have family in Holland... He may have lived in many parts of the world...
Maybe Vincent Tabak had middle names... Vincent Bernard Mark Tabak..... And the fact that he realised working in England, everyone would take the mickey because he smoked and Tabak being Dutch for tobacco, he couldn't cope with the ridicule and took on... say his mother or a relatives Surname..... And becomes for all intense and purposes Vincent Bernard.....
But that is still confusing.... A stage name would work... you have 2 forms of ID.... One in your original name and one in your stage name for instance.... Anyway I think you are following my drift..... So the killer who I have always thought was a seperate individual to Dr Vincent Tabak is one in the same person..... But for what ever reason... this pantomine has been played out..... No one is in jail..... And leonoras idea that Dr Vincent Tabak made a deal is true... Just not the sort of deal we all thought.....
Maybe he did admit to Manslaughter at the Old Bailey.... And was dealt with there and then under the proviso he attended A Crown Court Trial to explain what had taken place.... Giving a baying public what they wanted... A Man who's act against Joanna Yeates would be seen to be punished.... he convinced someone it was Manslaughter, but the police and the prosecution believed it to be Murder.... Maybe they said they would reveal the truth if it the trial didn't happen.... Is this why the Case Number U2011037 exist for him as well as the trial number T20117031... maybe that number means something else to Lawyers etc... It would explain a lot......
Which makes what lies on his laptops true.... What has been said is accurate.... The searches of Longwood Lane were the know searches of the man with 2 identities... He did look to see where to dispose of Joanna Yeates and they were done at those times on the 18th December 2010.... And this is where the cat and mouse game begins.....
The Police know who Dr Vincent Tabak is... they know the name he goes by they know he has friends in high places and they use the media to play him at his own game.... The Fire Engines that were not needed.... Not needed for 4 days.... The huge Police presence of Officers in high Ranking Positions making themselves known that they are not happy.... The pawing over what we know as Flat 1.... after the original Forensics had been completed.... The images all over the internet to let him know, they have not forgotten....
But then we have CJ... A man that makes a statement saying he saw 2-3 people at the gate a man that knows the truth... and the stakes are raised.... Everything needs to be shut down.... CJ gets arrested.... But he too combats the ridiculous suggestion he had anything to do with Joanna Yeates Murder.... And has Lawyers I would say he cannot afford come to his aid to put a stop to this rubbish....
Dr Vincent Tabak tries to incriminate CJ... They have DVT's DNA he cannot escape that.... And so the stage is set to prosecute Dr Vincent Tabak on what we believe is NO evidence.... But they know everything.... They know what happened...He has told them so.... So when Ann Redrrop states that they have been approached by the Police and want to prosecute... she sends them on their merry way to gather the evidence....
But this case has become complexed.... And pressure has been placed upon everyone... And we end up with what we believe is the trial of the century.... It is and it isn't because NO-one spends time in prison.... The public may think that there is a Dr Vincent Tabak sat there... but i don't believe it..... Well not in the sense that he is this man we have been fooled into believing...
If the truth was known how the hell are you gonna explain that one away??????
The case is still live.... I believe... that is why NO lawyers will speak of this case and The Media will not talk of it also... maybe theres a clause in the deal that was made... that if they commit any crime whatsoever..They will spend time in jail.... And this will be revealed or maybe it has gone too far and they wouldn't want anyone to know how the law was manipulated and how we the public have been seen as the uneducated idiots they believe us to be who will swallow any garbage that is thrown our way....
So yes.... the Police Interviewed him and he says no comment apart from the little piece about the mobile phone....(apparently) But even though the killer is sat in front of them their hands are tied.... But they tell the public what they know in documentaries etc... at the Leveson.... without actually revealing... That Dr Vincent Tabak and Joe Blogs are indeed one in the same person..... And Dr Vincent Tabak actually walked away from court a free man....
But he will never be allowed to forget.... Every Christmas will be a constant reminder of what he did... i did wonder if Christmas was an Anniversary of some sort other than the obvious... it being Christmas... So everytime he wants to celebrate an anniversary or Christmas... Joanna Yeates's Murder will never leave him.... 20 years may be long enough for some for such a memory to fade maybe that is why 20 years was given as a sentence....Or possibly he may be dead by then..... But then the wake up call came again and the man with 2 identities one being Dr Vincent Tabak, was again dragged to court apparently to face the charges of Child Pornography.... This being the reason they waited to take him back to court many years later....... And he is put on the sex offenders register....
But we think that makes no difference because it didn't add any time to his sentence and 10 years on the register would be spent when he is released.... But he is walking free amongst us.... And that is why him being on the sex offenders register matters... because it will show up every time he works in what ever capacity he does and other people will become aware of who Dr Vincent Tabak really is and will keep a safe distance from him....
And therefore there is a very very small piece of justice done for vulnerable children..... But Joanna Yeates knows her killer is walking free amongst us... And I am sure she believes that Justice wasn't done... I am sure she believes that Justice failed her... and as I said yesterday... I hope she haunts them every day of their lives.... I hope they feel the eyes of everyone who knows burning into their souls.....
So if my scenario is correct... I will now change my mind and say that Dr Vincent Tabak is guilty of Manslaughter possibly Murder.... But as I have said all along.... I do not know the law and how it can be applied.... But there are some very creative ways in which it can be used...(imo) As we are all only to well aware.....
It was Mr Justice Field who remarked That The Truth May Never be known.... Well I say to him... Am I bang on the money!!
-
(http://www.anorak.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/joanna-yeates.jpg)
(http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/resources/images/1808576.jpg?display=1&htype=100003&type=responsive-gallery)
(https://cdn.images.dailystar.co.uk/dynamic/1/photos/831000/620x/Joanna-Yeates-grave-569281.jpg)
Two picture of Apparently Joanna Yeates at graduation..... But the top image looks photoshopped... The collar around her neck is too big..... It's like a head has been planted onto a body.....
So many images of Joanna Yeates look different it has been commented on before that the images do not look like the same woman
(http://www.whatsonxiamen.com/news_images/5977_1.jpg)
Take the image of a Joanna Yeates on a motor bike.... Not the same person we see in other images..... I do not know what is true any more... only that a young woman was Murdered.....
(http://images2.corriereobjects.it/methode_image/2017/08/04/Interni/Foto%20Gallery/4%20joanna-yeates-poster_MGTHUMB-INTERNA.jpg)
The Missing poster with so much detail not there....
Images of Bernard a Black and white cat.... There for a reason.... Something is being covered up... That is obvious.... The Yeates who say things that haven't been known... I'll come back too that......
We have a white middle class family... Who nothing is known about .... we are told what has happened in the strangest of ways.... The information and images out there as quick as you like..... David Yeates being the man showing us a picture of Joanna Yeates before the Police have issued any Official information.....
I am told what Joanna Yeates looks like.... I am told what apprantly had taken place..... I am told of a Dutchman who killed his next door neighbour for NO reason and I am supposed to believe this...... I am told that a Crime scene is frozen in time, with a christmas tree Missing from the scene... No evidence of Greg Reardon ever having been there.....
I am told she is found at a spot on Longwood lane... I am told implausible stories.... But what aren't we being told???
I don't know enough about The Family Yeates.... They are like ghosts in the night.... People who have not yet managed to put a headstone on their beloved daughters grave... Newspaper articles that get changed all the time, where we end up with links to "Coldplay, yet it features an images of Mr and Mrs Yeates looking sorrowful...
Anyone in this case could be anyone... Its like a Pandoras box..... Names cunjour up images, Dr Vincent Tabak for instance could be Black.... How are we to know any different... Just because we have been told that it is him doesn't mean it is.....
Families are made up of all different elements... Mine certainly is.... We have children who are born outside marriage... we have children whom are fathered by married men to other woman.... We have adopted children.. foster children..... A family can be made up of many strands.... A Braid...
my thought become more outlandish as time passes.... And when I first read posts years ago from leonora.. I thought , he's entitled to his opinion, but I may not agree.... The passage of time has changed that for me... leonora's ideas may not be as wild as people imagine.....
I thought about the press coverage of Joanna Yeates.... many people go Missing... many in mysterious circumstances... The Irish girl i wrote about Missing the same time as Joanna Yeates... No body was found but, she was pronounced dead.... How does that work.... ??
But the coverage always takes on an urgency if it is a middle class white woman..... Many Black and Asian woman go Missing... They do not appear across the news in the same manner.... They do not solicit the coverage that they should....
Would the pouring out of sympathy for The Murder have been the same if Joanna Yeates was in fact a black lady.... A lady of Mixed race?? Would people have reacted in the same manner....??
I don't understand this case.... not really.... smoke and mirrors are used all the time..... Truths and untruths are mixed together.... They give us an idea of what took place... but not what really happened I imagine....
Were the images we saw of a white lady really Joanna Yeates?? I couldn't say anymore... For all I know Princess Butterfly is really Joanna Yeates... anything is possible....
Whatever the truth is it has been hidden..... And it's not for me to work it out.... I am just an ordinary person going about my own business, who Isn't in any position to find out the whole truth.....
But one thing keeps nagging at me...... Why is it that The Yeates are the ones who make all the appeals??? Joanna Yeates is in a relationship... Shouldn't it be her partner who makes the appeals and NOT her parents....??
No interviews are done with Greg Reardon... He should have been suspect Number 1... partners and husbands normally are.... But we really only ever see the Yeates family telling us what happened... Which is strange in itself.... We do not know their whereabout... They too should have been questioned....
Someone reported Joanna Yeates as a Missing person on the 19th December 2010 and it was NOT Greg Reardon....
So who was it?
Where the family under suspicion?? It makes me think about all the appeals that are always made in cases where they parade the suspect in front of the media in the vain hope they slip up....
Sharon Mathews for instance.... She played to the media about the apparent abduction of her daughter... The media spotlight was upon her... But her story was untrue... And the evidence pointed to what had really taken place... with her confession given as to what her involvement was.....
I give up..... No-one is saying anything.... But the trial was a travesty for British justice... Deals were struck... Everyone played their part.... And some are sitting pretty.....
I can't keep up this posting about a case that is hidden... a case where evidence from The Leveson Inquiry is locked away for 84 years.... I cant undo any of that.. i can't access any of that.....
I will say one last thing that struck me as odd......
The Countdown to Murder documentary re-enactment...
Why does David Yeates tell us that Joanna Yeates had been doing her clothes washing??? How would he know that info... There is no washing machine visible in Flat 1 44 Canygne Road
David Yeates.. Countdown to Murder start at the 6 minute mark....
My daughter who's memory of her was scatty..
Why is his memory scatty?
she'd taken the opportunity over the weekend to orangise the washing... You know...Clothes Washing and erm... Washing up the stuff in the kitchen, things were nice and tidy.
Well apparently Greg and Joanna Yeates were extremely messy... Greg had been tidying up as he went along.... The dishes were still in the sink... There has never been any mention of Clothes washing... There isn't even a washing machine visible in the kitchen we have seen... How would Mr Yeates know that Joanna Yeates had been organising the clothes washing... Greg never mentions clothes washing.....
Who did CJ see at the gate??? that has never been established....
This case is a Miscarriage of Justice, but maybe not in the way we envisage... A man languishing in jail for a crime he did not commit.... But a Crime that has been covered up as far as i can work out... A Crime that has had the public fooled...
It's time people spoke out.... I can cross reference every ounce of information and come to many conclusions... some which may have a grain of truth.... The whole truth may never be known...
But unless those who have not spoken about this case come forward... we will never know the truth....
And as I have said before... This case will forever remain a "Cold Case"...
Edit.. I just had a thought... The fridge that is in the front room..... Is it a fridge or a top loading washing machine??
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2kpoos
-
...........
-
she'd taken the opportunity over the weekend to organise the washing... You know...Clothes Washing and erm... Washing up the stuff in the kitchen, things were nice and tidy.
This is from Countdown to Murder..... Mr Yeates says this as he is being Interviewed sat down with Mrs Yeates..
That statement is crazy.... I am trying to envisage what he means....
The insistence that Joanna Yeates was Missing from the 17th December 2010 the talk of abduction.... The staging of the flat...
What does Mr Yeates know that he hasn't told us?? when did Joanna Yeates actually die??
-
From The Mirror... 20th January 2011.. updated 26th January 2011
It is like the story is played out before we even know any details when the trial takes place.....
DETECTIVES hunting the killer of Jo Yeates are investigating whether she was strangled at a mystery third crime scene, it emerged yesterday.
They are trying to establish if she was murdered somewhere other than her flat or the spot where her body was found.
Police have found no signs of a struggle at the home Jo, 25, shared with boyfriend Greg, 27, in Clifton, Bristol.
They still think it likely she was killed there but are keeping an open mind on the possibility she died in the culprit’s home or car.
Well.... That covered all eventualities ... "Car or Home"?? Apparently Dr Vincent Tabak took Joanna Yeates around to his Flat and then put the body in his car as we have heard said since the trial.......
You couldn't make it up could you!
3rd Crime Scene???
Call that coincidence.. They didn't know Joanna Yeates had been moved to next door at this time....
I'm starting to wonder if this is even a real crime..... Or is it work of fiction?? Or was it life imitating art??
Daily Mirror
Verified account
@DailyMirror
Follow Follow @DailyMirror
More
Jo Yeates murder: Police investigating whether she was killed at mystery third crime scene http://bit.ly/fxqewF #news
6:34 PM - 19 Jan 2011
I got the link from the tweet But the tweet is dated the 19th January 2011, before Dr vincent Tabak was even arrested... strange that....
Edit... Does one read that as ... There was a third scene of Crime .... Or Joanna Yeates was at a Crime Scene and was Murdered there???
https://twitter.com/DailyMirror/status/27886586293125120
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murder-police-investigating-105546
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The case that doesn't make sense... I keep saying that... I keep trying to understand what it is about this case why no-one speaks...
The only thing I can think of is another identity.... But who has another identity is the difficult one.....
I was thinking about John Venables.... I'm not saying he's connected... But it gave me the idea that the reason no-ones speaks about the case , is because of someones new identity...
Was someone connected to this case already under witness protection?/ Or had committed a crime and was given a new identity..
Is that why Dr Vincent Tabak is guilty.... Did he have a different name before?? Who out of the main players has had a previous identity??
Anyone of them could be related in any shape or form... You might not know Dr Vincent Tabak, but if he went under a different name prior, then you may know him as that.... So we have females and males in this case who could have had a previous identity.....
Who has had there identity changed? Is it more than one person?? With various people appearing in the papers I have made a list..
* Dr Vincent tabak
* Tanja Morson
* Greg Reardon
* David Yeates
* Teresa Yeates
* Chris Yeates
* Rebecca Scott
* CJ
I don't know whether to include Peter Stanley and Lawerence Penney in that list, because of the Police searching Peter Stanleys house.
Someone of Interest had to live at CJ's house for them to not shift their investigation from that property...
So is the reason No-one speak of this case because one of the above had had their identity changed and was already know to the police??
That makes some sense to me ....
So if CJ saw someone at thee gate who was either under witness protection or had another identity that he was aware of then I can understand why his second witness statement would not be made public... Or hidden for years and years...
Trouble is even if I am correct.. I don't have a Scooby.... And as no-one will speak or cannot speak, then i'm a little stuck....
Is Joanna Yeates really Joanna Yeates ??? I don't know..... Something is might off in this case...!!
-
This Post I did about the Blackeberry.... Has me thinking about something else.....
There is nothing to prove that the text message which says:
"Missing you loads, I'm bored here without you V xxx" was sent by Dr Vincent Tabak....
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8239.0;attach=13233;image)
Because we see the letter "V" we assume that it must mean that it is sent from Dr Vincent tabak as we have no-one else whom we know of with the initial "V"....
But what I believe is we fail to notice is that it's a Blackberry phone with on onboard keyboard... which is significant for those of us that have used onboard keyboard phones, were it is quite easy to make errors....
I'll just go back to the message where apparently Dr Vincent Tabak sent the word "Crisis " instead of Crisps... he apparently was supposed to have subconciously made this error....
But... I have always wondered if the text messages were fake..... Or if the real killer sent these texts.... Or they all came from the same phone.... It may appear that this text is different from the others and with the initial "V" being seen we put 2 and 2 together and keep coming up with the wrong answer (imo)
I believe if someone was trying to create an alibi, then the sending of the messages would establish what they were doing and where they may have been at the time..... So if someone is creating this text after the event, I can understand why they would end up with... V xxx
I keep making the same error when i am posting, it has just dawned on me what may have happened.... When I am copying and pasting text... web address etc.... I do not always hit "Command and V" at the same time, and instead I get "V" only appearing, where it should have been something i wished to paste.... But i have carried on regardless and it isn't until I have re-read what i have written that I have noticed my error.....
Use a Ctrl shortcut
On a touch screen keyboard, by default, the ?123 key is the Ctrl key. If your device has a physical keyboard, you can set a Shift key as the Ctrl key.
If necessary, select the text that you want to cut, copy, or apply formatting to.
Press the Ctrl key and a shortcut key at the same time:
Z (undo)
Y (redo)
X (cut)
C (copy)
V (paste)
B (bold)
U (underline)
I (italic)
Tip: You can also press and hold the Ctrl key until Ctrl mode turns on. When Ctrl mode is on, you can use Ctrl shortcuts without holding down the Ctrl key.
So baring in mind the ability of a phone with an onboard keyboard, it is possible to to send a message believing that you had copied and pasted something else on the message..... If someone was trying to cover their tracks then that again makes sense....
Whoever made that text could quiet as easily been trying to paste a URL onto the text and it didn't happen.. Instead the letter V was entered by accident.....
If the text was trying to show the recipient how bored they were they might have gone to this website for instance... https://www.boredbutton.com/ illustrating the depth of their boredom...
So the text in fact could have meant to say: ""Missing you loads, I'm bored here without you https://www.boredbutton.com/ xxx"
But someone has been trying to get us to believe that the letter "V" can only stand for the word Vincent.... when in fact that is not true...(imo)
https://help.blackberry.com/en/keyboard/latest/help/assign-ctrl-key.html
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8239.msg456762#msg456762
-
Part 1.....
The Case that doesn't make sense.....
steven morris
@stevenmorris20
Follow Follow @stevenmorris20
More
Joanna Yeates' mother, Teresa, is not in court this morning.
3:35 AM - 21 Oct 2011
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=13261;image)
How comes Mrs Yeates didn't attend court?
You would imagine that Mrs yeates would be in court everyday.. i remember that they didn't attend court when the verdict came.. But Greg and Mr Yeates attended the day that Mrs Yeates didn't attend... There was a day that Clegg didn't attend also . but I can't remember off hand.. And do not know if this is connected... Anyway...
More
Jo yeates murder. Mother, Teresa Yeates - 'I am sat in the kitchen just wanting her to come through the door. 'It is so quiet without her.'
5:54 AM - 4 Jan 2011
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=13263;image)
Could be just me... but why would it be so quiet without her if she had already left home?
That made me think about the Countdown to Murder program, where it says:
(7) * At the same time Jo was leaving school Vincent Tabak was travelling from the country of his birth The
Netherlands
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/22259457564090368
https://twitter.com/stevenmorris20/status/127317189891063808
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8239.msg456649#msg456649
-
Part 1.....
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=13263;image)
Could be just me... but why would it be so quiet without her if she had already left home?
The full quote is: "She just had this joy and vibrancy, even though she didn't live here. I am sat in the kitchen just wanting her to come through the door. It is just so quiet here without her," It's just a Mum missing her daughther. No mystery.
-
That reply was swift Baz.....lol
-
Part2..
Headlines at and around the time I cannot remember then all, but what I do remember is that The Attorney General had stated that no stories should appear that would hamper a trial...
"The Countdown to Murder Program" again gives us an insight into what apparently happened at the time..
I have attached 3 images... The one that you can see the date of 31st January 2011 the headlines are telling us something different from what we are aware took place....
Jo Murder Suspect... then it shows us an image of what we have been told id Dr Vincent Tabak..
Next door neighbour Vincent Tabak seized as he returns from holiday... Detectives probe work links to Jo and quiz his look-a-like girlfriend
The other two front pages do not have a date... And I cannot find any images of these headlines other than from the program..
Wouldn't the headlines be prejudicial?? Did these articles ever get published?? Can anyone verify that??
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Part 3...
Jo Yeates murder suspect Vincent Tabak appears in court
20 September 2011
Vincent Tabak, 33, spoke only to confirm his name at the 27-minute pre-trial hearing at Bristol Crown Court.
Miss Yeates's parents David and Teresa attended the hearing, arriving at the court accompanied by two police officers.
Dutch architect Tabak has admitted the manslaughter of 25-year-old Miss Yeates, but denies murdering her.
That was not the first time that The Yeates appeared at court in regards to this case.... we remember them walking down the road with the FLO Emma outside The Old Bailey when they attended that Hearing also....
From The Getty footage
Joanna Yeates murder: Vincent Tabak faces murder trial
Joanna Yeates murder: Vincent Tabak faces murder trial; ENGLAND: London: Old Bailey: EXT David and Teresa Yeates (parents of murdered landscape architect Joanna Yeates) along to court
also to the side of the video we get this info..
Details
Restrictions: No use by regional TV or radio in UK and Ireland until 3 days after date of creation. Prior approval required if clip features ITN newsreader or reporter, please contact your local Getty Images representative.
Credit: ITN
Clip #: 656029440 SD
Collection: ITN
Date created: 05 May, 2011
Licence type: Rights-ready
Release info: Not released. More information
Clip length: 00:00:13:07
Location: United Kingdom
Mastered to: QuickTime 8-bit Photo-JPEG SD 720x576 25i More information
Originally shot on: 576 25i
Source: ITN
Object name: t05051107_0.mov
I am like AH.... I do not believe in coincidences... I keep asking why?? There has to be a why?
The conclusion may explain, I have said many times before that The Yeates should never have appeared at any hearing in relation to Dr Vincent Tabak... They witnessed as much as Greg Reardon did... Why were they not called as witness's at trial??
I also have to be mindful and wonder what reporting restrictions were made around that time... And that could play a role in this case...
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/vincent-tabak-faces-murder-trial-england-london-old-news-footage/656029440
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-14990517?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Part 4...
From Cleggs opening speech....
Defence Counsel, Mr William Clegg, QC’s opening speech:
‘If Jo Yeates had stayed for just one more drink she would be alive today. If Vincent
Tabak had gone to Asda as he had planned that same time, he would not be in the dock
today.
She turned on the oven to bake.
She phoned several male friends and told how she was bored.
She texted Samuel Ashcroft:
“Where are you this fine eve?”
His reply was “Home- sorry”.
She then texted Peter: “Where are you?”
Peter replied “On my way to a wedding. Where are you?”
She replied: “At home- on my todd”.
She texted a third male friend. She has said she was bored and she was looking for company.
It was the Christmas period and many people were at parties.
In the next flat was Vincent Tabak.
They never really knew each other, save for a nod.
Vincent Tabak was also alone- and bored.
He decided to go to Asda – not for anything special but to fill in time.
He left his flat; was walking towards his car and went past her kitchen window.
The kitchen blind was broken and so stayed up all the time, as Greg Reardon had
confirmed.
Vincent was walking towards his car when he passed Joanna’s kitchen window. She saw
him, there was a nod of acknowledgement and she beckoned him to come in. She had
opened the door and invited him in.
He took off his coat.
He hung it on her coat rack.
She offered him a drink and he declined as he was driving.
She said her boyfriend was away and she was alone and he said that his girlfriend was
away and he was alone.
Vincent Tabak misread her friendliness toward him and made a move towards her as if he
was about to kiss him on her lips.
He put one hand in the middle of her back as if he was about to kiss her, and she screamed
fiercely.
He put his hand over her mouth and said sorry and when he moved his hand away she
screamed again.
He put his hand to her mouth and throat and she went limp. She was dead.
He had never touched her before other than to shake hands as he went into her flat.
That moment was all it took and she was dead.
Nothing was timed.
He thinks that maybe he was in the flat for 10 minutes before she screamed.
The incident when he put her hand on his throat was far less than a minute.
Defence expert Dr Carey will give evidence on Friday 21 December 2010 on this matter.
Prosecution pathologist expert witness, Dr Delaney, said on 18 October that it may well
have been 10 seconds.
Those arriving at the party at Number 53 said they heard screams.
It is for the jury to decide whether a scream from inside Flat 1 could be heard from
outside 53 Canynge Road.
The jury will have to decide whether anybody could have heard.
But one thing is that three witnesses heard screams spread out over some ten minutes.
This cannot be.
The couple arriving outside number 53, a short time after they were filmed on CCTV at
number 83.
But the weather conditions were icy. How long did it take them to get there?
Warren Sweet said he did not arrive at Number 53’s party until 8.50pm on Friday 17
December 2010.
When he arrived at No. 53, Warren Sweet said he heard a scream. That cannot be the
same scream that the couple heard.
The reaction of all four people who heard screams was initially put down to students out
celebrating as term had finished that day.
You may think that the whole of those screams is totally unconnected.
You just couldn’t hear anybody from that distance. This does mean that one really hasn’t got a real clue as to when Tabak went into
Joanna’s flat except that it was between the time he went to Asda and the time he texted
his girlfriend, say, between 9.00 pm and 11.00 pm.
Were you to conclude that the couple heard Joanna’s screams and not the scream that Mr
Sweet heard; if the Laymans and Sweet‘s evidence were to be dismissed, it would tie in
with the scientific evidence.
One thing is certain. Joanna Yeates was killed between 21.00 and 21.30 pm on Friday 17
December 2010.
It was not something he planned.
It was, in the words of Dr Delaney, expert prosecution pathologist witness, that death had
occurred in less than half a minute; less than 20 seconds, less than 10 seconds even.
A very important piece of evidence is that what Tabak wrote in his statement is nearly the
same and corroborated the undisputed pathologist expert witnesses.But his conduct
afterwards was frankly disgusting.
He took her body and disposed of it.
He caused anguish to her family.
His defence will not be heard to excuse this behaviour.
He was obviously concerned with the incident, trying to track everything.
It was only a matter of time before the police came to arrest him.
Again he told lie after lie and you will hear no excuse from me about that. It shows a very
calculating person trying to wriggle out of her death but it does not help in thinking of
what happened at the flat….
He went to his flat and left Joanna’s flat door on the latch.
He returned.
He turned off the oven that she had turned on.
He took the Tesco pizza that was in the kitchen.
He carried the body from her flat to his flat.
He then put her body in the bag that he used to cover his bike.
He then went to get his car, placed the body in the boot of his car, went to Asda, a trip he
formerly planned, and drove aimlessly around whilst deciding what to do.
He tried to put the body over the wall.
It was too heavy and so he left it by the roadside.
When he got back home, he put the pizza, the cycle cover and the sock into a corporate
dustbin.
And then, despite the awful secret that he was carrying, he tried to carry on as before:
going to parties, living with his girlfriend, etc, instead of going to the police.
There will be no excuse from me for that. He will be called to give evidence on Thursday
20 October
He hung it on her coat rack.
He turned off the oven that she had turned on.
He took the Tesco pizza that was in the kitchen.
These are depicted in The Countdown to Murder...
5th January 2011 from The Guardian:
But Detective Chief Inspector Phil Jones, who is leading the inquiry, revealed that in fact she had not been wearing shoes or a coat and one sock was missing. The light-coloured coat she was wearing on the evening she disappeared was hanging on a hook at her flat and the boots she had on were also there.
The story that Greg tells differs and the coats were on the floor... But "The Countdown to Murder program", sticks with the narrative of what apparently happened and we see depicted in the program , the coat stand with the white coat Joanna Yeates wore on the 17th December 2010 hung upon it.... (images attached)
Every time we look at the old media reports we always see evidence we shouldn't....
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jan/05/joanna-yeates-murder-missing-sock
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Part 5...
The papers at the time......
23rd December 2010
Detectives say they are ‘baffled’ by the disappearance of 25-year-old blonde Miss Yeates, who was last seen in two supermarkets on Friday night after a Christmas drink with colleagues at a pub.
She then returned to the £200,000 rented flat in the affluent Bristol area of Clifton – where her coat, keys, purse and bank cards were found.
Mr Reardon, whose phone and computer have been taken by police, is also an architect in the same practice as his girlfriend.
The day before ..... Rebecca Scott... 22nd December 2010 where she talks of Purse, keys and phone being left behind... I cannot find my post on it at the mo... But I remember commenting on how on earth Rebecca Scott would know this information so early on in the Investigation when this type of Information should be kept to the Police...
( I'm going to move these post over to the other topic.....
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9360.msg457181#msg457181
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1340586/Boyfriend-missing-architect-Jo-Yeates-sobs-I-want-Christmas.html#ixzz5D38Qf25b
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The full quote is: "She just had this joy and vibrancy, even though she didn't live here. I am sat in the kitchen just wanting her to come through the door. It is just so quiet here without her," It's just a Mum missing her daughther. No mystery.
Yes Baz... I found the article you referred to where the quote came from... It also has this interestimg piece of information..
Detectives hunting the killer of the landscape architect Joanna Yeates have launched a national Facebook campaign to appeal for help.
An advert showing an image of Yeates headlined "Jo's murder can you help?" will pop up on the social networking site to encourage people with information to contact police online.
Running an advert on facebook can target anyone.... right down to one particular person....
5. Get Super Granular With Layered Targeting Options
The really powerful thing about Facebook ads is in your ability to layer targeting options on top of one another, gradually making your audience more and more specific. An extreme (and hilarious) example of the power of hypertargeting was featured in AdWeek last year, when a marketing pro targeted his roommate with ads so specific the poor guy thought he was being cyberstalked.
Yes, you can use combinations of behaviors, demographics, and geolocation data to reduce your audience to as little as one person. Far more useful for you, however, is the ability to match ad creative and offers to smaller audiences created using combinations of data.
The link from the newspaper about the advert goes straight to Avon and Somersets website.. The ad that was on facebook, I do not know what it featured... So could have been aimed at someone specific..
I do not know how many AD campaigns Avon and somerset Police use in general on facebook or this tactic was used just for that particular case....
If aimed at someone specific, they could have contacted the Police with information... Or it could have been there just to rattle their cage....
I did notice that nothing from Dr Vincent Tabak facebook page/content was used in the trial..... that should have held a wealth of information, either what was said at the time on it... or if he had stopped using it because of the Ad campaign...
Detective Chief Inspector Phil Jones, who is leading the inquiry, said: "The majority of people these days are spending time on Facebook and other social networking sites; this has become part of everyday routine for many people. This advert allows us to point people to special features on our website with all the latest information. It allows them to contact the incident room direct online rather than calling in.
What was on The Avon and Somerset Advert.... I clicked the link from The Newspaper Article and the url i have linked below, Whatever that image was it is no longer there.... does the 1973 in the address mean anything??
Looking at NSU 1973 I just find cars?? NSU being a German manufacturer.... We still do not know what car Joanna yeates had..... Did she have a classic car?? Had she advertised it for sale ?? Was someone admiring her car??
I only thought of this as a possibility because they show Peter Stanleys cars... both are Classic cars.. An Old Jeep and i think the other is an old BMW...
So the information we do not know about may be Joanna Yeates car....
The Use of Facebook gives them a world wide audience.... Were they aiming it at someone from another country?? seeing as the feature was to contact them online instead of ringing directly.... It also give prisoners a means in which to contact the Police.....
Most of Facebook's 400 million members use the social-networking site to reconnect with long-lost pals and keep in touch with friends and family. But dozens of prisoners in Britain have found a more sinister and predatory use for Facebook: after being locked up for offenses such as murder and assault, inmates are taunting and terrorizing their victims through status updates and group wall posts.
British prisons ban inmates from accessing the Internet except for educational purposes, and then only under staff supervision. But prisoners are still finding ways to update their Facebook pages from behind bars, sometimes using smart phones they've smuggled into jail
Was the ad campaign aimed at someone specific? someone who could not ring the police directly?? It is a possibility like so many other things.. But ordinarily I find that the Police do not wish people to contact them via social media.... It tends to be there for information purposes only... They ordinarily give the public a phone number to call...
This idea brings up other possibilities.... Was the sobbing girl in prison?? Did the sobbing girl communicate via facebook using emojis?? Is this why we never have heard anything else about the sobbing girl??
Edit.......
Although Facebook bans sex offenders from using the site, it has no specific policy for people convicted of other crimes. "Until they serve their time, they should lose the ability to have their profile on any of these social-networking sites," Trowsdale says.
Did Dr vincent Tabak use facebook whilst he was in prison?? Is that the reason he was finally convicted of child porn many years later?? Maybe they thought calling the Murder of Joanna Yeats a Sex Crime would prevent the use of social media... And as it wasn't proven to be a sex crime would facebook deem it as one?? If Dr Vincent Tabak had a way of accessing the internet did the Child Porn charges put a stop to that???
Just a thought..
http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1964916,00.html
https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/LocalPages/CachedImages/NewsImageNS-1NSU1973LARGE.jpg
https://www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2015/01/28/facebook-ad-targeting
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jan/04/joanna-yeates-facebook-appeal
-
I know this tweet has nothing to do with The Case... But it made me wonder what else the police get up to??
Mark Williams-Thomas
Verified account
@mwilliamsthomas
Not in series : When #AnnaKenny was found the police advised the family all of her skeletal remains were returned & she was buried. In reality- many years later her skull was found being used in CID lectures . #TheInvestigator
2:37 AM - 20 Apr 2018
https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/987248958811537413
-
This image....
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8239.0;attach=13223;image)
It brings the question did Joanna Yeates actually die on the 25th December 2010?? Was she alive.. barely alive when they found her??
Dr Vincent Tabak was originally charged between 16th December 2010 and the 26th December 2010... Was she put on life support?? Did her life support get turned off??
I cannot understand why the plaque says the date of 25th December 2010, if that wasn't the actual date of her death... Especially when nothing has been proven when she actually died ... Had she been attacked and was found in the foetal position unconcious?? (frozen) as in a coma?
Has anyone else got any ideas as to why the plaque would say that??
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Was Joanna Yeates body frozen elsewhere?? kept as in this unsolved case...
A month after she went missing, the body of 17-year old Anne Noblett was found frozen almost solid. It had been a mild winter and the discovery made little sense. How did the teenager, who was fully clothed and still wearing her glasses, end up ice-cold in woodland five miles from where she was last seen?
The talk of the 4X4 vehicle being seen was that some type of refridgeration unit they were hinting at?? Joanna yeates could have easily been kept inside a refridgerated vehicle and dumped later...
Anything in this case is possible....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-42341980
-
The Police Officer to the left of DC John Hook (bald head)in Black, is a dopple ganger for Tim Roth , the actor.... Unless Tim Roth decided to help our boys in blue??
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=13374;image)
A detective (centre) briefs police officers prior to leaving the home of Peter Stanley, 56, who lives in a flat in the mansion to the right of Chris Jefferies on Canynge Road and who worked to start the car of Joanna Yeates' boyfriend,...More
Edit.... The Police Officer peaking in between DC John Hook and The Officer in the High Viz Jacket has a green badge on his hat, anyone any ideas what the Green badge is for?? Which Constabulary?
-
This image from....
Joanna Yeates murder: Vincent Tabak trial
Joanna Yeates murder: Vincent Tabak trial; Nigel Lickley QC (Prosecution) along to court 'Crown Court' plaque outside building Reporter to camera
Purchase a licence
Get personalised pricing by telling us about when, where, and how you want to use this image.
SELECT OPTIONS
SAVE TO BASKET
Details
Restrictions: No use by regional TV or radio in UK and Ireland until 3 days after date of creation. Prior approval required if clip features ITN newsreader or reporter, please contact your local Getty Images representative.
Credit: ITN
Clip #: 656382646 SD
Collection: ITN
Date created: 11 October, 2011
Licence type: Rights-ready
Release info: Not released. More information
Clip length: 00:00:33:13
Location: United Kingdom
Mastered to: QuickTime 8-bit Photo-JPEG SD 720x576 25i More information
Originally shot on: 576 25i
Source: ITN
Object name: t11101102_1575.mov
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=13378;image)
Nigel Lickley QC has a cassette tape in his hand.... Why would he be allowing everyone to view the tape that he has.... The only recording that was played in court I believe was the 999 call from Greg Reardon.... which brings other questions...
Although individual calls could well be date- and time-stamped, it may still take a considerable amount of time to retrieve them if managers have not documented or ‘tagged’ all relevant attributes of the contact – for instance, the nature of the contact, the name and operator number of the staff member who took the call, their terminal number, and the instructions they gave to the emergency dispatch unit.
* Was the call from Greg Reardon Time stamped??
* Was it documented??
* Was the name of the operator mentioned at trial??
* Was the number of said operator recorded and used at trial??
* Was their terminal number given??
* What Instructions were given to the dispatch unit??
I personally would have thought that digital recording were taken... I the tape is supposed to be a recording of Dr Vincent Tabak ... why wasn't it played in court??
Who's the guy with Nigel??
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=13382;image)
https://www.callcentrehelper.com/call-recording-for-the-police-57135.htm
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/vincent-tabak-trial-nigel-lickley-qc-along-to-court-crown-news-footage/656382646
-
I hadn't realised before.. But... There were 3 people in Tesco's other than Joanna Yeates when she purchases her Pizza..
Where these 3 people interviewed??
Who were these 3 people??
Were any of these people with Joanna Yeates??
Where any of these people waiting for Joanna Yeates??
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=13384;image)
-
From same video: 5th January 2011
And I'm very grateful for the public logging on to youtube, I would still encourage the public to view the CCTV footage, it's a very good CCTV image of Jo and the clothing she was wearing that night and I would appeal to anybody who might have seen Jo that evening, walking from The Ram public house to her home address in Canygne Road, to please please , contact us...
Two questions here.... What is the reference to logging onto youtube?? You don't need to log on to youtube to watch anything... But maybe the CCTV that DCI Phil Jones is referring too need you to log on to view?? Alternatively I believe that you can log into your outlook account to watch youtube channels..
Click tHe subscribe button...
The Subscribe to this feed dialogue box closes
Now you can view the feed in either Internet explorer 7 or 8 or Outlook 2010.
Each time that you subscribe to a new youtube channel, a new folder that
displays the channel name appears in the RSS feeds folder in the Outlook
Folder list in the navigation bar. Just look inside the folder to see whats
new. You'll see an entry for each video that looks like an email message
with a picture from that video. When you double click, one of those pictures,
the video it represents opens for viewing
And secondly..... Why is he appealing for people who may have seen Jo walking home that evening?? There should be plenty of CCTV of Joanna walking her route home which we have never seen.... Did she not walk all the way home?? Was she given a lift???
Why are they not appealing to the people in the CCTV directly?? We know about the woman and child at Cafe Nero now... Was that appeal aimed at her??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSjd-UPHg2A
-
I could never understand why The Yeates appeals were done with them sat on their own in a room.... I was under the impression the Police Appeals usually had the lead Officer sat with the grieving relatives / appealing relatives when the public appeal is made.... Just as in the Becky Watts appeal..
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=13393;image)
The Logo of Avon and Somerset Police is also visible... But not visible in the appeals made by Mr and Mrs Yeates... The only time you see a visible logo is when DCI Phil Jones makes his appeals after Joanna Yeates is found dead...
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=13395;image)
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=13397;image)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyBlwK1z-9k
-
What is "Missing " From This Case???
(1): Time Stamp on Tesco's CCTV
(2): Time Stamp on Asda CCTV
(3): Time Stamp on The Bristol Ram
(4): Time Stamp on Bargain Booze CCTV
(5): Time Stamp on Hophouse Pub CCTV
(6): CCTV from Rope and Anchor
(7): Nero Cafe CCTV
(8): Canygne Road CCTV
(9): Clifton suspension Bridge CCTV
(10): Time Stamp on Park Street CCTV Megane car
(11): Evidence of Bernard
(12): CJ at Trial
(13): Tanja Morson at Trial
(14): Good Character Witness's at trial
(15): DCI Jones never took witness stand
(16): All of Greg Reardons possesions from Flat 1
(17): The Christmas Tree from Flat 1
(18): The Carpets from Flat 1
(19): The Panel on the outside for the intercom
(20): Joanna Yeates car
(21): Phone call recordings from Holland apparently made by Dr Vincent Tabak
(22): The Sobbing Girl phone Call
(23): The Presumption of Innocence
(24): Nurse Ruth Booth Pearson (examined Dr Vincent Tabak when he was arrested )
(25): Daniel Birch ( Dog walker who found Joanna Yeates)
(26): Samuel Huscroft (Friend Joanna Yeates ) (text received from Joanna Yeates )
(27) : Mathew Wood (Chris Yeates Friend... Joanna Yeates (text Received from Joanna Yeates )
(28) : Sarah Maddox (At Dinner Party Dr Vincent Tabak attended )
(29) : PC Steve Archer ( Was there when Dr Vincent Tabak was arrested )
(30: : Mathew Phillips (Heard a shreik... was at party on Canygne Road )
(31) : Louise Althrope (Attended Party with Dr Vincent Tabak)
(32) : Geofrey Hardyman (Tenant of 44 Canygne Road )
(33) : Elizabeth Chandler ( Office Manager at BDP)
(34) : Shrikart Sharma ( Dr Vincent Tabak's Boss )
(35) : Glen O'Hare ( Hosted Part Dr Vincent Tabak attended ).
(36) : Anneleise Jackson, (PC... Greg's Phone Call statement )
(37) : Peter Lindsell ( Friends of Joanna Yeates .. at Bristol Mead Station ( Text received from Joanna Yeates )
(38) : Andrew Lillie (Attended a Dinner Party with Dr Vincent Tabak )
(39) : Linda Marland (Attended Party Dr Vincent Tabak attended ) (party was in a bar in Bristol)
(40): Brothertons superiors whom he told about Dr Vincent Tabak apparent Confession
(41): Forensics of the Ikea Duvet that Dr Kelly Sheridan talked about
(42): Forensics from the bathroom
(43): Forensics from the kitchen
(44): Forensics from the bedroom
(45); Forensics from the hallway
(46): Forensics from the front door that was removed
(47): The TV in the front room
(48): The Surfboard
(49): The Microwave
(50): The Apron
(51): The Broken Plastic
(52): Numbered Exhibits from Forensics done at Flat
(53): A Defence Council (imo)
(54): Other neighbours from 44, Canygne Road
(55): The Fire Chiefs report of there 4 day exercise
(56): Photographs of Joanna Yeates being removed from site
(57): Chris Yeates giving evidence to all the posters and help he was doing looking for his Missing sister (paints a
picture)
(58): Proof of ID for Dr Vincent Tabak
(59): Being allowed Bail
(60): An explanation on how the earring ended under the duvet?
(61): Joanna Yeates clothes she was wearing at the Ram
(62): Joanna Yeates clothes she was wearing when found (patterned flowered top)
(63): Description of what Joanna Yeates was last seen wearing
(64): CCTV Interviews of Dr Vincent Tabak at Police Station
(65): The 3 people in Tesco's besides Joanna Yeates
(66): The Original CCTV from Tesco
(67): CCTV from outside The Bristol Ram
(68): The whole CCTV Unit taken from The Hophouse pub
(69): The Pizza and note sent to The Ram Pub
(70): The Reciept from Tesco's showing date and time pizza was purchased
(71): Dr Vincent Tabak phone not at trial
(72): Dr Vincent Tabaks Laptop not at trial
(73): CCTV of Dr Vincent Tabak parking his car in ASDA
(74): CCTV of Dr Vincent Tabak driving to ASDA
(75): The Sock Exhibit that was shown in the News conference on 5th January 2011
(76): The search of any where else other than Canygne Road
(77): Did we see Joanna Yeates Coat at trial??
(78): Did we see Joanna Yeates boots at trial??
(79): Did we see Joanna Yeates Rucksack at trial??
(80): Did we see Joanna Yeates green Fleece at trial??
(81): Did we see Joanna Yeates white watch at trial??
(82): No-one from Buro Happold attended trial
(83): Did we see proof of Dr Vincent Tabak's trip to America at trial??
(84): Did we see any visa Dr Vincent Tabak applied for to go to America at trial??
(85): Did any friends from Holland attend the trial??
(86): Peter Stanley From trial/ no statement either
(87): A statement from Alex the manager of The Bristol Ram who received the Pizza label and note
(88): Photographs taken of Flat 1 after the report of Joanna Yeates "Missing"
(89): Bank records to show Dr Vincent Tabak's purchases at ASDA ?
(90): The two seperate time - stamps for the two ASDA visits
(91): The log from the phone company of the text messages sent by Dr Vincent Tabak
(92): Photographs of the snow at Canygne Road on the 20th December when the Police arrive
(93): The land registry entry for the amount of flats at Canygne Road
(94): Joanna Yeates full Inquest
(95): Joanna Yeates headstone
(96): Joanna yeates best friend Emma
(97): Joanna Yeates Diary
(98): The Mince Pie recipe
(99): Joanna Yeates bank records to show how much she withdrew from the ATM
(100): Joanna Yeates boss....
Oh Yes..... "Evidence!!"
-
I have just looked through all of Avon and Somerset Polices Facebook pictures, to see which pictures of Joanna yeates they had.. and disappointingly there isn't any...
The first image is an Official poster for themselves....
Avon and Somerset Constabulary
Like This Page · 5 December 2011 ·
The whole of 2010 isn't there or the begining of 2011...
I thought they had a campaign for Joanna Yeates on their Faceboook page?? (i'll have to look through their posts)
According to Scott Fulton their e-Service manager they had set up info on there facebook page...
Scott Fulton
Hi,
We have now set up an easier link to the latest on the appeal at: http://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/jo if you could update your homepage that would be appreciated.
We are also keeping updates via our Facebook page:
http://www.facebook.com/avonandsomersetpolice
We’ll be adding a full feature to our site tomorrow.
Thanks,
Scott
eServices Manager
http://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk
December 23, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Where are all the Missing Posters??
The last picture is a 1976 picture from Instagram next to last is a 2008 picture.. The next picture from the bottom jumps to 5th December 2011.... That huge hole that is there?? Where have you hidden your most famous case??
Either Avon and Somerset never had any info on Joanna Yeates and that was a red herring or They have removed anything that has anything to do with her case...
No award ceremony... No Dr Vincent Tabak images... No Joanna Yeates images.... Nothing at all.... Diddley Squat!!
Why???
I did manage to find Lyndsey Farmery getting an award years later for something else..... But she's called Lyndsey Menear and not Farmery.... Either she has been married or Her real name is Menear ? maybe Farmery was her mothers maiden name?? She's still an analyst though....
Avon and Somerset Constabulary
Like This Page · 13 January 2014 ·
Chief Constable Nick Gargan presents analyst Lyndsey Menear with her Chief Constable's Commendation at the Avon and Somerset Constabulary Force Awards on Thursday, January 9. She was involved in the murder investigation into the death of Catherine Wells-Burr on September 12, 2012, whose body was set alight in a car abandoned by the roadside near Ilminster, after she was murdered at her home in Chard. Three people were jailed for life.
So wheres the Congratulations for the Joanna Yeates Case??
The Police still have The Becky Watts Missing Poster on their facebook page
Avon and Somerset Constabulary
Like This Page · 25 February 2015 · Edited ·
Our search continues today for missing Bristol teenager Becky Watts, who has been missing since Thursday morning. www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/findbecky
Please help by sharing our appeal and urge anyone with information, no matter how insignificant it might seem, to come forward to help us #FindBecky.
DI Richard Ocone is giving an update to the media about the investigation this afternoon. Updates from the press briefing and a dedicated online contact form can be found here: http://bit.ly/1LDe7jE
Thank you for your ongoing support.
The other point of Interest is Becky Watts had a Reference Number to quote when people contacted the Police
MP 591/15
They have video on youtube listed
* Tescos
* Bargain Booze
* DCI Phil Jones 27th Dec 2010
* Mr and Mrs yeates early appeal.. It is not their first
* Rebecca Scott Interview
* Mr and Mrs Yeates last appeal
* DCI Jones on 3rd January 2011
* DCI Jones Missing sock appeal
The Waitrose video isn't on their Official website and when I look on youtube it was The Telegraph that put the video online..
Also Missing is the first appeal video when Mrs Yeates is wearing a purple Fleece... i think thats the video that Greg Reardon interview/appeal in
Heres the list from youtube..
The Murder of Joanna Yeates
Avon and Somerset Constabulary
1 / 7
▶
5:04
Statement from Teresa and David Yeates
Avon and Somerset Constabulary
2
6:48
Jo Yeates best friend speaks of loss
Avon and Somerset Constabulary
3
4:14
Joanna Yeates murder - Police Press Conference 05/01/11
Avon and Somerset Constabulary
4
5:36
Jo Yeates murder investigation - Detectives re-new appeal for information
Avon and Somerset Constabulary
5
11:35
Police Announce Murder enquiry launched over death of Joanna
Avon and Somerset Constabulary
6
0:58
Joanna Yeates buying a pizza at Tesco
Avon and Somerset Constabulary
7
15:01
Joanna Yeates Appeal
Avon and Somerset Constabulary
Cannot find the Bargain Booze one that is listed on the Facebook page.. But what I did notice is the Last appeal by The Yeates was on the news on the 18th January 2011... But the date on youtube for that appeal is 17th January 2011...
Avon and Somerset Constabulary
Published on Jan 17, 2011
The mother and father of Joanna Yeates have made a further statement appealing to those responsible for their daughters death.
http://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/jo
Category
News & Politics
License
Standard YouTube License
I'm sure I'll find something in their posts... i'll just have to scroll through them... At least what I find will have a date...
https://helpfindjo.wordpress.com/about/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFhWJbMcqVk&list=PL30D5E72F404BB885
https://www.facebook.com/avonandsomersetpolice/photos/a.10152113097119812.1073741847.7792979811/10152113151154812/?type=3&theater
https://www.facebook.com/avonandsomersetpolice/photos/a.432000134811.241337.7792979811/7793114811/?type=3&theater
https://www.facebook.com/avonandsomersetpolice/photos/a.432000134811.241337.7792979811/10150437863319812/?type=3&theater
https://www.facebook.com/avonandsomersetpolice/photos/a.66888374811.67440.7792979811/10153094500659812/?type=3&theater
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
This is an interesting comment from this person...
Amber Chapell
24 December 2010
This may not be helpful but I just had a thought, did Jo use self survice at the branch of Tesco because sometimes when you use the self service, the receipts come out late, she may have picked up someone elses reciept for the pizza and maybe not even bought a pizza at all. Is there CCTV footage from when she was in Tesco?
How do we know how many Pizza's were bought that evening... Was The receipt actually Joanna Yeates reciept??
Or did someone just go into Tesco's and pick a receipt up that just said "Pizza" on it as I have posted about before!
The replies to the comment are ..Kaz Stevens
Kaz Stevens Very interesting comment thanks for posting.
Manage
7y · Like
Nicko Brooko
Nicko Brooko Certainly something that shoudl be checked.
Manage
7y · Like
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=13213;image)
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=13214;image)
Why did we never see this receipt at trial???
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg456332#msg456332
-
The more I look at this case the more I send myself around the twist.....
I try to understand why images are there ..... Benches in the background... The Warehouse bag that is visible... What is this case about... I have just discovered that warehouse is:
The requirement for the defence to set out their case in a Defence Statement was designed to enable prosecuting authorities to better ensure the disclosure of relevant material. It was offered as a compromise between the previous system and the approach of handing the defence the ‘keys to the warehouse’, i.e. disclosing all evidence to the defence in all cases. The result is a system in which police and prosecuting lawyers (rather than defence lawyers) are still responsible for deciding what evidence is relevant to the defence case.
It's mind boggling....
What was this case really about.... were they playing something out in front of the public they knew nothing about??
Well we know the defence wasn't handed the keys to the warehouse were they.... They 1300 page document was dropped on their lap on the 7th October 2011....
Is this case to do with the justice system in some way??
OMG... Please someone take me from my misery and tell me what the hell is going on..... !!! How can this be a simple Murder Case of an apparent stranger next door killing his next door neigbour he never met... Then doing himself a mischief by carrying the body, when he had no connection to it... several times and then dumping it for all to see....
It Doesn't Add Up!!........... Leave the body , clean up then scarper !!!
And I still can't get my head around why The Sugars became involved???
And still no-one says anything..... I think I should go lie down... Or maybe hibernation sounds better.... I have literally been talking to myself for ages... Now that must be a record on any forum!!!
Maybe I should be in the guinness book of records.... For a poster who talks to themselves for a very long time.... I don't know of any other forum that no-one else says very little...
Argggggggggg.............. I don't get it!! Speak please.... Tell me something I have never heard before.... Tell me I have been wasting my time... Tell me why the Yeates don't say anything..... Tell me why everyones facebook dates have been wiped.... tell me Joanna Yeates was a real person... Tell me why Clegg rubbished his client ... Tell me why Dr Vincent Tabak was guilty before being proven even guiltier... Tell me why I feel like I am on my own.... Tell me why I should continue.... Is this bubble ever gonna burst??
Tell me why no-one speaks of The Joanna Yeates Case.... Tell me if Dr Vincent Tabak is real... Tell me why our Justice system is shot to shit.... Tell me why all the lies... tell me why all the staging.... tell me why no-one speaks of the staging...
has someone got a key to that door that they all talk about this case behind.... If so can I have a copy please ??
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/justice-committee/disclosure-of-evidence-in-criminal-cases/written/80817.html
-
The "Missing" persons Posters, have always niggled at me...
This images is one of the earliest I believe... It has a local Police Phone number and Crime Stoppers to contact...
(http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/e77d4b53dcda4dc388302901be091994/joanna-yeates-murder-gcycfr.jpg)
But this is the image that interest me... It has a number for the CID... 01179455355
(http://images2.corriereobjects.it/methode_image/2017/08/04/Interni/Foto%20Gallery/4%20joanna-yeates-poster_MGTHUMB-INTERNA.jpg)
Who made this Poster?? It's not an Official Police Poster as far as I can tell.... Official Posters for Avon and Somerset Police.. I believe have the words "Police Appeal" across the top and then along the bottom contact info from The Police with the Polices emblem... Other Constabularies have the contact info across the bottom with their emblem also...
(http://c8.alamy.com/comp/G41MAN/joanna-yeates-murder-G41MAN.jpg)
You get the same type of Appeal poster when Becky Watts was Missing...
(http://www.anglonautes.eu/english%20words/vocabulary_violence_police_uk_main/voc_violence_uk_missing_kidnapping_1/voc_violence_uk_missing_kidnapping_1_post_police_appeal_rebecca_watts.jpg)
Which brings me back to who had a connection to the CID?? To put the number on the Poster....
That number I have only ever seen once since....
17th August 2015
"We would like anyone who recognises the man shown or has any information about the incident to contact me directly on 0117 945 5355 or sarah.robinson@avonandsomerset.police.uk.”
Alternatively, you can report information on-line using the following link bit.ly/1kfjr3V quoting reference 71765/15, anonymously via Crimestoppers on 0800 555111 or call 101 quoting the above reference.
Another Missing Poster..
(http://www.anglonautes.eu/english%20words/vocabulary_violence_police_uk_main/voc_violence_uk_missing_kidnapping_1/voc_violence_uk_missing_kidnapping_1_pos_yeates.jpg)
Who was producing these posters?? That poster tells us about her personal belongings being found at the flat.. and that she was Missing from 17th December 2010....
Now it cannot be an Official Missing Poster (imo).. I have given my reasons why I believe them not to be.. They do not have any Official logo on them....
That poster is from the dropbox... I have found a link.... I don't know where they got the waitrose image from... which is on the poster... Because what we don't normally see is what is said below that image....
Terms and Conditions of use apply - www.avonandsomerset.police.uk
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=13506;image)
Then at the bottom of the page it says.. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6069482/joyeates_missing_poster_a4.pdf
http://helpfindjo.wordpress.com/
added 26 December 2010
That date may be the date it was added to that particular website... which is just as well.. we get to see it in it's entirety...
But on the helpfindjo webpage it's the 23rd December 2010
Posters Available to Print and Download
PDFs are now available to download missing posters for Jo containing the key info. Available in A3, A4 and A5.
Please distribute around your local areas, especially in the South West.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6069482/joyeates_missing_poster_a5.pdf
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6069482/joyeates_missing_poster_a4.pdf
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6069482/joyeates_missing_poster_a3.pdf
December 23, 2010 | Categories: Uncategorized | 1 Comment
The Advert that The Police put on facebook... Where it states at the bottom "Terms and conditions of use apply - www.avonandsomerset.police.uk"
Was the advert made because it referencing the poster?? It's a question to pose?? I don't know... There really seems no reason to make an advert, but I believe it's possible to tailor an advert to one person in particular...
So I come back to The Waitose image... when was it first released ??? The CCTV footage didn't get released until the trial...
This from SWNS News.... There appears to be a broken image...
CCTV images show missing Bristol woman Joanna Yeates leaving Waitrose
-December 22,
Police today revealed missing Bristol woman Joanna Yeates visited two shops before her ”baffling” disappearance.
CCTV images show missing Bristol woman Joanne Yeates leaving Waitrose
That is considerably early for talk of Joanna Yeates going into Waitrose.... But it says that the image shows her leaving Waitrose... It's not until trial that we see the footage of Waitrose and Joanna Yeates leaving the store....
Who would have seen that footage?? Where are these apparent images of Joanna Yeates leaving waitrose on the 22nd December 2010...
Again on the helpfindjo web page it says this on the 22nd December 2010..
CCTV Image Released
Police have issued a CCTV image showing Jo at Waitrose on Clifton Triangle. The image was recorded around 8pm and shows Jo wearing a white jacket and dark grey jeans, carrying bags.
Up to date police statements/info can be found at http://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/LocalPages/NewsDetails.aspx?nsid=22345&t=1&lid=1
CCTV of Jo at Waitrose Clifton, Friday 17th December
CCTV of Jo at Waitrose Clifton, Friday 17th December
December 22, 2010 | Categories: Uncategorized | 1 Comment
The image link it broken..... Where did they get that image from... either of them... I don't know when the Police officially stated that Joanna Yeates had been in Waitrose... and gave the media an image of her in Waitrose....
From facebook..
Nicko Brooko shared a link.
23 December 2010
PDF posters now available in A5, A4 and A3. If anyone has any changes they think should be made I can make them.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6069…/joyeates_missing_poster_a3.pdf
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6069…/joyeates_missing_poster_a4.pdf
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6069…/joyeates_missing_poster_a5.pdf
N
Then
Nicko Brooko
23 December 2010
Will post a link to PDF posters for anyone to print out and distirbute. A3, A4 and A5 versions.
11
Like
Share
They are getting facebook users to print these poster are they wanting them to distribute them also??
Nicko Brooko
23 December 2010
Will post a link to PDF posters for anyone to print out and distirbute. A3, A4 and A5 versions.
11
Like
Share
Why is the helpfindjo web page Official info?? It shouldn't be... Official info should come from the Police....
Does this mean that someone from the Police has done the blog on the helpfindjo web page?? That is the impression that I get... Because how else would the blog be able to post about Waitrose....
Why would the Poster feature Joanna Yeates in waitrose so early on.... especially if it is not an Official Police Missing Poster...
Just re-read Nicko Brooko's facebook post... he says if any changes need to be made he can make them....
So did he make all of the Posters?? He states that the helpfindjo is an "Official " site for information and that he can change the posters.... does he have a connection to the Police?? Was it he who made the Missing Poster with the CID number on it??
All I know and believe is all of those early posters are NOT official... (imo)... So who is it that has been giving us all of the information as to what Joanna Yeates did or didn't do on the 17th December 2010... Who was it that told the media what was left behind in the Flat... And how would anyone know other than the Police that Joanna Yeates was "Missing" from the 17th December 2010... especially as we haven't seen the Private CCTV footage that DS Mark Saunders speaks of...
That poster advertises the helpfindjo webpage and the Facebook page for the discussion group... The Police wouldn't advertise those sites on an Official Poster.... They are the ones telling us it's called Operation Braid.... How would they know that info???? They are the ones calling her (JO)....
All I can say Dr Vincent Tabak had no input into the Missing Posters of Joanna Yeates or the web page... So cannot have any connection to The Police... But someone must have a connection, to be able to get an image of Joanna Yeates in Waitrose...(imo)..
It's a bit coincidental that the images of Joanna Yeates leaving Waitrose that appear to be available on the site and in the news paper have both got broken images....
How many people had access to the blog?? I just get more and more questions with this... You may think I am making assumptions here... But it is from information that people themselves have posted... And I try to use the information I find....
If Nicko Brooko states that the Official information is only at Avon and Somerset Police and the helpfindjo web page... didd the media get there article from the helpfindjo webpage?? This I believe would explain why the images are broken (imo).. Because I believe it is possible the media copied the link image from the site...
The helpfindjo webpage wouldn't post anything that came from the media, if Nicko Brooko is advertising that the helpfindjo webpage is an Official point for information.... (imo)
http://www.gazetteseries.co.uk/news/13601361.Do_you_know_this_man__Police_seek_information_after_indecent_exposure_on_Cribbs_Causeway_bus/
http://www.anglonautes.eu/english%20words/vocabulary_violence_police_uk_main/voc_violence_uk_missing_kidnapping_1/voc_violence_uk_missing_kidnapping_1.htm
https://helpfindjo.wordpress.com/page/2/
-
Please keep posts to a more reasonable length otherwise they run the risk of being removed.
-
Sorry angelo222 ... It was because i needed to show the Missing posters... I'll try to keep them to a shorter length ?{)(**
-
This is from The helpfindjo webpage.... Sky news
(https://e3.365dm.com/16/07/1096x616/15867165_3733208.jpg?20160707035716)
The top of the image is difficult to read...
Top line reads... HELP FIND JO YEATES Joanna Yeates missing since 17/.. i think that is 12.. not sure... But the next bit says... ?414 ... I think it says /2-414... It may be a backslash but it isn't clear... And the number after the 17/ isn't clear either... What does that mean??
The info below that is blurred I believe states:
On Friday17/12/2010, 25 year old landscape architect Joanna Yeates left the Bristol Ram pub at approximately 9pm. She headed home to her house in Canygne Rd,Clifton via Waitrose on Clifton Triangle and the Tesco Express on Regent Street at 8:40pm. She has not been seen or heard from since. Jo is 5ft 4, of medium build with short blonde hair and blue/grey eyes. Anyone who has seen Joanna or knows of her whereabouts is asked to contact Operation Braid incident room on 0845 456 7000 0r Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111
The bottom part makes us believe that this is Official because it has Avon and Somersets web address....
Is this site anything to do with The Police??
What is that date on the top of the webpage??
This is an Official webpage as we have been told... How have they got her leaving The Bristol Ram Pub at 9:00pm??
Sky News 23rd December 2010 17:06 UK
On a special web page launched to spread details of her disappearance, Twitter followers have been asked to tweet the message: "PLEASE RT. Joanna Yeates, missing from Clifton, #bristol since Friday 17/12/10. http://bit.ly/fAZCXp for info #helpfindjo.
This must have been what the helpfindjo webpage originally looked like... I still don't know who set up the page....
And I wish I could make out what the Date / Information at the top of the Page states!
When i go to the helpfindjo web page now... At the top of the page is says....
JO YEATES – SADLY TAKEN FROM US. Joanna Yeates went missing 17/10/2010; discovered Christmas morning 2010. Investigation ongoing.
Well I do hope an Investigation is still on going...... Because I believe it needs reinvestigating....(imo)...
https://news.sky.com/story/twitter-spreads-word-about-missing-joanna-10490311
https://helpfindjo.wordpress.com/
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I have attached images of these posts...
Nicko Brooko shared a link.
23 December 2010
PDF posters now available in A5, A4 and A3. If anyone has any changes they think should be made I can make them.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6069…/joyeates_missing_poster_a3.pdf
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6069…/joyeates_missing_poster_a4.pdf
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6069…/joyeates_missing_poster_a5.pdf
N
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=13534;image)
Nicko Brooko
23 December 2010
Will post a link to PDF posters for anyone to print out and distirbute. A3, A4 and A5 versions.
11
Like
Share
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=13536;image)
-
From the post and comments on facebook......
Nicko Brooko
23 December 2010
Trying to think of some new ideas to spread the word online outside of social networking and news sites.
One idea is a template news story, ask people to post on their websites and blogs. any further ideas please post and we can try them out.
Template... that had all sorts going around my head.... So are there "News Templates" out there of headlines etc that are not from the Newspapers??
Heres an example of what templates can be used...
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT0c7SwLnUBHSdW8gBNebUeNFWsjbCc3Cgnj7iV7BT7QJoIK3KIpA)
But the facebook posts get stranger......
Claire Kendall Smiley, Nicko and others discussing website options, you can get a free domain name through BT. You won't need donations. It says its for businesses but just ignore that (I did). I promise this isn't spam: http://www.gbbo.co.uk/
Reply by Nicko
Nicko Brooko Hi, sorry have been out postering in Cribbs Causeway, the website is setup at helpfindjo.wordpress.com - it's not much but it's there and has been getting good coverage.
Can't tell if he set up the website... But........
If needs be I can create a domain easily for it; might do this tomorrow, no hassle for me and minimal cost but at the moment there seems to be no use in confusing people with multiple website addresses.
Then..............
Nicko Brooko Ok please stop this, it's not helping. I will setup an additional domain today, so both the old and new ones will work.
And this one is sending to a website.....
Nicko Brooko I have just registered helpfindjo.com - it takes a few hours but should be active later today I hope and will forward to the other site.
So of course I clicked on the link to this NEW website for Joanna Yeates..... But it isn't a picture or Information about Joanna Yeates.... But rather about some bloke and it says that "Jo got Snatched"....
It could have been taken over since 2010.. But the fact that it talks of someone being snatched is coincidental.... (imo)
http://helpfindjo.com/
-
Remember the "Sun" and the £50,000 reward.... After my above post I started to wonder about what templates might have been used and if there were any out there....
Was The Sun Poster a genuine poster?? I had thought it was just a Sun headline.... But did The Sun Produce posters??
The Sun is circulating reward posters in the Clifton area of Bristol where Joanna Yeates disappeared on 17 December.
Why would these Posters only be in The Clifton area of Bristol???? You would have thought it would be nationwide.... That is odd.... So did the Sun actually make these posters...?? Or did they just go along with it to help the Police?? I wish someone would answer my questions... I have thousands....
(http://www.anorak.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sun-yeates.jpg)
(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/1223753.main_image.jpg?strip=all)
HUNDREDS of Sun reward posters were distributed throughout Bristol yesterday
in a bid to spur witnesses to come forward.
The bulk of the posters were put up along the route of Jo’s final journey home
to her flat in Clifton on December 17.
Why just put them on the journey home to Joanna Yeates Flat?? Who were they aiming them at??
Why would the Sun only produce Posters for Bristol/Clifton??
Which then makes this statement from The Yeates even stranger(imo)
The brave couple said: “No amount of money will bring Jo back — but knowing
that we have the support of the nation in what is an extremely difficult
time is comforting and we thank them.
Well the posters are only in Clifton and not the Nation.....
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sun-offers-50000-joanna-yeates-murder-reward/
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/296027/jo-parents-someone-may-have-answers-our-family-needs-them/
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The Sun Poster gets more Interesting.... So I must be incorrect in a way... But it was there to help the Police I believe.......
At the bottom of the Poster in "white" writing it ha terms and conditions...
It states:
Sun Offer subject to terms and conditions and Editors discretion. For Full terms (Can't read next word) www.thesun.co.uk
Here are the terms and conditions....
THE Sun’s offer of a total of £50,000 reward is for information directly
resulting in the conviction of those responsible for the murder of Jo Yeates
and is subject to the following terms and conditions:-
1. The conditions set out hereunder are subject to variation only by the
Editor of The Sun.
2. The Editor of The Sun will, at all times, have absolute discretion over the
terms of offer, conditions and payment of any/all The Sun Reward offers.
3. All offers will be subject to these terms.
4. All offers will be made in good faith.
5. All claims must be made in writing.
6. All claimant(s) must provide information which leads directly to arrest and
conviction of Jo’s killer. In the event of more than one such conviction,
the £50,000 will remain the total on offer. In the event of more than person
such giving information, the reward will be divided.
7. A claimant(s) who in the reasonable belief of the Editor has any
foreknowledge of or criminal involvement in the crime which is the subject
of the Reward offer, will not be eligible to receive the reward (or any part
of it).
8. A claimant(s) who is an accomplice in the crime or in any way thereafter
assisted the perpetrators of the crime will not be eligible to receive the
reward (or any part of it).
9. A claimant(s) who is a relative (or former relative) of a participant in
the crime will not be eligible to receive the reward (or any part of it).
10. Serving police officers (or civilians working with or for the police) will
not be eligible to receive the reward (or any part of it)
Where do I start..... I believe the reward was there to assist the Police... and yes I know that is normal , but i am thinking that they were directing it again at someone....
Those responsible.... We are still at the idea of more than one killer.... This idea was dropped when we went to trial... They seemed happy that one man could commit this crime on his own and carry a dead weight several times, without leaving any drag marks... But I believe that they still believe that there was more than one person involved...
Number 8: Thereafter assisted in the crime.... Couldn't someone inadvertently assisted??
They have to have knowledge of what the Police believe happened..(imo) There must have been many who were aware of what happened to Joanna Yeates ...(imo)
Number 9 is an interesting one.....
9. A claimant(s) who is a relative (or former relative) of a participant in
the crime will not be eligible to receive the reward (or any part of it).
How can being related to someone when you are not involved dissolve you of claiming a reward??
The date of the terms and conditions is the 6th January 2011... The Police have Dr Vincent Tabak in their sights since late December 2010... (apparently)...The media say nothing of Dr Vincent Tabak's Interview in Holland, not even after his arrest.... And I am sure that they were aware of this.... (imo)
Dr Vincent Tabak is related to who?? No-one in this country as far as I am aware.... So that tells me they knew who the Police were looking for and it wasn't Dr Vincent Tabak.... I say this because of what Clegg had said in the Interview with Fiona Bruce... and how The Police told the media information......
Also if those who apparently helped Dr Vincent Tabak, were the people seen at the gate by CJ... then why hide the identity of the people CJ has seen at the gate.... There has to be another reason that the people CJ saw/heard at the gate are being kept quiet about....
Number 5: All claims made in writing??
That has me wondering if that is related to the Pizza Label and note that was received... ??
Former relative... That is specific, by anyones standards... So they must be referring to EX married partners, step children maybe....... But they know who they are looking for (imo)
This terms and conditions The Sun has given, in no-way supports that Dr Vincent Tabak is the man that they were looking for... He apparently had no girlfriend before Tanja Morson and was not married.. , and those members of his family in Holland would not get The Sun Newspaper... The Poster was put around Clifton.... So it has to be Clifton based (imo)
I believe the killer was from around that area, or the killers relatives/ ex relatives were from around that area... (imo) for them to just put the bulk of the Posters in Clifton....
I looked at the Tia sharp poster and that had terms and conditions, which are similar to these... But the Police and the media knew who had done harm to Tia Sharp... They knew it was the grandma's boyfriend Stuart Hazell and I believe that is why the terms and conditions apply.........
The Police knew that Tia Sharp had come to harm.. there had been no CCTV of her leaving her home... The conditions set out in the reward are for her safe return...
6. All claimant(s) must provide information which leads directly to police
safely finding missing Tia Sharp. In the event of more than one person
offering such information, the £25,000 the reward will be divided.
Again a reward for Mikaeel Kular...... (terms and conditions)
6. All claimant(s) must provide information which leads directly to police
safely finding missing Mikaeel Kular. In the event of more than one person
offering such information, the £25,000 the reward will be divided.
The Police already believed that harm had also come to this young boy...... (imo)
So when we looked at terms and conditions for Joanna Yeates, number 6 tells us what they are looking for..
6. All claimant(s) must provide information which leads directly to arrest and
conviction of Jo’s killer. In the event of more than one such conviction,
the £50,000 will remain the total on offer. In the event of more than person
such giving information, the reward will be divided.
Number 6 in the terms and conditions tells us what we need to know about any of these rewards... That is where the information lies....
It clearly demonstrates that there are many people who have knowledge of what happened to Joanna Yeates (imo)
It is tailored for that purpose... And I cannot believe that this was aimed at Dr Vincent Tabak.... Especially as they are still insisting that there was more than one person involved in this crime or have knowledge of this crime.. The information in terms and condition 6 tells us so.....
No-one came forward at trial to point the finger at Dr Vincent Tabak either, which make me also believe the reward was aimed at someone other than Dr Vincent Tabak.... The Police had to believe that the people involved were connected to each other ..(imo)
They know that they will not be paying this reward (imo) especially with the terms and conditions... I believe the reward for Joanna Yeates was aimed at the perpetrators and placing the posters around Clifton and on Joanna Yeates journey home, it has to be someone from that area or someone from the area has knowledge......
Dr Vincent Tabak is no longer living at Canygne Road by the 6th January 2011... he is on Aberdeen Road... His journey to work would not take him on the same path as Joanna Yeates Journey home... Neither Tanja Morson Journey would take her on that path either.... So I cannot see how it is aimed at either of those two... (imo)
And even if they ventured into the centre I cannot see their journey mimicking Joanna Yeates journey home.... They would avoid the area just by the demographics... So it has to be someone whom is in and around the area of Joanna Yeates journey home ...(imo) Or who was well aware of Joanna Yeates journey home.... As we do not know this journey fully and we do not know exactly where these posters were placed.... But going from the information we have been given we have to assume it is through Clifton Village to Canygne road stopping at various shops.
If Tanja Morson and Dr Vincent Tabak are no longer living in the vicinity.. they would not really have a need to take that particular journey...(imo) So the placing of the posters for them is pointless...(imo) It must be aimed at someone else....(imo)
It's a no brainer offering a reward for Information that you basically exclude everyone from claiming... The reward is aimed at specific person/persons and hopefully unnerving them...(imo)...
Terms and Conditions applying feature in the advert and the Picture of Joanna Yeates in Waitrose... All very strange... (imo)
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/292463/reward-terms-and-conditions/
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/818015/25k-sun-reward-to-find-missing-tia/
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/513764/the-suns-25k-reward-to-find-missing-mikaeel-2/
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The helpfindjo.com website seems to have been removed...
I have a screen shot... of JO GOT SNATCHED at helpfindjo.com
(image attached )
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Bristol Live
Verified account
@BristolLive
Follow Follow @BristolLive
More
Police believe missing #Bristol woman Joanna Yeates is still alive http://ht.ly/3u6XG #helpfindjo
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=13574;image)
Of course the page has been removed fro the Bristol Post....
So if the Police Believed that Joanna Yeates was still alive on the 24th December 2010... Then Dr Vincent Tabak could not have killed her.....
What made the Police believe that Joanna Yeates was still alive????
https://twitter.com/BristolLive/status/18309523190054912
-
I am starting to think the Information the papers get are from Facebook..... Or did someone else get their information from Facebook?? (I don't know anything is possible in this case as I keep saying...)
Darragh Bellew is the first to tell us that Joanna Yeates Keys Mobile Phone and Purse , were at her home...
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8168.0;attach=12717;image)
I had posted before that Rebecca Scott had said the same thing on the 22nd December 2010 and that report was in The media.... cannot find that at the Mo.....
Jack Carrington is The Person who confirms that Joanna Yeates was in the Hope and Anchor on that Friday lunchtime.... He says this as early as the 23rd December 2010
Jack Carrington
23 December 2010
I work at the Hope And Anchor, remember Greg and Joanna come in quite often and in fact last Friday lunchtime they did, still cannot believe Joanna has gone missing if there is anymore i could do i would they're a lovely couple
2 Likes4 Comments
The telegraph report this ... 7:00AM GMT 31 Dec 2010
His wife Theresa added: “We are very pleased there has been an arrest.”
Miss Yeates had had lunch with Mr Reardon on the day she vanished.
They had met at the Hope and Anchor, a mile from their home
He drove up to Sheffield early that evening to visit his half-brother Francis for the weekend, while she planned on staying at their flat, preparing for their Christmas party the following week.
Officers visited three locations in Clifton to ask pedestrians and motorists if they had seen her on December 17. The operation began at The Ram pub, where Miss Yeates had after-work drinks with colleagues between 6pm and 8pm. Detectives then headed to Canynge Road, the street where Joanna and her boyfriend Greg Reardon, 27, shared a flat. The pair enjoyed a last drink together at the Hope & Anchor pub, just hours before she went missing.
Now the odd thing I noticed about the Hope and Anchor (And I know the Police took the CCTV, which was Grainy)... Nowhere does any of them say that Joanna Yeates ate cheesy chips..... It is not until the trial that we have the story of Cheesy Chips.... She could have eaten cheesy chips at home, quite frankly.... Let me see the CCTV....
All anyone knew at the time was that Joanna Yeates had been to the hope and Anchor because the manager posted that she had.... But... would we have known that if the manager hadn't said??
I find a reply to the manager most strange...
Mel Meale Jack - have you questioned people in the pub if they saw anyone or anything suspicious? I have posters on me and can pop down this morning if you need some?
Why would the manager of the Hope and Anchor be questioning anyone in regards to Joanna Yeates disappearance??
My post that I have linked at the bottom is an Interview about CCTV at The Hope and Anchor...
I may be incorrect with my idea... someone else may have evidence of an earlier report of The Hope and Anchor being mentioned... But don't think that there is....
When you think about what Darragh Bellew says hours after Joanna Yeates is reported Missing, I being to wonder who told him to divulge the information??
The Yeates do not have there appeal until the next day... so Darragh cannot have got it from watching anything....
This is the earliest point of reference to what is left behind... Already creating an idea that Joanna Yeates was taken from her home...
And with the post from guy from the Hope and Anchor, a scenario of what happened to Joanna Yeates starts to emerge...
But The CCTV of Canygne Road is vital... And the CCTV from The Hope and Anchor, both of which I believe were never shown at trial....
Where was the supporting evidence that Joanna Yeates drank coke and ate Cheesy Chips?? Dr Millar I believe find an empty stomach and concludes that must have been Joanna Yeates last meal....
I personally like to see the proof of what she actually ate... But that is me.... In this case it is hard just to take anyones word as, the descriptions of times etc keep changing.....
We have a report that Joanna Yeates was reported Missing on the 19th December 2010... This is from CJ in The Leveson Inquiry... But when we get to court we are told that Greg Rang the Police in the early hours of Monday the 20th December 2010...
The Police release few Official Interviews about This Case.... So where are the media getting there information from?? All you need is to have someone who is close to the Police and have a vested interest in the case to be leaking the info to the media... So slowly putting together the information that is available around the web, we may see a clearer picture....
It cannot be coincidence that two seperate people whom I do not think know each other make information available on Facebook before anyone Officially has released this information...
My major problem with the Facebook posts.. is that is is exactly what it says on the tin....FACEBOOK! The information should only come from Police sources... Especially the two examples I have given here....
You don't use facebook to report what you have witnessed as in the case of the guy from The Hope and Anchor... That should have been reported straight to the Police and not on the Missing Facebook page (imo)...
Or did the Police want him to divulge that info?? I don't know... But all lines of inquiry and sightings should have gone to The Police only.... (imo)
So why have we had these reports of information leaked on Facebook??
Darragh Bellew doesn't post until late on Monday night.... I am sure the Police would have told him not to say anything , especially as he became a witness in this trial... Or did they want him too???
As I say... anything is possible with this case ...!
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8103.msg459224#msg459224
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8232412/Joanna-Yeates-murder-suspect-Christopher-Jefferies-let-himself-into-tenants-flat.html
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/221868/Call-for-mass-DNA-testing-to-help-snare-Joanna-Yeates-killer
-
Who is DC Mills?????
DC Mills asked Tabak and his girlfriend about their movements on Dec 17th. Tabak told DC Mills that he went for a walk and to Asda.
8:39 AM - 17 Oct 2011
Was it DC Mills who went to Holland??
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=13588;image)
I'd like to start a knew thread with all the twitter reports and images so they're easier to find.. They are getting lost in here...
Is that ok Mrswah? or any other Mod??
https://twitter.com/HarrietTolputt/status/125943950333837312
-
‘She was close to Greg’s family and stayed with them a number of times. They gave her a moonstone pendant. Jo never wanted to get married for the sake of it, but I feel that Jo and Greg were partners for life. Although they never discussed marriage, we felt it was on the cards.’
Did Joanna Yeates still have this pendant on when she was found??? this is the only mention of it that I can find.... Now a pendant would be a throphy!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1345194/Joanna-Yeates-Murder-Did-Jo-buy-dinner-killer.html#ixzz5EFSKQjIL
-
Well it was a short stroll for Kelcey Hall to Bristol Crown Court... I didn't realise they were just a stones throw away....
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=13592;image)
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
This is from The Wordpress about Joanna Yeates.... "Sadly taken from us".... I still am not sure who wrote it.....
LATEST
Vincent Tabak Charged with Jo’s Murder
Detectives have charged 32 year old Vincent Tabak with murder.
He will appear at Bristol magistrates court on Monday January 24 2011
Detective Chief Inspector Phil Jones who leads the investigation said on Saturday:
“This evening we have charged Vincent Tabak with the murder of Joanna Yeates.
“I would like to pay tribute to Jo’s family and Greg for their assistance and dignity in the most difficult of circumstances. Their support to us has been invaluable.
“I would also like to thank the general public for their help and the information they continue to provide to the investigation, and the residents of Canynge Road for their co-operation and patience.”
January 24, 2011 | Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment
Why did the site not continue?? Why didn't it come to its conclusion of the Conviction of Dr Vincent Tabak...
The article that is written that I have quoted was featured in the papers on the 22nd January 2011...
But it takes the blog until the 24th to write about it.... ...
Where did the image Of Dr Vincent Tabak come from that appears in the video on The Telegraph article???
Who gave it to them??
Don't know who Dr Vincent Tabak is with,( Thats if it is him).. but he's showing someone something on his phone...
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=13704;image)
https://helpfindjo.wordpress.com/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8276417/Vincent-Tabak-charged-with-the-murder-of-Joanna-Yeates.html
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
(http://www.anglonautes.eu/english%20words/vocabulary_violence_police_uk_main/voc_violence_uk_missing_kidnapping_1/voc_violence_uk_missing_kidnapping_1_pos_yeates.jpg)
This poster ... was on the wordpress helpfindjo.... The Waitrose CCTV.... It's been bugging me.... How did they get the CCTV footage????
The Police may or may not have got this footage... But even if they did i cannot see how....
I believe you cannot use CCTV Footage of anyone just like that... And for the Police to be able to obtain the footage they would need to use section 29 of the DPA... But that doesn't cover a Missing person. Otherwise it can take up to 40 days for your request t possibly been responded to and then it will cost you a tenner....
But we have within days a image from CCTV which apparently shows Joanna Yeates in waitrose....
status warnings
29 Crime and taxation.
(1)Personal data processed for any of the following purposes—
(a)the prevention or detection of crime,
(b)the apprehension or prosecution of offenders, or
(c)the assessment or collection of any tax or duty or of any imposition of a similar nature,are exempt from the first data protection principle (except to the extent to which it requires compliance with the conditions in Schedules 2 and 3) and section 7 in any case to the extent to which the application of those provisions to the data would be likely to prejudice any of the matters mentioned in this subsection.
As a Missing person doesn't come under any of the reasons for a section 29 request ... How did the Police or someone obtain images of Joanna Yeates in Waitrose by the 23rd December 2010???
Under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998, you can release information to the police provided that you are satisfied that only the minimum information is disclosed, which is required to assist them in the prevention or detection of a crime or aid in the apprehension of an offender. You must also be satisfied that any investigation or police action would be harmed if you did not provide the information requested. Whilst it may be unlikely that the police would request such information should this not be the case, the Data Protection Act requires that the Police should be able to justify their requests for CCTV images, which cannot simply be a 'fishing expedition' for information.
Even those premises which have conditions on their licence setting out duties to provide CCTV to the police should be aware that all licence conditions and obligations must be lawful and compliant with the Data Protection Act.
So who handed over the CCTV?? And is the footage from 17th December 2010?? Is it Joanna Yeates in the footage ???
I cannot understand how it was even possible to get the CCTV footage of Joanna Yeates buying a Pizza at Tesco's either... She was basically a Missing person!!
Who contravened the Data protection laws??? were the data protection laws contravened??
There shouldn't be any available footage of Joanna Yeates at that point available for public viewing....
If the Footage was obtained illegally could it be used in court??? was it used in court???? What did Joanna yeates look like??
May seem daft questions... be ordinarily DPA stops anyone getting hold of such footage... It is normally used to detect crime...
So why would the Missing Person Poster that wasn't produced by the Police have an image of what should be Joanna Yeates going into Waitrose on the 23rd December 2010?????
Anyone want to answer questions on the use of CCTV???
Am I wrong in my assessment???
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/section/29
https://www.popall.co.uk/qanda/concerns-about-a-police-request-for-cctv-footage.aspx
-
Waitrose.... The CCTV of Joanna Yeates going into Waitrose, I have watched a thousand times.. I am not 100% convinced that when we see Joanna yeates walking around Waitrose , that she is actually in Waitrose....
The huge cabinet that is in the middle of the floor shouldn't be there for a small supermarket... It's a convenience store after all and that appears to be a huge waste of space....
When I look at images now from inside Waitrose.. it's crammed , you can hardly move... So why would a supermarket want a display that large sitting slap bang in the middle of an isle??
Is she actually shopping elsewhere?? The staff have red aprons on... Now I know it's supposed to be christmas.. But Waitrose colours are NOT RED.... The Little Waitrose used to be another shop called Fresh and Wild....
19/5/2010
I know most Waitrose are probably very similar, but I wanted to make special mention of this branch because of the amazing food they sell and how nice it is to be given this as an option, especially as I can barely cook a thing.
It was a massive shame when Fresh & Wild closed down and if somewhere like this hadn't opened one supermarket would have had the monopoly on this area and basically dictated what I had for my dinner for the past couple of years.
This is almost a Waitrose 'central' in that they don't have a huge amount of space so they sell more convenience food (ready meals) traditionally associated with the middle aged, single, male, Star Trek fan. But these aren't ordinary ready meals, they are amazing; good quality and good value. They do have a great choice of fresh fish and meat as well, but I think it's their lunchtime sandwiches are proving to be the most popular thing they sell with people in this area, myself included. They have delicious fresh sandwiches; try the jerk chicken or humous and red pepper baguette.
So if space is lacking why would you shove a bloody great display in there as a supermarket??
Another review..
10/5/2010
Listed in Best Off Licences in Bristol
Waitrose has to be my most favourite supermarket yet I rarely shop there as it is a tad more expensive than it's orange, blue and green counterparts. This is a direct rival to Sainsbury's across the way on the Triangle and it has no doubt put a dent in their profit margins. While it is quite small, I've never been into this Waitrose and come out thinking I still needed something on my list. They have a good fresh fruit and veg section, a substantial refrigerator section, a bakery and the cupboard staples you'd want. The piece de resistance I've always found with Waitrose is the booze section. It was one the first supermarket to stock the amazing Sailor Jerry rum, local ciders and ales and some of the rarer whiskies. And even though, this isn't the biggest Waitrose, it still has the impressive selection of booze. This is without a doubt the most ethical supermarket and they regularly donate money to local community groups, which you can vote for with a green token every time you shop.
Sainburys:
Address: 46-56 Queens Rd, Bristol BS8 1RE
Departments: Sainsburys ATM
Hours: Open ⋅ Closes 9PM · See more hours
Phone: 0117 922 1693
So it is quite viable that Joanna Yeates popped in there... She must have passed there.... If she was just having a gander then it would be just as easy to go to Sainsburys.. where theres an ATM as well....
Is the CCTV images of Joanna Yeates in Waitrose a marriage of two different CCTV's ??
I have attached an image of how crammed little Waitrose is... So why would you waste space with that massive display??
Someone please tell me what it looked like in Little Waitrose and if when Waitrose took over that shop at 85, Queens Road they had a display cabinet that size in its shop on 17th December 2010???
https://www.yelp.co.uk/biz/waitrose-bristol-2
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Part 1...........
Lord Justice Leveson
It's not just important, is it, Mr Jones? It's absolutely critical that the public understand that crime is detected by the public coming forward with information. It's a terrible mistake to think that crime can be detected entirely isolated from assistance provided by witnesses. It just can't be done other than in television programmes. Is that fair?
Well The whole Case was like a television program.... Is that the point of the comment??
Mr Philip Jones
Absolutely. Absolutely, sir. I think sometimes there's a perception that we investigate and solve all our crimes on forensic evidence alone, and it's actually witnesses and the general public that help us solve crime, and without them we couldn't operate in the criminal justice system and bring offenders to justice. So they are vital.
What witness's??? Which witness's actually helped solve this case??
Harry Walker ( neighbour who heard screams )
Florian Lehman (Neighbour who heard Screams )
Zoe Lehman (neighbour who heard screams )
Greg Reardon (Joanna Yeates boyfriend)
Father Henwood (Dog walker who met Joanna Yeates )
Maria Brown (Held the Party on Canygne Road)
Peter Brown (Held Party on Canygne Road)
Father Henwood (Dog walker who met Joanna Yeates )
Mathew Phillips (Heard a shreik... was at party on Canygne Road )
Louise Althrope (Attended Party with Dr Vincent Tabak)
Geofrey Hardyman (Tenant of 44 Canygne Road )(In bed at the time)
Elizabeth Chandler ( Office Manager at BDP)
Shrikart Sharma ( Dr Vincent Tabak's Boss )
Glen O'Hare ( Hosted Party Dr Vincent Tabak attended ).
Rebecca Scott (Joanna Yeates friend )
None of the above witness's witnessed anything... Nothing that could prove or disprove that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates... None of these witness's saw Dr Vincent Tabak on the night of 17th December 2010... The only person putting Dr Vincent Tabak at Canygne Road on that evening is Dr Vincent Tabak himself....
As DCI Phil Jones points out... witness's are vital... But what did these witness's witness??? NOTHING!
I keep going back to it being a Moot Trial.... I am sure it is something along those lines... The tweeting that took place at trial I believe was to see how it would play out in Crown Court....
From The Guardian....
The decision by a district judge to allow tweeting from the court in the Julian Assange extradition hearing raises interesting legal questions.
First, has the district judge, Howard Riddle, set a precedent which other courts will follow? Not exactly: it is a magistrates court, lowest in the pecking order of courts, so decisions do not bind other courts. However, his decision may be persuasive of other courts, especially other magistrates. The sky did not fall in as a result of yesterday's tweeting, so why not allow it again? For the decision to gain wider acceptance we really need a crown court judge or high court judge to follow suit.
The question is already getting attention at the highest level. In a Judicial Studies Board lecture in Belfast last month, the lord chief justice, Lord Judge, said:
Along comes a Crown Court Judge in the shape of Justice Fields.....
The issue then is if reporters are to tweet from court, they need guidelines to work to, to make sure they retain their defences against libel and contempt.
Where are the OFFICIAL GUIDELINES for tweeting a trial from court?????
Where are the rules set out for anyone/journalists to tweet what takes place in a Court of law??
Journalists in court have no greater privileges than other members of the public and there is also the risk that the tweeting citizen journalist, unaware of court reporting laws, may include material which should be excluded.
The other danger to consider is that tweets will often be sent from a smartphone which has a very good camera. Will the temptation to tweet a picture of someone be too much? While the courts appear to be considering opening up to reporting via use of such technology, there has been no indication that that includes sending pictures or video.
Anything that opens up the courts to greater scrutiny and reporting has got to be a good thing. The challenge now is for those utilising such technology to make it work.
So where are all the applications from all of the Journalists that wanted to tweet live from the court?? Where are the guideline given by the judge to these Journalists??
https://twitpic.com/776mv7
https://twitter.com/stevenmorris20/status/129150015829581824
https://twitter.com/janeomara/status/129150572254343168
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2010/dec/15/tweeting-court-reporters-julian-assange
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13372452
________________________________________________________________________________________
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Part2............
From The BBC...
Even in the pre-Twitter age, people who had been in court could have revealed restricted information using forums, chatrooms and blogs they had set up. But there were conscious barriers to publishing sensitive information.
There is no doubt Twitter has narrowed the gap between merely thinking something, and publishing it to a global audience.
Lord Judge has been consulting on the impact of Twitter in English and Welsh courts. A report is due to be published later this year.
A very high profile case, where the Nation was watching and we have to believe that the tweets were allowed from this trial... we have to believe that a Judge wanted to be the first in a Crown Prosecution to allow such a form of media in a court room... That nothing would be divulged that shouldn't be divulged... That nothing prejudical would find its way to the public domain.....
Jane Onyanga-Omara
@janeomara
Follow Follow @janeomara
More
#Tabak lied to police and "cynically implicated" his landlord Christopher Jefferies, the judge says.
12:01 PM - 26 Oct 2011
The mentioning not only of Christopher Jefferies at trial by tweets but also mentioning Tanja Morson, who didn't attend the trial.. proves that the tweets went beyond what should be expected...
steven morris
@stevenmorris20
Follow Follow @stevenmorris20
More
Judge says Vincent Tabak accepts he "cynically deceived" girlfriend Tanja Morson after killing Jo Yeates. And told police "calculated lies"
11:58 AM - 26 Oct 2011
Either of these two people realistically should have been witness's in court... But we know they never attended... Therefore they should not have been named in the tweets from the trial.... Or mentioned in a court of law... which The Judge is all too well aware ,....(imo)
You cannot have 20 hearsay statements read out at court... But no-one questions this.... You cannot name people who are not witness's in the case.... But we know that they are....
All in all I believe that this was a joke and not a very funny one.... I have posted numerous problems with the case from start to finish... And I believe that this case was a test case.... And it's hard to know if it was even real....
The public believe what they want to believe and a monster is always good fodder for the press... But what about true Justice... What about a system we can all believe in knowing that a trial will be fair.....
Was the idea of using twitter one step closer to allowing TV's in the court room??? Was that what people were hoping for as a result of this trial??
I have even got to the point of believing that the jury were actually the media who tweeted this case.... And the evidence we know of is a script....
I find myself completely confused by this whole affair, that makes no-sense from start to finish... where random people make tweets as early as 29th January 2011.. about being carrying dead weights, when we had no idea as to whether or not Joanna Yeates as a victim was actually walked to the scene of Crime at longwood lane and killed there or not....
Colonel Juan
@ColonelJuan
Follow Follow @ColonelJuan
More
"Vincent Tabak Can't Lift Dead Weights," Claims Tanja Morson Gym Pal http://thespoof.com/NyG #police #murder
11:33 AM - 29 Jan 2011
And of course when you go to the page you get this:
Sorry, that news story could not be found
We're very sorry, but the news item you're looking for appears to have vanished. But don't worry, here's a selection of funny news stories we think you might be interested in instead.
I don't even believe that the story was there in the first place.... But the tweet was.....
Her followers include Kaz Stevens... The very same Kaz Steven who is on The facebook group about Joanna Yeates Missing...
Kaz Stevens
24 December 2010
Perhaps if people put up posters along the route Jo took home from the Ram, to try and jog the minds of people who use the same route on a regular basis, you may get some leads?
And we get the Sun popping posters along the route home that Joanna Yeates apparently took...
I do not believe that these connection are coincidence...
The whole case from start to finish is a farce... (imo)...
We have been lead down the garden path and we have been allowed to believe the information we have been given is true... We have been allowed to believe that this type of conduct in a court of law is permissible.... We have been allowed to believe that Invisible detectives in the shape of DC Mark Luther were in charge of this case....
We have been allowed to believe that a trial can be conducted in this way.... And no-one will say a word.... No-one will speak of this travesty....
Well I believe it is time that the British Public were made aware of what happened in this case and how they were fooled.... Were it is plain for all to see that Flat 1 Canygne Road was a staged crime scene and blatantly so....
Where any real witness's failed to be called to trial....
Is this the biggest HOAX ever??? Is everyone happy to continue with this sham??
Was it just a parody ?? Mark Gibbings- Jones TV reviewer for The Guardian....
Mark Gibbings-Jones
@brokentv
Follow Follow @brokentv
More
Almost beyond parody. RT @RobKH: The Daily Express finds perhaps the most tragic aspect of the Joanna Yeates case. http://twitpic.com/776mv7
10:02 PM - 28 Oct 2011
There is plenty of evidence to show it cannot be real..... Was this a real murder trial??? `i don't believe it was... I don't believe it could have been....
The real question has to be why allow the British public to believe it was!!
Edit.........
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9448.msg460318#msg460318
https://twitter.com/ColonelJuan/status/31314036700225536
https://leveson.sayit.mysociety.org/hearing-27-march-2012/mr-philip-jones
https://www.thespoof.com/spoof-news/uk/90506/
https://twitter.com/brokentv/status/130026710497366016
https://www.theguardian.com/profile/mark-gibbings-jones
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
In all honesty.. I don't know what to say anymore.... This case is ridiculous....
And even if i keep searching the web, nothing will change....
But for simplicities sake... Or for those who believe that Dr Vincent Tabak is guilty
Presumption of Innocence... Is what everyone should have at the start of any trial.... Not being Guilty until found even Guiltier....
-
This is a transcript of the MP3 available from the link below.... (which you can download) I have covered posts that people had made so I thought seeing as Caroll Everett had featured in the papers at the time.. i would see what she had to say....
____________________________________________________________________________________________
My name is Carol Everett, I'm doing a special download and remote viewing on the situation on Jo Yeates who went missing December the 17th in Bristol.
I've got no idea whats coming out and I'm just going to give it as it comes.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Who was the last person she saw before she died ? What does he look like ??
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
The last person that Jo saw before she actually passed out was a man leaning over her with a longish neck dark short hair rather big ears and tall and thin looking, looks to be about twenty two, twenty four. In the background was another man fair haired cut really short, innocent looking, baby faced. The fair haired man was a lot shorter and seemed to be more scared than really taking part in anything.
Both of these men were youngish men but only one had his hands or anything to do with Jo... Next question.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Why did the person come from?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
The dark haired man was from another county, he was not a local man the fair haired shorter guy was the baby faced, however was a local lad. It's possible that this local lad will come forward because he was really scared. Things got out of hand. What started as a joke and a laugh turned out nasty.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
OK, What did you think was the motive originally?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
The motive originally was a laugh and maybe a bit of sex. But Jo was not having any of that in the end. The.. because of the joking round they maybe thought she did.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Where do you think these people are now??
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
One has legged it, and one is still around he is fairly local
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Any car involved?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
There was a light coloured grey car fairly shiny looking,
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Did she get into the car?
________________________________________________________________________________________
She did get into the car because she thought because she thought they were friendly.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Did she know them?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
She didn't know them properly.. no..
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Right the question is were are they now?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
The fair haired man lives on an estate with other members of his family he isn't a criminal type person at all, the place is not that far away from where the night club was..... What night club?
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Dunno, where's the other guy?
____________________________________________________________________________________________
The other guy lives about 50 miles away, So he must have been visiting relatives..
____________________________________________________________________________________________
And they might have been to a club and seen her... But she's just come out of an off License didn't she..
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Yer..
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Can you see any more of where the men are now?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
The men now, the dark haired man has gone towards the North, 50 miles away looks like he was staying with friends more than relatives. We see a group of five men originally ,in a night club not that far away. The men disperse, then they are two and the two were the ones that spotted Jo and offered her a lift, originally she said No.. But then they followed in a car not by foot. Watched her go into a gate looks like a back alley somewhere were theres also a way to get into her place, it looks very narrow and with not much lighting in it. Thee wo- man went to the door the other stayed out asked her if she wanted to go and have another drink from were were they knew. She actually said Yes.. Initially. But then things went wrong when they tried to get too familiar with what they were saying. I can see the two men will try to draw them its not easy, but would suggest that the Police look at CT cameras in nearby night clubs, this one was not that far away from where Jo was with friends, looks like the place begins with an "L" or "F" down the side street, but wide street, not that far in fact from the Police station
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Can you see what actually happened to her after she was taken away, a timescale because they had 8 days now and they don't know what happened during those 8 days from her going and being found
____________________________________________________________________________________________
There was a short period of time where her body was left in a car.. It was in the car and at the time not long after she had left her flat that she was killed, but she wasn't left there, straight away, but where ever she was she was always cold, so its very difficult because of time of year. too establish by the Police when she died, but she did not live long after she left her flat , but was kept somewhere really really cold, outside, then left where she was found, other people had walked there and hadn't seen her, so she couldn't have been there all that time ...
(end)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
The newspaper article that appeared on the 7th January 2011 talks of some aspects of what is in the recording... But the most interesting aspect for me is her mentioning a Nightclub... i do remember seeing a post on something .. don't know if it was facebook.. think it was more a comment on a site of some description , but that was about seeing her in a nightclub... And i have always wondered where I saw it... And wished i had kept it... There was a response from someene else about it if I remember correctly...
Whether or not we set any store in what this person does for a living.. I thought seeing as i have posted other things then whether this lady is correct or not... may have an affect on the person/persons involved in Joanna Yeates murder...
I find the most disappointing aspect of what she claims, is that when Dr Vincent Tabak has been sentenced her description changes.. and her drawings do too.... there are no mention of glasses and she changes the fact that the dark haired man came from a different County to a different Country...
ORIGINAL RECORDING INFORMATION EXTRACTS. (This Case Audio file is available HERE)
From the mp3 recording that went to the agency 5thJan2011 and then from them to the Police included these following details.
1. A light grey coloured shiny car that Jo's body was in, she was in the car and placed somewhere else cold. She went to two places.
2. The perpetrator was a local man, he wanted sex with Jo but she was having none of it.
3. Last person she saw before she died, was man looking over her with long neck, rather big ears, dark short hair, tall thin, youngish looking about 24.
4. That he was connected to an alley at the back of Jo's house, looks very narrow not much lighting.
5. I said that he was seen on local CCT camera footage not far away.
6. He had links with another country and had gone there.
7. The drawing I did and provided put a Tabak look alike at the scene of the crime.
8. Jo was not dead when she left her flat she died shortly after this.
9. She did not know him properly.
10. When the drawings were done on 5th Jan 2011,who ever did this was or had been away visiting relatives.
Nb. I did think there was more than one man that went to Jo's place that night or saw what was happening..
So. if you had all that information and a drawing, do you think as an inspector cludo, that if you went round with the drawing you would as a policeman have been able to get help from what I said. I did the best I could with no information at all, just plucking it out of the air.
I'm really sorry for Jo's mum and dad and what they are and have been going through.
Did the Police set any store by what this lady had said or not????
When she describes the nightclub does anyone know where she means?/ Does it make sense to any locals??
When she speaks of the joking around i wondered if the idea that the flirting that Dr vincent tabak was supposed to have done came from that idea??
I do not know if Caroll herself approached the papers or the papers were told of her tape... But they appear to have left out the bit about the Nightclub... I wonder why that was ??
Does anything she says about an estate make anyone think they know what she is talking about??
Or where 50 miles north maybe??
edit.. Caroll did send her tape to Apex new agency.... It says on her web site..
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/170741/I-KNOW-WHO-KILLED-JO
http://www.caroleverett.com/video/joyeates-carol-05jan2001.mp3
http://www.caroleverett.com/ce-crime/joyeates.htm
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Isabel Webster
Verified account
@SunriseIsabel
Follow Follow @SunriseIsabel
More
Now the Officer In Charge of the case, DC Mark Luther is in the witness box - talking through pictures of Vincent Tabak's flat.
12:10 PM - 19 Oct 2011
Was there another case going on at the same time as what we have been lead to believe is the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak???
We may have been given tweets and reports in newspapers about a trial that made no sense in law, but was there something else actually taking place at Bristol Crown Court??
This Case still leaves more questions than answers.... Is that why Dr Vincent Tabak had a unique number at the Old Bailey.. U20110387 ???
Was that for a different case altogether?? There makes no sense for an apparent simple murder to have 2 trial numbers... unless they were for 2 different cases that maybe were connected in someway.... (imo)
So a 20 second strangulation of an apparent stranger has caused everyone to behave in this odd manner and not talk openly about what actually took place... we have had all the bells and whistles... we have had NO Commendations for the high profile Murder, that shouldn't have warranted the publicity if it had been as straight forward as has been made out.....
Is Dr Vincent Tabak, really Dr Vincent Tabak?? Have you put an Innocent man away?? Or is Vincent Tabak someones former name??
The questions are never ending ... the possibilities even greater ....
I am no-one going about my business, perplexed by the nature of this case.... perplexed by the secrecy of this case .... Perplexed why the family don't speak up... They cannot have been satisfied with the outcome of this trial.... It didn't make sense .... You would want the right person in prison... you would know that the Flat had been staged... You would know every little aspect of this case, because you would want justice for your daughter.....
I know I would......
But they too are strangely quite... they too say nothing when at first they appeared to have the media eating out of the palm of their hands and a Nation supporting them and praying for Jo's killer to be brought to Justice.....
I do not understand why the family haven't questioned everything.... It is not something they will ever forget... It must go around their minds...... It would mine.... After the initial anger, I may feel as someone, who has questioned the narrative, i think curiosity would take hold... especially if I had doubts about the flat being staged.....
Is it more to do with who Dr Vincent Tabak is??? Did anyone in the family know Dr Vincent Tabak??? Or did they know Tanja Morson???
Is Tanja Morson related/connected to the family in some way?? As they say anything is possible... And especially in this case... A case that didn't follow the law as far as i can see... where a man's Human Rights were violated.... Where the presumption of Innocence wasn't given to this man before his trial commenced... and yet... we see no-one caring.. no one speaking... no-one daring to tell the truth about what really happened to Joanna Yeates.....
If she was really killed/murdered doesn't she deserve her own justice... Doesn't her life mean something.... 20 seconds seems ridiculous to me still.... And moving the body so many times even more so....
But who or what is Joanna Yeates... maybe that really should be the question we're asking.. who or what are her family... That too is a valid question as far as I can see.....
Something has to happen to get that media attention so early on in a case.... She's a Missing ADULT.... that is it..... Miss Timothy the Irish girl who went Missing around the same time didn't court that type of attention.... So why Joanna yeates????
What was it about her that brought the full force of the law and the media together along with 7 fire trucks to captivate us into praying for the safe return of this girl.... Where were Miss Timothys prayers?? Who cared about her family and what their Christmas would be like ???
No-one.....
So what was it about Joanna Yeates that made her the tabloids Missing girl of choice?? And why stick with it with the trial... Simple Murder... 20 seconds and they should have been onto the next one... But they hung around... They let us believe what we wanted to believe.... apart from it isn't true....(imo)....
And after they hung around longer than the family who couldn't even be there to see the man sent down for taking their daughters life... The media became tight lipped... Oh yes, we know they talked of porn... a bit of titalation always goes down well with the public, But is that were the public missed a trick... Did it distract them from asking why the family were not at trial when the verdict was handed down.... Now how were they even to know he would be found guilty?? They shouldn't...
I have kept away from the family for fear of been seen as disrespectful, but as time has worn on I too wonder why the family were not at court for the juries verdict... And then to speak to the media and the public who probably were wishing them good fortune... But we are a country that are shown we should be polite and not say things which may seem inappropriate....
Well if you are questioning the validity of a mans guilt then you have to question the validity of all concerned and look for answers elsewhere... I do believe the family know more than they have said.... But what they know is a different matter.... Something is way of base in this case....
You know it... I know it... And everyone else including the family knows it....(imo)
So are all of us happy that a man is in prison who could not have committed a crime in the way it was said.... A man who's human rights were violated... A man who took the stand Guilty to be found even Guiltier... With the basic premise of the Presumption of Innocence been thrown out of the window.....
Why haven't the family... The Media... The Lawyers said anything about Dr Vincent tabak taking the stand as a Guilty man, only to be proven even guiltier... with his basic human right of the Presumption of Innocence being completely ignored... Why wouldn't someone be concerned that this first right the defendant has should be enough to ask for a re-trial (imo)...
I do not know of any case that a man/ woman or child starts on the stand as guilty before a jury and that jury then having to determine whether or not he is guilty of murder, when they have already been told he has admitted to Manslaughter.... Why the *&$$ is no-one bothered.... How could they all know it wouldn't get a re-trial???
This case is shameful... It must be one of the most shameful events in British Justice... You all know it is ....
https://twitter.com/SunriseIsabel/status/126616165677146112
-
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=13792;image)
Was the entire case being screened??
I do not understand why the screen would say R V Tabak??
Does this go with the idea i say it's a Moot trial??
Would someone like to explain what the screen means please and would that info normally appear on a screen in an English court room??
( image attached)
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9448.msg460799#msg460799
James Beal
Verified account
@JamesSBeal
Follow Follow @JamesSBeal
More
Tabak trial, day 1: In annex room with about 10 of the press pack. Two screens broadcasting the case. Showing Tabak, def, [ censored word ] and judge.
8:01 AM - 4 Oct 2011
So if the media are watching it on 2 screens... was there another court room being used in another country beaming the pictures and trial to Bristol Crown court??
Just thinking about when:...
Lockerbie Appeal
5.11 Authority was given by the court for the proceedings of the appeal,
which was heard in 2002 at the Scottish Court at the Netherlands, to be
broadcast simultaneously in its entirety and used for broadcasting in
news bulletins, etc. No difficulties were experienced in the
broadcasting of the appeal.
Is this what happened with Dr Vincent Tabak... Is this why he had a special number at The Old Bailey U20110387
Did Dr Vincent Tabak go straight to a Dutch Prison?? Is that why The Yeates family didn't appear in court in Bristol for the sentence.... where they at another court??
Also the court drawing I posted with a sheriff's badge made me think of Scotland..... is that why the contents of Joanna Yeates stomach were sent to Scotland??
http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/Upload/Documents/ConsultationDocument.pdf
-
This idea is as random as it gets..... Was there any connection to Joanna Yeates and Tesco's??
I know she bought the Pizza from Tesco Express, but i wondered if there was another connection.... Or whether someone had an axe to grind with her because she shopped there??
Boycott Tesco Website Launches…
December 20, 2010
After the shameful lack of courage shown by our planners and City Councillors, it appears that Tesco have gained official permission to open a branch in Cheltenham Road, on the Stokes Croft/ Montpelier border. They still do not have permission for a liquor licence, and there is a possibility of a challenge by Judicial Review.
However, if Tesco does open in Stokes Croft, the battle is not over. Stokes Croft is our Cultural Quarter: an area defined by its local culture, and by the confluence of people with radical ideas. If Tesco decide to open, with an overwhelming local opposition, then we must ensure that Tesco, and the devious methods employed by Tesco, do not prosper. In order to do this it seems appropriate to launch a measured response. The issues that confront Stokes Croft apply globally. Therefore, the No Tesco campaign must become the “Boycott Tesco” campaign, publicising the unsustainable methods and business practices, encouraging locals everywhere to back their local food suppliers. At the same time we must work to offer alternative models for food sourcing, for ourselves, and for everybody.
The people of Bristol took to the idea of a Tesco Express being opened quite agressively...
Tesco attacked during Riots of Thursday 21st April
May 2, 2011
Tesco opened their new store with a strong security presence in Stokes Croft despite massive local opposition in mid April. On Thursday 21st April, Police suspected that people in the Telepathic Heights squat opposite were preparing firebombs with a view to attacking the shop. Whether this is actually the case remains to be seen. However the decision to break into the squat to apprehend the alleged fire bombers precipitated a chain of events that led to full scale riots in Stokes Croft, with a presence of more than 160 riot police on the streets of Stokes Croft and Montpelier.
The violence led to the smashing up of the front of the store. A sense of injustice has been brewing over many months over the way that Tesco had managed to open their store despite strong local opposition. (For a fuller account, go to the Campaign/mission page). It seems clear that Tesco, while perhaps obeying the letter of the law, had failed to heed their own maxim that “Community is at the heart of everything we do.”
What was the opinion when the Tesco express at Clifton Opened... ??
The attack on Joanna Yeates could have been random... And a next door neighbour attacking his neighbour he hasn't set eyes on seems far too unlikely (imo)... Where there any threatening messages sent about Tesco's ... when did the community first have this hatred of this store??
It is just as likely a random stranger attacking someone who shops at Tesco's because of their hatred for the store, as it is a man whom has been described by DCI Phil Jones as a placid individual... A man of great intelligence... who apparently would throw his entire life away because he tried to steal a kiss.....
Therefore you could say that the taking of the Pizza was relevant... because Tesco's was the object of their hatred....
I believe BDP have had input before, many years earlier as to the effects of supermarkets on the community.. the same BDP, the firm that Joanna Yeates had worked for ....
One study, by the Department ofthe
Environment, they quote (BDP Planning and OXIRM, 1992) found that it was not
possible to demonstrate that the opening of a large supermarket would have
'severe adverse effects on the scale, structure and diversity oftown centres '.
(Seth & Randall, 1999 p.271).
Again here....
5.14 The following are reviewed here:
Building Design Partnership ( BDP) and Oxford Institute of Retail Management ( OXIRM) - this work for the DOE acted as a forerunner to the URBED report published in 1992.
5.16 It should be recognised that these are not necessarily V&V indicators but identify the factors that planning authorities considered to be important for the current and future health of their town centres. This, therefore, provides a context for the identification of indicators in later work.
URBED - Vital and Viable Town Centres: Meeting the Challenge ( DOE, 1994)
5.17 The URBED approach was based on identifying "a few key factors that can be used to judge whether a town is 'at risk'". They sought to suggest ways in which centres could be compared and information for changes over time that could be used. URBED stressed though "this method however can only give a broad indication of how a centre ranks and does not say anything about the underlying components of a healthy town centre".
5.18 The approach utilises both V&V indicators - two of which (pedestrian flow and yield) and identified as key indicators plus a series of additional indicators - and also broader assessments of what are identified as the four "essential qualities" for an attractive town centre (referred to as the four "A"s). These are assessed using a scale based on the assessor's judgement (for this reason it is criticised by Tomalin, 1997) and are summarised below.
Did BDP have any planning applications in for supermarkets around this time??
This idea that someone who perhaps had an axe to grind with Tesco's and BDP possibly could just as likely have attacked Joanna Yeates as a Placid Dutchman, whom had never before met his neighbour...
Feelings were obviously very strong if riots took place in Bristol on two seperate occasions in April and May 2011... The Anti Tesco's campaign had been going for quite some time.. (image attached)
On image it says... Good luck with the anti-Tesco's Campaign!
Cheers mark
The date on the envelope is the 16th September 2010... One hundred pounds in cash appears enclosed as a donation....
Image 3 ... shows the full hatred of Tesco's Express as rioters smash up the shop window....
Interesting video of Tesco's riot.....
Over 150 Police occupied the streets of Stoke Croft..... Nobody seemed quite sure why...
One person being interviewed says that the Police are using it as a training ground.... for their riot manouvers.. You can watch several different counties of Police... 2 from wales .. from Somerset and another one from England.. He then goes on to say what are they doing on our streets.....
An interesting observation by this man... Made me question why so many Police where at the scene of Longwood lane for a "Missing persons" Inquiry... These Police were not all from Avon and Somerset...(imo)...
Was it another training exercise??
What really happened to Joanna Yeates and why????
(hope these attachments are ok John)
Edit.. or was it Tanja Morson who may have been a target because of the work that Dr Vincent Tabak did in the flow of people through buildings????? Did someone get the wrong person???
Double edit... Lets not forget that The Yeates believed that Joanna Yeates had been abducted... Was there a ransom note???
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=35&v=hze4dt1P-5A
https://prsc.org.uk/the-project-pages/boycott-tesco/
http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2007/12/20105342/5
http://ualresearchonline.arts.ac.uk/5091/1/Architectural_Design_of_UK_Supermarkets_506107.pdf
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Police hunt for missing woman Joanna Yeates in Bristol; Police hunt for missing woman Joanna Yeates in Bristol
EXT / SNOW ON GROUND Police officers and mobile incident room outside Joanna's flat Police officer and forensic officer outside flat Reporter to camera
And Details
Restrictions: No use by regional TV or radio in UK and Ireland until 3 days after date of creation. Prior approval required if clip features ITN newsreader or reporter, please contact your local Getty Images representative.
Credit: ITN
Clip #: 659244604 SD
Collection: ITN
Date created: 22 December, 2010
Licence type: Rights-ready
Release info: Not released. More information
Clip length: 00:00:25:09
Location: United Kingdom
Mastered to: QuickTime 8-bit Photo-JPEG SD 720x576 25i More information
Originally shot on: 576 25i
Source: ITN
Object name: t22121033_1243.mov
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/police-officers-and-mobile-incident-room-outside-joannas-news-footage/659244604
Jim Old
@SkyFixerJim
Follow Follow @SkyFixerJim
More
#JoannaYeates Police asked when #VincentTabak first appeared on their radar. VT made contact with cops after Chris Jeffries was arrested.
4:30 PM - 28 Oct 2011
Apparently it was Dr Vincent Tabak's attempts to incriminate CJ, that turned the Polices attention on him..... on the 31st December 2010
Therefore how do the Police explain the Incident Room parked outside Canygne Road from at least the 22nd December 2010??
They only stayed with that address.... The never moved from that address....
An incident room parked outside the address of a "Missing Person" seems a little over the top... Why was the incident room there so early on... What did the Police really know....
It certainly had nothing to do with Dr Vincent Tabak.... (imo)
Probable cause is needed to gather evidence and enter properties..... If Dr Vincent Tabak was so concerned he was going to be caught at any moment... why didn't he ditch his computers when he went to Holland??
The Incident room has to be there for another reason (imo)... No-one at that point apparently knew that Joanna Yeates had been Murdered.... And as Jim Old tells us... it isn't until Dr Vincent Tabak apparently tries to implicate CJ, that their attention turned to him.....
Joanna Yeates basically is a Missing Adult woman.... end of.... If there was no sign of forced entry, then Joanna Yeates could have left her home of her own intention!!
No Evidence was brought to trial to suggest or prove that Joanna Yeates was forceably removed from her home... No Evidence as to why the Police believed as early as 22nd December 2010 that harm had come to Joanna Yeates, came to trial.... And for which they had set up this mobile Incident Room...
Why has no-one questioned this????
Dr Vincent Tabak can not have been the reason that the Police Incident van/room was parked outside Canygne Road...
So what was the real reason the Incident van/room was parked there... And why was it parked there when they apparently were looking for a Missing Adult woman???
https://twitter.com/SkyFixerJim/status/129943148058251264
-
Andrew Plant
@BeebJournalist
Follow Follow @BeebJournalist
More
#Tabak now seems composed. Records of text messages sent on Dec 17th used to pinpoint what time he left Canynge Rd to visit Asda that night.
10:42 AM - 20 Oct 2011
How ludicrous does that sound?? This whole trial's a joke.... What messages?? who's messages... What about the CCTV from Canygne Road pinpointing when Dr Vincent Tabak left to go to ASDA....
Or someone on Canygne Road who may have seen him leave the address, seeing as there was parties etc going on that evening... people milling about.... You know "Witness's!!
https://twitter.com/BeebJournalist/status/126956447752925184
-
7:30AM GMT 14 Dec 2011
In his first interview since the 25-year-old landscape architect’s death, Mr Reardon described the “nightmare” as he confronted her killer Vincent Tabak in court.
The 28-year-old said he and Miss Yeates had been “happy and in love” and contemplating marriage when she was murdered by Tabak in their Bristol flat.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8954982/Jo-Yeatess-grieving-boyfriend-speaks-of-agony-as-he-faces-Christmas-without-girlfriend-he-hoped-to-marry.html
What other exclusive Interview did Greg Readon do???
Solent News and Photo Agency’s Ben Ellery was awarded spec news/sport story of the year – awarded for stories found by news agencies and sent in speculatively to publishers – for his exclusive interview with the boyfriend of murdered architect Joanna Yeates days after she went missing.
What had he speculated about this story??? That is odd... why would it be speculative??
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/agency-veterans-win-napa-lifetime-achievement-prizes/
Then Ben Ellerys LinkedIn
Reporter
Company NameSolent News Agency
Dates EmployedApr 2010 – Aug 2012 Employment Duration2 yrs 5 mos
LocationHampshire, United Kingdom
Generated and covered a wide range of national news stories for all major papers including court, tribunals, inquests and doorknocks.
Awarded the 2011 National Press Association 'Story of the Year' for exclusive interview with the boyfriend and family of murdered architect, Jo Yeates.
Awards:
National Association of Press Agencies News Story of The Year 2011 (winner)
https://www.linkedin.com/in/ben-ellery-a94a2524/
Then from "hold the front page" April 13th 2011
Ben Ellery of Solent News and Photo Agency won the spec news/sport story category at the National Association of Press Agency awards for the interview with Greg Reardon, which appeared in 11 national newspapers in December.
https://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/2011/news/journalist-wins-award-for-jo-yeates-exclusive/
-
The Police believe she reached her Flat, as shopping receipts and her coat were both there. What happened after that is so far inexplicable..
(Rupert Evelyn)
The abdundance of Police Officers, both in and around Jo's Flat give the sense that this is a major crime scene.. When in reality 5 days after she went Missing.. The Police are still treating this as a "Missing Person"s enquiry.
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/police-officers-and-mobile-incident-room-outside-joannas-news-footage/659244604
Now I have another question.... Are those real Police men / woman we see in that report??
Was the setup of Forensics Police and the Mobile Incident Room all staged?? I keep questioning why the appeals don't seem right...
Now I even wonder if DS Mark Saunders is a real Police Officer... It may sound crackers, but it doesn't add up....
Reading a statement at the Thistle Hotel in Bristol, her parents said: "Many of us are 'armchair detectives', but if this activity triggers anything please come forward.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/parents-of-jo-yeates-make-appeal-to-public-2187209.html
Why is this NOT an Official Police Press Conference???
Detective Chief Inspector Phil Jones speaks at a press conference at the Thistle Grand Hotel in Bristol after Vincent Tabak was found guilty of murdering Joanna Yeates at Bristol Crown Court and told he must serve a minimum of 20 years...More
October 28, 2011 Licence
Keywords:Press ConferencePrisonUKLawDetective
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/detective-chief-inspector-phil-jones-speaks-at-a-press-news-photo/809586626#/detective-chief-inspector-phil-jones-speaks-at-a-press-conference-at-picture-id809586626
I cannot understand why these press conferences are at a "HOTEL" when Avon and Somerset Police have their own media suite in Portishead... It doesn't make sense...
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/license/689137022
-
I truly believe that the whole thing is staged..... I do not know for sure whether or not a woman called Joanna Yeates was murdered....
I keep wondering why the media do not speak of this case, it has to be because they were everything to do with the case... I believe the media ARE the JURY.... Therefore The Media won't speak as the jury are not allowed to speak about the case....
Joanna Yeates murder
A group of the press, police and the prosecution legal team retrace the steps of Jo Yeates on the night she died, as the jury in the Vincent Tabak trial are led on a tour of the pertinent locations in the case.
Read less
(https://images.static.press.net/v2/image/preview/d899855b27fb64cef409711e130d04a2/2.11820605.jpg)
The quote is the text from the image.... I always thought that image was the jury being shown around that was why you only see the back of them.... But now I believe it is the jury, and the jury is The Media!!
All of the information from this trial comes from the media.... all of the CCTV images of 'Tesco" Asda' Bargain Booze and waitrose.... The car on Park Street... It is from the media.... We never should have seen any of that CCTV evidence before a trial... But we do....
It is the media who show us everything..... Take the tour of Joanna Yeates Flat.. that was the media who did the tour of the flat... The media acting as the jury..... Probably judge also..... Or is it us whom are the judge.... Is it the comments from twitter from the public on the trial..... What are used as apparent aggravating factors...
Avon and Somerset Police wanted to draw aline over The Joanna Yeates Murder Case in 2013
BBC Radio Bristol
Verified account
@bbcrb
Follow Follow @bbcrb
More
.@jonkay01 tells us this morning that a letter from @ASPolice to Christoper Jefferies "draws a line" over the Jo Yeates murder case.
7:13 AM - 16 Sep 2013
But that wasn't allowed to happen as we get "The Lost Honour of CJ plus we get Dr Vincent Tabak's conviction on porn charges.....
I want to go back to this......
Shelley Fletcher
@ShelleyFletcher
Follow Follow @ShelleyFletcher
More
Using Facebook for advertising campaign became a story in itself for @ASPolice during Jo Yeates investigation @LadiesThatTweet #ladytweets
8:08 PM - 2 May 2012
Was that what it was...... "The Missing" advert was just that.... an advertising campaign?? Was it not real??
In 2018 Cambridge Police did this little stunt...
A police force has been criticised for a video that showed a wrapped up carpet that looked like a dumped body at the side of the road.
Cambridgeshire police apologised after publishing the video on Twitter in an attempt to urge people to think twice about calling 999 when the issue is not an emergency.
The video plays out the scenario of a 999 call, with the caption reading: "Hello, Cambridgeshire police 999 emergency."
Reminded me of Mrs Yeates talking about what scenario could have brought Joanna Yeates alive from her flat to dead on a country lane.... Was that just that.... A training video?? I may sound disrespectful and i don't mean too... But this Case is all wrong on every level and they say nothing.....
The question really has to be what was it all about..... It's like some massive stunt gone wrong...
If Joanna Yeates died it was not because some random stranger from next door killed her... (imo)
Did The Police want to hush this whole episode up because it never really happened.... Releasing a statement saying that a line is drawn over the Joanna Yeates Case.... Well it can't be ..... we have been lied to.... we all have been lied too.....
Did the media go too far with CJ.... were the Police just doing a training exercise?? Plenty of overtime for them maybe double time for weekend work??
I know I keep asking and you're not going to tell me..... But was it all made up??
Was someone trying to make money out of this?? It just seems it's all about advertising....
There are no Official Sentencing comments by The Judge.... There are statements made by people but I cannot find anything Official.... If I look for " R v Tabak " all that is available is Sally Ramages papers....
In a court of Law this doesn't exist does it??? I know I ask and I know you won't answer... But I will keep asking....
Is it all a big con?? Something is wrong with it.....
Is the Joanna Yeates Murder one big stun by Avon and Somerset Police?? Its a fair question and the right one I feel... (imo)
https://www.paimages.co.uk/search-results/fluid/?q=joanna%20yeates&category=A,S,E&fields_0=all&fields_1=all&imagesonly=1&orientation=both&page=2&words_0=all&words_1=all#2.9962915
https://twitter.com/bbcrb/status/379488069478395904
https://twitter.com/ShelleyFletcher/status/197764572629843968
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/09/cambridgeshire-police-video-suggests-people-should-think-twice/
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Justice Field, the trial judge in R v Vincent Tabak [2011] refused during the voir dire to allow a plea of manslaughter and insisted that the charge of murder must stay.
However, in R v Archer [2011], paragraph 11 of the Court of Appeal’s decision, stated:
‘The appellant …then gave evidence in line with the defence cases we have already summarised. The appellant admitted in his evidence that he had lied in his police interview but he maintained that there had been no discussion or planning in relation to the ….. It seems that in the course of his evidence he sought to give the impression that he did not usually behave in the way alleged, which led to the admission into evidence of the fact that he had previous convictions….’
The point here is that like the Appellant in R v Archer [2011], Vincent Tabak had admitted telling lies during the police interview, but unlike the Appellant in R v Archer [2011], in the course of his evidence, he sought to give the impression that he did not usually behave in the way alleged. Vincent Tabak was correct in giving that impression.
No previous criminal convictions whatsoever
Indeed, he had no previous convictions for sex offences or for any other criminal offences and in fact was a virgin when he met his then partner Miss Morston. The judge cannot be said to have correctly directed the jury in their conviction of Dr Vincent Tabak for murder, because the trial judge, had been told beforehand by police officers, that a prostitute in Los Angeles had telephoned the Avon and Somerset police to identify Vincent Tabak as her one-time client for prostitution in Los Angeles and requested ‘strangulation sex’. This self-confessed prostitute had neither been sworn in to give witness nor had she been cross-examined, yet the trial judge had decided without a trial that she was telling the truth.
But whilst in R v Archer [2011] was an application for leave to appeal, in fact, Vincent Tabak, should apply thus, but no legal counsel has put this appeal forward. The essential elements in a murder conviction are as follows:
In R v Tabak, this ‘sufficient evidence’ came in the form of Vincent Tabak’s self-confession.
Justice Field, the trial judge in R v Vincent Tabak [2011] refused during the voir dire to allow a plea of manslaughter and insisted that the charge of murder must stay.
However, in R v Archer [2011], paragraph 11 of the Court of Appeal’s decision, stated:
‘The appellant …then gave evidence in line with the defence cases we have already summarised. The appellant admitted in his evidence that he had lied in his police interview but he maintained that there had been no discussion or planning in relation to the ….. It seems that in the course of his evidence he sought to give the impression that he did not usually behave in the way alleged, which led to the admission into evidence of the fact that he had previous convictions….’
The point here is that like the Appellant in R v Archer [2011], Vincent Tabak had admitted telling lies during the police interview, but unlike the Appellant in R v Archer [2011], in the course of his evidence, he sought to give the impression that he did not usually behave in the way alleged. Vincent Tabak was correct in giving that impression.
No previous criminal convictions whatsoever
Indeed, he had no previous convictions for sex offences or for any other criminal offences and in fact was a virgin when he met his then partner Miss Morston. The judge cannot be said to have correctly directed the jury in their conviction of Dr Vincent Tabak for murder, because the trial judge, had been told beforehand by police officers, that a prostitute in Los Angeles had telephoned the Avon and Somerset police to identify Vincent Tabak as her one-time client for prostitution in Los Angeles and requested ‘strangulation sex’. This self-confessed prostitute had neither been sworn in to give witness nor had she been cross-examined, yet the trial judge had decided without a trial that she was telling the truth.
But whilst in R v Archer [2011] was an application for leave to appeal, in fact, Vincent Tabak, should apply thus, but no legal counsel has put this appeal forward. The essential elements in a murder conviction are as follows:
In R v Tabak, this ‘sufficient evidence’ came in the form of Vincent Tabak’s self-confession.
The point here is that like the Appellant in R v Archer [2011], Vincent Tabak had admitted telling lies during the police interview, but unlike the Appellant in R v Archer [2011], in the course of his evidence, he sought to give the impression that he did not usually behave in the way alleged. Vincent Tabak was correct in giving that impression.
No previous criminal convictions whatsoever
Indeed, he had no previous convictions for sex offences or for any other criminal offences and in fact was a virgin when he met his then partner Miss Morston. The judge cannot be said to have correctly directed the jury in their conviction of Dr Vincent Tabak for murder, because the trial judge, had been told beforehand by police officers, that a prostitute in Los Angeles had telephoned the Avon and Somerset police to identify Vincent Tabak as her one-time client for prostitution in Los Angeles and requested ‘strangulation sex’. This self-confessed prostitute had neither been sworn in to give witness nor had she been cross-examined, yet the trial judge had decided without a trial that she was telling the truth.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Is the case someones thesis??
Is the case a learning tool??
Was it supposed to be a learning tool??
Was it a Moot trial??
If they had no evidence in the begining... and none at the Sept 2011 hearing... why did the trial continue.... Dr Vincent Tabak has not confessed.....
"But whilst in R v Archer [2011] was an application for leave to appeal, in fact, Vincent Tabak, should apply thus, but no legal counsel has put this appeal forward. The essential elements in a murder conviction are as follows:"
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
"This particular murder trial aroused intensive interest and the English newspapers wrote about this murder from the day that Joanna Yeates was reported as a missing person to the days after Vincent Tabak was convicted of her murder.
In this murder trial, the majority of the prosecution evidence, apart from the post-mortem, was circumstantial and the only real evidence was the post mortem result and
the oral evidence out of the mouth of the defendant himself, who seemed in an automated state and psychiatrically distressed state, in the author’s opinion, totally ignored by his defence barrister, William Clegg, QC; by the judge, Justice Field, whilst the prosecuting counsel, Nigel Lickley, QC rudely and crudely, verbally and psychologically badgered the defendant for hours and hours in the witness box."
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Who was the author??
Edit.... So why was no leave to appeal sought by Clegg??
-
`The above post came from here:
http://www.hestories.info/r-v-vincent-tabak-2011-case-number-t20117031-the-murder-case.html
I don't know what type of site it is.... But the odd thing about it as I looked through the pages when there was a blue link with Joanna Yeates name upon it... It didn't take you to anything to do with Joanna Yeates it took me to fairy tales??
Same with Dr Vincent Tabaks name highlight blue... that took me to a page on Vincent Van Gogh
It appear to be some kind of learning site ,... but I am not sure.. And I don't know who the author is ...
-
The account of the trial is Sally Ramage's !
-
Thanks mrswah.... I thought it may have been but I wasn't sure and didn't want to have got that incorrect.. ?{)(**
-
The account of the trial is Sally Ramage's !
mrswah... Is it accurate?? Or has she deliberatley changed things in it??
-
I keep trying to clarify what is what... Who organised the TV appeals and who put the information out there so quickly....
The link is about the first TV interview, which I believe I have established was on the 20th December 2010....
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8056.msg462679#msg462679
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
I think Rebecca Scott put paid to that... in fact her post lets us know who is doing all of the appeals etc...
Rebecca Scott
24 December 2010 (13:55)
HI GUYS, JO'S LOVING FAMILY AND BOYFRIEND ARE DOING ALL THE PRESS CONFERENCES AND NEWSPAPER/TV INTERVIEWS APPEALS ETC FOR THE MOMENT AS OBVIOUSLY THEY ARE IN THE BEST (AND MOST INFORMED) POSITION TO DO SO. PLEASE ALL KEEP UP THE FANTASTIC WORK OF SPREADING HER FACE (EITHER THROUGH FACEBOOK USING ONE OF OUR POSTERS BY PRINTING ONE OF FROM THIS WEBSITE) IN PROMINENT POSITIONS, FLIERS ETC....AND OF COURSE SPREAD THE WORD TO YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY! THANKS EVERYONE.. BECKY XxX
I have looked at that post many many times..... She has posted this on the 24th December 2010 ..
We at that point have had 2 TV appeals that I remember featuring not only The Yeates but 2 Police Officers.... These 2 TV interviews cannot be 'Official'.. (imo)
So The Yeates (imo) have got to have connection or friends within Avon and Somerset Police Force....
We had apparently DS Mark Saunders appealing for information with the Yeates family and DC Bevan.... We have Mr Yeates grinning about the sort of friends he has in Bristol and how Joanna Yeates wouldn't know them....
(Mr Yeates) Not close............. Unless something happened which something got out of control, but I, (mrs Yeates shakes her head) ... I don't know what close people Jo's got down here, erm........ But of the people we know down here, I I.... (shakes head with a big smile on his face) ..No No (Almost laughing).. Not for a second.....
___________________________________________________________________________________________
So what friends do they have in Bristol??
Media?? Police???
I keep saying I don't know what is real in this case..... So were The Police all real?? I mean all of the Police on Canygne Road before Joanna yeates was found??
Was that staged the Incident room outside Canygne Road.... Police apparently searching??
I did post what Rupert Evelyn said.... And
The Police believe she reached her Flat, as shopping receipts and her coat were both there. What happened after that is so far inexplicable..
(Rupert Evelyn)
The abdundance of Police Officers, both in and around Jo's Flat give the sense that this is a major crime scene.. When in reality 5 days after she went Missing.. The Police are still treating this as a "Missing Person"s enquiry.
So reality is the "Police" had and were treating this as a Missing Persons Inquiry... Therefore they are not doing very much at this point ..(imo)
It was "The Yeates who appear to be letting everyone know that it is more serious.... WHY!!!
The Police wait 48 hours after someone/an adult has been reported Missing... Nothing indicated what had happened at The Flat so, they would wait...(imo)
So who were the Police men/women etc, who went around straight away to Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat to ask questions??
Were they real Policemen?? Why would they be knocking on neighbours doors at that hour of the morning for a Missing Adult... Wouldn't they have waited till the light of day at the very least??
I just assumed that the Police responded straight away and all the bells and whistles happened at the same time... But I am not convinced that is true... (imo)
If what Rebecca Scott tells us on the 24th December 2010 is true... then that in turn means that the appeals are NOT from the Police.....
The Facebook page and the helpfindjo webpage are all designed by her family... They are the ones courting the media and wanting everyone to be involved....
They are the ones telling people to contact the Police...
Greg Beardon
All press should be directed to the Avon and Somerset Police.
Did the Police not take this as serious???
Were they all involved in getting the Polices attention by using Facebook and the webpages??
If they had friends within the Police , or with the media... It doesn't take long to borrow a car or two...
This case becomes more and more disturbing...(imo)...
What real evidence was there that Joanna Yeates was abducted?? None (imo)... It was her father who first said that it was in his opinion she had been abducted....
___________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mr Yeates) I think , my personal feelings I think she was abducted... From her Flat after getting home from her flat, we cant.... we've got no idea of the circumstances of the abduction. But because of what was left behind the flat , we feel that she wouldn't have gone out by herself. Erm............. leaving all those things behind, maybe one of them and she was taken away somewhere... we don't know by whom or by what people erm...
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Mr Yeates is the one who planted that seed in our minds... No physical evidence came to light to prove that she had been abducted....
By Interview we see after the trial in documentaries... Mrs Yeates starts saying that she believed that Joanna Yeates had been abducted, and we find out she goes around banging on car boots....
In fact.... It's Mrs yeates who talks of her lying in the snow somewhere..
____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mrs Yeates ) I go numb.... with all this snow around I sometimes picture her lying.. If for some reason she had collapsed or had been discarded and she was alive,( shaking her head) in all this snow and the cold... I just... (breaks down sobbing) can't bare the thought of it... I don't go with it.... (crying)
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Why would you envisage your daughter lying in the snow somewhere if she had been abducted??
There are many places that she could have been ....
* A House
* A Garage
* A Warehouse
* A Cellar
* Inside a bed
* Being driven around in a van or car
Many options, Yet she ends up being found lying in the snow....
Why haven't The Police looked at this?? It make me think that they knew more than they were saying....
To be abducted, there has to be a motive for this, and there appears no motive for abducting Joanna Yeates... Therefore, she was just a missing person.... There was NO motive for Dr Vincent Tabak to kill his neighbour....
There are too many unanswered questions in this case....
What was The Yeates involvement in this case? Because it appear to me that it was they who were pulling the strings... It appears to me that they were the puppet masters....
Was there ever an "Official" appeal by The Police in the disappearance of Joanna Yeates?? Because it appears that it was The Yeates who did the TV appeals and The Yeates and friends who did all the Missing Posters appeals.... So di the Yeates name the Operation...Operation Braid?? Because if the Posters were not Official , then the Operational name possibly came from them....
This is why there is no Reference Number on the Posters and the numbers to ring are Crime Stoppers and a none emergency number... This is from one of the very first handmade posters that were issued.... (image attached.. ) Why would the crime stoppers number be advertised on the poster when "NO Crime " had been committed!!!
Other posters tell people to quote Operation Braid... Some posters also have a web address of the helpfindjo webpage...
The Yeates pushed for this being a major crime (imo)... They pushed the public into giving information, all before Joanna Yeates was apparently found dead!!
I will keep saying .... what is this about?? Why are the Yeates crying and sobbing when the Police are still not responding to this as serious...(imo) The Police didn't make these TV appeals.... they did!!
Is any of this real??? Or is it all an act??
One last thing that has sprung to mind.... In the first appeal Mr Yeates asks everyone to contact the Police.. But in the second appeal, Mrs Yeates asks everyone to contact the relevant people....
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mr Yeates)
Jo.. whatever the reason you haven't been in touch over the last few days.. I want you to know that we love you dearly and are desperate to know that your safe and well, please get in touch as soon as possible, either to the Police or anyone that can confirm your ok.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Mrs Yeates) I think we need to say that The Police , we know that they are doing everything.. we just try to be as helpful as we can....
(Looking straight to camera... I think they are readying from an auto cue) If there is any body out there who's Wizz Jo... seen somebody who looks like her Or just heard something really unusual or weird or how ever small it is, please contact the relevant people, Um.. you may
What changed from the first TV interview to the second?? Relevant People?? Had they been told not to say Police?? It is just weird that all...
My other main problem still is the date of death of Joanna Yeates on the cross in the cemetary... 25th December 2010...
It's like it is some kind of Crime TV show, this case... Nothing makes sense... nothing follows protocol... And for some reason... No-one will speak of it !!
Rebecca Scott.... " (AND MOST INFORMED) POSITION TO DO SO. "...
Now they are only the most informed people to do so because of there Facebook page... (imo).. I believe that was how they knew that Joanna yeates had gone to the pub in the afternoon, because a person on facebook said so....
One thing none of us know... Is what information The Yeates received in private messages and what they received in phone calls..... At some point I believe it is possible they gave their phone numbers to some people.... Because of what Alla....Chris Yeates partners says....
Alla Amanjot Yeates
23 December 2010
WARNING: please do not distribute any of our numbers! Thanks
Well why would the members of this little facebook group have their numbers?? Why would you need to warn them, it should be immediate family and a few friends... not telling some hundreds, maybe thousands of people that message... And family and friends would know not to... (imo)
Oh... what a strange Case ....!!
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg462600#msg462600
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg456134#msg456134
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8056.msg462679#msg462679
-
A Theory....
R v Vincent Tabak [2011] Case number T20117031 The murder case
Dr Tabak was charged by police with the murder of Joanna Yeates on that Friday evening after she returned from the public house and whilst his own girlfriend Miss Marston was attending the annual pre-Christmas party held, at the employer’s invitation for all employees of the company she worked for. Dr Tabak’s girlfriend had travelled to the Christmas party by coach, arranged for the staff by her employers and Dr Tabak had planned to collect his live-in partner, Miss Marston, from the Bristol coach station on its return after the party was over.
Miss Marston owned a grey car which they both used, in a similar way that Greg Reardon and Joanna Yeates used her car. Dr Tabak is alleged to have killed Miss Yeates whilst his girlfriend was at her employer’s party; to have gone shopping in an Asda supermarket at about 11.30 pm that evening, having driven around Bristol to look for a suitable place to deposit Miss Yeates’ body and having found one, did the deed before collecting his live-in partner from the coach station after midnight, stopping off briefly to buy them both cooked beef-burgers, which they ate on their way home in the car. This is what the Prosecuting Counsel told the Court on the first day of the murder trial, Monday 10 th October, 2011.
The jury
The reporting of this case and the mentioning of witness's whom did not attend the court or give a written witness's statement that was read out in court, has always confused me....
But like most things there should be a simple answer.......
When I first read the authors account of Dr Vincent Tabak's Case, I believe that they had made some basic errors... I was blinded and had been spoon fed the information from the national papers....
Now there is no reason for the author to get Miss Morsons name incorrect.... No need whatsoever... It has be reported in all of the papers... I believe the author also attended court proceedings in this case...
Tanja Morson was not a protected witness, she made NO appearance at court... so there should be no need for a name change....
Is she really a Marston??
When I put Marston into the search I came up with a company called Marston Holdings, the weirder part of that is that they are an enforcement agency....
Providing the highest standards of service to customers.
Marston has a nationwide network of over 600 enforcement agents engaged across the UK to enforce a variety of warrants, including distress, arrest and many others.
In their daily interactions, enforcement agents demonstrate the highest levels of professionalism and knowledge, by upholding the standards and ethics that we and our clients require for every customer.
“Marston’s access to a nationwide field force of enforcement agents forms a crucial part of our business. Often facing difficult and challenging circumstances, our network of talented and diverse agents work hard to recover outstanding fees owed to our clients.”
Steve Newman, Services Director
I have no idea if Miss Morson is Miss marston, but if she really is I can understand why they qould keep her identity secret, if she is connected to this company in some way....
That publication I have referred to at the begining of this post is published in America, and I it is possible (imo) that any publication in the UK may have been banned... Therefore publishing in another country and naming Dr Vincent Tabak's girlfriend by her known name wouldn't be prohibited..
It has been mentioned before that it was a case of mistaken identity and Dr Vincent tabak's girfriend was the actual target...
Now that would make more sense is she was connected to this companyas kidnapping her would be a viable reasaon to ask for a ransom..
The images we see in the papers of Tanja Morson, may in fact not be her.... It could quite easily be someone else... Someone whom assumed the role of his girlfriend... There really should be no reason to identify Tanja Morson especially as she could have been and should have been a potential witness.. Yet we have seen photographs of a blonde lady that the papers claim is Tanja Morson Dr Vincent Tabak's girlfriend, published in the newspapers, showing her visiting him at Long Larton Prison in February 2011...
The pictures of her and Dr Vincent Tabak have been photoshopped (imo) like many other images...
That brings another question... why weren't the papers prosecuted for printing images and possibly identifying a Potential Witness in a Murder trial before the trial took place???
So if the lady in the photos at Long Lartin are not of Dr Vincent Tabak's girlfriend, and Miss Morson is not Dr Vincent Tabak's girlfriend... Then The media didn't identify a potential witness......... And anything said about Tanja Morson in the papers doesn't matter... Because for all intense and purposes We Do Not know the identity of Dr Vincent Tabak's girlfriend... (imo) I believe the media would have been prosecuted.. (imo) for identifying a potential witness in a Murder trial...
What was Operation Braid???
We have too many Police Officers in attendance at Longwood Lane for a Missing Person, whom at the point of her being found could have simply died of hypothermia... Nothing said she had been murdered at the point... We have Officers from many homicide investigations in attendance... when in reality we shouldn't have...
Ann Reddrop Head of The Complex Case Unit involved in a Simple murder Case..??
This case is COMPLEX.... And it shouldn't be ....
People in this case have assumed roles.... Therefore why not assume names also???
Was there a plot to kidnap Dr Vincent Tabak's girlfriend?? Or was there a known Plot?/ Was Dr Vincent Tabak's girlfriend connected to the Police??
There is no reason for Dr Vincent tabak's girlfriend NOT attending court and giving testimony... she should be there...
If Dr Vincent Tabak's girlfriend is connected to Marston enforcement agency , that too would be a reason for Dr Vincent Tabak to keep quiet and admitting guilt... By protecting his girlfriends identity being revealed...
And why no memeber of his family speak of what happened in this case..
It would also be a reason for Dr Vincent Tabak attending the Old Bailey with his Unique case Number U2011387
Leonora saying that a deal had been struck, would make even more sense... Because it would be more about protecting his girlfriend and her connections than anything else.... (imo)
So we need to know why the trial took place?? Because I don't believe it was about Dr Vincent Tabak....
The guilty verdict is cut and dry even before the jury have taken their seats at tria... (imo) The out come would always be that... Nothing adds up in this case... Nothing makes sense... (imo)
The question has to be did the real killer know who Dr Vincent Tabak's girlfriend was ?? Was it just coincidence that she live d at that address??
Did Dr Vincent Tabak and his girlfriend move out because of who she was and she didn't want the attention??
There is no reason for Dr Vincent Tabak to admit to killing Joanna Yeates whatsoever.. unless, he is trying to protect someone... And the only person I believe he could be protecting is his girlfriend.... Especially if she had connections to an enforcement agency....
So who was protecting the killer ????
Did Miss Marston work for the agency in any capacity?? She may have known if the real killer had , had previous warrants served?? Was it Miss Marston that everyone wanted to silence?? A valid question....
Again I must state that these are my theories and ideas in relation to this case.... my opinion based on what I find....
But the idea brings interest... And as always it's just a thought.....
Edit.... From page 1 of this topic...
And Miss Morson seems to agree, having failed to make a single appearance at court.
Why would Clegg reveal the name of a person in court, knowing as a experienced QC that naming people in a trial that are not witness's or having a statement from them that is available for the court, would land him in deep water.... Therefore I put forward to everyone, That Miss Morson was possibly an assumed name... And Clegg didn't identify anyone.... !!!
https://marstonholdings.co.uk/our-team/our-agent-network/
-
Missing persons first tweeted about Joanna Yeates on the 23rd December 2010, There are no other tweets I can find from them on this Missing Persons story...
Missing People
Verified account
@missingpeople
Following Following @missingpeople
More
MISSING PERSON: Joanna Yeates, 25, missing from Bristol since 17 December 2010. http://bit.ly/hE7e9K Please RT
12:25 PM - 23 Dec 2010
I found another interesting tweet...
Jenny Simpson
@jennysimpson
Follow Follow @jennysimpson
More
@google does keyword Facebook trigger stories getting into Entertainment section of news? Why else missing person Joanna Yeates story there?
1:15 PM - 22 Dec 2010
Avon and Somerset Police didn't place a facebook advert until after Joanna Yeates was found Murdered... (image attached)
So how did Joanna Yeates "Missing" story feature in the entertainment section of the news by the 22nd December 2010 ??
Who had the ability to make this happen??
More to the point, (imo) I think someone was already aware what this case was about... It's like it is not real to me... I have been everywhere with it and nothing makes sense...
In the begining I said I would not believe that Dr Vincent Tabak was guilty, unless someone gave me proof of this....
Well... If this is a TV story and the culprit was supposed to be a man named Dr Vincent tabak, whom for no reason killed his next door neighbour he did not know... Then YES... he would be guilty.....
But if it is supposed to be real life, then I still maintain that he is Innocent....
I still think it is some kind of Moot trial, and I am not sure if Joanna Yeates is a real person.... I have found a couple of images which I will post, that has me asking more questions...
https://twitter.com/jennysimpson/status/17568896571674624
https://twitter.com/missingpeople/status/17918753815662592
-
I went back to "The Killers" program... I was looking for when Mr Yeates had said that he was the one who found Joanna Yeates earring under the clothes..... But instead I found something else....
I either read it or it was in an Interview with the Yeates... And David Yeates remarks about a photograph of Joanna Yeates that was taken at the garden at home.... It's the one with the shoebox and she is drawing or painting....
Of course when I need this for reference I am having difficulty locating it...
I have attached the photograph that David Yeates had remark upon.... But of course it doesn't end there because a similar image is seen in the "Killers" program.... But the two images differ and they shouldn't....
If it is one of David Yeates home photographs of his daughter then the images should be identical in all respects... But of course they are not......
On the second image I have attached ..Joanna Yeates head position differs... There are yellow flowers and greenery to the bottom left of the image.... Joanna Yeates looks different in the second image... younger...
There should only be one image of Joanna Yeates in her garden not two! You can find the image at 20:05 of the video....
So where did "The Killers" program get this image of Joanna Yeates?? All I keep thinking is that it is all staged... everything.... And finding that other picture of Joanna Yeates in the garden at home only adds to my suspicions...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nJqbxSVNOA&t=946s
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I went back to "The Killers" program... I was looking for when Mr Yeates had said that he was the one who found Joanna Yeates earring under the clothes..... But instead I found something else....
I either read it or it was in an Interview with the Yeates... And David Yeates remarks about a photograph of Joanna Yeates that was taken at the garden at home.... It's the one with the shoebox and she is drawing or painting....
Of course when I need this for reference I am having difficulty locating it...
I have attached the photograph that David Yeates had remark upon.... But of course it doesn't end there because a similar image is seen in the "Killers" program.... But the two images differ and they shouldn't....
If it is one of David Yeates home photographs of his daughter then the images should be identical in all respects... But of course they are not......
On the second image I have attached ..Joanna Yeates head position differs... There are yellow flowers and greenery to the bottom left of the image.... Joanna Yeates looks different in the second image... younger...
There should only be one image of Joanna Yeates in her garden not two! You can find the image at 20:05 of the video....
So where did "The Killers" program get this image of Joanna Yeates?? All I keep thinking is that it is all staged... everything.... And finding that other picture of Joanna Yeates in the garden at home only adds to my suspicions...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nJqbxSVNOA&t=946s
I'm a little confused. Why should there only be one photo of her in the garden? Seems to me that they are different photos taken on the same day.
-
.................
-
Reminder to all members!
Forum Rules
You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, adult material, or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law. You also agree not to post any copyrighted material unless you own the copyright or you have written consent from the owner of the copyrighted material. Spam, flooding, advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are also forbidden on this forum.
Note that it is impossible for the staff or the owners of this forum to confirm the validity of posts. Please remember that we do not always actively monitor the posted messages, and as such, are not responsible for the content contained within. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information presented. The posted messages express the views of the author, and not necessarily the views of this forum, its staff, its subsidiaries, or this forum's owner. Anyone who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to notify an administrator or moderator of this forum immediately. The staff and the owner of this forum reserve the right to remove objectionable content, within a reasonable time frame, if they determine that removal is necessary. This is a manual process, however, please realize that they may not be able to remove or edit particular messages immediately. This policy applies to member profile information as well.
You remain solely responsible for the content of your posted messages. Furthermore, you agree to indemnify and hold harmless the owners of this forum, any related websites to this forum, its staff, and its subsidiaries. The owners of this forum also reserve the right to reveal your identity (or any other related information collected on this service) in the event of a formal complaint or legal action arising from any situation caused by your use of this forum.
You have the ability, as you register, to choose your username. We advise that you keep the name appropriate. With this user account you are about to register, you agree to never give your password out to another person except an administrator, for your protection and for validity reasons. You also agree to NEVER use another person's account for any reason. We also HIGHLY recommend you use a complex and unique password for your account, to prevent account theft.
After you register and login to this forum, you will be able to fill out a detailed profile. It is your responsibility to present clear and accurate information. Any information the forum owner or staff determines to be inaccurate or vulgar in nature will be removed, with or without prior notice. Appropriate sanctions may be applicable.
Please note that with each post, your IP address is recorded, in the event that you need to be banned from this forum or your ISP contacted. This will only happen in the event of a major violation of this agreement.
Also note that the software places a cookie, a text file containing bits of information (such as your username and password), in your browser's cache. This is ONLY used to keep you logged in/out. The software does not collect or send any other form of information to your computer.
Please treat all members with respect and accept gracefully that other users may not necessarily share your point of view. Debates should be structured and constructive, they should not be used as a mechanism to disrupt or goad or provoke other users. In the event that a breach of these rules occurs, moderators can invoke sanctions which can include pre authorisation of posts and a temporary ban.
These rules will be amended periodically as the need arises.
ADMIN
-
(54) * She's taken the opportunity to tidy things up... For starters she had organised the washing, you know Clothes
washing and erm... washing up the stuff in the kitchen, things were nice and tidy..
I keep thinking about this.... I believed that Mr Yeates must have seen the washing piled up somewhere ready to do the clothes washing...
But I then have to wonder why he knew this..... I go back to Mr Yeates having said that it was he who found the earring under the clothes, and wonder if it was this washing pile that he talks of....
So... why didn't Greg say that there was a pile of clothes washing?? Why did Greg say it was he whom found both earrings??
He has taken the stand... has he told an untruth?? I believe he told an untruth before, when he said they moved in on the 25th October 2010, yet he had advertised on face book that he had ski's to give away on the 16th October 2010.. And to pick them up from Clifton....
If Joanna Yeates had organised the clothes washing as her father has stated, then Dr Vincent Tabak could NOT have killed Joanna Yeates within minutes of her arriving home....
Joanna Yeates must have had time to start to do housework.... She appears to have had time to change her clothes, she is found in a different top than she was wearing at the Ram....
So is the pile of cloths that needed to be washed the reason that The Yeates come to the conclusion that Joanna Yeates must have been abducted??
There had to be something in the Flat other than 'What was left behind" (i believe her father says) that indicated that she had left in the middle of something.... Therefore the only thing I can say is it is "The Clothes Washing".... And it is the "Clothes Washing" , which was left behind.....
Keys etc, cannot be it... (imo)... But starting to get on with your washing and organising your clothing so that they are in piles, may indicate that she left not of her own accord.... By Joanna Yeates getting ready to bake as has been suggested, she wouldn't have left mid cook....
Dr Vincent Tabak says he turned the oven off..... A detail that seems a little odd.... Countdown to Murder depicts the turning off of the oven... Had Joanna Yeates put the oven on to bake??.... had she been sorting out her clothes washing??
We see the tour of the Flat... we see images of the kitchen, we see the oven....
Now I can only speculate that it was possible that some part of the oven had been turned on for that information to be in Dr Vincent Tabak's testimony...Maybe the temperature knob was still turned?? On the program it does show 2 actions to turning the oven off.. (Turning the temperature knob of first.. then the other oven knob..)
Was the temperature knob still turned?? Dr Vincent Tabak doesn't mention the temperature knob in his testimony... only that he turned the oven off.... He's in a rush.... apparently, but he does 2 actions because??
If you are in a rush, what is the quickest way to turn the oven off?? I would say the "RED" switch on the wall to the right of the oven....
So the question has to be was the knobs on the oven actually still turned on when the Police came to The house or did the Yeates or Greg notice this??
Therefore when Greg came home he must have used the Microwave to warm his pizza up that he ate... Because he doesn't give details of the oven at trial.... And if he used the oven , no-one would know if Dr Vincent Tabak had turned it off..(imo)
There was an article that I had posted, where Greg describes what he did when he returned home... he ate Pizza and went back to the car... Of course I can't find it at the minute... But I do remember posting about it....
Why didn't Greg speak of the oven?? Why was it mentioned by Dr Vincent Tabak at trial?? Why wasn't the pile of washing mentioned at trial??
That is 2 reason to believe that Joanna Yeates was forced from her home... Or left suddenly... The washing being sorted and the knobs of the oven not being turned off... I am sure if Dr Vincent Tabak or the real killer was in such a rush he would use the red switch to make sure the electric source was not on.... But put Joanna Yeates washing into piles???? why would he do that??.... more to the point why wasn't the washing being organised mentioned at trial??
Greg does mention a pile of clothes....
Mr Reardon said that he found a pair of his girlfriend's earrings in the bedroom.
One was in the bed and the other earring was on the floor under some clothes.
It's the closest we get to organised washing... And Mr Yeates does state that Joanna Yeates had taken the opportunity to organise the washing....
Are there images of this organised washing?? The photo's we see of the Flat are staged.... But did the Police take Photo's of Joanna Yeates washing pile??? And did they take photo's of the oven knobs and red switch??
The photo's we see of the flat cannot be the real evidence..(imo) The Flat is completely staged... So what happened to the images the Police took of this Flat?? They must be somewhere.... We only have the medias images to go off.... Now that has me wondering why it is the media showing us a tour of Joanna Yeates Flat after the jury had seen it?? why wasn't there an Official Police video of the interior of Joanna Yeates Flat???
Maybe there is... And it is with the rest of the evidence and photographs of what Joanna Yeates Flat really looked like, and not the staged images that we have come to know.... And just maybe, we also see this pile of organised washing within these images, as well as images of the Oven with knobs that have not been turned off....
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2kpoos
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8239.msg456649#msg456649
-
1st January 2011 3:45pm The Telegraph
Her boyfriend Greg Reardon also issued a statement in which he declared he would always love her but criticised the media's ''character assassination'' of ''as yet innocent men''.
Did Dr Vincent Tabak actually get cautioned in Holland?? arrested?? We knew nothing of the Holland Interview until the trial in October 2011, yet as early as January 2011 Greg Reardon appears to be part to some Police information....
Why else would he use the term INNOCENT MEN!!
Who informed him of what was happening to Dr Vincent Tabak??
The only other person to be talked to and lead away from his house is Peter Stanley.... Now there's NO mention of him being arrested either!
So whom are these INNOCENT MEN??
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8235055/Joanna-Yeates-was-stolen-from-us-say-family.html
-
Curious how they quote that the body was found in a ditch, there is no ditch. The only ditch, as such, runs alongside the track off Longwood Lane leading to the back of the big estate.
-
Curious how they quote that the body was found in a ditch, there is no ditch. The only ditch, as such, runs alongside the track off Longwood Lane leading to the back of the big estate.
Not all reports quoted that, but I recall one or two doing so. it was also said that the body was found on the grass verge alongside the quarry. I just can't imagine anyone walking their dog there---it would be too dangerous, IMO.
-
Curious how they quote that the body was found in a ditch, there is no ditch. The only ditch, as such, runs alongside the track off Longwood Lane leading to the back of the big estate.
Which big estate Aerial??
-
... I'll come back to this....
-
CJ's second witness statement... that illusive statement that no-one knows anything about... The statement that should really have been heard of at trial... A statement that potentially puts someone at Canygne Road around the time that Joanna yeates was murdered according to the prosecution....
What is in that statement.... what do they NOT want us to know???
I was looking at the leveson inquiry and CJ's 2 statements and came across something rather curious.... I do not know if it has any baring, but we will see....
From witness statement part 1...
The Leveson Inquiry
Witness Statement for Part 1, Module 1
WITNESS STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER JEFFERIES
I, Christopher Jefferies, c/o Collyer Bristow LLP, 4 Bedford Row, London, WC1R 4DF wifl say
as follows:
From CJ's second witness statement to The Leveson
The Leveson Inquiry
Witness Statement for Pat1 1 Module 2
SECOND WITNESS STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER JEFFERIES
I Christopher Jefferies, c/o Bindmans LLP, 275 Gray’s Inn Road, London WC1X 8QB will
say as follows:
I have just noticed that the c/o address is different.... I could see him using Bindmans for maybe a claim against the Police, but he wouldn't need them for the Leveson would he??
So why has he got two different solicitors representing him for this inquiry?? Why not just one c/o address??
Bindmans specialise in actions against The Police and State.... Now that has got me wondering even more about CJ's second witness statement!
Or should I be questioning why he chose Collyer Bristow ??
https://www.bindmans.com/what-we-do/actions-against-police-and-state
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122175126/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Christopher-Jefferies.pdf
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122175642/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Second-Witness-Statement-of-Christopher-Jefferies.pdf
-
How many people represented CJ??
SM&B
@smablaw
Follow Follow @smablaw
More
Statement on our libel advice for Christopher Jefferies in 2011:
http://www.smab.co.uk/news/news/christopher-jefferies-libel-payout.aspx …
#TheLostHonour
10:17 PM - 10 Dec 2014
Click the tiny url and you get this?? http://smab.co.uk/news/news/christopher-jefferies-libel-payout.aspx
On their website it says 404 Error not found.... (Image attached)
They are based in Soho in London... These are their services...
Our Services
Media
Corporate, Commercial and Finance
Employment
Real Estate
Dispute Resolution
Tech, IP and Digital Rights
Family
Music
Crime and Regulatory
Third Sector and Civil Liberties
It appears that Simons Muirhead & Burton LLP have shied away from CJ after their advice, as the page has disappeared...
How has CJ got so many people there to help him so early on in the game?? Did Simons Muirhead & Burton LLP do anything else for CJ, or did they just advise him to go to another solicitor?? I am somewhat confused as to how many solicitors one needs to represent you....
They're all based in London... Does Bristol not have any solicitors that could help CJ???
Think we need a head count! or is it like one of those jokes... How many solicitors firms does it take to represent one man??
Sorry there's no punch line.....
CJ had no money to speak of, you would imagine he would have gone to the first person who could help him, if he had legal aid.... I'm perplexed how so many firms seem to have been involved with CJ....
Any other firms anyone knows of??
https://twitter.com/smablaw/status/542805285887549440
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Yes I remember now it was Lawyer Louis Charalambous who represented CJ, he works for Simons Muirhead & Burton - London... well he does now if he didn't before.... But I am assuming that he did at the time CJ was represented...
This is the blurb on louis....
UK Guide Individual Profile
LOUIS CHARALAMBOUS
Simons Muirhead & Burton - London
Louis Charalambous - Simons Muirhead & Burton
8-9 Frith Street London, Greater London, UK W1D 3JB
Tel: 020 3206 2700 Fax: (020) 3206 2800 Email: Louis.charalambous@smab.co.uk
Contact Lawyer View Firm Profile View Website
Profile submitted by Louis Charalambous
Practice Areas
Louis is a partner and head of Media specialising in Media: Content & Disputes. Louis acts for a number of high profile clients including The Sun and the Sun on Sunday, Times Newspapers, Mirror/Sunday Mirror, Vice Media, Channel 4, BBC and other broadcasters. He also acts for digital media (including BuzzFeed), production companies as well as individual journalists and provides advice to leading individuals. Louis’ recent major libel trials include Andrew Mitchell MP v News Group Newspapers (’Plebgate’) and Times Newspapers v Hunt libel. His recent privacy cases includes PJS v News Group Newspapers Limited. He specialises in crime related media work including libel, privacy, contempt and production orders.
Professional Memberships
Media Society & London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association.
I noticed he missed out CJ in that quote.......
Now here's a quote from The BBC...
Mr Jefferies was not at the High Court in London to hear about the settlement with the Sun, the Daily Mirror, the Sunday Mirror, the Daily Mail, the Daily Record, the Daily Express, the Daily Star and the Scotsman.
However, his lawyer Louis Charalambous said his client was "satisfied" with the outcome.
"Christopher Jefferies is the latest victim of the regular witch-hunts and character assassinations conducted by the worst elements of the British tabloid media," he said.
Mr Charalambous complained that some press reports were intended to "monster" individuals, with a "flagrant disregard" for their privacy and rights to a fair trial.
Mr Jefferies is also pursuing a civil case against the police for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment, his legal team revealed.
Mr Charalambous had told the judge Mr Jefferies had taught English at Clifton College in Bristol for 34 years and was of good character.
Maybe that is the reason that CJ's libel advice was removed from their site?? Because Mr Charalmbous represents the media now....
It is all very strange......
If the newspapers do not speak of CJ, is it because Mr Charalamobous represents them?? And there is some kind of client confidentiality?? It may appear like I have lost it... But... If CJ doesn't want to tell us about his witness statements he made to the Police, and Mr Charalamobous knows this Information, would he advise the media not to speak of it??
How would that stand if the media wanted to print information in relation to the case?? And wanted to look at CJ's second witness statement?? Could they ?? Would they?? Or will they forever be silent??
Is this why the media do not speak of this case?? Because to really question this case we need to know whom or what CJ witnessed on the 17th December 2010....
Is Mr Charalamobous the key to the silence from the media??
I'm not sure... I'm just asking... Because it seems that his hands are tied with the client he had before and the clients he has now... Or did CJ not divulge what happened with his statements to louis-charalambous?? And with client confidentiality we will never know that either...
God knows what is going on... I'm completely lost.....
https://www.chambersandpartners.com/UK/person/41675/louis-charalambous
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14339807
-
Its the Ashton Court Estate, the track from Longwood lane gives access to the Southern part. Its where I thought the body would have been dumped out of choice of location, it's also where you would probably walk if you had a dog, rather than along a road.
-
reply#1487
Now It's bugging me...
Louis Charalambous did he represent the media as clients as the same time as he represented CJ????
Because he can't as we know.... Conflict of Interest... So did Louis have the media clients at the same time as he had CJ as a client??? It wouldn't surprise me as nothing surprises me about this case....
And CJ.... time to talk!!
-
Mr and Mrs Yeates, it has been said, already knew that Dr Vincent Tabak was going to plead guilty to Manslaughter on the 5th May 2011.... Now I wonder who else had this information....
When I wrote about what the attorney General had said about CJ and how he had been proven innocent because Dr Vincent Tabak had pled Guilty to manslaughter, therefore CJ because of this plea, was wholly Innocent...
But.... I was under the impression that because Dr Vincent Tabak had pled guilty to Manslaughter, that had paved the way for CJ to take legal action against said Newspapers....
It would be extremely difficult to take action against a National Newspaper, without any evidence to support your claim... Before Dr Vincent Tabak's apparent Confession, no-one could prove or disprove anything... And any person may find themselves the subject of tabloid gossip.... You would need plenty of clout to even consider taking on the National Newspapers, never mind a man whom had no money to speak of and was simply a retired teacher and of no real consequence to anyone...
Yet CJ manages to elicit the services of Lawyers who really shouldn't touch him with a barge pole... (imo) He's a nobody, he hasn't got any standing , he's no celebrity nor politician... He's a nobody.... He in my belief should not be courting an lawyers at this juncture.... Think about it.... There should be a high profile case about to take place for The Murder of Joanna Yeates.... CJ, for all intense and purposes Should be a witness at trial.... But we find him all over the media and everyone is happy to see his face splashed about without question....
I am coming to it...... CJ.. the man who witnessed people at Canygne Road entering or leaving said premises at around 9:00pm on Friday 17th December 2010... should (imo).. be concentrating on what should be his appearance at trial and not courting lawyers to fight newspapers in apparent libel claims.... maybe after the trial he could pursue it, but not before..... And therefore lies my issue.....
Statements were released as early as 21st April 2011 by solicitors acting for CJ in relation to these Newspapers....
21ST APRIL 2011
SM&B act for Christopher Jefferies in libel and privacy claims against national and local newspapers
Mr Christopher Jefferies has today given notice of libel and privacy claims against a large number of national and local newspapers in relation to articles published by them in December 2010 and January 2011.
The newspapers include The Sun, Daily Mirror, Daily Mail, Daily Express and Daily Star among others. Mr Jefferies will be seeking vindication of his reputation for the terrible treatment he received. Mr Jefferies will not be making any statement about these claims until their conclusion, which he hopes will be in the very near future.
Simons Muirhead & Burton partner, Louis Charalambous, who also represented Robert Murat, leads the team representing Mr Jefferies in these libel and privacy claims.
A Press Release is available here.
Why would Louis Charalambous, be representing and issuing statements about CJ before a trial in which CJ shoukd be a witness commences??
This is the 21st April 2011... No apparent plea had been given... Dr Vincent Tabak had said nothing.... CJ is connected to an ongoing investigation.. an investigation that centres around the property he owns and he is a potential witness.... never mind potential.. he is a witness, he tells us at the Leveson....
CJ Leveson quote..
I was coming back from the gym at
about 9pm, I had parked my car on the road and was just walking through the gates of
the main driveway, when I became aware of what sounded like two or perhaps three
people leaving by the side gate on the other side of the house which I could not see as
there is a hedge in between and it was dark, I duly telephoned the police and relayed
this.
He like the Lehmans heard something, he could tell us if Dr Vincent Tabak's car was parked on the road or not.... He is a witness... And to the public was probably still considered a suspect... The Police had made no Official statement that CJ was no- longer a suspect... And until either a trial had taken place or some evidence supported CJ was wholly Innocent, I do not understand why anyone would take him on as a client in this respect....
We all know about this trial happening... we know of CJ's association with said Murder Inquiry... Yet without Dr Vincent Tabak's plea to Manslaughter, I do not understand why any action was taken before the conclusion of trial.... I do not understand why Louis would consider taking this to court.....
Yes there was name calling..... But that has happened for eons by the tabloids, but what we all seem to forget is what brought CJ to everyones attention.... And that is what he witnessed..... Never mind a blue rinse... I don't care if he has 3 heads.... He's a witness and as such should not be touting himself through any courts.. (imo)... Till after the trial has finished....
By the 21st April 2011, there was nothing to prove that Dr Vincent Tabak was "Their Man"... But no evidence supports this claim.... So why would Louis take on CJ, when Newspaper gossip is just that?? It doesn't state to fact anything about CJ... apart from an image with a blue rinse.... Why touch a potential suspect/witness at all??
I would have thought they would have stayed well clear until after trial.... But everything is in place....
From CJ's Interview on the 30th December 2010..
Jefferies reported the sighting to police and they confirmed they were examining the evidence.
But speaking outside his home yesterday, Jefferies denied he had told police he saw Miss Yeates with the unidentified pair.
He told Sky News: "It is a serious distortion of what I said to the police and I have no further comment to make as that, no doubt, will be distorted.
"I made some comment which was very, very, very much vaguer than that.
"Anything that I have said I have said to the police and I'm not prepared to make any comments to the media."
He added: "I definitely cannot say that I saw Joanna Yeates that evening. No."
Sky News' crime correspondent Martin Brunt, in Bristol, said that after Jefferies had spoken to Sky News there were questions surrounding his claim.
This I believe is important... We have gone from 'Saw' to 'Heard'..... That is a massive leap and also of great importance....
Now again i will state... by the 21st April 2010 no-one other than the Police knew what was held within CJ's witness statement... or at least they shouldn't seeing as this was a live Murder Inquiry, and it is not until The Leveson that we find CJ saying he heard someone at the gate, etc etc ..... Now a denial on the 29th December 2010 to put their media in it's place would support the change we appear o have in whether CJ saw or heard something.... It would have been far simpler if CJ at the time stated he saw nothing.. Because as he tells us at The Leveson he heard something... But he makes us all believe that he did witness something at that time... and I mean visually....
He talks of great distortions.... Well what was the great distortion?? Heard or saw.... Not a great distortion really... He still witnessed something.... He witnessed the possibility of up to 3 people being at the small gate, he witnessed up to 3 people being at the property of Canygne Road at a time when a Murder had apparently just taken place....
So why was this NOT brought to trial?? Why do we find him wanting to sue papers for "HIS" own gain... shouldn't he be more concerned that his tenant has just been Murdered??? Shouldn't this Murder be the story and not a nobody whom happened to be called names by the press.... Yes i agree it isn't right the press vilify anyone... But I am talking about the time these solicitors were appointed.... A time when CJ shouldn't really be in the papers for anything... As he is the landlord who has witnessed the Potential Killers etc leaving the premises at a relevant time...
So I will return to my original question.... Who else knew that Dr Vincent Tabak would be making a Manslaughter plea in May 2011??
One last point.... By CJ taking this public stand, did this mean that he "couldn't" be a witness at trial??
Did The Media by reporting on the 29th December 2010 that CJ had witnessed people at the gate in Canygne Road actually scupper this trial?? They identified a "WITNESS".... yet they were not taken to task on this matter.... Surely they know not to be identifying potential witness's to a Murder before a trial had taken place...
It all seems irregular... Either CJ heard/ Saw people at the gate or he didn't...... Now the question has to be what was in this apparent second witness statement?? If the Police had decided to arrest CJ because of this second witness statement as CJ has stated, then I would ask, did the Police believe that CJ was telling an untruth??
I say this because of DS Mark Saunders statement that he had viewed the private CCTV of Canygne Road of Friday 17th December 2010... Which should have shown 2 to 3 people leaving Canygne Road...
Now did Louis Charalambous, check anything about CJ.... for all we know he could have been a fantasist at this time... And the papers talking about him shouldn't really have been of note... as i say he was a nobody... We at this time and to date only have the word of CJ that he did in fact see/ hear up to 3 people being at Canygne Road on the night of the 17th December 2010... Louis cannot be believing someone just on their say so..... (imo) He wouldn't shouldn't have access to any police statements in relation to this crime.... But on the word of a nobody, whom had no money according to CJ... He takes this man on as a client to take action against the media slap bang in the middle of a Police Investigation.... Why??
Everything about this case is backwards....
Just to reiterate...
Sky News' crime correspondent Martin Brunt, in Bristol, said that after Jefferies had spoken to Sky News there were questions surrounding his claim.
Question surrounding his claim.... now either the Police knew that Joannna Yeates hadn't reached home and CJ stated he saw her... Or they didn't believe his claim for another reason....
So was this claim proven??? And with what hasn't been released I would say NO.... (imo) So was CJ, ever really a witness?? Again I would say NO.... (imo) And I base this on the fact that his 2 witness's statements were never brought to trial or public view, he never appeared at the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak and the Private CCTV of Canygne Road that DS Mark Saunders viewed was not seen at trial either....
And why would the media identify a potential witness of a Murder Investigation especially as this witness had seen up to 3 people at the relevant address at the relevant time??
Edit.. Just realised I'd put 31st December in stead of 29th December when talking about CJ' denial of
seeing someone..... have amended it....
https://smab.co.uk/smb-act-for-christopher-jefferies-in-libel-and-privacy-claims-against-national-and-local-newspapers/
https://smab.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/11.04.21-press-release-final-v2.pdf
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/jefferies-sues-sun-mirror-mail-express-and-others/
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122175642/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Second-Witness-Statement-of-Christopher-Jefferies.pdf
https://news.sky.com/story/joanna-yeates-landlord-held-over-murder-10490254
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
From CJ's second witness statement "at The Leveson"......
It is not clear from the article what the source of this assertion is, i,e. whether it came
from the police or from neighbours. Although I cannot be sure, it may be that the
press had a source within the police who had revealed some of what my second
statement said.
This begs the question what else was contained within this second witness statement?? I was under the impression that all CJ had added to his first statement was he saw/heard up to 3 people at the gate talking in hushed tones....
There appears to be a great deal more to this second witness statement of CJ's by his own admission.... That the people whom he witnessed in what ever form at the gate, was not the only information held within this statement....
So what else did this statement hold??? As a potential witness, this information should be of great importance..... (imo)
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122175642/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Second-Witness-Statement-of-Christopher-Jefferies.pdf
-
Tabak Likely To Face October Trial.
Accused For Joanna Yeates' murder informed of judge's ruling as victim's body is released after PM.
Date 31st January 2011 by Guardian Unlimited
I found this on the Police oracle website.... I was looking at twitter.....
Police Oracle
@Police_Oracle
Follow Follow @Police_Oracle
More
Tabak Likely To Face October Trial: Accused For Joanna Yeates' murder informed of judge's ruling as victim's bod... http://bit.ly/dLCoGj
6:08 PM - 31 Jan 2011
`I couldn't read the whole article I am not a member, but WHAT JUDGES RULING are they talking about???
From Leonora's Blog...
So what happened between the hearing before the Magistrate and the hearing before the judge that caused Crossman Solicitors and Paul Cook to change their minds about bail? It was almost certainly only now that the lawyers were told about the allegation of their client’s interfering with the course of justice by seeking to incriminate the landlord in the statement he gave at Schiphol.
Maybe it was something to do with the Judges Ruling... But I don't know what it is ...... There are NO other articles on this apart from The Police Oracle one and you google it and google only gives a link to the Police Oracle Article... The link to The Guardian just takes you to todays headlines....
I remember the image of Paul Cook leaving court on the 31st Janaury 2011, looking rather worried, I remember commenting on....
Vincent Tabak's defence lawyer Paul Cook leaves Bristol Crown Court following a prelimiminary hearing for the murder of Joanna Yeates on January 31, 2011 in Bristol, England. Vincent Tabak who has been charged with her murder appeared via video link from HMP Long Lartin in Worcestershire. A provisional trial date has been fixed for October 4 and the plea and case management hearing will take place on May 4.
Dr Vincent Tabak appeared via video link from Long lartin.... He has had no application for bail.... And then we find that Paul Cook stops being his lawyer.... So is there something in The Ruling??
Edit..... It does say accused "Informed" of Judges Ruling.... What was Dr Vincent Tabak informed of??
https://twitter.com/Police_Oracle/status/32138138797219840
https://www.policeoracle.com/news/Tabak-Likely-To-Face-October-Trial-_30430.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
http://vincent-tabak-is-innocent.blogspot.com/2012/01/preliminary-hearings.html
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/event/vincent-tabak-preliminary-hearing-for-the-murder-of-joanna-yeates-108632844#vincent-tabaks-defence-lawyer-paul-cook-leaves-bristol-crown-court-a-picture-id108634508
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I was coming back from the gym at
about 9pm, I had parked my car on the road and was just walking through the gates of
the main driveway, when I became aware of what sounded like two or perhaps three
people leaving by the side gate on the other side of the house which I could not see as
there is a hedge in between and it was dark, I duly telephoned the police and relayed
this.
From The Leveson.... CJ.....
I keep going over this.....
Now if CJ's car is parked on the road then there should be evidence of this....
We remember that apparently Dr Vincent Tabak tried to incriminate CJ by stating that the car had changed position.... Well had it???
Did the Police have CJ's car parked on the road at Canygne Road on the Friday 17th December 2010?? and then again on the Saturday morning 18th December 2010??
This... should be evidence of Dr Vincent Tabak trying to incrimainate CJ... everyone just took the prosecutions word for it.....
But.... I will say this ..... On The CCTV DS Mark Saunders viewed did it show where CJ's car was parked on the road???? It should have done.....
Therefore one may conclude that it didn't move and that was why they believed Dr Vincent Tabak had incriminated CJ..... Which.... If they had produced this Private CCTV at trial I might have believed..... But what does the CCTV show of cars and CJ's car on Canygne Road??
The private CCTV of Canygne Road failed to make an appearance at trial.... And I will therefore conclude, that the car could have moved or been in exactly the same position... We won't know till we see this CCTV!!
I always go back to "The Lost honour of CJ..." I only ever see the man playing Dr Vincent Tabak pushing the car off the drive...... What day is that supposed to be ??? (Yes I know its a dramatisation... But didn't CJ advise on it?? )
It's not on the road is it......
-
Now this is new to me.... This is an Interview wth CJ....
“At the time of my arrest, there were three grounds
given for suspicion. One, I had the keys. Two, I didn’t
have a witness alibi for the relevant times. Three, I had
volunteered an additional witness statement about
something I remembered subsequent to giving the
first statement to the police.
“It seemed to all the lawyers, including the barristers,
that just on those grounds the reasons for the arrest
were so circumstantial in the flimsiest kind of way
that legal action was justified. It emerged that, fortunately
for the police, on CCTV in the early hours of
the morning on the relevant date, a Volvo resembling
mine was seen coming back into Bristol. Also, Vincent
Tabak’s car, which he took the body in, was parked in
the parking places here next to my own car. In the end,
though the action succeeded in other respects, that
particular action didn’t proceed any further.”
Now we know the grounds of his arrest.... There being 3 of them....
My problem with that is.... "What is the relevant times ??"
Another point of Interest that is really new to me, we never knew about the CCTV of a car Coming back into Bristol that CJ talks of... I thought it was supposed to be CCTV of someone leaving Bristol with the body(Or am I incorrect?)..... Did the Police questioning him about the car coming back into Bristol?? Where about is this location?
So what CCTV have they viewed and when was it date and time would be helpful!
“The police said they were intending to organise a
video identification parade. It turned out to be an attempt
to widen the investigation illegitimately. My
solicitor said it was the only time he had told a policeman
that his lack of candor was deceitful.
What identity parade?? So if they wanted a video identification parade, there must be a witness to something, but what?? If The Police were widening their Investigation, that is also grounds that we should doubt Dr Vincent Tabak being their man...
Never heard about the identity parade either.......
CJ speaks of his solicitor stating that the Polices lack of candor was deceitful.... Therefore that begs the question what were they looking into?? It has to be more than Joanna Yeates Murder...(imo) So how can Dr Vincent Tabak fit the bill??
“At the time of my arrest, there were three grounds
given for suspicion. One, I had the keys. Two, I didn’t
have a witness alibi for the relevant times.
Colin Port at The Leveson stated that CJ said he saw 3 people.... Now did any of these 3 people see him?? He says he didn't have an alibi witness, so who did he see??
A. Well, we did not give Mr Jefferies' identity to anyone.
4 He did say that he saw three people on two occasions
5 that I recall. In his evidence to this Inquiry, he said
6 that -- and I think I quote accurately -- he told no
7 more than three people about his sightings. That's
8 incorrect, and I completely understand why Mr Jefferies
9 can't recollect that, but I've counted eight people,
10 including some people who were paid by the media for
11 information, and I've also seen evidence that he told
12 people that they should also tell members of the
13 Neighbourhood Watch. So his recollection is flawed,
14 unfortunately.
This is confusing....
It emerged that, fortunately
for the police, on CCTV in the early hours of
the morning on the relevant date, a Volvo resembling
mine was seen coming back into Bristol. Also, Vincent
Tabak’s car, which he took the body in, was parked in
the parking places here next to my own car. In the end,
though the action succeeded in other respects, that
particular action didn’t proceed any further.”
Is here in the designated parking spaces at 44 Canygne Road?? Is he saying Dr Vincent Tabak had a volvo?? What is it with the Volvo??
Now in The Leveson Inquiry CJ sates that his car is parked on the road, the impression I get here is that it is parked in the designated parking spaces at Canygne Road.... So the talk of a car moving position would then be correct....
What particular action is he referring too??
What was fortunate about a Volvo being seen on CCTV... Dr Vincent Tabak's car was supposed to be a Renault Megane!
I keep re-reading that..... Dr Vincent Tabak had a Volvo.... he had to have had..... the action I believe he is talking about is his arrest... So the Volvo CCTV wasn't needed... But why the Renault Megane?? The Police say they found Evidence in the Renault Megane...
Anyone else have any idea what action CJ is talking about and what he means???
Edit..... "Vincent Tabak's car which he took the body in...... "
Now is CJ talking about Dr Vincent Tabak or did CJ witness something?? Is 'He' someone other than Dr Vincent Tabak?? It's a perfectly reasonable question, and another reason to arrest CJ if he knows something more than he had divulged! (imo)
https://www.barcouncil.org.uk/media/316091/young_bar_magazine_2014_final.pdf
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122202635/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-27-March-2012.pdf
-
It emerged that, fortunately
for the police, on CCTV in the early hours of
the morning on the relevant date, a Volvo resembling
mine was seen coming back into Bristol. Also, Vincent
Tabak’s car, which he took the body in, was parked in
the parking places here next to my own car. In the end,
though the action succeeded in other respects, that
particular action didn’t proceed any further.”
On second thoughts... Is it the Megane he is talking about?? Did Dr Vincent Tabak lend his car?? Is that what CJ means??
Is that why they arrested Dr Vincent Tabak... who had access to that Megane??
-
CJ... Core Participant at The Leveson Inquiry
“At the time of my arrest, there were three grounds
given for suspicion. One, I had the keys. Two, I didn’t
have a witness alibi for the relevant times.
Relevant times... So that is more than one specific time.... I do not know what times CJ is referring too, but it is extremely helpful in a way....
Two witness, Zoe and Flo Lehman, who had been to a party in Canynge Road that night, told the court they had heard two piercing screams coming from number 44.
They said the cries, sometime before 8.49pm on December 17, sounded like they came from a woman in distress.
CJ from the Leveson..
s I was coming back from fine gym at
about 9pm, I had parked my car on the road and was just walking through the gates of
the main driveway, when I became aware of what sounded like two or perhaps three
people leaving by the side gate on the other side of the house which I could not see as
there is a hedge in between and it was dark, I duly telephoned the police and relayed
this
If the relevant time is before 8:49pm and CJ returned home at 9:00pm, why would the Police arrest him for that reason?
That is a whole 11 minutes after the apparent attack on Joanna Yeates took place... Surely the Police checked with the gym as to what time CJ had a class there... And how long it would have taken to arrive home... We have no CCTV of CJ going to the gym or his Journey back... we do not know what gym it is either...
But if we go with what CJ has sworn to then the relevant time has to be after 9:00pm on Friday 17th December 2010 and the next morning, or when the Volvo was seen, which I have quoted in the posts above..
So either CJ witnessed who ever killed Joanna Yeates leaving via the small gate, or he witnessed Joanna Yeates leaving via the small gate.. Or.... He was the one whom heard the screams.... Apparently his flat was above Joanna Yeates Flat...
So in any case CJ witnessed something if the Police insist that Joanna Yeates arrived home....
The Lehmans hearing of screams then becomes irrelevant as was suggested before , they could have heard party goers...
Why was CJ never a witness?? It makes no-sense..
Now ideas fly through my head all the time, and I'm trying to understand why CJ, was not part of The Trial of Dr Vincent Tabak, and maybe it has more to do with what is important.....
The Leveson Inquiry was in full swing, CJ was an integral part of this Inquiry, he made statements the newspapers bared stories in November 2011 about CJ and the Leveson....
From The Guardian...
Leveson inquiry
Leveson inquiry into phone hacking: who's appearing on Monday
Christopher Jefferies, British army officer Ian Hurst, peace campaigner Jane Winter, Charlotte Church and Anne Diamond to appear
Josh Halliday, James Robinson and Lisa O'Carroll
Mon 28 Nov 2011 11.06 GMT
Now... If he had appeared as a witness at The Trial of Dr Vincent Tabak and was then shown to have inconsistencies in his statements, his role in the Leveson would be of NO use....(imo) What he did or did not do on the night of the 17th December 2010 would be put under the microscope.... Whom he saw or didn't see would be put under the microscope.... His recollection whether it was flawed or not as Colin Port stated, would be put under the microscope....
So is the fact that this trial makes no-sense more to do with The Leveson Inquiry?? Where participants who should be appearing as a witness in a Murder Trial manage to avoid appearing as there appearance at a Public Inquiry is deemed far more important.....(imo)
Shouldn't a murder trial come first?? And CJ then be dropped as a significant participant if he came across poorly at trial.... It beggars the question as to what is more important in law.... The Murder of a young woman.. Or taking The Newspapers to task...
I think the taking of the Newspapers to task was seen as more important...(imo) Because I believe that this is the reason we did not know of what is in the "Second Witness" statement of CJ.... It may undermine what was said
*(A) At trial
*(B) At The Leveson
Did CJ see Joanna Yeates?? Did he see Dr Vincent Tabak??? He obviously witnessed something.... He should let the public know what he witnessed....
If CJ's appearance at the Leveson was deemed of greater importance, who decides this?? I don't know... But The Leveson.. CJ... and The Murder of Joanna Yeates will always be linked... But no-one should have interfered with Justice and CJ should have been a witness at the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak first and foremost (imo)... Before he appeared at The Leveson.... And if he was a poor witness at trial, so be it....
But would that have thrown a spanner in the works at The Leveson?? There was many more people who were witness's at The Leveson... But The papers focus and still focus on CJ....
Why haven't the media questioned why CJ never appeared at The Trial of Dr Vincent Tabak?? Why didn't they put forward what I am posting about...
Will this ever dawn on anyone.... Will it dawn on people that a public Inquiry comes before The Murder of a Young Woman whom is remember by the British public, because of a Documentary about CJ... A woman whom should have had Justice served by this country...
It appears that libel and character assassination is of greater importance (imo) than The Murder and the taking of a life of a young woman..... (imo)
Which if you really think about that is Shocking!
https://stories.swns.com/news/vincent-tabak-guilty-of-murdering-joanna-yeates-21407/
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122175642/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Second-Witness-Statement-of-Christopher-Jefferies.pdf
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Part 1..
First core participants in Leveson Inquiry announced
14 September 2011 News
Newspapers groups, victims of phone hacking and other forms of privacy intrusion by the press, and the Metropolitan Police Service have been granted core participant status in the Leveson Inquiry.
In his ruling, released today, Lord Justice Leveson explains his decision on the several applications made before him at the Royal Courts of Justice on September 6.
Victims represented by lawyers David Sherborne and Jeremy Reed (see full list below) were all accepted as core participants, except for individual HJK (who was granted anonymity in a High Court civil claim) as Lord Justice Leveson would like to learn the individual’s identity before considering the application.
Former chief executive of News International Rebekah Brooks, private investigator Jonathan Rees (William Rees), and campaigning groups English PEN and Index on Censorship were all refused core participant status for Part 1 of the inquiry.
About Mrs Brooks, Lord Justice Leveson wrote: “Although I can understand the reason for this application, in my judgment, it does not pay sufficient attention to the terms of Part I of the Inquiry which is to analyse the way forward in the light of the broad experience (not descending into the detail required by Part 2 of the Inquiry) of the past.
“Mrs Brooks has very considerable knowledge and experience; I hope and believe that her input into the Inquiry will be of enormous value but, at this stage and in the context of what I am presently required to do, I do not consider that it is necessary or appropriate to designate her as a core participant.”
The Metropolitan Police Service and Acting Commissioner Tim Godwin have also been named as core participants and will be assisting the inquiry.
Guardian News and Media, News International Group Ltd, and Shell Network Ltd (the holding company of the publishing group that includes the Daily Express, the Sunday Express, the Daily Star and the Daily Star Sunday), successfully applied and will be entitled to legal representation during the inquiry.
Lord Justice Leveson’s ruling read: “Every aspect of Part 1 touches upon the press and its outcome will inevitably be relevant to (if not impact upon) the approach to certain types of news gathering and its dissemination, along with the relationship between the press and the public, the police, potential regulators and politicians.
“Thus, if the culture and practices of the press require change, the effect will be upon all. In the circumstances, I have no doubt that each of these media groups is entitled to core participant status for each module of this Part.”
Read Lord Justice Leveson’s ruling in full here
Individuals who have been granted core participants status:
Chris Bryant MP
Tessa Jowell MP
Denis MacShane MP
The Rt Hon Lord Prescott of Kingston upon Hull
Joan Smith
Christopher Shipman
Tom Rowland
Mark Lewis
Mark Thomson
Gerry McCann
Kate McCann
Christopher Jefferies
Max Moseley
Brian Paddick
Paul Gascoigne
David Mills
Sienna Miller
Hugh Grant
Ben Jackson
Ciara Parkes
Simon Hughes MP
Max Clifford
Sky Andrew
Ulrika Jonsson
Mark Oaten
Michele Milburn
Abi Titmuss
Calum Best
Claire Ward
Mary-Ellen Field
Gary Flitcroft
Ian Hurst
Shobna Gulati
Mike Hollingsworth
Kieron Fallon
Ashvini Sharma
Tim Blackstone
Valatina Semenenko
Sally Dowler
Bob Dowler
Gemma Dowler
Sheryl Gascoigne
Graham Shear
JK Rowling
James Watson
Margaret Watson
This is on the 14th September 2011..... Then we get Dr Vincent Tabak's enhanced statement around the 20th September 2011..... The problem I find here is how as early as the 14th September 2011 was it decided that CJ would not be a witness at trial..(imo) You wouldn't want a Core participant coming across negatively at a trial when he appearing in a Public Inquiry, now would you!(imo)
The coincidences amaze me... And concern me at the same time....
So before anyone knows how or when Joanna Yeates was Murdered, a key witness to this Murder has become a core participant in a public Inquiry, and we do not know the content of his statements to the Police.... It is the conviction at trial of Dr Vincent Tabak (imo) that validates CJ's complaint about the press's stories and the subsequent apology from Avon and Somerset Police stating that CJ is wholly Innocent... But he is a core participant before hand....
How did they decide so early on that he wouldn't participate in this trial.... Because that is the opinion that i am coming too... If CJ is a terrible witness, and his Character is questioned at trial... Then what happens about his participation in The Inquiry??
In his ruling, released today, Lord Justice Leveson explains his decision on the several applications made before him at the Royal Courts of Justice on September 6.
Who made an application for CJ to be a core participant in The Leveson Inquiry as early as 6th September 2011??
Nothing in regards to any evidence enhanced statements or explanations as to how Joanna Yeates died was known about at this time... Therefore CJ, should have not been put forward as a core participant (imo), because the outcome of any trial was not known... And CJ's credibility wasn't put to the test... He still at this point (imo) was a nobody..... So why was he put forward as a core participant, when a jury hadn't found Dr Vincent Tabak guilty of anything.... When the evidence didn't support Dr Vincent Tabak's story at trial....
Also no enhanced statement was signed apparently by Dr Vincent Tabak, whom until that point in time had made No Comment to any statements... Apart from according to DCI Jones, something about a mobile phone....
Who decides who gets put forward as a core participant in this Inquiry??
If Dr Vincent Tabak doesn't tell us what apparently had taken place on the 17th December 2010 until his trial in October 2011, then was CJ on the original witness list for the prosecution or the defence??
In my opinion he should have been.... It Dr Vincent Tabak's sentence was extended because he tried to implicate CJ.. then surely there should have been evidence of him trying to implicate him... Surely CJ should have either give a witness statement read out at trial like the 20 other witness witness statements that were read out at trial... Or as I believe should have appeared at trial and been cross examined as to what times he saw or heard what he did... Whether or not he saw Dr Vincent Tabak or Joanna Yeates or anyone else for that matter... Whether or not he was on the private CCTV that DS Mark Saunders viewed with people milling about.....
I personally believe that CJ is core to the Joanna Yeates Murder Investigation and therefore should have attended trial...
https://hackinginquiry.org/first-core-participants-in-leveson-inquiry-announced/
http://iclr.co.uk/document/2011201901/%5B2011%5D%20EWHC%202074%20(Admin)/html?query=tabak&filter=content-available%3A%22Transcript%22&fullSearchFields=&page=1&sort=relevance&pageSize=10
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122202635/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-27-March-2012.pdf
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Part 2..
I keep going back to The Manslaughter plea in May 2011, and the Attorney generals comments in July 2011..
Attorney General v MGN Ltd
29 Jul 2011 [2011] EWHC 2074 (Admin), DC
There is therefore no doubt about the identity of the man who killed Miss Yeates or that Mr Jefferies is innocent of any involvement in it. By way of emphasis, he is not simply presumed in law to be innocent of the killing. As a matter of fact and reality he is innocent. He is not facing trial, and he will never face trial.
It is The Attorney General who states that CJ is wholly Innocent and I am not saying he isn't, but my point is this... Without evidence to back up the plea that Dr Vincent Tabak put forward in May 2011, what proves he did indeed kill Joanna Yeates??
What proves CJ wholly Innocent of any involvement??
The Plea??
Why were we made aware of this plea?? Especially as it was thrown out... Shouldn't that have been made public at trial and not before??
The plea is just that a plea.... Dr Vincent Tabak hasn't made a statement at this point... He could have quiet easily incriminated CJ at any point if he had chose too..(And he did.. apparently..) I am not saying CJ isn't Innocent ... I am making a point about how the Attorney General came to his conclusion....... And at trial we find out that apparently on the 31st December 2010, Dr Vincent Tabak had an Interview in Holland in which he apparently implicates the landlord, that being CJ.... This should have brought CJ to trial (imo) We have different accounts at to what CJ heard or saw... We have different accounts as to where cars were parked on the 17th/18th December 2010... Important information that needs clarification...(imo)
So The Attorney General stating that CJ is wholly Innocent on the 29th July 2011 is ridiculous (imo).. Because a trial had't taken place, and no-one up until that point knew that apparently Dr Vincent Tabak had implicated the landlord being CJ.... No-one knew what Dr Vincent Tabak would have said about CJ in any shape or form... And how would The Attorney General know whether CJ would be implicated or not..?? He cannot know... So until a trial is done and dusted, nothing completely clears CJ... (imo).... because we do not know what Dr Vincent Tabak may say...... And CJ and the car changing position indeed is mentioned, which in itself implicates CJ.... Cj did not attend trial to state that Dr Vincent Tabak was mistaken, no CCTV footage was shown to prove that Dr Vincent Tabak was mistaken.....
Now I'll go back to DCI Jones and The Leveson and what he states...
A. Just reiterating, really, with staff during briefings
22 around confidentiality. We did have some concerns early
23 on, but we ensured that staff were aware of
24 confidentiality and I think also, as the investigation
25 progressed, when there was sensitive information, we
1 ensured that it was kept to a very small number of
2 people within the investigation, so it wasn't widely and
3 publicly known within the investigation itself, which
4 I felt was really important.
Hear DCI Jones lets us know that No-one knew of Dr Vincent Tabak's Interview in Holland (imo) because we have in the Inquiry itself the issues of leaks being about Missing socks etc... We have DCI Jones letting us know only a few people were party to certain information and that information wasn't revealed until trial... And I believe that information to be Dr Vincent Tabak's Interview where he implicates CJ.....
But This Interview with Dr Vincent Tabak has to be of massive importance to The Case and to The Leveson (imo)... Because we find that Dr Vincent Tabak did implicate CJ... Not only that we remember that DCI Jones did in fact tell The Leveson that CJ was held on bail till March 2011 because of DNA on a pair of trainers, which we had no idea about until this Inquiry.... So The Attorney General was obviously not aware of this potential incriminating evidence...
That evidence too, could have been used to discredit CJ as a witness in the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak... Especially as it hasn't been stated where in the house these trainers were located.... We don't even know if these trainers have any of Joanna Yeates DNA upon them... But I have to assume they do .. otherwise why would they keep CJ on bail until March 2011.... AS DCI Jones has stated at the Leveson....
When it comes to the Jury, they apparently only have a Murder Option to consider.... So how would that play out in regards to The Leveson?? If they found him not guilty of Murder, then does The Manslaughter Pleas stand?? I don't know.. Because it was never an option at trial.... What would the procedure then be??
If Dr Vincent Tabak was found NOT Guilty of Murder, would suspicion then fall back on CJ?... The Polices talked of killers and we ended up with just one killer... So who was supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabak's accomplice??
Would the public be satisfied with Dr Vincent Tabak's explanation?? If cross examination and witness's had appeared at trial, would that have cast doubt on CJ's character? People had made statement to the media about him... Surely they should have been cross examined as to what they knew about him....
CJ... could well be of exemplary character.. I do not know.... There is No evidence for me to confirm that.... There is a messy Murder trial.... There are witness's missing.... And There's a public Inquiry in the offing.... But his or anyone elses character is not based on one thing alone....
This case should not be about CJ.... It should be about how Joanna Yeates was Murdered and who did this and evidence that supports this plea of Manslaughter... But we are all sorely disappointed, we never really get to know the truth... we are spoon fed a tale which makes no sense and no supporting evidence of this tale... No CCTV time Stamps putting Dr Vincent Tabak in Asda at a certain time... No CCTV Time stamps of Joanna Yeates in The Ram... No Private CCTV of Canygne Road on that weekend..... No Forensics putting Dr Vincent Tabak in Joanna yeates flat or Joanna Yeates in Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat....
We are left with a man that really had no reason to attack his neighbour... A man whom didn't know his neighbour and a murdered woman whom was worried about being left alone that weekend, opening the door to a complete stranger..... And not one person questioned this at trial.....
My question now has to be... Was it The Attorney Generals Statement about CJ being wholly Innocent, that paved the way for CJ to be a core participant of The Leveson Inquiry?? Because until we knew of the outcome of this trial, we did not know for a fact that CJ was of Good Character.... And the trial didn't establish that either (imo) as CJ never made an appearance even though he had been implicated.... And until The Avon and Somerset Police tell us CJ is wholly Innocent and apologise for his arrest, the trial in itself isn't enough to prove one way or the other Whether CJ was of Good or Bad Character...(imo) As he never appeared at trial to counter Dr Vincent Tabak's alligation that he had moved his car from one position to another.... We will never know what may or may not have been said about CJ as a credible witness..... Because a libel action settled out of court doesn't prove anything (imo)... neither a plea without supporting evidence.... (imo)
By the time the Police have apologised and said CJ was Innocent of this Crime and the trial has completed, we can then assess that there was nothing to prove anything other than CJ was of Good Character... And that is a fair point... But How The Attorney General became involved not only in December 2010 but July 2011 and states that CJ is wholly Innocent, before apologises by the Police are made and a trial is completed is beyond me......
So tell me please, why CJ didn't attend the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak as a witness... especially as Dr vincent tabak implicated him??
-
So tell me please, why CJ didn't attend the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak as a witness... especially as Dr vincent tabak implicated him??
I think probably because Vincent Tabak admitted killing Joanna. The trial then became not about IF he did it but whether it was manslaughter or murder. What information could Chris Jeffries bring to these proceedings that would have helped a jury understand why Tabak did what he admitted to? Also, it's my understanding that Tabak implicated Jeffries during the investigation, presumably to divert attention away from his own guilt, but didn't continue to implicate him after he finally confessed. Did he implicate Jeffries when he gave his own evidence on the stand?
-
I think probably because Vincent Tabak admitted killing Joanna. The trial then became not about IF he did it but whether it was manslaughter or murder. What information could Chris Jeffries bring to these proceedings that would have helped a jury understand why Tabak did what he admitted to? Also, it's my understanding that Tabak implicated Jeffries during the investigation, presumably to divert attention away from his own guilt, but didn't continue to implicate him after he finally confessed. Did he implicate Jeffries when he gave his own evidence on the stand?
No, he didn't.
I'm not at all sure he ever implicated CJ at all: CJ never said whether or not he had moved his car that night. For all we know, he had done, to make it easier for him to exit his driveway in the morning, as snow was forecast.
-
I think probably because Vincent Tabak admitted killing Joanna. The trial then became not about IF he did it but whether it was manslaughter or murder. What information could Chris Jeffries bring to these proceedings that would have helped a jury understand why Tabak did what he admitted to? Also, it's my understanding that Tabak implicated Jeffries during the investigation, presumably to divert attention away from his own guilt, but didn't continue to implicate him after he finally confessed. Did he implicate Jeffries when he gave his own evidence on the stand?
From the BBC...
Admission to jurors
Vincent Tabak - the man who would later emerge as Miss Yeates's killer - also saw it as an opportunity.
I shouldn't have said that about Chris Jefferies
Vincent Tabak
The 33-year-old Dutch engineer gave police false information he hoped would pile more suspicion on Mr Jefferies.
He later admitted trying to wrongly incriminate the retired English teacher, who lived in the flat above Miss Yeates and her boyfriend Greg Reardon in Canynge Road in Clifton.
Tabak, who was Miss Yeates's next-door neighbour as well as Mr Jefferies' tenant, was arrested in January and later pleaded guilty to Miss Yeates's manslaughter but denied murder.
At his trial at Bristol Crown Court, he admitted telling police Mr Jefferies' car had moved on the night of 17 December.
"I shouldn't have said that about Chris Jefferies," he told jurors.
As I keep saying , why wasn't CJ at trial.... It is well known he "WITNESSED" people at the gate at what would be the relevant time in accordance with the evidence that was presented at trial....!!
Did CJ hear any screams... he lived above Joanna Yeates... The timings which they kind of accept from Dr Vincent Tabak, was Joanna yeates arrived home around 8:50pm he went round was invited in, chatted for 10 minutes, then tried to kiss her and she screamed... Then screamed again.... A violent assault is taking place, CJ must have heard something if the Lehmans apparently hear something.... CJ is on site and lives above.... He would have heard a commotion.. (imo) If the prosecution are happy that the Lehmans from their distance could... CJ puts himself at Canygne Road around 9:00pm. So he most certainly should of.... If we accept that Joanna Yeates did in fact reach her home at 44, Canygne Road
In fact how long were the Lehmans outside?? Did they see CJ arrive?? we don't know... So without CJ's statement we are not positive who was seen at the gate... We do not know who may have left Canygne Road at what is a relevant time in terms of a violent assault taking place.... Could CJ confirm whether or not the light were on outside Joanna Yeates Flat that evening or did they not work properly?? It the light are not on outside Joanna Yeates Flat then Joanna Yeates could not have seen Dr Vincent Tabak through the kitchen window, therefore she would not invite him in....
There was NO forced entry.. so you would then have to know for a fact that the light were on outside the house... I don't even think that was covered at trial.... But CJ could confirm this also.... So could the Lehmans if they walked past her Flat... They may have noticed the light from the main entrance... but did they notice the light outside Joanna Yeates Flat.... did they see if it was turned on or NOT!!
Having witness's being able to corroberate the events of that evening I would have imagined would strengthen the prosecutions claims... But they are more than one witness short at that trial.... CJ being one and Tanja Morson being another....
Once you bring CJ to trial , you then have to bring Peter Stanley, because they could then tell us exactly what happened on that evening from apparently helping start Greg's car and cross examination should take place.... (imo)
But NO CJ... No Tanja Morson and No Peter Stanley..... In fact I cannot find anything that references Peter Stanleys statement he made to the Police being presented at trial....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-15430885
-
This is from The Leveson, found it whilst looking at Colin Port... Exhibt CP5.pdf ..Media stratergy etc...
Homepage
,Homepage banner and spotlight images
¯ 1440 inbound messages went to the investigation team via the form on the website
Newsroom
¯ Newsroom story with regular updates
¯ Updates automatically pushed out via twitter with #joyeates "hashtags"
¯ Updates automatically appeared on dedicated section (see below)
, Story e-mailed out to subscribers (currently 15,000+ subscriber base) and media contacts
¯ Briefings filmed / uploaded to YouTube and embedded as well as images
Dedicated section
¯ Set up special website address- www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/jo
¯ Interactive Google map showing key locations
¯ Video play list showing most recent video release first
¯ Image gallery of Jo
¯ Facebook and Twitter sharing tools
¯ Secure on-line contact form sending messages direct to the incident room
¯ Twitter widget showing discussion around the case and our updates
¯ IP address logging for investigative purposes
Local pages
¯ Localised community safety article in the Clifton area
¯ Downloadable advice leaflet (the same as distributed physically in the area
So this must have been the stratergy for The Joanna Yeates Investigation...
The IP logging for Investigation purposes..... I didn't think they logged anything... But apparently they did... So much for anonymity....
* Do not know the date for this stratergy??
* What did the google maps show?? .. Is this the map the Dr Vincent Tabak had viewed??
* 15,000+ subscriber base... now how did they filter through all of them to see if they had a suspect!!
* Why just a localised community safety article just in Clifton??
* Twitter widget... kept an eye on any tweets
* Briefings filmed then uploaded to youtube.... So were these briefings live??
* What story did these 15,00 + subscribers base receive??
* Is it unusual to set up special web address? www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/jo Who has access to this special
web address now??
* How many people are in their subscriber base ??
Further down on the document....
Prepare for the ’ten day turn’: media likely to ask questions about your experience as
an SlO & potential for bringing in another / more senior SIO or outside force to help
Don’t under-estimate the additional personal pressure of being ’the face of the
investigation’
Here's a theory.... So as not to put DS Mark Saunders I believe who was the original head of this Investigation... We then get Introduced to DCI Phil Jones.... Looks like they were ready for the 10 day turn!!
I still want to know when this media strategy was put in place and the website dedicated to Joanna Yeates at Avon and Somerset.
At the moment the earliest i can find the use of the web address is 24th December 2010 which is the Tesco's Pizza CCTV
Going back to them logging IP addresses..... Why wasn't this evidence of the hits from Dr Vincent Tabak at trial?? Why didn't the use their own logs as evidence.... In fact .. there's an idea... get the logs from this an see if Dr Vincent Tabak's IP address was logged! And who else may be a suspect!
Do the Police ordinarily email 15,000+ subscribers for a Missing Person??
Next question, was CJ or Dr Vincent Tabak one of their subscribers??
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122162825/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/evidence/?witness=chief-constable-colin-port
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
No, he didn't.
I'm not at all sure he ever implicated CJ at all: CJ never said whether or not he had moved his car that night. For all we know, he had done, to make it easier for him to exit his driveway in the morning, as snow was forecast.
I believe you are correct mrswah, well the papers and trial say different... But the reality might be a far easier explanation....
SWNS.com
@SWNS
Follow Follow @SWNS
More
#joyeates Tabak felt tired and "under the weather" the next day but was woken to move his car by Chris Jefferies.
11:28 AM - 11 Oct 2011
Now... CJ should have been at trial!!! He woke Dr Vincent Tabak, that was probably why Dr Vincent Tabak had noticed that CJ's car had moved.... So that has to be off the drive and CJ states at the Leveson that he left it on the road!!
Maybe this is the reason we have the talk of the car moving position mrswah.... Makes sense.... But it now has me questioning what CJ said in his statement to the Police when he was arrested!!!
We get the tale that Dr Vincent Tabak rang from Holland because of CJ's car changing position... Now if CJ has told them that he woke up Dr Vincent Tabak to get him to help him move the car, then the Polices info could quiet as easily come from CJ.... We only know about the 2 witness statement.... but what about when he was in Police custody!!
They make up some cock and Bull story about Dr Vincent Tabak ringing to give them an excuse to go to Holland and hey presto.... a new suspect is in their sights....
The telephone recording of Dr Vincent Tabak ringing the Police from Holland was never produced at trial... So I can conclude that it is just as possible they got that information from CJ, as he explained what he did that weekend to the Police whilst in custody.... !!
If CJ originally said his car was parked on the road as he told us in The Leveson Inquiry... then it would take a brain surgeon to work out that if Dr Vincent Tabak had helped him move his car, it had to be parked on the drive... which is what is depicted in The Lost Honour of CJ..... Therefore the Police had the information beforehand about the car changing position.... (imo)
If anything says that CJ should have been at trial... that tweet does... ..(imo)
https://twitter.com/SWNS/status/123706634030690304
-
Back to the leveson for a mo.... Exhibit CP5.pdf
Leaks or investigative.iournalism?
- Media speculation on lines of investigation can get out of hand
- Interference & amateur sleuthing mean SIO must be prepared to reconsider detail / timing of
investigative strategy to retain integrity of investigation :
Need to be aware of potential for ’jigsaw identification’ of crucial investigative strands
through mass media enquiries about lines of investigation; work closely with
Communications lead on diversionary tactics for putting them off the scent
So what tactics were used to put the media off the scent??
* The arrest of CJ?? (lets not forget it was a planned arrest)
* The arrest and charge of Dr Vincent Tabak??
* The Sobbing girl ??
* The Pizza ?
* The Missing Sock ??
* The boyfriend being a witness and not a suspect??
* The Incident van parked outside 44 Canygne Road from 22nd December 2010??
* 7 Fire Trucks
* The Grass Verge
* 43 insignificant Injuries
* The Myriad of High Ranking Police Officers on Longwood Lane ??
* The several different locations that Joanna Yeates may have been??
* The revealing of NO FORCED ENTRY ??
* Telling us No Sexual Assault
* Telling us what was left behind at her flat?? keys etc..
* The removing of Joanna Yeates front door??
* The filming of Peter Stanley??
* The filming of the family crossing crime scene tape??
* Allowing people to place flowers at Longwood Lane ??
* Allowing the media to film the back of 44,Canygne Road in early December 2010
* Naming people who had nothing to do with the investigation??
* The erection of scaffolding at the back of 44, Canygne Road
* The Ikea men
* The texts ?/
* The date of Joanna Yeates "Missing " being the 17th December 2010??
* The mentioning of cold cases ??
* Allowing the media to park outside 44, Canygne Road 24/7
* The man handing in a "Missing Sock"..
* The reporting she had been found on Christmas Day??
* The other location across from Longwood lane on the junction??
* The layout of the flats??
* The for rent images
* The Halloween pictures
* Telling us she was on her own all weekend?/
* Dr Vincent Tabak being registered on the electrol roll at that address?? (when was he actually added to the roll..
and don't tell me that the date tells us... I want to know when electronically and dated by that computer that he
was added )
* Them telling us she's covered in snow when found , but we get shown hardly any snow on Christmas day??
* The media being allowed into Flat 1 when the trial is taking place... To a staged Flat that we all know it is..
Now I could carry on... But...... The point now is What were they actually Investigating???
The tactics that are used to throw us off the scent have been never ending.... Did she actually live in that Flat we have been allowed to see?? There was far too much immediate coverage for a Missing Persons Inquiry, and this pdf tells us that it was something quite different... Did they do the same for Becky Watts?? ....
There is something about this case that they do not want us to know... more reason to question Dr Vincent Tabak's guilt....
They have always stuck with the 17th December 2010, when there is NO evidence to prove that.... But If I use this from the Leveson and my theory that they changed the SIO because of the 10 day turn, then the appointment of DCI Phil Jones on the 27th December 2010, fits nicely.... (imo) So was this strategy set up as early as the 17th December 2010? Is that why we have everyone proving that Joanna Yeates was alive on the 17th December 2010?? Is that why Dr Vincent Tabak is charged between the 16th December 2010 to the 19th December 2010??
Had something happened to Joanna Yeates before the 17th December 2010??
They say they use tactics to throw them of the scent... So is Rebeccay Scotts Interview another tactic to throw the media of the scent??
It time for them to tell us the truth... And what was it about Joanna Yeates that this level of tactics and media handling was needed before she was even found dead!! At this time she is simply.....
"A Missing Person"!!
Edit.... What was really taking place on the 29th December 2010.... This was the day that the media had a myriad of options to report.... Everything happened on that day.... I remember posting about it...
* The day of the door removal..
* CJ being Interviewed...
* Release of CCTV footage in bargain Booze
* New images of Joanna yeates were released
* The Intercom Panel being remove
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122162825/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/evidence/?witness=chief-constable-colin-port
-
,Story e-mailed out to subscribers (currently 15,000+ subscriber base) and media contacts
This is bugging me...... Who are these 15,000+ subscribers that they "emailed"????... and what are they subscribed too??
Your conducting an Inquiry not a Raffle!!
What story??
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122162825/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/evidence/?witness=chief-constable-colin-port
Exhibit CP5
-
I have been sent on a wild goose chase... and my imagination has often got the better of me.... But in the being it was someone who said the answer is staring us in the face and it's far more simple than that.... And even if i don't know the whole answer just yet... I am finding the answer should be far more similar than I have made it.....
Part1.... Attached images show where info is also from......
Ages and ages ago.. I remembered someone asking me how all of the facebook accounts etc could be interfered with.... How someone had the clout to remove what ever had been written about around the time Joanna Yeates went Missing and when the court case started.... I think I now found found a theory about that too....
Leveson..... CP2 Here are some quotes......
Criteria for these special cases is as follows:
¯ There is proven evidence that the target community will not engage with the police via
their main social media account and only a locally branded account will work
¯ eServices remain the guardians of the account with engagement being done in
collaboration with the team and the local officers who have been granted access
¯ Guidance be given to the officers on appropriate use
¯ Breach of guidance will result in immediate closure of the service
¯ Clear guidance is given to the organisation when questioned that this is a temporary
solution and has an operational purpose
And...
INTELLIGENCE AND OPERATIONAL USE
Districts and units have been provided wlth open source accounts on,Facebook and Twitter
created by eServices to facilitate open source intelligence gathering and witness contact as
well as for operational commander use during public order incidents.
I think I have found my answer..... JOANNA YEATES, MISSING SINCE 17/12/10 group which has had me confused on many occasions i believe it to be one of these "Operational Accounts" for Intelligence gathering.... (imo) There has been many a post that has thrown me on that least of all Jess Siggers Post.... Where she is aware that Joanna yeates is Missing and is ready to search for her before she has actually gone Missing......
Jessica Siggers
27 December 2010
Travelling back to my home in Clifton today which will never feel the same again. Jo, I never knew you but our paths may have crossed many times. You, your family & Greg have not left my thoughts since last weekend when we received a message from BDP. I wanted to go out and search there & then. No-one should be taken the way you were. It's a cruel world but for what it's worth, you will get justice. RIP beautiful girl. X
And this one that David yeates apparently posted...
David Yeates
24 December 2010
The comment below is from me, not Greg. I was mistakenly logged into his facebook Id. Applogies
The comment he is referring too...
Greg Beardon
24 December 2010
Teresa & I had to go to Bristol today and we were totally moved by the number of posters placed in the windows of shops and pubs around Clifton, near Jo's flat. Unfortunately we were not able to meet up with you at Cabots Circus. We cannot find the words to express our appreciation of the effort you have given in an attempt to bring my little girl back. The sight of her face in each of the posters brought home the unreal situation we find ourselves in.
Back to thois part of the quote from the pdf...
Clear guidance has been given and is displayed on the account "profiles that these do not
represent the constabulary as channels for public contact, instead directing people to the main
corporate accounts.
Makes this quote from Greg Reardon make more sense.....
Greg Beardon to JOANNA YEATES, MISSING SINCE 17/12/10
24 December 2010 at 14:04 ·
All, please direct all press to the avon and somerset police.
So my conclusion is that these are accounts set up for Operational purposes...... And when I posted about the 15,000+ email subscribers, I now wonder if the email was in relation to the facebook discussion group.... by the 24th December they had 9,000 members....
Louise Webber
24 December 2010
Over 9000 members and rising!!!!
And the group is called JOANNA YEATES, MISSING SINCE 17/12/10
So my contention now is that if this group was set up by the Police and as they have stated in the media pdf which is from the Leveson, they do set up accounts for "Operation Use".... And my conclusion to that is, The date of Joanna Yeates disappearance is down to the page and not any proof of what she last ate..... (imo)
I could never understand why I found articles that had Information before if had been released... BDP for instance releasing that Joanna Yeates was found dead by the 24th December 2010... They shouldn't have had that info.... but if they were on some list and were privvy to that information then, it would make more sense....
So the hype was set up by The Police, by the looks of it (imo).... The accounts I would now question.... I'm even questioning The helpfindjo webpage.... Because it is still there... If the family had set it up as we have been told then I don't believe that, seeing as the Police have admitted trying to put everyone off the scent...!!
https://www.facebook.com/groups/169097479794933/
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122162825/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/evidence/?witness=chief-constable-colin-port CP2
This is a redacted version :https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/media/23528/2101-Social%20Media%20Protocol.pdf
-
That is why the cock-up happens I believe and what I mean about cock-up is the release of the image of Joanna Yeates in waitrose from the "Missing Posters, before the Police had actually released the CCTV... The poster that has the Polices web address on the bottom with terms and conditions... (attached)... I believe it is because, the police had the images and the Police made the helpfindjo web page..... (imo) again an account that directs us to the Police.....
HEartfelt condolences go out to all of Jo’s friends and family. Please respect their privacy at this difficult time.
All enquiries/information/help with the investigation should be directed to the Avon and Somerset Police force – http://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/.
Now there was a comment on that site that had me scratching my head... i knew there was a reason it had switched a light on and maybe this post tells us why..... Scott is talking to the admin on the helpfindjo webpage
Scott Fulton
Hi,
We have now set up an easier link to the latest on the appeal at: http://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/jo if you could update your homepage that would be appreciated.
We are also keeping updates via our Facebook page:
http://www.facebook.com/avonandsomersetpolice
We’ll be adding a full feature to our site tomorrow.
Thanks,
Scott
eServices Manager
http://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk
December 23, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Full Feature??? It's a simple Missing Persons Inquiry!!!!
Scott Fulton whom is listed in the "Establishing their Roles Topic" is the E- Services manager for Avon and Somerset Police... Now yesterday I posted about Media strategies.... And how a dedicated web page on Avon and Somersets website had been part of their media strategy for this "Operation"...
Reminder: Homepage
,Homepage banner and spotlight images
¯ 1440 inbound messages went to the investigation team via the form on the website
Newsroom
¯ Newsroom story with regular updates
¯ Updates automatically pushed out via twitter with #joyeates "hashtags"
¯ Updates automatically appeared on dedicated section (see below)
, Story e-mailed out to subscribers (currently 15,000+ subscriber base) and media contacts
¯ Briefings filmed / uploaded to YouTube and embedded as well as images
Dedicated section
¯ Set up special website address- www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/jo
¯ Interactive Google map showing key locations
¯ Video play list showing most recent video release first
¯ Image gallery of Jo
¯ Facebook and Twitter sharing tools
¯ Secure on-line contact form sending messages direct to the incident room
¯ Twitter widget showing discussion around the case and our updates
¯ IP address logging for investigative purposes
Local pages
¯ Localised community safety article in the Clifton area
¯ Downloadable advice leaflet (the same as distributed physically in the area
Going back to how this information was first sent.... I believe it has to be via their subscribers.... On the same page as the comments from Scott Fulton, the first comment is this...
Robert Ricker
So sorry to hear about this. I’m in Dallas, TX, but I’ve shared this link on my Facebook with many of my British friends to share with their families across the pond.
Best of everything in your search.
Robert
December 22, 2010 at 9:58 pm
This is the earliest we know that Joanna Yeates is Missing..... DS Mark Saunders is interviewed for TV and makes an appeal... It is a small story in the British media.... So how on earth would a guy from Dallas, be finding the Helpfindjo webpage in the first place???? I believe it's possible emails were sent to direct people to this page.... (imo)
Again I will go back to yesterday.... And the media strategy... (Exhibit CP5) talked of posters flyers etc...
Support, Support, Support- we’re on your side and our role is to help you
Buffer and interface between you, your investigation team and the media
Advisors on all aspects of communications and media handling:
Broadcast and print media: 24 hour line into the community & potential
witnesses
Online and social media -investigation, communication, community intelligence
& reassurance
- Printed materials- letters, newsletters, posters, flyers
- Face to face- street briefings, public meetings, community reassurance
Strategic guidance and tactical options throughout
Practical management and housekeeping of all communications activities from Day 1
to the end of the trial and sentencing
But most importantly...
¯ Trust Us and Tell Us, in real time. We need to work as one.
Now it reminded me when I posted about the talk of flyers: from a post
Katie Goldsmith
24 December 2010
While out posting flyers this week we went to Tesco in Clifton village where the CCTV footage was. They weren't massively keen to put up posters there as they weren't allowed to put them in windows. They only had one behind the counter on the wall. Does anyone know if this has now changed? If not I will write to the manager. As this seemed uneccesarily uncooperative as it is there that people will remember her most.
From the helpfindjo webpage
Joanna went missing on Friday December 17. After leaving the Ram public house on Park Street following drinks with work friends Jo called Rebecca. Rebecca added: “When I found our Jo had gone missing I hoped she was still alive but deep down I couldn’t help but think she’d been abducted and some harm had come to her. The next few days both Emma and I spent handing out posters and flyers, we needed to do something to help; I couldn’t sleep so kept in regular contact with Jo’s family, Greg and Emma.
Then we have Rebecca Scott who also talks of flyers...... From the transcript of her video interview
(Pause) It's been hard ter think about anything else since erm.. (pause) Per particularly those first few weeks... I ..I be lucky if I sort of slept (pause) at all really.... Erm.... Erm I think we were all desperate to do everything we could to get her back and erm... Myself and Emma had gone up to Bristol to erm er hand out posters and flyers erm....... (licks lips) And lots of her work colleagues were doing the same, so we all sort of got in contact, best coordinate, the sort of pulled resources and our time.
Flyer??? I don't believe that any flyers were handed out.... they may have been, but I am now starting to believe that this cannot all be coincidence......... Seeing as handing out poster/flyer etc is part of the media strategy for Avon and Somerset Police!!
* Was this a real case??
* What was this case about??
* What is Operation Briad ??
All of this was out in place extremely quickly for a Missing Person.... and I do not believe she ever was... That's if she exists.... Or that it was really a murder case... I still don't know.... But I believe I know a little more.....
It well have could been a Media exercise by the Police, that went too far for all I know.... And if this didn't really happen then The Attorney General could say that CJ was wholly Innocent and nothing to do with Dr Vincent Tabak and the Manslaughter Plea.....
I remember thinking how quick the helpfindjo webpage was updated when anything was released about the Inquiry.. Now I believe it has to be The Police who updated it....
So is everything that was put on the internet via social media etc a Police Media Strategy??? Because i am being to believe that it is.... And the responders to these site could very well be one of the 15,000 + subscribers that The Police emailed....
Edit... Scott Fulton
Hi,
We have now set up an easier link to the latest on the appeal at: http://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/jo if you could update your homepage that would be appreciated.
Why is Scott Fulton telling an apparent relative of Joanna Yeates to update there homepage???
Answer... Because they have to be connected to the police....(imo) and i do not think it's a relative of Joanna yeates... If it was a relative they would ring them or the would update the homepage of their own accord!!!
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122162825/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/evidence/?witness=chief-constable-colin-port
https://helpfindjo.wordpress.com/page/1/
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg470437#msg470437
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8056.msg456179#msg456179
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8168.msg406612#msg406612
-
I know my posts are long sorry.... But just to add..... And lets not forget
Leaks or investigative.iournalism?
- Media speculation on lines of investigation can get out of hand
- Interference & amateur sleuthing mean SIO must be prepared to reconsider detail / timing of
investigative strategy to retain integrity of investigation :
Need to be aware of potential for ’jigsaw identification’ of crucial investigative strands
through mass media enquiries about lines of investigation; work closely with
Communications lead on diversionary tactics for putting them off the scent
So What Scent did they try so hard to put us off!!!
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg470451#msg470451
-
Here's another thing to ponder....
If The Police went to all this trouble to advertise promote and execute this media strategy.... How would Dr Vincent Tabak know... A man who was supposed to have been following every aspect of this case....
Someone was following every aspect of this case... And I don't believe it was Dr Vincent Tabak... Or the man they tell us is Dr Vincent Tabak.... (imo)
So who was all of this media exercise aimed at?? They had Gold Command involved at a very early stage, so it was never about a "Missing Person" (imo)!!
-
There is something else to consider in all of this....
The Police never left Canygne Road, they never questioned Joanna Yeates 200 plus facebook friends... They never Interviewed the scores of people that Joanna Yeates may have been in contact with in the weeks leading up to her death...
This random attack takes place and they focus on the neighbour whom didn't know whom she was....
The talk of taking DNA samples,,, that never happened...
The information about that was received via facebook... Where the manager of the Hope and Anchor is the one who reveals that Joanna Yeates went there at lunch time.... ( was he also one of the contacts??)
A completely staged Flat..
Forensic Officers looking like they're on training exercise as AH.. pointed out....
I could never understand why they never moved from that address... And I'm wondering if it was a training exercise.... Did something happen to Joanna Yeates.. Is she real??
The case is never spoken of... And that probably because the communications department stopped telling us this story..... Nothing new comes out..... it has all stopped....
So is that why we don't know anything more?? Who ever had their hand on the pulse of the department can no longer spin the story.... It's not what I thought and there's a gagging order.... More like someone can no longer put anyone off the scent!!!
So who are The Yeates??? Who was Joanna Yeates.... Was it a massive publicity stunt?? I don't know... But there are to many coincidences with this... And the answers lie within what is out there... and why we no longer hear anything....
I think the answers lie with Avon and Somerset Police.... The Leveson and CJ.... and what is said at the Inquiry....
-
From The Leveson Core Participant hearing 6th September 2011
Leveson Inquiry transcript www.levesoninquiry.org.uk
1 Tuesday, 6 September 2011
2 (10.30 am)
3 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Good morning.
4 I don't consider this to be a court, but we will see
5 how we get on. There is no prohibition on the use of
6 live text-based communications, and at least at present
7 I am satisfied that its use does not pose a danger to
8 the interference or the proper conduct of this Inquiry.
9 Unless any difficulty arises, I am happy to make it
10 clear that the use of unobtrusive, hand-held, virtually
11 silent equipment for the purposes of simultaneous
12 reporting of proceedings to the outside world, as they
13 unfold, is entirely acceptable.
Is this why the media tweeted the trial??
I still don't understand why CJ was part of The Leveson? If he could basically have been called as a witness...
I asked if Dr Vincent Tabak had been convicted in July because of this which was said by Mr Jay...
Mr Jay
We, of course, know about the horrific murder of Joanna Yeates which led to the conviction for murder of Vincent Tabak in July this year. Joanna Yeates disappeared, so we have our bearings, on 17 December of last year; is that right?
By August people are being asked this....
I invited anyone who
19 wished to be identified as a core participant within
20 Rule 5 of the Inquiry Rules 2006 to notify the secretary
21 to the Inquiry prior to 31 August,
We then get this : My Lord, I am here on
21 behalf of two different groups of individuals. The
22 first is a group of high profile individuals whose
23 experiences of media reporting have been a matter which
24 the courts have already dealt with.
25 They are the McCanns, Gerry and Kate;
1 Christopher Jefferies, the man who was wrongly vilified
2 by the press over the murder of Joanna Yeates; and
3 Max Mosley,
So CJ as been identified as early as the 6th September 2011 as a Core Participant.. Nearly a whole month before the trial is to take place.....
At this point in time why would they say that CJ is a High Profile Individual??? I said before he's a nobody... But obviously someone has a different take on that.... We have the tabloids in for a few days stating things about him and we have him winning a libel action.... he is still no-one... We do not have "The Lost Honour of CJ" made by this time which would make him well known by the country... So he is a random person off the street, who happened to teach at a college.... So what makes him High profile by the 6th September 2011 ???
This whole case is weird.... Was Dr Vincent Tabak found guilty of Murder in July?? I have asked this before... Or is the case against him none existent??
Is Dr Vincent Tabak connected to the Police?? It goes around my head I don't understand why CJ has been accepted as a core participant when in all honesty he should have been a witness at a murder trial.....
Leveson must have known that.... He wouldn't have accepted him when a trial was due to take place.... So what happened?? Who made it possible for CJ to be a core participant??
Ordinarily trials etc should have been completed and to even suggest CJ as a core participant seems crazy (imo)
But then we go back to the trial... where everything gets thrown out of the window... A trial that makes no sense to me... Where the evidence doesn't support the story, where we do not know what stories the police released to the media were true or false to put the media off the scent.... An Investigation that was not as simple as was made out on the TV... Where witness's do NOT appear at trial... ie CJ.. Tanja Morson and Kingdom.
Everything we heard at trial had already played out in the media.... Now if these stories that were fed to the press are false, then how can what was said at trial be accurate too?? The only information the press had was what was given to them, they all told us in detail throughout the Missing Person Inquiry to The Murder Inquiry what had happened.. We knew everything, which we shouldn't have... I am now starting to wonder if the "Manslaughter Plea" actually happened... The media told us and the Police apparently send the media off the scent... Therefore i conclude that Dr Vincent Tabak did not Plead guilt to Manslaughter.... But something else possibly happened at The Old Bailey under that unique number U20110387....
So back to the tweeting of the trial.... The media must be aware of what is going on... (imo) Did they play the Police at their own game?? By the time the trial took place had they seen what was the content of The Leveson report?? Did they know they had been played???
If they knew the content of the Leveson and in particular Exhibit CP5/and CP2 and the strategies used by the Police... Did they take Leveson at his word and tweet the whole trial?? The trial in itself is part of the evidence of the Leveson you could say... Seeing as a core participant who should have been a witness was allowed to take part and named before the completion of said trial...
Is this why we have the media tweeting the trial, when their is no ruling that I am aware of that states the media can tweet live a Criminal Trial... No recording devices are supposed to be in a criminal court or any court as far as I am aware...
Was the case made up of false Information.... Nothing particularly new came to trial.... We had Darragh Bellew thrown in for good measure, but he had just started working for the same firm as Joanna Yeates and there must have been other people whom Joanna Yeates was with that evening who would be a better witness....
We have Greg Reardon telling us a version which includes information that The Yeates tell us in documentaries... David for instance lets us know he found an earring... So when were these documentaries made? We have Rebecca Scott telling us about her phone Call, which we know everything about seeing as it was told by the media time and time again.. The Police releasing the video of Rebecca Scott telling us her version of events on the 12th January 2011 ( I have transcribed that Interview) and arriving at court looking like she had been dragged through a bush backwards.....
The Lehmans who heard screams and others, which these screams had been reported in the papers, I wrote about another forum member called "Kingdom" who lived directly behind Joanna Yeates bedroom window I believe .... Mid Morning on the Saturday 18th December 2010 he heard someone say something like..."Help me".... And it was reported in the papers about Kingdom, But they had reported it as happening on the Friday 17th December 2010 and on The other forum Kingdom Corrects the day it happened , that being the Saturday...
kingdom
BC Member
kingdom's Avatar
Posts
278
Likes
100
OCT
26
2011
Default Re: Did Harry Walker change his story about the screams he heard?
- they newspaper seems to be incorporating several people's experiences in that article.
I only found out about Harry Walker's witness statement 10 days ago and have only read the details for the first time on this thread. What i experienced was during the day time - this is what i explained to the police on the 21st of December and to an Evening Post journalist a few days later.
(I'm the person in one of three flats - not Harry Walker - whose bedrooms back onto both CJ's drive - and with one having an oblique view of Tabak's door -- HW is in the same development but in the main house).
What i heard - on what i NOW believe to be saturday mid morning - probably between 10am - and 12.30 pm - was what sounded like a female voice shout out - 'Why won't someone help me!' very loudly. I only clearly caught the last two words 'help me!' - looked outside and there was no one about and assumed it was someone actually calling to someone else on Canynge Road and that i'd misheard - what i thought i'd heard).
It definitely wasn't on the friday night - i was in on the friday night and can't recall hearing anything undue - although i do recall hearing raised voices one evening of that week - which could have been an argument or could equally have revelers). I have a TV in the bedroom so it feasible that any scream might have been blocked out by the sound of that - (i seem to recall there was a turbulent episode of Eastenders on that evening).
I spoke to the DC last week who i had spoken to back in January and she said that as i hadn't been called as a witness they had probably concluded that what i heard was not relevant to the case. (Which i took to mean that the police have concrete forensic evidence that Jo was murdered on the friday night and that what i heard could not have been her on the saturday morning).
Personally i disagree. I'm not a fantasist or prone to a wild imagination and it would be a spectacular coincidence if the shout had not been Jo as at the time i thought the timbre of the voice sounded very odd.
I have contacted the police about this issue on at least 4 occasions specifying that i had heard this during the brightest part of that day - i was still in my dressing gown when i checked outside (my central heating had been on the blink). The issue is that i know it was A morning - but i can't say definitively WHICH morning it was.
Again the media were aware of Kingdoms statement..
Daily Mail 22nd January 2011
Meanwhile, more evidence of a disturbance on December 17 emerged. A resident living in the building directly behind 44 Canynge Road has told police he heard a woman screaming ‘Help me’ on the night Miss Yeates went missing. He heard the cries from his bedroom, which looks on to the ground-floor flats which are now screened with tarpaulin while forensic experts continue to examine them.
Someone had to tell them that Kingdom had made a statement to the Police.... Everything is in the media.... Well before trial..... Would Kingdoms statement been used if CJ had been the person charged?? Is that some of the evidence they had against CJ at the time?? He obviously counter acted that...(imo)
Did Harry Walker ever use the words "Help me " at trial?? NO!! So there is obviously another witness whom has witnessed screams who wasn't called to give evidence...
A trial made up completely of media reports as far as I can see... A trial that had no substance.... The media who were told too much to put them off the scent..... So what was this trial really about?? Did they convict someone of a crime they didn't commit?? What were the Police really Investigating?? Who were the Police really Investigating?? Where they looking at Dr Vincent Tabak in relation to something else?? I don't know...
But you cannot put a man on the stand for a crime he couldn't have committed... With a trial that was made up of reports the media had already told.... With CCTV footage Missing Time Stamps... The media must have had access to the CCTV Footage before trial (imo) thats why The Time Stamps are Missing, and that is why we see the same CCTV footage after trial with the Date only and No time stamps.... I believe it is possible the media had been given them in advance....
One thing I'll come back to.... The Nero cafe CCTV.... were is that footage?? It's Colin Port who tells us this, the media never reported it.... Which supports what I am saying... The trial is made up of information that The Media received and they didn't receive the information about the ~Nero cafe!! or The trainers that DCI Phil Jones speaks of...... They are not mentioned at trial...
But we see images of people holding coffee cups from Nero Cafe... Nigel Lickley is photographed holding such a cup... we have images of trainers on the bookstand in the hallway...
Were the media told of this information?? But didn't say because they had applied it to CJ who's never charged?? Also the media were not allowed to report on a suspect at the time and CJ was on bail until March 2011.... So it is possible that around that time the media were aware of this information, but couldn't report on it.....
Bring me back to what in this case was Information to throw everyone of the scent and what was real info?? Because you can't have a trial based on media reports were the media are allowed to tweet said trial... (imo)
One last thing... Was Tanja Morson Dr Vincent Tabak's girlfriend?? She is named as early as 22nd January 2011 in the media... But that doesn't have to be her real name.... Seeing as the police were trying to put people off the scent... Was it the Police who supplied the images of Tanja Morson visiting Dr Vincent Tabak in prison??
Why when a trial is due to take place and the Attorney General had warned the media about identifying suspects/witness's etc of a trial... do the media tell us about Tanja Morson?? I would say it's because Miss Morson isn't Dr Vincent Tabak's girlfriend..... She like so many other things in this case it is there to put us off the scent....(imo)
So that makes the texts and emails between Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson untrue.... (imo) So who or what puts Dr Vincent Tabak anywhere?? apart from a story told on the stand that is the defendant with no supporting evidence to confirm his claim.... If the trial witness's are made up from newspaper reports and they are NOT real witness's... then CJ wasn't a real witness either, even if he did see people at the gate...(imo) Because I conclude that Leveson wouldn't have allowed for CJ to be a Core Participant at an Inquiry before a trial had taken place....
What are we left with..... A right fudge up!!!
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122201634/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/leveson-inquiry-transcript-060911.pdf
https://leveson.sayit.mysociety.org/hearing-28-november-2011/mr-christopher-jefferies
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122151746/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/hearing/2011-09-06am/
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8056.msg456179#msg456179
https://www.bowlandcentral.com/forum/showthread.php?t=98647&p=1588039&highlight=Kingdom+screams#post1588039
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349356/Joanna-Yeates-murder-suspect-Vincent-Tabak-split-girlfriend.html#ixzz1bqGibX00
-
What Did CJ witness??? He's says it was dark... He says he heard hushed tones and that there could have been anything up to 3 people at the gate but he couldn't know for sure as the hedge was also there and he couldn't be accurate....
Well thats roughly how it goes... Colin Port states that CJ had told neighbours and wanted The NeighbourHood Watch to be aware of this sighting/hearing..... So what is important enough that CJ wants to inform the Neighbour Hood watch.....???
Not only that it is reported in the media that CJ had told the neighbours of his sighting before he told the Police..
Which makes that either the weekend of the 17th-19th December 2010 or before DS Mark Saunders appeal to the public on the 22nd December 2010.... ( even the 16th December becomes relevant!!) As CJ made his supplement statement to the Police on the evening of the 21st when he had alerted them to what he had recalled... and they came to his house on the 22nd December 2010... coincidentialy the same day DS Mark Saunders makes his appeal.. But it isn't until The Leveson that we have evidence from CJ that he was in contact with the Police and which date they had received this information..... But it had been reported in the media... We probalby took not much notice of it at the time....
"I think he first told neighbours that he thought he had seen Miss Yeates leaving with two people before he spoke to the police, but when we spoke to him he seemed rather vague about the details," he said.
I don't think it is anything to do with Joanna Yeates.... Maybe that is why he isn't a witness.... We have 3 people who could and should make an appearance at trial... CJ... Tanja Morson.. Peter Stanley..... But what about any other residents at Canygne Road??
Thinking about who appears at trial we have,... Greg... Rebecca Scott.. and we also have the Lehmans and Harry Walker..... None of the afore mention either lived on Canygne Road or were their at the time.....
The Private CCTV footage... has someone on it.... But not Joanna Yeates..... The mentioning of that footage is for someone else I believe.....
Thinking about what CJ has said in Interviews etc about this case.. It is little to nothing.... The Yeates do not object when a mini series is made about him.... And everything surrounding this case is odd..
For starters.... If this was about a genuine Missing person Inquiry.. the Police would not be taking statements and fingers prints plus DNA of the tenants of that building as CJ has stated... A simple knock on the door and a couple of questions would do the trick....
But the Police are there asap... The Police are getting statements and samples from all of the tenants.... which we were not aware of at the time....
Why is this important.... Because I believe they were looking for someone else... and not one of the tenants... they needed their finger prints and DNA to eliminate them.... from whatever it was they were looking into....
Lets face it... what is the point of searching tons of rubbish for a Pizza and packaging?? they must have found plenty of Pizza's in their search... But there isn't any evidence of them.... did they have a barcode scanner whilst they were searching?? i don't think so... I believe that was to put us off the scent.... Even if they found said Pizza what would it prove?? She didn't eat it?? They wouldn't waste tons of money searching rubbish for a Pizza (imo)..
So that means that they must have been looking for something else.... (imo)... And what better way than to search a whole community.. (that being Clifton) than a story about a Missing Person and a Pizza..... It gave the Police access to everyone's rubbish in the entire area without needing a warrant or causing suspicion amongst the residents......
That house... 44, Canygne Road.... Again i believe there was something about that house that they needed access to without arousing suspicion.... They are searching apparently Dr Vincent Tabak's draws looking apparently for a body.... he makes a crack about it.... maybe he said to much to to many people about the comings and goings at that address....
It's possible that they needed him to keep quiet..... And not alert anyone to the strange behaviour of the Police at 44, Canygne Road.... maybe he didn't want to play ball.... I don't know....
Leveson... he does state that he don't want to talk about anything that may hinder any ongoing Investigations... And this is why I come back to CJ's second witness statement.... He reveals nothing other than apparently what he may have heard or may have seen... depending on what you take as accurate.... But this is not revealed at trial and is not revealed at the Leveson either.... So what CJ may have witnessed hasn't prejudiced any ongoing Investigation.... But If the Murder of Joanna Yeates took place... then his account would have been seen as important to trial.... (imo)
The media obviously cannot report anything to do with a live Investigation, especially if arrest have been made.... But we are assuming that it is Dr Vincent Tabak's arrest that prevents the media from talking about what they know..... When that may not be the case.....
How many times do they Police use covert tactics?? where they spin an untrue story to gain a a confidence and illicit confessions from people?? Colin Stagg springs to mind.... All around the country it has been reported in the media that an undercover Police Officer has taken a role in someones life and is ostensibly lived as two seperate people.... Now how are we to know if this isn't the case with what had taken place at 44, Canygne Road??
The Police had 7 days in which to decide how the would proceed with CJ's second witness statement... 7 days to act on what reasons CJ had told him he had been arrested for.... which as we know was poppy cock...
(1): he was The land lord and had the keys
(2): he made a subsequent statement
(3): Didn't have a witness alibi
“At the time of my arrest, there were three grounds
given for suspicion. One, I had the keys. Two, I didn’t
have a witness alibi for the relevant times. Three, I had
volunteered an additional witness statement about
something I remembered subsequent to giving the
first statement to the police.
And did Mr Hardyman have a witness alibi that he was in bed with a cold??? Did any other residents have a witness alibi for what they state is the relevant times.....
If you want to discredit someone... get them in the tabloids and vilify them... make the nation hate them then whatever comes out of their mouths after that will no longer have any credence......
The relevant times... the 17th December 2010... both are significant for the Police.... But is it to do with Joanna Yeates? I do not believe it can be.... It makes no sense... we go to trial about a murder that the evidence doesn't support and the newly appointed SIO of The Joanna Yeates Murder Investigation never takes the stand... In fact no Policeman of any standing takes the witness box in this Murder trial.... Not forgetting that an appointed SIO Officer for any Investigation is there until said Investigation is completed.... So why the change of SIO's??
We have Civilian Andrew Mott... who's apparent change of his Official title happens frequently.... WE have PC martin Faithful... a plod from the Failand area.... and a couple of people whom apparently have arrested Dr Vincent Tabak.... But no-one who could catergorically state what happened from A to B in this investigation.....
We are always left lacking... CJ I believe is not allowed to reveal what he witnessed... Because it has nothing to do with any Murder or Missing person..... then when he has appear in documentaries goes along with the idea that he received a Phone call from Greg Reardon... Of which the timings of these phone calls do not add up... You would have thought that the fact that CJ had been rung by Greg Reardon would appear somewhere other than a documentary after the event.....
You would have thought that that piece of information was relevant to the trial... proving for Greg at least what attempts he made to locate his girlfriend... Any barrister worth their salt would question the boyfriend/husband of the victim as to their movement to shift suspicion from their client who hasn't said a word....(imo)...
But we don't get that.... we get a defendant who is happy to say he is guilty of manslaughter without any statement to support this claim... And a trial that takes place where the defendant then tells a tale which somewhat fits the medias information around that time revealing for the first time what has taken place......
Now I may be a bit of a numpty... but that cannot be correct.... You need evidence first and foremost.... And no evidence is there to support anything that Dr Vincent Tabak claims at trial...
So why did the trial take place?? Was it to take the heat off something else?? You see why I question whether Joanna Yeates existed... whether the trial was a Moot trial.... Because no Forensic evidence put Dr Vincent tabak in Joanna Yeates flat and no Forensic evidence put Joanna Yeates in Dr Vincent Tabaks Flat either.... which you would have thought that a fight for life had taken place there would be more evidence of this...
Back to CJ and him stating it was "DARK".... That tells us the outside light on the edge of the building next to Joanna yeates Flat could not have been switched on.... And we have The Lehmans telling us that there was a light on, but I believe that it was for the main house entrance,....
Which means that the Light from the main entrance would have put into shadow anyone on the path by the gate.... In turn means that Joanna yeates could not have possibly seen Dr Vincent Tabak through her kitchen window as it was "DARK"...!!!
Maybe CJ corrected himself when he said he saw people... As it could be outlines... But he definetaly witnessed people in that vicinity... Therefore his testimony is import to the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak....
We have Clegg trying to get this trial over by burying his client... he is not his apparently usual robust self... He never challenges anything that the prosecution put forward rather he aids them in the conviction of his own client.... And it is Cleggs performance that first concerned me when Dr Vincent Tabak was convicted of the Murder of Joanna Yeates.... A man that is known as The Master Defender... behaving in a manor unbecoming to such a title...
And to bury Dr Vincent Tabak further as to no -one coming near him with a barge pole ... we throw in Porn and child porn for good measure.... That should keep this case buried forever.....
Whre were the Tabaks at trial??? Marcel , Cora and Eileen i think the other sister is called?? They appear in the media on one day only.... They do not take the stand to tell us of how their brother is of impeccable character and how he was as a young man growing up with them....
We just assume that they are there for support... but are they?? Or are they too part of an agreement with the court?? Everyone goes through the front of that building.... But daily we see The Yeates... but daily we do not see The Tabaks.... And seeing as the media are set up there from the crack of dawn we should be seeing them enter the court on a daily basis....
The same with DCI Phil Jones... he attends court on many Occasions.... The Old Bailey... The Trial ..but he is never a witness,..
He turns up at the trial on the 20th October 2011 with a heavy briefcase in tow... So why is he there if he isn't taking the stand.... The briefcase isn't for show...(imo)... It must contain some information..... And we are back at a trial that makes no sense ..(imo)...
A man who for NO reason whatsoever decides to plead guilty to Manslaughter.... A case that is described for all intense and purposes as "Complex"... when in all seriousness, it should be a simple Murder Case... A DCI whom arrives at trial with a heavy briefcase not telling us anything.... So it must be for show... The trial cannot be real (imo)... Or was DCI Phil Jones at the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak for another reason??
Leveson would not allow CJ to be a Core participant of the first part of the Inquiry if he was a witness in another Investigation or trial.... And with what CJ states... he is such a witness.... But a witness to what???
Not the Joanna Yeates case... But something else.... that is why we do not know the content of CJ's second or first witness statement... Or any tenants of that building or street.... Even Peter Stanley.. whom should at the very least provided a statement that he helped start the car of Joanna yeates... The car that was being driven to Sheffield by her boyfriend,... The car that we see no photographs of that has miraculously disappeared....
So what were Avon and Somerset Police Investigating.... what was it that the 17th December 2011 is so important... The day that "THEY TELL US JOANNA YEATES WENT MISSING.........."
I have found that tactics are used to put the media off the scent.... Did CJ inadvertently cock that up?? By disclosing to his neighbours that he had witnessed something and wanting his neighbours to alert The Neighbourhood watch.... Which in turn could have compromised an Investigation that the Police had been working on for ages???
Again... one last thing I will add... "The trainers that DCI Phil Jones speaks of at the Leveson.. this pathetic excuse he uses as to why CJ was kept on bail....
Nowwe all know that Joanna Yeates apparently was last seen wearing boots... So the trainers should not come into it.... But what we do not know is how old these trainers are,... whether or not they are womens trainers or mens trainers.... Whether or not they are relevant to the Joanna Yeates case or another case...
If the Police had Intel on that flat and wanted to search said Flat .. then by placing CJ under arrest gives then the opportunity to search this flat without causing suspicion.... Because we are told that said landlord is a strange bird.... So no-one will mind....
If these trainers with blood upon them had anything to do with CJ... do we not think that a man of CJ's standing would have got rid of the evidence of these trainers instead of hiding them under the sink behind the kick-board.... CJ is not a stupid man... just like Dr Vincent Tabak... a man who could have dumped said hard-drives.... So the probability that anything found in a kitchen that CJ had lived in doesn't mean that it was related to Joanna Yeates or CJ for that matter!!
So back to square one..... Is CJ's witness statement relevant firstly to The Joanna Yeates Investigation... Or are they relevant to another inquiry altogether!
Edit... I apoligise for rambling on... but there is so much to this that a simple question doesn''t suffice....
https://news.sky.com/story/joanna-yeates-landlord-held-over-murder-10490254
-
A quote from Amanda Hirst at The Leveson Inquiry....
Ms Amanda Hirst
Yes. The public have a right to know within bounds, within boundaries, and I think throughout that investigation and throughout other investigations, we provide the media with as much as we can, always led, of course, by the SIO.
I think there's another point to make here as well, which is a really crucial one. Certainly in the Joanna Yeates case, we know that Vincent Tabak was actually following the progress of the investigation via the media, and also on our own website and through other social media, and that was something that the investigation team picked up and was also discussed openly in court. So it was very, very important for us to preserve the integrity of that investigation and ensure that anything that was inappropriate or shouldn't get out into the public domain was contained.
This is from the documents at The Leveson attributed to Colin Port but have Amanda Hirst name upon them....
Homepage
,Homepage banner and spotlight images
¯ 1440 inbound messages went to the investigation team via the form on the website
Newsroom
¯ Newsroom story with regular updates
¯ Updates automatically pushed out via twitter with #joyeates "hashtags"
¯ Updates automatically appeared on dedicated section (see below)
, Story e-mailed out to subscribers (currently 15,000+ subscriber base) and media contacts
¯ Briefings filmed / uploaded to YouTube and embedded as well as images
Dedicated section
¯ Set up special website address- www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/jo
¯ Interactive Google map showing key locations
¯ Video play list showing most recent video release first
¯ Image gallery of Jo
¯ Facebook and Twitter sharing tools
¯ Secure on-line contact form sending messages direct to the incident room
¯ Twitter widget showing discussion around the case and our updates
¯ IP address logging for investigative purposes
Local pages
¯ Localised community safety article in the Clifton area
¯ Downloadable advice leaflet (the same as distributed physically in the area
Looking at what Amanda Hirst states to The Leveson, is Dr Vincent Tabak's Interest in the case, he according to Amanda Hirst was following the Investigation through, social media, through The Media and through The Avon and Somerset Polices website...
Now I am not wholly convinced of this...... Going back to The Sally Ramage papers..... Nowhere in these searches does Dr Vincent Tabak click on the dedicated Joanna Yeates web page that The Police had made especially for this Investigation.... www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/jo
We know that by the 23rd December 2010 this page had been established, we know Google maps had been added to this page, we know that all forms of social media had incorporated the hashtag #joyeates
No other forms of social media are mentioned at trial in regards to Dr Vincent Tabak.... He is a man supposed to be following ever aspect of this Investigation... he apparently knew every movement and was keeping ahead of the Investigation. According to Ann Reddrop:
Vincent Tabak was a cunning, dishonest and manipulative man who knew exactly what he was (deali) doing when he killed Joanna Yeates... Today he has been convicted by a jury of her murder last year, despite claiming he meant her know harm.. he was cunning and dishonest towards his girlfriend, with whom he had maintained a normal relationship.. Even going as far as to text her shortly after jo was dead to say he was bored..
He manipulated the Police by virtue of his Indepth research on the internet.. to keep one step ahead of the Investigation, before his arrest, looking up extradition and medical details of decomposition.. he made very selective admissions surrounding the circumstances of Jo's death which sought to cast herin an Unfavourable light... And he kept this up even when he gave Evidence to the Jury...
Tabak thought his cleverness and deceit would prevent him from being convicted of a brutal murder............. He was wrong!
Jo went missing on Friday 17th December last year after meeting with friends for a drink.. For several days the Police mounted a "Missing Person Inquiry", but with the discovery of her body on Christmas Morning, this became a "Murder Investigation...
Late in December the Police ask for assistance and guidance from The Crown Prosecution Service.. That assistance has come from "The South West Case Work Unit" based here in Bristol... I reviewed the Evidence and Advised that Vincet Tabak should be charged with this murder and began preparing this case for trial... In May this year Tabak admitted Jo's Manslaughter....but that was only part of it..
The Crowns Case is... and always has been that it was a deliberate action on his part.. And "That|is why we refused to accept his plea for Manslaughter"... and he faced trial for "Murder"o over the past 4 weeks....
Jo's family have been here in Bristol, during the trial and have listened to much of the evidence... Our thoughts are with them and with her partner Greg today as Tabak begin's a life sentence for "Murdering" Jo...
Indepth research?? No mention of following any of this case on Twitter or Facebook nor the dedictated helpfindjo webpage. We only have a couple of mentions that he went to Avon and Somerset Polices website...
Dr Vincent Tabak makes an unusual search before anyone is aware that Joanna yeates is Missing
On his computer at work, Tabak searched for news on
‘Melanie Hall’
‘Avon and Somerset police home page’
‘News’
‘Murder of Melanie Hall’
At Line 224 of prosecution chart
Tabak searched the words
‘Missing persons’.
Why would Dr Vincent Tabak search for Melanie Hall?? He has no connection to that case in any shape or form... The search i have said many times cannot be Dr Vincent Tabak's. (imo) This search is before the 21st December 2010. So who's searches are they..
At Line 267 of the prosecution chart
at 15.00 pm on 21 December 2010, Tabak searched the words
‘Extradition of Dutchman’
‘Jo Yeates’
There is no suspicion on Dr Vincent Tabak at this time and If extradiction was on his mind he should have stayed in Holland when he went over the festive period..
We are getting an idea of what these searches are about... here's a couple more to prove a point..
On 23 Dec 2010 at 4.00 pm
Tabak searched the Dutch Wikipedia for the words
‘extradition’
‘Yeates’
‘missing persons’
‘% of grey cars in UK’
‘Renault Megan cars in UK’
At Line 340 of the prosecution chart
Tabak Googled on 26 Dec 2010
‘Yeates’
At 3.00 pm he search the Telegraph Newspaper online
At 3:43 pm he searched online global newspapers
At 3.45 pm he searched the words
‘Suspension bridge police footage’
So between the 23rd December 2010 and the 26th December 2010 Dr Vincent Tabak doesn't look once at the dedicated web page the Police set up on their site.. The webpage that has all the information upon it, including maps, galleries, links etc to keep completely on top of this Investigation....
And here is where my point lies.... Either Dr Vincent Tabak is connected to the Police in some way and was aware of The media Strategy that was put in place, which is revealed in the Leveson report or the searches are that of a person who was aware of the media strategy and How IP address were logged and what the media strategy for this case was....
To be able to avoid looking directly at the dedicated webpage on Avon and Somersets Police website whilst also Missing every opportunity to check Twitter and facebook, tells me that Dr Vincent Tabak cannot be the person who made the searches....
Ann really:
He manipulated the Police by virtue of his Indepth research on the internet.. to keep one step ahead of the Investigation, before his arrest
So how would Dr Vincent Tabak be aware of the strategies adopted by Avon and Somerset Police??
How would Dr Vincent Tabak know to avoid any social media or the dedicated webpage created by the Police.. not only that... But the helpfindJo website that apparently had been set up by her family!!
That at the very least should have been visited by Dr Vincent Tabak with up to the minute headlines and news, video's etc.... But not once to hear at trial that Dr Vincent Tabak visited any of these most important webpages, not once is social media mentioned in his searches...
Amanda Hirst
I think there's another point to make here as well, which is a really crucial one. Certainly in the Joanna Yeates case, we know that Vincent Tabak was actually following the progress of the investigation via the media, and also on our own website and through other social media, and that was something that the investigation team picked up
She clearly states that it is their own website and social media that Dr Vincent Tabak was following the progress of the Investigation, when clearly the searches tell us otherwise.... So who is Amanda Hirst really talking about?? who's name should be there instead of Dr Vincent Tabak?? And who would have the knowledge to avoid Avon and Somersets dedicated website also the wordpress website and ALL Social Media??
Now to keep one step of this Investigation, you again would need to know the strategies that were out in place.... You would need to know, what was a Red Herring in the media and what was fact... The media strategy did tell us that it was there to throw the media off the scent..
Again... the last search of Dr Vincent Tabak's apparent searches is this..
At Line 566 of the prosecution chart
At 6.00 pm on 19 Jan 2011, Tabak searched the webpage of Avon & Somerset police.
When was this dedicated webpage removed?? It doesn't state its the dedicated webpage... Just The webpage of Avon and Somerset Police..
I'll go back to what I said yesterday... Was that Avon and Somerset Police looking into something else at 44, Canygne Road?? Nothing in this trial substanciates anything...
There is a clear avoidance of the dedicated webpages and social media, which suggests that the searches could not have been that of Dr Vincent Tabak.. And if they were why would he avoid these dedicated webpages and social media... Amanda Hirst has stated that Dr Vincent Tabak looked at Social media, so where is the proof of that!!
To keep one step ahead of this Investigation you had to know the Polices media strategy (IMO)!!
So how would Dr Vincent Tabak know that!
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg470678#msg470678
https://leveson.sayit.mysociety.org/hearing-27-march-2012/ms-amanda-hirst
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8424.msg421095#msg421095
https://helpfindjo.wordpress.com/
-
Starring us in the face..... I've been chasing photoshopped images around the net for an age.... And I have come to a radical conclusion...
Every so often phrases from articles I have read pop in my head, or tweets that I realise have a relevance, but they appear to be from some random person not really connected to the case... But I've have to think again about that, especially as I realise that, to throw people off the scent, is really paramount in this case...
So the tweets I keep going back to.....
Liz Church
@dailyturnout
Follow Follow @dailyturnout
More
Vincent Tabak named on the BBC is not the right age group for arrested man #JoYeates #JoannaYeates #Yeates
2:46 PM - 20 Jan 2011
Josie Ensor
Verified account
@Josiensor
Follow Follow @Josiensor
More
Although, according to 192 search of 2010 electoral role, Vincent Tabak is the 40-44 age band? http://bit.ly/ehNfCK #joyeates
3:01 PM - 20 Jan 2011
Emily Gosden
Verified account
@emilygosden
Follow Follow @emilygosden
More
@Josiensor Vincent Tabak's CV (http://bit.ly/gahKHc) date of birth has him aged 32. Curious as to how 192.com source the age guide...
3:07 PM - 20 Jan 2011
On the very day Dr Vincent Tabak is arrested and no-one is supposed to know his name 3 random people make a reference to Dr Vincent Tabak's age... I've looked at those tweets i don't know how many times, and dismissed them... But i do not think I should....
From start to finish we have had images of Dr Vincent Tabak looking like an ordinary young man to an almost grotesque caricature of what he is supposed to look like.... I say time and time again that the Flat is staged and the photos have been photoshopped and It is obvious that they have...
No-one has officially identified Dr Vincent Tabak... not one person, we have random images we are lead to believe are Dr Vincent Tabak, but I don't believe that they are..... People have said many things on this forum, even though to most it may not appear that way... But taking what has been said and what the media have stated and the understanding of what strategies were used by Avon and Somerset Police.. I have drawn up a small list..
* In Plain Sight
* One of four
* Why won't Dr Vincent Tabak's family speak
* Throw off scent
* Who verified Dr Vincent Tabak identity
* Some type of deal
* Immunity
* Screamed from the rooftops
* No protesting Innocence
* Not able to locate him with the prison services
* Placid Dutchman
The other day I mentioned that The Tabak's were not at court every day.... You only see them on one day.. we see The Yeates coming and going... But Not The Tabak's , which quite frankly is disturbing really... Their brother is facing a Murder Charge, the media are all parked out side the Court and we see the same photo's of The Tabak's used and reused.....
This evening it suddenly dawned on me..... everything is not what it seems... There has been plenty of smoke and mirrors to this case...
The location of Kelcey Halls opposite Bristol Crown Court, on the 21st January we see The Tabak's crossing the road from The Law firms office... (image attached) and then we see apparently on a break in the trial on the 21st January 2011.. The Tabak's leave The Court with Kelcey Hall (image attached)
Here a question posed.... How do you get Dr Vincent Tabak in and out of a court without anyone seeing him??
Answer: Right under everyones noses... they are just not looking!!
You see i think I know what the contempt issue may be... And not the cock and bull we have been told.... But identifying defendants etc in the papers.... And I believe they didn't identify Dr Vincent Tabak on the day of the arrest... But lead us to believe that they had Many papers mentioned Dr Vincent Tabak name on the 20th January 2011.... On the 20th January 2011 Channel 4 gives us this:
20 Jan 2011
Joanna Yeates murder: police search neighbour’s flat
Following the arrest of a 32-year-old in connection with the murder of Joanna Yeates, police search a flat belonging to Dutch national Vincent Tabak. Channel 4 News looks at his background.
Now the media are well aware they are NOT allowed to name a suspect who hasn't been charged and I do not believe they did!!
The Police fed the media the stories as far as I can tell and on the 22nd January 2011 we get this story...
They have the wrong man, says brother of Vincent Tabak
VINCENT Tabak’s brother, Marcel, protested his brother’s innocence.
By ANIL DAWAR AND JOHN CHAPMAN
PUBLISHED: 00:00, Sat, Jan 22, 2011
(https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/1/285x214/224632_1.jpg)
Marcel Tabak... The brother whom said his brother was a scapegoat... The brother ,whom we see outside Bristol Crown Court on the 21st October 2011... The Brother who we do not see daily at these court proceedings... The brother who has not screamed from the roof tops, the brother who has stayed silent for all these years...
Whilst I like a numpty have been chasing a Placid Dutchman whom I believe was in prison for 20 years all around the Internet.... As we know they cannot and should not have released Dr Vincent Tabak's name whilst he was under arrest ... But it was everywhere... And the more I think abut it the more I don't think they did.... I have said so many times things don't add up.... Everything seems to be the opposite of what it should be... The case makes no sense... And i still do not know what the case is about.... mrswah has said she is unsure whether Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent,... But i suppose it depends in which context you put that....
We have a story at trial that doesn't make sense... we have the arrest of a landlord that has been through a change in his life due to said arrest.... And I questioned before... who was Joanna Yeates and maybe i should have questioned... who is Dr Vincent Tabak??
I believe this man is Dr Vincent Tabak ( If Dr Vincent Tabak is his real name...) and not the images that we have been shown all over the media of a monstered image that everyone wants to believe is the sort of person who they imagine would be capable of such an act....... (I believe those images are photoshopped)
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/21/article-2051786-0E78FC5100000578-879_306x423.jpg)
Now I've come to that conclusion I don't know what to think!
Except for one thing.... Is the man I have identified the owner of this unique trial number U20110387 ???
Something tells me that he is!!
Maybe I should start calling him Dr Tabak or Mr Tabak, because I am not sure of his name....
https://twitter.com/dailyturnout/status/28091537820745728
https://twitter.com/Josiensor/status/28104792735744000
https://twitter.com/emilygosden/status/28106420947779586
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/224632/They-have-the-wrong-man-says-brother-of-Vincent-Tabak
https://www.channel4.com/news/joanna-yeates-murder-police-search-neighbours-flat
-
I think probably because Vincent Tabak admitted killing Joanna. The trial then became not about IF he did it but whether it was manslaughter or murder. What information could Chris Jeffries bring to these proceedings that would have helped a jury understand why Tabak did what he admitted to? Also, it's my understanding that Tabak implicated Jeffries during the investigation, presumably to divert attention away from his own guilt, but didn't continue to implicate him after he finally confessed. Did he implicate Jeffries when he gave his own evidence on the stand?
Chris Jefferies could very well have ended up with the murder of Joanna Yeates pinned on him had DNA not been found on Joanna's remains linking Vincent Tabak to the crime.
"Finally, what police and pathologists discovered when they examined Yeates's body suggested more went on than Tabak admits to recalling.
She had suffered 43 injuries, including wounds to her face, throat and arms. Though her jeans had not been tampered with, her T-shirt had been pulled up above her breasts and part of her right breast exposed. A sample of Tabak's DNA was found on her chest, however scientists could not establish what it came from."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/28/joanna-yeates-case-vincent-tabak
-
Part 1....
I think I have stumbled upon the why nothing makes sense.....
Mr Jay
You prepared a log which you called "The inside story". It's under your tab 21 and starts at our page 11320. If I can just understand the genesis of this document, is this something you were preparing at the time or at the end of the 34 days, I think it was, did you come back to your records and prepare this document?
Ms Amanda Hirst
Yes, sir, it was prepared at the end of the investigation. We have a -- like a number of other forces, we have a computer logging system, so every contact with the media is logged, and in this case was obviously logged throughout. That includes questions from the media, it includes our responses, it includes statements, and, as you can see, all of this information was picked up from that log. I prepared it at the end of the process because the Chief Constable and I felt that it would be something that would be very useful for us just to see exactly what the issues had been and, I suppose, see it in black and white.
It was also shared selectively by the chief with one or two other people, other ACPO members.
Is 34 days the end of the Investigation??.... If so that tells us what ever they were Investigating happened between 17th December 2010 till the 20th January 2011..
* So how did they come upon the Porn on the hard drive of Dr Vincent Tabak....
* When did they question Tanja Morson??
* When did they get access to Buro Happolds computers??
* When were the statements about Dr Vincent Tabak's behaviour made.. we have people he went to parties with,
we have his employer making a statement, how on earth did they get these statements all on the same day
which appears to be the 20th January 2010??
What were they Investigating?? Surely 34 days cannot be the end of the Investigation?? But that appears to be exactly what it is (imo)
So how on earth did they take Dr Vincent Tabak to court??
Why would Association of Chief Police Officers members receive a copy??
This is mental.....
* Sarah Maddox (At Dinner Party Dr Vincent Tabak attended )
* Louise Althrope (Attended Party with Dr Vincent Tabak)
* Elizabeth Chandler ( Office Manager at BDP)
* Shrikart Sharma ( Dr Vincent Tabak's Boss )
* Glen O'Hare ( Hosted Part Dr Vincent Tabak attended ).
* Andrew Lillie (Attended a Dinner Party with Dr Vincent Tabak )
* Linda Marland (Attended Party Dr Vincent Tabak attended ) (party was in a bar in Bristol)
* Tanja Morson
34 days end of Investigation and I can count 8 people 7 whom have made a statement that was used in the trial...
None of them appeared, but there statements were read out... Tanja Morson neither appeared or had a statement read out..
So on the day of his arrest... they manage to get witness statements form these 7 people??? I don't think so... Unless they had been using surveillance on Dr Vincent Tabak they would have no idea who he spent time with at that early stage...
I don't think i have read that wrong... Mr Jay is clearly intermating (imo) that the end of the Investigation is 34 days.... (imo)
___________________________________________________________________________________________
https://leveson.sayit.mysociety.org/hearing-27-march-2012/ms-amanda-hirst
-
Part 2...
34 days being then end of the Investigation telling me that all of the evidence they collected was before the arrest of Dr Vincent Tabak.. so my question is "Who is Dr Vincent Tabak??"
* Elizabeth Chandler ( Office Manager at BDP) Looks like an error on my part, but I do not believe it is...
Elisabeth Chandler, the office manager at BDP, the firm where Miss Yeates and Mr Reardon worked, told Bristol Crown Court in a written statement: “Jo told me that she was dreading the weekend because it was the first time she was going to be left on her own. Her partner Greg, who I know, was going away.”
Followed by The night after she was killed, Linda Marland said she spoke to Tabak as her daughter Elizabeth celebrated her 24th birthday at a bar in Bristol. Mrs Marland’s daughter had stayed in Tabak’s spare room while he was working in Los Angeles in the autumn, she said.
Is Linda Marlands Daughter Elizabeth .... "Elizabeth Chandler"??
I keep thinking about the Polices Media Strategy... And slowly everything is becoming clearer...
Colin Port Leveson... Exhibt CP5.pdf ..Media stratergy
Homepage
,Homepage banner and spotlight images
¯ 1440 inbound messages went to the investigation team via the form on the website
Newsroom
¯ Newsroom story with regular updates
¯ Updates automatically pushed out via twitter with #joyeates "hashtags"
¯ Updates automatically appeared on dedicated section (see below)
, Story e-mailed out to subscribers (currently 15,000+ subscriber base) and media contacts
¯ Briefings filmed / uploaded to YouTube and embedded as well as images
Dedicated section
¯ Set up special website address- www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/jo
¯ Interactive Google map showing key locations
¯ Video play list showing most recent video release first
¯ Image gallery of Jo
¯ Facebook and Twitter sharing tools
¯ Secure on-line contact form sending messages direct to the incident room
¯ Twitter widget showing discussion around the case and our updates
¯ IP address logging for investigative purposes
Local pages
¯ Localised community safety article in the Clifton area
¯ Downloadable advice leaflet (the same as distributed physically in the area
The case is all there within the strategy... There is no way they Interviewed these people... (imo) But What I believe happened is this...
They used social media to track and collate Information, I believe that everything that this case is made up from is from peoples Facebook Posts or tweets.... And the media know this.... That is another possible reason that they tweeted the trial...
Where are they going to get this information from?? I have found a lot of Information by purely searching what people have tweeted or posted on their facebook posts....
They didn't take statements from anyone other than the tenants..(imo) And I believe that their entire case is based on what people have said on there facebook.... That is why all of the information relating to that time is missing.... I conclude it is Missing from these peoples timelines because it is "THE EVIDENCE"!!
Greg Reardon
Rebecca Scott
Emma Brookes
Darragh Bewell
I could go on.. but you get the gist... All of these people in one way or another contributed to the evidence, that we found in the media and that the Police used as statements of fact... (imo) I couldn't understand why the media knew so much in the begining.... But it is all starting to make sense now... Rebecca Scott talking of keys
and Joanna Yeates Coat Missing from the house... I have all ready posted that Darragh Bellew had said this in a facebook post before Rebecca Scott had stated this....
Darragh Harry Bellew
20 December 2010 ·
All,
Most of you on my friends list will not know Jo Yeates but some of you do. Jo has been missing and the last time she was seen was on Friday night; she made it home but was not there when Greg(her boyfriend) returned home from a weekend away late last night. Her belongings however were there including her house key, mobile phone and purse.
Although there is little we can do apart from help the police we c
Here Darragh bellew tells us it was 'FRIDAY" night that Joanna Yeates was last seen... THAT is where the date comes from!! It comes from Darragh Bellews post!! (imo) The same with what was Missing from the Flat... Darragh Bellew tells us on the 20th December 2010 that these items were Missing.... We didn't need Rebecca Scott to tell us or the media... The Police have got their information from Darragh Bellew... they told us they were monitoring Facebook and twitter..... That was part of their strategy...
This is why I believe the entire case "IS" and "WAS" built entirely from the posts and tweets on social media by the people whom had a connection to each other...
Joanna Yeates in her life may very well have come into contact with Dr Vincent Tabak in the course of her work... But were they "FACEBOOK" friends... I would say not.... But who else was and was NOT facebook friends??
The ikea guys... now that could be found if someone had posted about the delivery to Canygne Road...
But The fact that Greg Reardon states in court that he and Joanna Yeates had moved into Canygne Road on the 25th October 2010 MUST come from a dated post on facebook on his own page....... But what they failed to look at (imo) is the post that I have found which clearly states that they moved into Canygne Road Clifton by the 16th December 2010
Greg Beardon
16 October 2010
Anybody want free skis?
I've got two pairs of knackered-but-good-for-dryslope twintips.
175cm 2005? Dynastar Troublemakers with Salomon 914 bindings on lifters.
(Big gouge in base of one ski, bindings work but show their age considerably. Skis still have stiffness to them and have been used for uni dryslope racing recently).
179cm 2006? K2 Fujatives with factory salomon 916 race bindings.
(Skis are in decent nick but have lost a lot of stiffness. Bindings on last legs. Skis still useful for UK trips and for trashing on brandon hill. Last used by Hickman in the Redbull Peak in the Park big air.)
Free to a good home, pick up from Clifton. Call 07919 593206.
Cheers,
g
But Obviously someone Missed it.... So If Greg is on the stand and they are referring to a post he made on the 25th October 2010 about moving into Canygne Road.. then he wouldn't be telling a lie under oath... as that would be correct..... But his other post on another members site contradicts that... But no-one is looking for it....
The fact that I mentioned about Chris Yeates friend Mathew I think he is called.. who apparently received a text Joanna Yeates.... And we are told her usual channels of communication with him are via facebook...
Well I think Joanna Yeates did contact him via facebook and that was how they knew of this information....
CJ.... did CJ use social media?? Is this why they know what he said may have slightly differed?? Did CJ refuse to go to trial??? Is the reason everyone knows CJ is entirely Innocent because they know that the Information the Police had collected was from Social media??
Is this why there is NO PAPER TRAIL?? because it is all digitally based... That why you have the online form on the Avon and Somerset website...(imo)... Everything else was digital and so no paper trial would be there....
Dr Vincent Tabak..... Did he admit to manslaughter??
Well it depends on what you see as admitting to having a body and how you could twist it......
On 23 December police revisited Tabak and carried out a routine search of the flat he shared with his girlfriend, Tanja Morson, to check Yeates was not there. He joked to friends that they must have thought he had stashed her in a drawer.
So by stating that he had stashed her in the draw... he is stating that he has physically come into contact with her body... hence his admission to "Manslaughter"... using this comment...
We had no-one to trial to support there statements, because quite honestly how can you bring over 20 people to trial to make an admission under oath that it was there posts and tweets that the Police are relying on....
Andrew Civilian Mott.... has been described in many roles... But what did he actually say on his social media.... Did he brag to friends that he was a Forensics officer to make it appear he was far more important than he was ???
DCI Phil Jones..... He didn't use social media at the time... There fore he wasn't needed on the witness stand (imo) infact anyone from The Police Investigation who should have been there wasn't...
The searches that sent me bonkers.... Are they things that were looked at on social media... Clicking the Police links they had provided and the newspaper articles at the time which would be on various peoples social media pages.....
There was so much talk and discussion at the time.. i myself remember joining a group , interested to see what other thought.... And information galore was on these sites.... facebook when the original Discussion group started had an actual forum... But that changed and everyone had to start again... someone imported alot of what was said.... But the points back and forth continued.... Now that got removed from facebook.... And now i understand why..... The discussion within that group chat were used as part of the evidence.... Therefore any evidence relating to The Joanna Yeates Murder /Missing Investigation, had to be removed from public eyes....
I thought it was far more complicated than that.... But it is simple..... An entire Police Investigation built upon social media... The embarassment of this case is beyond belief....
Not surprised that no-one wants to talk about it.... But they should.....
Every little piece of information comes from twitter/ facebook and any other form of social media that the Police used... The Police Strategy tells us so..... But they just didn't realise someone would work it out....
But maybe Dr Vincent Tabak did.... And they wanted to shut him up!! After all he was a computer genius....
How did Joanna Yeates actually die?? Who actually killed her ?? Because I am still sticking with the fact that Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent!!
And with me getting to this point we need to know more....
The child porn... i think I had said before that for pseudo porn all you need is the ability to change a picture and you can basically be charged with the ability to make pseudo porn... Well paint a built in program or something similar will do the trick.... So Dr Vincent Tabak has Innocent pictures of his nieces on his facebook page and "Bish Bash Bosh"... they could legally charge him... (imo)
I think I need to start a new topic.... And use this post as the starting point... And where I can show examples of how the Police made up an entire Investigation based on what people had posted on there social media and who they were linked to as friends...
It is all starting to get quite Interesting.....(imo)
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg470437#msg470437
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8826305/Pathologist-to-give-evidence-at-Joanna-Yeates-murder-trial.html
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/28/joanna-yeates-case-vincent-tabak
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8168.msg426147#msg426147
-
Just to STRESS.... Peter Stanley and Christopher Jefferies didn't attend trial because I believe they didn't use social media....
Tanja Morson's father probably put paid to them using anything she said seeing as he was a lawyer....
That is why I believe Leveson was happy to accept Christopher Jefferies as a core participant.... Because this trial evidence was made up completely from social media comments....
Therefore they could not bring any physical evidence that Joanna Yeates had been attacked in her home.... No finger print evidence... NO DNA Evidence... Nothing that would tell us that a violent struggle had taken place....
Except for Dr Delaney... now i cannot say for a fact where they get his information from... But I have seen Dr Delaney on a TV program working with the Police before.. So he could quite easily have emailed the findings....
Is this a case of Murder by Media... Is it social media that they feel like needs hanging??
-
When Leveson reported that Dr Vincent Tabak had been found guilty of Murder in July 2011.. I believe I know where that came from... Did Leveson use a bit of poetic license??
Matthew Pearson
@mattpearson
Follow Follow @mattpearson
More
attorney general says the rules were breached over Christopher Jefferies. He wins 6 figure damages from 8 newspapers...
10:03 PM - 29 Jul 2011
In July the Attorney General had emphatically stated that CJ was wholly Innocent of this Murder because Dr Vincent Tabak had admitted to this crime.....
So I believe that leveson used the ruling by the Attorney General in July 2011 to establish that Dr Vincent Tabak had been convicted of murder before a trial took place.... I am sure half the nation had decided he had murdered her at that time... And I don't know how many posts/ tweets were done by the public saying Dr Vincent Tabak was guilty before a trial had taken place!
Also we have this tweet..
Polly James
@Mid_WifeCrisis
Follow Follow @Mid_WifeCrisis
More
Oh, my God. I do wish Greg would stop talking about Christopher Jefferies. Isn't he scared of the Attorney General?
2:15 PM - 7 Jan 2011
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
So what was Greg posting about at the time these events were reported in the papers etc?? Did Greg know about information in advance?? He talks of as yet Innocent men in the media... before CJ has been released on bail!!
https://twitter.com/Mid_WifeCrisis/status/23382126892163073
-
Chris Jefferies could very well have ended up with the murder of Joanna Yeates pinned on him had DNA not been found on Joanna's remains linking Vincent Tabak to the crime.
"Finally, what police and pathologists discovered when they examined Yeates's body suggested more went on than Tabak admits to recalling.
She had suffered 43 injuries, including wounds to her face, throat and arms. Though her jeans had not been tampered with, her T-shirt had been pulled up above her breasts and part of her right breast exposed. A sample of Tabak's DNA was found on her chest, however scientists could not establish what it came from."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/28/joanna-yeates-case-vincent-tabak
Certainly sounds like Tabak's excuse that he just covered her mouth to stop her screaming and it was over quick was never going to get him very far. Sounds like she definitely put up a fight.
-
Just to STRESS.... Peter Stanley and Christopher Jefferies didn't attend trial because I believe they didn't use social media....
Tanja Morson's father probably put paid to them using anything she said seeing as he was a lawyer....
That is why I believe Leveson was happy to accept Christopher Jefferies as a core participant.... Because this trial evidence was made up completely from social media comments....
Therefore they could not bring any physical evidence that Joanna Yeates had been attacked in her home.... No finger print evidence... NO DNA Evidence... Nothing that would tell us that a violent struggle had taken place....
Except for Dr Delaney... now i cannot say for a fact where they get his information from... But I have seen Dr Delaney on a TV program working with the Police before.. So he could quite easily have emailed the findings....
Is this a case of Murder by Media... Is it social media that they feel like needs hanging??
Nine, can I ask, what evidence as to why Tabak killed Joanna could Christopher Jefferies bring to the trial?
-
Nine, can I ask, what evidence as to why Tabak killed Joanna could Christopher Jefferies bring to the trial?
Christopher Jefferies had known VT and Tanja for much longer than he had known Joanna and Greg, as they had been in their flat for about 18 months before Joanna was killed. So, he might have known him quite well-----whether or not he did, is anybody's guess, as nobody has said. CJ was, according to reports, involved in Neighbourhood Watch, and took an interest in his tenants. IMO, he would have had some idea as to whether there was anything "shifty" about VT. From what I have heard and read, I don't think he had any concerns about his character.
-
Nine, can I ask, what evidence as to why Tabak killed Joanna could Christopher Jefferies bring to the trial?
Unless he used social media/media , he couldn't bring any evidence to trial... Because I believe the trial is made up entirely of comments posted on social media and reports in the media... And as CJ had denied to the media that he saw anything and the media was mistaken... He had denied in front of camera that he had witnessed anything..
Therefore he witnessed nothing... Even if his Police statements said he did and his Leveson statement states that also....
So CJ's statements are irrelevant as far as that trial was concerned! (imo) As it had been denied by CJ that he saw people at the gate!!
CJ's Videoed denial....
It's a serious distortion of what I said to the Police, and I have no further comment to make. Because that is almost certain itself to be distorted
Therefore CJ has denied all knowledge and has anything he stated in the media was only that interview.. that makes him a person who witnessed nothing... As far as this trial by media, whether it's social or the usual media outlets..
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/christopher-jefferies-speaking-to-press-sot-it-is-a-news-footage/659148876
-
Christopher Jefferies had known VT and Tanja for much longer than he had known Joanna and Greg, as they had been in their flat for about 18 months before Joanna was killed. So, he might have known him quite well-----whether or not he did, is anybody's guess, as nobody has said. CJ was, according to reports, involved in Neighbourhood Watch, and took an interest in his tenants. IMO, he would have had some idea as to whether there was anything "shifty" about VT. From what I have heard and read, I don't think he had any concerns about his character.
True but surely there were people that knew him better and had a lot more interactions with him that would be able to offer a much more accurate analysis of his character than his landlord?
-
Unless he used social media/media , he couldn't bring any evidence to trial... Because I believe the trial is made up entirely of comments posted on social media and reports in the media... And as CJ had denied to the media that he saw anything and the media was mistaken... He had denied in front of camera that he had witnessed anything..
Therefore he witnessed nothing... Even if his Police statements said he did and his Leveson statement states that also....
So CJ's statements are irrelevant as far as that trial was concerned! (imo) As it had been denied by CJ that he saw people at the gate!!
CJ's Videoed denial....
Therefore CJ has denied all knowledge and has anything he stated in the media was only that interview.. that makes him a person who witnessed nothing... As far as this trial by media, whether it's social or the usual media outlets..
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/christopher-jefferies-speaking-to-press-sot-it-is-a-news-footage/659148876
To be frank this sound like more unsubstantiated conspiracy nonsense in my opinion.
-
True but surely there were people that knew him better and had a lot more interactions with him that would be able to offer a much more accurate analysis of his character than his landlord?
I agree entirely, but none of these people were called to give a character reference.
-
To be frank this sound like more unsubstantiated conspiracy nonsense in my opinion.
Not quite Baz.... I have spent the last few days looking at facebook and trying to understand certain questions I had about why I believe it has everything to do with social media....
And as leornora can vouch for me and you probably too... I tend to write what I am thinking... so occasionally I ask a question and then appear to answer my question in the same post.... Because that is how I post and whilst i am posting i remember something and leave what I started to post still in my finished post....
So I did go back to the facebook.... and am about to post about that on "A Case Built On Social Media.. topic....
Because whilst you ask me questions I have all sorts zooming around my head.... But the post I'm about to post on the topic I have just said... should explain some of your questions... and CJ.....
-
This quote always lead me to believe that it was on her lip... I had coupled it with Andrew Mott saying he had tried to stop a body from thawing....
DCI Jones said a DNA sample found on the landscape architect's body is a key piece of evidence which could lead to ‘her killers’.
But now I believe I missed what could be starring us in the face.... One piece of DNA......linking the killers.....
Answer........ Twins...
Dr Vincent Tabak didn't have a twin did he???
DCI Jones said a DNA sample found on the landscape architect's body is a key piece of evidence which could lead to ‘her killers’.
Edit... If not twins then a relative... The sample was 1/1000... must be a relative... it has to be (IMO)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1343805/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Desperate-police-turn-Facebook-hunt-killer.html
So who was the relative that apparently helped Dr Vincent Tabak?? or is this proof it wasn't him??
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I keep thinking about what her father said:
What was left behind!
You have a fit young woman.... Who for all intense and purposes should have been able to defend herself, But she couldn't or didn't, and there has to be a reason for that..
We have the "Missing Sock".. And we don't question the other sock that DCI Phil Jones shows us on the 5th January 2011 at a press conference..
Her parents talking of her being abducted... Which always seemed a little strange... But...
The Front Room which thinking from my own perspective appears crammed...
We do not have any medical records of Joanna whatsoever, which really we do... We have a court drawing of her in a foetal position and that is all we have to go from, but no person was allowed to draw from inside the court room.... And both her feet have no socks on them..
I had this god awful thought....
Did Joanna Yeates have an amputation or did she have a prosthetic leg/limb??
There has to be something of significance as to why... what was left behind is important.... And 'The Missing sock"
If the other sock is left attach to the prosthetic/ prosthetics.. and was dirty, on the sole, maybe It is the evidence that DCI Phil Jones is holding up...
The furniture then being so close together would aid in getting around the flat... Everything positioned to be able to grasp something....
Those marks on the wall in the hallway that are at the exact same height when I believed that something was attached there between the bedroom and the lead into the front room....
For her parents to believe she was abducted, there has to be a reason,
The bathroom having 2 tooth brush cup holders at different heights...
The room looks staged, but maybe it isn't completely.... Two sets of everything
Her being found miles away from home, has to be significant... She doesn't catch a bus, she doesn't get a taxi, ...
Is the reason we have never seen Joanna Yeates car because it's been adapted somehow?
I have the parents talk of Jo arm wrestling springing to mind....
The Intercom, that has been kept quite... to allow someone in...?
I think it was Lickley who said that Joanna Yeates had settled in for the evening..... Well, how would he know??
There had to be something that indicated this to him... And not the story on the stand by Dr Vincent Tabak....
Was Joanna Yeates unable to defend herself?? How big would someone have to be ?? Not that tall really..
The Police treating it as a Major Incident, for what was a 'Missing person's Inquiry...
The Intention to kill... has to be key... If she is unable to defend her self...
The suitcase being reported about by channel 4... why even mention transporting her that way...
Did she uses crutches at home ?? What is left behind??
Was Joanna Yeates disabled?/ Was she registered disabled?? There has to be a reason she isn't able to fight back!
There has to be a reason why the Police responded so, quickly...
There has to be a reason why her mother and father, went straight to Bristol
There has to be a reason why they believed she had been abducted..
There has to be a reason why was the Police had the Incident van parked out side as early as 22nd Drcember 2010
There has to be a reason why they stayed with 44,Canygne Road
What were they looking for at that address?? It can't have been Joanna Yeates.
She must have had a routine...
BDP remark that it was unnecessary... odd choice of words...
It's something to consider...
The only Information that we have is all from social media...
The images, the theories , the neighbours on the facebook forum... No real facts are know...No facts were at trial... We skirt around a few... Not even the full autopsy... Maybe the autopsy would tell us, and described Joanna Yeates physical self...
It cannot be simply because Joanna Yeates was a young woman who went Missing.... Too much happened so soon.... The appeals by her parents,, and not just worried... they were devastated from the outset..
Anything in this case is possible.... And i am trying to understand why Joanna Yeates would allow a complete stranger, into her house and then, not put up a fight, when attacked and strangled... 43 injuries...
The search and rescue team were out straight away looking for her also... `there had never been any suggestion that she left voluntarily... Or could have gone out... Greg apparently rang his mum when he got home about 8'oclock.. telling her Jo wasn't there... Maybe he was wondering what to do, before contacting her parents and worrying them...
As i say... the case is strange... Yet complexed at the same time and it shouldn't be.... And there has to be something that we do not know, that was NOT brought to trial...
-
Who's that behind David Yeates, attending the trial?? (Image 1)
A family resemblance is there... Could be Jo Yeates double..
The older lady to the left looks related also.. (image2)
A closer look at the young lady.... who has a marked resemblance of Jo... (image 3)
This is on the 10th October 2011... I hadn't seen that before, nice of the FLO Officer to escort them in and out of the building..
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Kite...... That's a new one to me.......
The Jury of six men and six woman spent about 20 minutes inside this property, at the flat where Jo Yeates lived with her boyfriend Greg Reardon.. is er... Just to The right hand side, It's a basement garden flat.
They went inside and inside we can show you some pictures, er they found many of Miss Yeates personal possessions as they were left last December. In the living room there was still Christmas Tinsel up, there was ..er.. some unopened crackers in a box some wrapping paper with snow men on, work files with the name Jo Yeates hand written along the spine.
DVD's from the comedy series Red Dwarf , stickers from the rock band Cold Play.. In the hall some of her training shoes a cycling helmet ..er er.. kite.. wrapped up.. And in her bedroom make-up, hair-straighteners, cuddly toys left on a chest of draws
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-15298038/trial-jury-shown-jo-yeates-flat.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
What is Dr Vincent Tabak's role in all of this... Why is he so quiet... I keep thinking about it...
As I keep saying I do not believe he killed Joanna Yeates... It's like a script, the case is strange.. It' weird off centre.. Ad still no-one speaks...
I have gone through every scenario know to man..... (Slight exaggeration there) But.. I have covered everything i can think of at this moment in time..
Who is Dr Vincent Tabak, a man who I have felt has been has been dragged through our judicial system and not treated fairly.. Is he real?? I'm I chasing windmills??
Or is this case about something else?? I really don't know anymore to be honest... I have been backwards and forward and round and round in circle....
-
Is this apparently where Dr Vincent Tabak admits guilt??
DailyStar 23rd January 2011.... see attached
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg471683#msg471683
I wrote about the media startergy and was trying to find out when this strategy was first put into place..
Arefresh..
Homepage
,Homepage banner and spotlight images
¯ 1440 inbound messages went to the investigation team via the form on the website
Newsroom
¯ Newsroom story with regular updates
¯ Updates automatically pushed out via twitter with #joyeates "hashtags"
¯ Updates automatically appeared on dedicated section (see below)
, Story e-mailed out to subscribers (currently 15,000+ subscriber base) and media contacts
¯ Briefings filmed / uploaded to YouTube and embedded as well as images
Dedicated section
¯ Set up special website address- www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/jo
¯ Interactive Google map showing key locations
¯ Video play list showing most recent video release first
¯ Image gallery of Jo
¯ Facebook and Twitter sharing tools
¯ Secure on-line contact form sending messages direct to the incident room
¯ Twitter widget showing discussion around the case and our updates
¯ IP address logging for investigative purposes
Local pages
¯ Localised community safety article in the Clifton area
¯ Downloadable advice leaflet (the same as distributed physically in the area
The implimentation of the media startegy appears to be 20th 21st December 2010 if I am understanding DCI Phil Jones Leveson Inquiry statements..
Mr Jay
You refer to this in your statement. We can see the date of the strategy, 13 January 2011, so presumably it superseded an earlier strategy, did it?
Mr Philip Jones
Yes. In essence, sir, this was, if you like, documenting the investigative media strategy. It had been implemented at the very early stages when this was a missing person investigation, which was back on 20, 21 December 2010. So it was just a combination of -- that investigative media strategy had been implemented; it was just a question of obviously documenting it within the actual policy book itself and having a record of that.
I presume the www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/jo was the earlier strategy... So what was the strategy from the 13th January 2011??
And wasn't the 20th December 2010 rather early to impliment this strategy as she had only just been reported 'Missing"!!
https://leveson.sayit.mysociety.org/hearing-27-march-2012/mr-philip-jones
-
If the media strategy was implemented from 20/21st December 2010....
Why didn't the strategy change when Joanna Yeates body was found and the announcement of a Murder inquiry was made on the 28th December 2010??...
Why didn't the strategy change when CJ had been named in the papers...
Is the stategy they are referring to anything to do with the facebook forum??
What happened on the 13th January 2011 to make them change strategy??
This is strange... Missing person Inquiry and a Murder Inquiry are two completely different types of case... They don't normally use the social media in the way it was used back then.... If a strategy needed changing.... i would have said that it needed changing when they were awre that Joanna yeates had been murdered...(imo)
Or is the 13th January 2011 when the facebook forum became a Discussion Group??/ I do not know the answer to that one....
-
Scenario's... I have covered most.... The Yeates wanted to know what happened between the flat and Longwood Lane...
We know nothing of Joanna Yeates medical history, Why would someone want to kill her?? i mean a real motive and nothing like the idea of the nextdoor neighbour whom had no connection to her...
What was left behind... That goes through my mind all the time... And her parents believing she had been abducted... We only know that Joanna Yeates had taken 4 days off work prior to returning... But what about before??
Had she ever taken time off work before or was taking time off for being ill unusual....
I have strange ideas that fly through my mind.... But I might as well share seeing as nothing has changed since being reported Missing....
Talk of in a fight for her life.... Or was she fighting for someone elses life.... The idea that Joanna Yeates was a surragate mother had entered my head... I wondered if she had been pregnant... I wondered if she had been paid to have a baby for someone else and didn't want to relinquish her child....
I wondered if she was trying to stop someone from taking the child, and thats what caused the attack upon her....
What was left behind.... It cannot be some keys and a coat..... Maybe it was something in relation to a child....
Had Joanna Yeates ever been pregnant?? she could have before and miscarried....
It's just a thought... But ... Christina Rossiter poem on the Missing Group on Facebook had me wondering...
Christina Rossiter
26 December 2010
God's Lent ChildGod's Lent Child - Unknown
This is just one of the many versions of this popular poem, don't be afraid to edit or alter it in any way if you think it would fit in better with your present circumstances.
"I'll lend you for a little while
A child of mine" God said -
For you to love the while he lives
and mourn for when he's dead.
It may be six or seven years
or forty two or three
but will you, till I call him back,
take care of him for me?
He'll bring his charms to gladden you
and, should his stay be brief,
you'll have his nicest memories
as solace for his grief.
I cannot promise he will stay,
since all from earth return
but, there are lessons taught below,
I want this child to learn.
I've looked the whole world over,
in my search for teachers true,
and from the things that crowd life's lane
I have chosen you.
Now will you give him all your love,
nor think the labour vain,
nor hate me when I come to take
this lent child back again?
I fancied that I heard them say,
"Dear Lord Thy Will Be Done"
for all the joys thy child will bring
the risk of grief we'll run.
We'll shelter him with tenderness,
we'll love him while we may,
and for the happiness we've known
forever grateful stay.
But, should thy Angels call for him
much sooner than we planned,
we'll brave the grief that comes
and try to understand.
Was this child called Joanna ?? Is Joanna Yeates still Missing??
There's a lot of smoke and Mirrors in this Case and there has to be a reason why....
Question has to be ...Did Joanna Yeates have a child??
-
* Onlookers
* Gawkers
* Sightseers
* Spectator
* Witness
* Angry Mob
Where were all these people??
Where were they when court proceedings too place... where were they when Dr Vincent tabak attended Bristol Magistrates Court and Bristol Crown Court?
Where were these nosey parkers on Canygne Road??
Each and every day this trial takes place and no screeching no wailing... no crying hang him... No banging o the side of a police van by the public.... No cheers when the speeches are made by the police outside Bristol Crown court when he is convicted..
Where were the hoards of people protesting about this man whom had killed this young girl??
I find that most strange that no-one was there, no public to let Dr Vincent Tabak know he was vile and the public wanted him to know.... It's what happens an outpouring of outrage, by a society horrified by brutal acts..
So where were they for Joanna Yeates?? A woman that had courted so much publicity.... Why didn't the public behave in their usual way??
Crowds gathered for Peter Sutcliffe... But none for Dr Vincent Tabak... none to show support for The Yeates family..
why??
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/police-van-arrives-at-dewsbury-court-and-peter-sutcliffe-news-footage/1B02081_0001
-
I was not gonna post.... But this says it ALL!!!!!
* The Pizza that Dr Vincent Tabak apparently through away in the bin....
* The Pizza everyone swore blind had disappeared....
* The Pizza that is located on Longwood lane...
* The Pizza that is put into an Evidence bag ...
* The Pizza they had all along, well from 26th December 2010 when this is filmed!
Oh the Pizza that Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have removed from the Oven.... That Pizza is still in it's box and wrappings... They never mention they find a Pizza on Longwood lane in the Grass verge and put it into an evidence bag....Do They!!!!
(images attached)...
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
It appears the video has gone walkabouts already... !
Nope my mistake.. start at 1:12 video goes to 1:20
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-12080500/police-confirm-body-found-is-missing-architect
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
This entire case, I am at the point where I do not know what is real or not anymore...
No-one has said anything, which I do not understand... and my ramblings are just that....
I do not understand why the forum has this topic, to be honest, or why it was started , if no-one says anything... what I have written might as well be binned.... And maybe it should be.....
-
(https://www.thebookseller.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/Bill%20Clegg.png?itok=12yJgM2Y)
Canbury scoops 'frank' legal memoir from murder trial lawyer
Canbury scoops 'frank' legal memoir from murder trial lawyer
Published July 25, 2018 by Katherine Cowdrey
Canbury Press is publishing a legal memoir by a QC who has fought some of the biggest murder trials in Britain.
In Under the Wig: A Lawyer’s Stories, of Murder, Guilt and Innocence, leading murder case barrister William Clegg will recount his experiences of English criminal law over the past 40 years, drawing on his involvement as defence counsel in 14 high-profile cases - including the execution of Jill Dando and trial of Vincent Tabak for Joanna Yeates’s murder.
Clegg is head of chambers at 2 Bedford Row and has fought more than 100 murder cases - more than anyone else currently practising at the English Bar. Other cases featured in the book include Colin Stagg’s trial for the murder of Rachel Nickell on Wimbledon Common, the trial of paratrooper Lee Clegg and Britain’s first prosecution for Nazi war crimes.
Rebekah Brooks’s phone hacking trial is also covered in the title after Clegg acted as counsel for the former News International head of security Mark Hanna. Pitched as "vivid and frank" with "the ability to personalise the dramatic and sometimes strange life of a leading murder case barrister", the work aims to give readers an insight into what it’s like to defend a client accused of murder at the Old Bailey.
Clegg, 67, spent three years writing the title, which will now be published as a £16.99 hardback on 4th October 2018.
Martin Hickman, managing director of non-fiction specialist Canbury Press, said: “Bill Clegg is one of the leading criminal lawyers of his generation. His turbo-charged narrative will intrigue and thrill anyone interested in the criminal law. The Secret Barrister and In Your Defence have opened up a substantial market for legal memoir and Bill’s book puts the reader right alongside him in this country’s biggest trials.”
Canbury holds world rights to the work, which was signed directly through Clegg.
rightsCanbury PressWilliam CleggMartin Hickman
Is this worth spending my money on???? Will have to wait a while... It will be interesting if any knew information comes forth in regards to Dr Vincent Tabak....
https://www.thebookseller.com/news/murder-case-barristers-frank-legal-memoir-canbury-837231
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Keep going over the same reports, then noticing something I have Missed before...
He said Miss Yeates had been suffering from headaches in the week before her disappearance, but had not checked into any hospital for treatment.
Anyone with information is urged to contact police on 0845456 7000 quoting Operation Braid or Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111. Miss Yeates had no plans for the weekend when she vanished. She failed to show up at the Bristol architect's firm where she works on Monday morning. Police said this was "very out of character" for her.
Mr Reardon had taken the car he shared with Miss Yeates to Sheffield to visit his family. It is not known whether Miss Yeates left their flat by foot or on her bicycle.
This implies that Jonnna Yeates bicycle was also "Missing"... If they are querying where she left on foot or on her bike.... A little know piece of information that appears to have been overlooked....
Now it then brings images to mind that Image I have seen previously, where I didn't understand the significance of the image....
The removal of a Bike from Aberdeen Road.... You could say it's a mans bike, because of the cross bar... But I don't think that makes any difference these days.....
They remove the Bicycle in the cover of darkness and not attention is drawn to it.... It's only significance could be that it was Joanna Yeates Bike.... Or, they were letting someone know that her bike was "Missing:...
All this talk of cycling, has to be more significant than we maybe have thought previously...
So what of Joanna Yeates bicycle??
The 3 marks on the wall in the hallway... well six in total 3 on each side, where these marks more to do with bicycle racks??
Mr Reardon had taken the car he shared with Miss Yeates to Sheffield to visit his family. It is not known whether Miss Yeates left their flat by foot or on her bicycle.
Now did Joanna Yeates leave for the works get together from her home as I have suggested before?? With the talk of a kiss and cuddle in the lobby....
Or did they mean that Joanna Yeates had left her Flat again and they were not sure whether she had taken her bicycle as it wasn't in the Flat?? We see the Bicycle Helmet on the shelving in the Hallway... is this why we are shown this image?
Would she always wear her helmet when cycling?
What type of footwear would she wear?
Did the bicycle need you to wear cleats??
Is 'what was left behind' her cycling gear??
This brings questions as to whether Joanna Yeates regularly cycled to work or anywhere else?
Now again I'll question what CJ had seen.... Did he see someone with a bicycle?? Is this why his statement is significant along with seeing people?
Had someone removed Joanna Yeates bicycle and put back her purse/mobile phone etc??
The statement to me implies they believe she reached home and left again... Greg Reardon doesn't go to Sheffield until 7:00pm ish according to various reports, so had Joanna Yeates come home and gone out on her bike??? or had someone removed it ?? There doesn't really seem to be any reason for someone to remove her bike??
But did she go on a ride with someone?? Or did she ride to someones house?? Was the bike Missing more of a reason for Greg to get worried, as all her other possessions were there?? What type of PinK Top was Joanna Yeates found in?? Was is a cycling top?? Greg has to try work out what she is wearing, by looking through the clothes.... was he looking for her cycling gear??
There are always more questions than answers...
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/man-arrested-canynge-road-night-police-woman-standing-on-news-footage/655371512
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8218181/Tearful-parents-plead-Help-find-our-daughter.html
-
Looking at the law pages, I found this, my search was slightly different on google, I looked for Ann Reddrop, and came across more information on The Law pages website.....
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Country : England & Wales
Date : 28-10-2011
Court Type : Crown Court
Court Location : Bristol Crown Court
Judge : Mr Justice Field
Case number : T20117031
Defendant Name : Vincent Tabak
Defendant Gender : Male
Defendant Age : 33 Years
Co-Defendant/s : Not Recorded
Bail Position : In Custody
Offence : Murder
Sentence : Custodial immediate
Length : 20 Years Life
Sentencing Considerations
Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) : Not Recorded
Specific Sentence Report (SSR) : Not Recorded
Victim Impact Statement : Not Recorded
Undertaken in a group : Not Recorded
Victim was serving the public : Not Recorded
Victim sustained injuries : Not Recorded
Defendant has similar previous convictions : Not Recorded
Public Protection Sentence : Minimum to Serve - Years: 20
Total Sentence : 20 Years - Life
Likely Release Date : Indeterminate
Deportation Recommended : Not Recorded
Distinguishing Features/Facts :
He pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was found guilty of murder (10:2 majority verdict) after he strangled his 25-year-old female victim in her flat in Clifton, Bristol, on 17 December 2010. His victims body was discovered by dog walkers on Christmas Day. He had strangled his victim holding her neck with one hand and smothering her with his other hand. The prosecution's case was that he had an intention to kill or cause really serious bodily harm and that the attack had been planned, premeditated and sexually motivated. His victim suffered 43 injuries and expert witnesses were called to clarify what the medical evidence suggested. During the investigation he had told investigators that his landlords (Volvo) vehicle had moved during the night of the murder and police arrested the man who was later released without charge.
Following the verdict the jury heard how he had viewed violent pornography on the web. The judge agreed with defence counsel that disclosure of his internet use following his victim's death was not proof that the crime was premeditated. Videos and pictures found on his laptop and work computer depicted a man holding a woman's neck during sex and images of women tied up in the boot of vehicles.
The judge said: "I think there was a sexual element to this killing.... In my view you are very dangerous. In my opinion you are thoroughly deceitful, dishonest and manipulative."
Mitigation : Not Recorded
Sentenced : After Trial
Defence Team
Solicitor's Firm : Kelcey & Hall
Solicitor : Not Recorded
Chambers : 2 Bedford Row
Barrister : William Clegg QC
http://thelawpages.com/court-cases/print_sentence.php?id=7570
We have so much information NOT RECORDED! Why would that be???
* No Mitigation
* No Solicitor
* No Injuries
* No Victim impact Statement
* No Pre-Sentence Report
* No Specific Sentence Report
* No Deportation Recommended
* No Likely Release Date
* No Victim was serving the public
* No Undertaken in a group
More questions than answers......
-
So who from Kelcey & Hall was Dr Vincent Tabak's solicitor??
-
Remember this post... About witness's appearing in court and those who's statements were just read out without them being in attendance....
From: 13:26 GMT, Friday, 19 December 2008
Transcript of Ian Kelcey from the video attached to the article..
It's very very few cases where it would be appropriate for a witness to give evidence anonymously, we think there are absolutely no cases where it would be appropriate for a witness to give anonymous hearsay evidence. in other words, evidence could not be tested
So therefore why didn't Kelcey Hall make objections at the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak where these witness 's had there statements read out and were NOT PRESENT!!
The list below are witness's who had their statements read to the jury and didn't appear in Court
* Nurse Ruth Booth Pearson (examined Dr Vincent Tabak when he was arrested )
* Daniel Birch ( Dog walker who found Joanna Yeates)
* Samuel Huscroft (Friend Joanna Yeates ) (text received from Joanna Yeates )
* Mathew Wood (Chris Yeates Friend... Joanna Yeates (text Received from Joanna Yeates )
* Sarah Maddox (At Dinner Party Dr Vincent Tabak attended )
* PC Steve Archer ( Was there when Dr Vincent Tabak was arrested )
* Mathew Phillips (Heard a shreik... was at party on Canygne Road )
* Louise Althrope (Attended Party with Dr Vincent Tabak)
* Geofrey Hardyman (Tenant of 44 Canygne Road )
* Elizabeth Chandler ( Office Manager at BDP)
* Shrikart Sharma ( Dr Vincent Tabak's Boss )
* Glen O'Hare ( Hosted Part Dr Vincent Tabak attended ).
* Anneleise Jackson, (PC... Greg's Phone Call statement )
* Peter Lindsell ( Friends of Joanna Yeates .. at Bristol Mead Station ( Text received from Joanna Yeates )
* Andrew Lillie (Attended a Dinner Party with Dr Vincent Tabak )
* Linda Marland (Attended Party Dr Vincent Tabak attended ) (party was in a bar in Bristol)
* Micheal Breen... Not sure where to put him
* PC Martin Faithful
2008 Ian Kelcey believed this: we think there are absolutely no cases where it would be appropriate for a witness to give anonymous hearsay evidence. in other words, their evidence could not be tested
2011 he allowed this......(imo)
The list below are witness's who had their statements read to the jury and didn't appear in Court
* Nurse Ruth Booth Pearson (examined Dr Vincent Tabak when he was arrested )
* Daniel Birch ( Dog walker who found Joanna Yeates)
* Samuel Huscroft (Friend Joanna Yeates ) (text received from Joanna Yeates )
* Mathew Wood (Chris Yeates Friend... Joanna Yeates (text Received from Joanna Yeates )
* Sarah Maddox (At Dinner Party Dr Vincent Tabak attended )
* PC Steve Archer ( Was there when Dr Vincent Tabak was arrested )
* Mathew Phillips (Heard a shreik... was at party on Canygne Road )
* Louise Althrope (Attended Party with Dr Vincent Tabak)
* Geofrey Hardyman (Tenant of 44 Canygne Road )
* Elizabeth Chandler ( Office Manager at BDP)
* Shrikart Sharma ( Dr Vincent Tabak's Boss )
* Glen O'Hare ( Hosted Part Dr Vincent Tabak attended ).
* Anneleise Jackson, (PC... Greg's Phone Call statement )
* Peter Lindsell ( Friends of Joanna Yeates .. at Bristol Mead Station ( Text received from Joanna Yeates )
* Andrew Lillie (Attended a Dinner Party with Dr Vincent Tabak )
* Linda Marland (Attended Party Dr Vincent Tabak attended ) (party was in a bar in Bristol)
* Micheal Breen... Not sure where to put him
* PC Martin Faithful
None of these witness's evidence was tested!
What changed his mind??? why was it allowed in the case of Dr Vincent Tabak?? What possible reason could these witness's be in any danger giving evidence??
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/7791830.stm ( I needed to watch it in safari).
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
From Omroep Brabant
Brother Vincent T: "he feels lonely"
VEGHEL - Marcel, brother of murder suspect Vincent T., says his brother feels lonely in prison. Vincent told him this during a telephone conversation. T. is stuck on suspicion of the murder of the British Joanna Yeates.
In the KRO program Brandpunt, Marcel tells that he can not imagine that his brother is capable of the murder . "It is a very friendly, warm, helpful boy with which it is very nice to do things together."
Neighbors
Marcel does not know much about Yeates. "I know the neighbor was only living there for a short while, because when I was there in the autumn, the apartment was still empty, which I've heard, she lived there for up to two months, and in the same period my brother spent six weeks away working at a sister company of his employer in America, so I think there was hardly any opportunity for contact. "
Conversation
During the holidays, when Joanna's body was found in Bristol, Vincent was at home in the Netherlands. "We were all in a house, it had snowed, we had sleigh and that kind of cozy things, and at one point he asked the adults together, because there were also children and he did not want them taxing that story, and then he told what he knew, what happened to his neighbor, that the whole house was turned upside down, that everything was being examined, his apartment too. press That put his life upside down. "
Press
When T. was arrested, the British press was fast in the Netherlands. "I was told quite quickly by my mother that there was English press on the sidewalk, about an hour or two after the news that he had been arrested, that was how fast it was, when no one had been at my door yet, but you wonder where it is going. "
Contact
A few days ago, Marcel had contact with his brother for the last time. "He is in prison and he feels safe, but lonely, this is just a terrible feeling."
The lawsuit starts at the earliest at the end of April.
correct print
Publication: Monday, January 31, 2011 - 00:46
It was happily accepted that Dr Vincent Tabak was in Cambridge with Tanja Morson and her family for Christmas Eve and Christmas day... But this article tells us otherwise...
The need for witness's at trial to confirm or deny what has been stated is paramount... Marcel Tabak himself should have been a witness at trial to tell us of what happened at what time and date in connection to his brother..
If Dr Vincent Tabak is in Holland at Christmas as Marcel Tabak states.... Did Dr Vincent Tabak go to Cambridge earlier?? Did he go to Cambridge at all??
Or was Joanna Yeates body found later?
Nobody established Dr Vincent Tabak's movements at anytime over the period of time Joanna Yeates was Missing and subsequently found dead...
Dr Vincent Tabak, appears to have been able to phone his brother, who else did Dr Vincent Tabak call??
Marcel tells us of the entire house being examined and turned upside down... If there was any chance of cross contamination, that surely could be an opportunity for it.... Did the Police have warrants to search the entire house before Joanna Yeates was found??
What were they looking for in this Missing person enquiry?? Why did they concentrate on that house??
The actions of the Police leave many unanswered questions, and treating the residents of Canygne Road in this manor beofre they were sure that a Crime had been committed, tells us the Police were aware of Joanna yeates status before it was officially confirmed (imo)..
There appears to be NO-ONE that was interviewed in relation to Dr Vincent Tabak's whereabouts over this period... yet we have in court a statement read out and a story told by the defendant that doesn't tally with reports made by his family... And not one member of his family representing him at his trial in Bristol...
So there is a room/house full of people who could get on the witness stand and put Dr Vincent Tabak in Holland on the day that Joanna Yeates body is found... yet we hear nothing from these people.... Why??
Did Clegg not interview his family?? There is so much lacking in this case... I find it unimaginable how it ever got to trial.. yet we are all aware of Dr Vincent Tabak's incarceration for the murder of Joanna Yeates.
But... If it hasn't been established that Dr Vincent Tabak was in Holland at the time Joanna Yeates body was found... how can we trust, what has been stated at trial? How do we know if there are not other people who may be able to establish Dr Vincent Tabak's whereabouts on the 17th December 2010??
We have a clip from a CCTV footage in Asda, to tell us that this is what Dr Vincent Tabak was doing that evening.... But was he?? We already know that the Tesco CCTV footage isn't the original footage.... The man in the Asda footage may not even be Dr Vincent Tabak, it is not easy to confirm this... We have no receipts from the purchaces made in Asda, or no bank records to show such a purchase... we do not see Dr Vincent Tabak at the till to see if he uses cash.... we see a man walk in and out twice, leaving with some bags.....
Who's to say that someone in the store didn't pass him the bags?? We don't know as his full Asda trips were not seen by us nor i believe by the jury either...(imo)
So where was Dr Vincent Tabak on the 17th December 2010?? Was he with Tanja Morson?? we don;t know... we didn't have Tanja Morsons testimony at trial either... He may not have even been in the country, because we have nothing to establish that either...
A whole trial, where NOTHING was established.... We do not know if Dr Vincent Tabak was the man at Bristol Crown Court in October 2011... just because we are told he was, doesn't make it so...(imo)
So we have a story at trial told by a man that no-one has identified as Dr Vincent Tabak, telling us a tale that makes no sense.. A tale of what took place... A tale that puts him in this country on the 25th December 2010, when a report from his brother Marcel was made earlier that he was in Holland on the 25th December 2010...
So what do we believe?
I believe this case is a travesty... A case where we were told untruths... A case were hearsay evidence was allowed.. A case that the public should be made aware of....
A Case that needs the full attention of the media... and Dr Vincent Tabak's conviction needs questioning, this case isn't going away... the information can be found around the Internet... anyone can see how it doesn't make sense .. if they spend a little time looking at the Internet, they too can gather the information just like I have...
And ask themselves... what on earth is British Justice about?? Because this isn't Justice... This isn't Justice by any stretch of the imagination!
http://www.omroepbrabant.nl/?news/1497891583/Broer+Vincent+T+hij+voelt+zich+eenzaam.aspx
-
Transcript from the beginning of this news feed....
Standing in the shadows, the quiet neighbour nobody suspected. And when Vincent Tabak returned from his Christmas holiday abroad, he thought he'd got away with murder. Two weeks earlier he'd used this car to dump the body of Joanna Yeates after killing her in the victorian mansion block where they both lived.
Two weeks after 17th December 2010 = 31st December 2010
So we have 2 problems here.... Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to be in Holland on the 31st December 2010, secondly how did the BBC get footage of Dr Vincent Tabak and his car on this date.... He isn't a suspect at this point....
I had originally thought CrimeWatch had gotten the footage... But it was obviously the BBC on the 31st December 2010..
So it is Dr Vincent Tabak stood in the shadows directing the driver where to park... I have said before, they must know where to park seeing as they live at that address...
Is the man in the shadows someone pretending to be Dr Vincent Tabak?? who's car is that really?? Why would the BBC just happen to be at Canygne Road taking footage of what is supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabak on the 31st December 2010??
So what was the Holland Interview about??
Did the Holland Interview take place??
How can Dr Vincent Tabak be in two places at once??
If Dr Vincent Tabak is on Canygne Road on the 31st December 2010, how did they obtain a DNA sample from him, which apparently was the reason he was arrested... The DNA sample was taken in Holland according to Ann Reddrop on the Crimewatch program i believe... She also states he gave it reluctantly....
Never mind whether it was reluctantly or not... I want to know how Dr Vincent Tabak can be in two places at once??
I would like to see the date of the recording of Dr Vincent Tabak outside Canygne Road.... someones telling porkies again.....
On camera, we have Ann Reddrop state Dr Vincent Tabak was reluctant to give his DNA in Holland
We have DC Karen Thomas as well telling us of Dr Vincent Tabak's reluctance and his over interest in forensics
We have DCI Phil Jones stating that a team flew over to Holland ....
We know this Interview was supposed to take 6 hours.... So where was Dr Vincent Tabak on the 31st December 2010??
If the BBC are stating in this video that it was 2 weeks prior that Dr Vincent Tabak had killed Miss Yeates... making the filming of the car and Dr Vincent Tabak stood at the main entrance of 44, Canygne Road the 31st December 2010...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-15448121
-
Posters are reminded of the forum rules and in particular should keep comments, RELATIVE, AMIABLE and CONSTRUCTIVE. You could call it the RAC of the forum world.
Please do not engage in sniping, goading or name calling as such conduct will attract penalties.
Have a great weekend everyone!!
-
Homepage
,Homepage banner and spotlight images
¯ 1440 inbound messages went to the investigation team via the form on the website
Newsroom
¯ Newsroom story with regular updates
¯ Updates automatically pushed out via twitter with #joyeates "hashtags"
¯ Updates automatically appeared on dedicated section (see below)
, Story e-mailed out to subscribers (currently 15,000+ subscriber base) and media contacts
¯ Briefings filmed / uploaded to YouTube and embedded as well as images
Dedicated section
¯ Set up special website address- www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/jo
¯ Interactive Google map showing key locations
¯ Video play list showing most recent video release first
¯ Image gallery of Jo
¯ Facebook and Twitter sharing tools
¯ Secure on-line contact form sending messages direct to the incident room
¯ Twitter widget showing discussion around the case and our updates
¯ IP address logging for investigative purposes
Local pages
¯ Localised community safety article in the Clifton area
¯ Downloadable advice leaflet (the same as distributed physically in the area
This whole case has had me in turmoil... I couldn't understand how certain obvious actions didn't happen and how other actions did....
We have to remember that everything I know about this case comes from on-line information, and i believe that a lot of the evidence and statements that were made happened on line, i just couldn't work out many issues and problems I faced in determining, where these statements that were made in court came from.....
Issues i had such as why Dr Vincent Tabak didn't have an application for bail or why Dr Vincent Tabak didn't have good character evidence entered into trial....
I have stumbled again upon something and I put a new theory forward.....
The reason I believe that evidence.. like finger prints and items removed from Joanna Yeates Flat or Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat didn't appear in court is because the whole of this case was done on-line....
Everything and i mean everything I know about this trial has come from the Internet... From The Facebook Forum, to the images that we see of Joanna Yeates, Dr Vincent Tabak, Greg Reardon, the Yeates, Joanna Yeates friends, all have come from on-line in one form or another....
I have said that the information came from social media.... I have shown how Darragh Bellew posted about the items that were Missing from Joanna Yeates Flat.... We see images of neighbours ,Interviews from Neighbours... all available to view via the internet.....
I have never been able to understand why witness's were not called, when in reality they should have been... But I have an answer for that which I will come back to later...
The whole truth may never be known? It is still in my head.... But is there a way in which to find the whole truth?? I am hoping there is....
It is the Polices own strategy that has got me thinking about the trial in a different context... Forms.... In my post I referred to these on-line forms and with the information I have found, I believe I now understand, why certain procedures were not followed or should I say , certain applications were not made....
And why certain applications were made.... I'll start with something simple, Dr Vincent Tabak's application for Bail...
I couldn't understand why it didn't happen... I expected that at the court, there was plenty of opportunity for an application for bail to be applied for....
Now there's a reason I propose that this didn't happen... Dr Vincent Tabak is in court at the first opportunity... I believe a possibility is that an application for a new solicitor/ representative happened whilst Paul Cook was representing Dr Vincent Tabak... Making it impossible for Paul Cook to make an application for bail, as he would not be Dr Vincent Tabak's solicitor...
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/october-2015/bcl002-eng.pdf
The FORM is never filled in by Paul Cook or Micheal Fitton QC
So, Dr Vincent Tabak is kept on remand.... His new solicitors/representatives, do not fill in the for to apply for bail..
And the below form is not needed by Clegg/Kelcey and Hall, because no application was original made for bail, and therefore NO Bail decision was made by the judge as to whether to Bail Dr Vincent Tabak....
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/october-2015/bcl003-eng.pdf
I can keep going with this.....
I have ideas and notions spinning around my head... This Case is quite unbelievable... So I believe it is entirely possible that everything was done on-line...
* Video link application
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/october-2015/mae002-eng.pdf
* Witness's
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/october-2015/dis002-eng.pdf
* The written witness statements
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/october-2015/ws001-eng.pdf
* Hearsay
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/october-2015/he001-eng.pdf
* Bad Character Evidence
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/october-2015/ebc003-eng.pdf
* Traffic Offences
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/october-2015/rtp003-eng.pdf
These are the reason I believe that all of the statements were read out in court and why they didn't appear.... Depending on which forms are filled in depends on what is allowed or not allowed in court (imo)
So a traffic offence form has never been filled in.. Bad Character evidence form was not filed in or applied for (imo)
There are many more forms, but I am just giving an idea on a theory as to why certain basics didn't happen in this case... Many of these forms are available in the PDF form which I have demonstrated, but many are word documents and there is not a PDF alternative to show you at the mo.... But if as the Police strategy suggests that many people filled their forms online at the Avon and Somerset Jo website, whats to say that their on-line forms are not the very forms that I am talking about here... Forms were you can give a witness statement without entering a court room...
Did someone fill in a form saying that they were DCI mark Luther??
Anyway... I have had another idea, which I am going to share soon...... I'll post again.. Don't forget that this is a theory and no accusations to any person living or dead is seen as fact.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg470437#msg470437
-
,.................
-
...................
-
oopsie theres seems to have been a disruption in proccedings
-
&%%6
-
Was notice to introduce "Bad Character Evidence" supplied to the court?
Was the application for this notice ever obtained??
Could the facts have been proven by the prosecution??
Is this the reason why the porn wasn't introduced as evidence, because they had no way in which to prove that this was a fact and this is what Dr Vincent Tabak did or enjoyed doing.. And as they didn't have the computers of Dr Vincent Tabak forensically tested by an independent expert, there was no way in proving for a fact , what was or what was not on Dr Vincent Tabak's computer... (imo)
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/october-2015/ebc003-eng.pdf
-
Hi Nine,
I've just been looking through your last posts and I've got admit that I'm completely confused.
I will attach copies of this application the application made by Dr Vincent Tabak and I believe there may be a way in which it is possible to change the outcome as it stands... i will quote from said document..
Is this genuinely something written by Tabak? Or is it something written by you from his point of view?
Am I the only one bemused by the last few posts.
-
I'll apologise for the long post before I start.....
Baz you don't need to ask me that question, it is obvious... Now the point of this is because, This entire exercise appears to be electronic....
What hard copies are there in evidence from this trial.... ??? All of the information that has been gathered and was used at trial was from computers, phones etc.... There was nothing physical in this case...
Dr Delaney explains his findings... which one would expect, Same for Lyndsey Lennen and Tanja Nickson... Tanja Nickson... Lynsday farmery uses a slide show if I remember correctly....
I have posted about Dr kelly Sheridan's article where she talks of fibre analysis and test on an ikea duvet, but she wasn't present at trial to tell us her findings...
Lyndsey Lennen in an article has told us about the 48 hour turn around of the physical evidence including fibres from the coat of the suspect... she has to mean Dr Vincent Tabak.... But where was the coat at trial? what exhibit number was this coat of Dr Vincent Tabak?
Shouldn't Dr Kelly Sheridan have appeared at trial as she is a fibre expert to tell the jury of her expertise and what HER findings were....
The photo's around the internet of this case tell us what...?? That Dr Vincent Tabak has changed... looks very different... The man was supposed to have lost weight not gained it....
The experts in any field we are supposed to trust, we believe that their greater knowledge will leads us to the truth, we have protocols etc to make sure that everything is above board...
But what was put in place in the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak?? We don't know.. As leonora has pointed out before, who identified the man on the Live Link as Dr Vincent Tabak??
Tanja Morson did not give any statements once Dr Vincent Tabak was arrested... Tanja Morson did not attend trial... She didn't identify him... His family didn't take the stand and only appeared on one day it seems and they have said nothing... We only see them walking across the road, we do not know if they actually went into the court room where the trial is taking place..
I point this out because from the oodles of court drawing I have seen, the Tabak family do not appear in any of them.. So how are we to know who was actually inside said court room??
If they have been told they may be called as witness's of this trial, they would have to wait outside and not be able to see any of the proceedings, and that could happen throughout the entire trial... They might not have seen the man whom took the stand and said that he was Dr Vincent Tabak and then told a story of how he apparently killed Joanna Yeates..
The Yeates didn't know who Dr Vincent Tabak was either... they saw him apparently via video link at The Old Bailey.. I found that strange that they attended what was a plea and management hearing...
Now we come to William Clegg... Did he meet Dr Vincent Tabak?? Did he know for sure that the man in the dock was Dr Vincent Tabak?? Or did he assume it was?? We expect our experts to follow protocols, but what if they don't... what if they cut corners.... What if he sent someone else to take a statement...
I believe that it would be possible to get the infomation needed from your client without actually talking to him... We have to remember that Dr Vincent Tabak didn't say anything... he made "NO Comment' interviews with the Police....
He signs an enhanced statement in September 2011 and the case then goes ahead... But what is this enhanced statement?? Was this statement electronic?? Was this statement physically signed by Dr Vincent Tabak?
Did Dr Vincent Tabak have a meeting and sign this enhanced statement?/ Or was it all electronic?? Who knows what Dr Vincent Tabak's signature looks like?? Who could confirm it??
Was each of these statements actually signed.... I don't know, but i am expected to believe someone whom is called an expert... Who physically collected the written statements from Dr Vincent Tabak?? Who meet with Dr Vincent Tabak of the people who represented him?
Before you think I'm accusing people of misconduct, lets remember that my opinion changes about this trial... I had come to the point of not knowing if this trial was actually real.... I have said on many occasions it all could be a farce....
If the people we see at a trial walk past a camera, does that mean that they are those people? The media may have identified those people as certain people , but are they? This trial could be part of a wider sting operation for all I know... And the like of Clegg, Lickley and Reddrop were just playing their part.. The media are the ones telling us about this trial, and tweeting about this trial, which i myself cannot believe how a whole criminal trial was allowed to be tweeted from a court room....
If the trial was about something else, then the media would not be allowed to report on this.... And maybe that is why they do not talk about the Dr Vincent Tabak Case... So there are other options that can be applied to this case... Therefore I am asking, who verified anything in this trial??
As it is clearly possible for anyone to fill out forms (I will post on that)...
We are told that the Police applied for a warrant, well... Was the warrant granted?? You can sit at a computer and physically apply for it... But who signed and sealed it??
There was mountains of evidence moved from the property being 44. Canygne Road, but did they have a warrant to move all of that evidence,... And did they need to strip the Flat of everything?? Only items that may relate to the crime are usually taken, but there are hundreds of items taken... Hoiw long would that take to turn around the forensics on all of those items??
Now I have just downloaded a search warrant and it bring fore and interesting point....
1. Complete the box above and boxes 1 to 8 below. If you use an electronic version of this form, the boxes will expand. If you use a paper version and need more space, you may attach extra sheets.
2. Complete the declaration in box 9 and the authorisation in box 10.
3. Attach the draft warrant(s) you are asking the court to issue.
4. Send or deliver a copy of the completed form and draft warrant(s) to the court. You may send them by secure email. Make sure the court knows if the application is urgent. Your time estimates will help the court to allow enough time to prepare for the hearing.
Then: 1) The main search power. Make sure the court has a copy of the legislation which allows it to issue the warrant(s) for which you are applying (the main search power), and any legislation which allows you to make this application if you are not a constable. If necessary, attach a copy of the legislation when you send or deliver this form to the court.
(a) What legislation allows the court to issue the warrant(s) for which you are applying? This is the main search power.
(b) If you are not a constable, how does the legislation allow you to make this application?
What does it mean if you are NOT a Constable??? Anyone can apply?? So whom made the application??
10) Authorisation
I have reviewed this application and I authorise the applicant to make it.
Authorising officer’s name: ……………..…………………..…………..…………………………………..…
Rank or grade: ………………………………………..…………..…………………………………………..…
Signed:7 ……………………….…………………………………….………………….… [authorising officer]
Date: …………………………. Time: ………………………….
And more to the point who authorised it? And we then need to know was it a paper application or an electronic application?? And what was the signature on the bottom of this authorisation?? Who's was it?? Mickey Mouse??
Was the warrant granted? Everything in this case is so irregular... everything is the opposite of what it is supposed to be.... But the public aren't taking any notice...
They had so many civilian staff working this case, it is possible that anyone could have done anything.... People assumed roles, we know this... Civilian Andrew Mott has assumed the role of an SIO... he has assumed the role of a Forensics Officer, Brotherton assumed the role of Chaplain.... Who else assumed a role... It appeared that Clegg assumed the role of prosecutor in this case in the way he did not defend his client to the best of his ability..
You see, did someone assume the role of a high ranking Officer?/ we do not know... No Officer of any rank attended the trial and stood in the witness box, we were even told that DCI Mark Luther was in charge of this case.. And we know that to be untrue...
So if someone at the time of filing in these warrants assumed a role, does it mean that these warrants are invalid?? I would say so.... Nothing is corroborated in this case, it would appear and that is worrying.. Who filled in the forms?? Do we know, do we just assume that they are accurate?? Again I will say were these warrants granted??
I question this and the thoroughness of the defence, because if simple things like the application for bail was never made for Dr Vincent Tabak how can we know what other evidence was investigated by the defence, Was it robust enough?? Kelcey Hall has told us about clients getting a platinum serivce..
Speaking at the Law Society’s criminal law conference, Kelcey said there is a limit to what firms can be expected to do on legal aid rates: ‘We can’t supply a platinum level of service with base metal rates of pay.’ He suggested that firms be open with clients about how much the government pays and explain the constraints this puts on them.
And Dr Vincent Tabak was base metal.... So were they being slack?? I don't know.. But I do worry that everything that could be done for Dr Vincent Tabak to receive a fair trial wasn't (imo).. Did Dr Vincent Tabak receive good council?? I don't believe so... Were all the T's crossed and the I's dotted?? I cannot say... But I can say that the trial was a joke... A performance... And the evidence that was presented had already been in the domain of the public or media, via press reports, tweets forum posts or facebook posts, before the trial took place..(imo) So what new evidence came to trial to support the idea that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates??
None... Nothing zilch... And it is very possible that the entire trial was made up from these electronic forms/ messages/tweets/ etc... We do not know.... But we do know that NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE ever made it to trial.. Which is rather alarming...(imo)
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/legal-aid-equality-a-myth-says-solicitor-advocate-kelcey/65516.article
-
I will post in parts the entire contents from the Justice website and what forms are available online to fill in... then provide a link.... We know things change, and i want the information i have already posted to be in context, because in the future things may change...
Part 1..
___________________________________________________________________________________________
CourtsProcedure rulesCriminalFormsHome»Courts»Procedure rules»Criminal»Forms
Forms
On this page, you can –
read online or download the latest versions of the forms for use with the Criminal Procedure Rules
save a downloaded form and fill it in electronically, or print a form and fill it in by hand
Each form is listed under the Part of the Rules with which it is used.
General matters (including case management)
Preliminary proceedings
Custody and bail
Disclosure
Evidence
Trial
Sentencing
Confiscation and related proceedings
Appeal
Costs
Other proceedings
What happens to the information you give?
The forms for use with the Criminal Procedure Rules collect information required by the court for the purposes of criminal case management under the Rules and under other legislation.
Each form identifies the Criminal Procedure Rule and any other legislation that the court must apply: see the Rules and that other legislation for details.
The information that you give on a court form allows the court:
to make decisions about the preparation of the case for a trial or an appeal
to make a decision on an application or an appeal that you are making with that form, or on a response that you are making to an application or an appeal by somebody else.
The information that you give the court will be shared as the law requires, for example with the other parties to the case (and you may be required by the Rules and other legislation to give them that information yourself, for example by sending them a copy of the form: see the forms and Rules for instructions).
The information that you give the court will not be shared with anyone else or used for any purpose other than the purposes of the case unless that is allowed by law. For example, information is collected by HM Courts and Tribunals Service for statistical purposes and sometimes for the purposes of academic research.
The information that you give will be under the court’s control.
Part 5 of the Criminal Procedure Rules contains rules about applications to the court by parties to cases and by members of the public for the supply of information from court records: for details, see rules 5.7 and 5.8 and the other legislation listed in the notes to those rules.
Please remember that:
criminal cases are heard in public unless the court orders otherwise, so if your name or other information you give is referred to in a courtroom then it will become public in that way (unless the court orders otherwise).
criminal courts give reasons in public for their decisions, including their sentencing decisions, unless the court orders otherwise, so if your name or other information you give is referred to in the court’s decision then it will become public in that way (unless the court orders otherwise).
not all information given in public in criminal cases can be reported. For a list of reporting restrictions, see the rules in Part 6 of the Criminal Procedure Rules and the other legislation listed in the notes to those rules.
Any form that you send the court will be kept in the court’s records until those records are destroyed in accordance with sections 5 and 8 of the Public Records Act 1958. Lists of for how long courts keep records are published on GOV.UK.
A notice about the way in which HM Courts and Tribunals Service handles personal information is published on GOV.UK.
General matters (including case management)
Part 1 The overriding objective
There are no forms for use with this Part.
Part 2 Understanding and applying the Rules
There are no forms for use with this Part.
Part 3 Case management
Magistrates’ courts forms
-
Part 2......
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Part 3 Case management
Magistrates’ courts forms
Preparation for Trial in a Magistrates’ Court (Word 344kb, 7 pages) [cm001england-eng.doc]
Preparation for Trial in a Magistrates’ Court (PDF 249kb, 7 pages) [cm001england-eng.pdf]
Preparation for Trial in a Magistrates’ Court in Wales (English language edition) (Word 284KB) [cm001wales-eng.doc]
Preparation for Trial in a Magistrates’ Court in Wales (English language edition) (PDF 86KB) [cm001wales-eng.pdf]
Paratoi ar gyfer Treial mewn Llys Ynadon (Word 285kb, 9 pages) [cm001-cym.doc]
Paratoi ar gyfer Treial mewn Llys Ynadon (PDF 118kb, 9 pages) [cm001-cym.pdf]
Preparation for Trial in a Magistrates’ Court – 3 defendants (Word 503kb, 13 pages) [cm026-eng.doc]
Preparation for Trial in a Magistrates’ Court: notes for guidance (PDF 106kb, 4 pages) [cm001-notes-eng.pdf]
Case sent to the Crown Court for trial – case management questionnaire [cm025-eng.doc]
Llys y Goron- Achosion wedi’u hanfon i dreial [cm025-cym.doc]
Crown Court forms
Plea & Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH) introduction and guidance notes (PDF) [cm007-eng.pdf]
Plea & Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH) introduction to the online PTPH form (PDF) [cm007online-eng.pdf]
Plea & Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH) form – 1 defendant e-version (Word) [cm013.dot]
Plea & Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH) form – 2 defendants e-version (Word) [cm014.dot]
Plea & Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH) form – 3 defendants e-version (Word) [cm015.dot]
Plea & Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH) form – 4 defendants e-version (Word) [cm016.dot]
Plea & Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH) form – 5 defendants e-version (Word) [cm017.dot]
Plea & Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH) form – 6 defendants e-version (Word) [cm018.dot]
Plea & Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH) form – 7 defendants e-version (Word) [cm019.dot]
Plea & Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH) form – 8 defendants e-version (Word) [cm020.dot]
Plea & Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH) form – 9 defendants e-version (Word) [cm021.dot]
Plea & Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH) form – 10 defendants e-version (Word) [cm022.dot]
Plea & Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH) form – 1 defendant plain version (Word) [cm023.dot]
Ffurflen Gwrandawiad Paratoi ar Gyfer Treial a Phledio – 1 diffynnydd [cm023-cym.dot]
Plea & Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH) form – 1 defendant plain version for use in courts in Wales (English language edition) (Word) [cm023wales-eng.dot]
Plea & Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH) form – 2 to 5 defendants plain version (Word) [cm024.dot]
Ffurflen Gwrandawiad Paratoi ar Gyfer Treial a Phledio – 2 i 5 diffynnyddion [cm024-cym.dot]
Plea & Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH) form – 2 to 5 defendants plain version for use in courts in Wales (English language edition) (Word) [cm024wales-eng.dot]
Standard witness table (Word) [cm010-eng.doc]
Tabl Safonol ar Gyfer Tystion [cm010-cym.doc]
Standard witness table for use in courts in Wales (English language edition) (Word) [cm010wales-eng.doc]
Certificate of Readiness – Defence – edition 11-15 (Word 106kb, 2 pages) [cm012defence-eng.dot]
Tystysgrif Parodrwydd yr Amddiffyniad ar gyfer Treial [cm012amddiffyniad-cym.doc]
Certificate of Readiness – Prosecution – edition 11-15 (Word 95kb, 2 pages) [cm012prosecution-eng.dot]
Tystysgrif Parodrwydd yr Erlyniad ar gyfer Treial [cm012erlyniad-cym.doc]
Part 4 Service of documents
There are no forms for use with this Part.
Part 5 Forms and court records
There are no forms for use with this Part.
Part 6 Reporting, etc. restrictions
There are no forms for use with this Part.
-
part3...
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Preliminary proceedings
Part 7 Starting a prosecution in a magistrates’ court
Application for summons or warrant for arrest for alleged offence under Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 section 1, CrimPR 7.2(6) (Word 0.06mb, 5 pages) [sp001-eng.doc]
Cais am wŷs neu warant arestio ar gyfer trosedd honedig [sp001-cym.doc]
Part 8 Initial details of the prosecution case
There are no forms for use with this Part.
Part 9 Allocation and sending for trial
There are no forms for use with this Part.
Part 10 The indictment
Form of indictment (Word 23kb, 1 page) [ind001-eng.doc]
Form of indictment (PDF 8kb, 1 page) [ind001-eng.pdf]
Form of indictment (order for trial under section 17(2) of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004) (Word 32kb, 3 pages) [ind002-eng.doc]
Form of indictment (order for trial under section 17(2) of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004) (PDF 10kb, 3 pages) [ind002-eng.pdf]
Part 11 Deferred prosecution agreements
There are no forms for use with this Part.
Part 12 Discontinuing a prosecution
There are no forms for use with this Part.
Custody and bail
Part 13 Warrants for arrest, detention or imprisonment
There are no forms for use with this Part.
Part 14 Bail and custody time limits
Application to magistrates’ court to reconsider police bail, CrimPR 14.6 (Word 0.05mb) [bcl001-eng.doc]
Application to magistrates’ court to reconsider police bail, CrimPR 14.6 (PDF 0.03mb) [bcl001-eng.pdf]
Notice of application for court to consider bail, CrimPR 14.7 (Word 0.05mb) [bcl002-eng.doc]
Notice of application for court to consider bail, CrimPR 14.7 (PDF 0.03mb) [bcl002-eng.pdf]
Defendant’s application or appeal to the Crown Court after magistrates’ court bail decision, CrimPR 14.8 (Word 0.05mb) [bcl003-eng.doc]
Defendant’s application or appeal to the Crown Court after magistrates’ court bail decision, CrimPR 14.8 (PDF 0.03mb) [bcl003-eng.pdf]
Draft order for conditional bail with residence in EU member State, CrimPR 14.16 [bcl004-eng.doc]
Draft European supervision order certificate, CrimPR 14.16 [bcl005-eng.doc]
Application for conditional bail with residence in EU member State – notes for use with the forms of draft order and draft certificate, CrimPR 14.7 & 14.16 [bcl006-eng.pdf]
Application for extension of pre-charge bail, CrimPR 14.21 [bcl007-eng.doc]
Cais i ymestyn mechnïaeth cyn cyhuddo [bcl007-cym.doc]
Application for extension of pre-charge bail: confidential information supplement, CrimPR 14.21 [bcl008-eng.doc]
Cais i ymestyn mechnïaeth cyn cyhuddo: gwybodaeth gyfrinachol ychwanegol [bcl008-cym.doc]
Response to application for extension of pre-charge bail, CrimPR 14.21 [bcl009-eng.doc]
Ymateb i gais i ymestyn mechnïaeth cyn cyhuddo [bcl009-cym.doc]
-
Part4...
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Disclosure
Part 15 Disclosure
Defence statement, CrimPR 15.4 (Word 39kb, 2 pages) [dis001-eng.doc]
Defence statement, CrimPR 15.4 (PDF 16kb, 2 pages) [dis001-eng.pdf]
Defence witness notice, CrimPR 15.4 (Word 56kb, 2pages) [dis002-eng.doc]
Defence witness notice, CrimPR 15.4 (PDF 38kb, 2 pages) [dis002-eng.pdf]
Defendant's application for prosecution disclosure, CrimPR 15.5 (Word 36kb, 2 pages) [dis003-eng.doc]
Defendant's application for prosecution disclosure, CrimPR 15.5 (PDF 36kb, 2 pages) [dis003-eng.pdf]
Evidence
Part 16 Written witness statements
Written witness statement, CrimPR 16.2 (Word 30kb, 1 page) [ws001-eng.doc]
Written witness statement, CrimPR 16.2 (PDF 18kb, 1 page) [ws001-eng.pdf]
Prosecutor’s notice to defendant of proof by written witness statement, CrimPR 16.4 (Word 53kb, 2 pages) [ws002-eng.doc]
Prosecutor’s notice to defendant of proof by written witness statement, CrimPR 16.4 (Word 53kb, 2 pages) (PDF 39kb, 2 pages) [ws002-eng.pdf]
Part 17 Witness summonses, warrants and orders
Application for a witness summons, CrimPR 17.3, 17.4 (Word 56kb, 3 pages) [swo001-eng.doc]
Application for a witness summons, CrimPR 17.3, 17.4 (PDF 54kb, 3 pages) [swo001-eng.pdf]
Application for a witness summons: confidential information relating to another person, CrimPR 17.3, 17.4, 17.5 (Word 63kb, 4 pages) [swo002-eng.doc]
Application for a witness summons: confidential information relating to another person, CrimPR 17.3, 17.4, 17.5 (PDF 50kb, 4 pages) [swo002-eng.pdf]
Part 18 Measures to assist a witness or defendant to give evidence
Application for a special measures direction, CrimPR 18.3, 18.10 (Word 29kb, 8 pages) [mae001-eng.doc]
Application for a special measures direction, CrimPR 18.3, 18.10 (PDF 38kb, 8 pages) [mae001-eng.pdf]
Application for a witness to give evidence by live link, CrimPR 18.3, 18.24 (Word 64kb, 4 pages) [mae002-eng.doc]
Application for a witness to give evidence by live link, CrimPR 18.3, 18.24 (PDF 49KB, 4 pages) [mae002-eng.pdf]
Part 19 Expert evidence
There are no forms for use with this Part.
Part 20 Hearsay evidence
Notice to introduce hearsay evidence, CrimPR 20.2 (Word 42kb, 2 pages) [he001-eng.doc]
Notice to introduce hearsay evidence, CrimPR 20.2 (PDF 27.5kb, 2 pages) [he001-eng.pdf]
Application to exclude hearsay evidence after notice, CrimPR 20.3 (Word 42kb, 2 pages) [he002-eng.doc]
Application to exclude hearsay evidence after notice, CrimPR 20.3 (PDF 20.7kb, 2 page) [he002-eng.pdf]
Application to exclude hearsay evidence where no notice required, CrimPR 20.3 (Word 40kb, 2 pages) [he003-eng.doc]
Application to exclude hearsay evidence where no notice required, CrimPR 20.3 (PDF 20.7kb, 2 pages) [he003-eng.pdf]
Part 21 Evidence of bad character
Application to introduce evidence of a non-defendant’s bad character, CrimPR 21.3(2) (Word 42kb, 2 pages) [ebc001-eng.doc]
Application to introduce evidence of a non-defendant’s bad character, CrimPR 21.3(2) (PDF 20.7kb, 2 pages) [ebc001-eng.pdf]
Notice objecting to evidence of a non-defendant’s bad character, CrimPR 21.3(4) (Word 42kb, 2 pages) [ebc002-eng.doc]
Notice objecting to evidence of a non-defendant’s bad character, CrimPR 21.3(4) (PDF 20.0kb, 2 pages) [ebc002-eng.pdf]
Notice to introduce evidence of a defendant’s bad character, CrimPR 21.4(2) (Word 42kb, 2 pages) [ebc003-eng.doc]
Notice to introduce evidence of a defendant’s bad character, CrimPR 21.4(2) (PDF 21kb, 2 pages) [ebc003-eng.pdf]
Application to exclude evidence of a defendant’s bad character, CrimPR 21.4(5) (Word 40kb, 2 pages) [ebc004-eng.doc]
Application to exclude evidence of a defendant’s bad character, CrimPR 21.4(5) (PDF 20.6kb, 2 pages) [ebc004-eng.pdf]
-
part 5..
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Part 22 Evidence of a complainant’s previous sexual behaviour
There are no forms for use with this Part.
Part 23 Restriction on cross-examination by a defendant
Prosecutor’s notice of prohibition against cross-examination by defendant in person (Word 188kb, 7 pages) [rce001-eng.doc]
Prosecutor’s notice of prohibition against cross-examination by defendant in person (PDF, 7 pages) [rce001-eng.pdf]
Prosecutor’s application for order prohibiting cross-examination by defendant in person (Word 224kb, 9 pages) [rce002-eng.doc]
Prosecutor’s application for order prohibiting cross-examination by defendant in person (PDF, 9 pages) [rce002-eng.pdf]
Court’s notice of prohibition against cross-examination by defendant in person (Word 152kb, 5 pages) [rce003-eng.doc]
Court’s notice of prohibition against cross-examination by defendant in person (PDF, 5 pages) [rce003-eng.pdf]
Court’s notice of appointment of advocate (Word 76kb, 2 pages) [rce004-eng.doc]
Court’s notice of appointment of advocate (PDF, 2 pages) [rce004-eng.pdf]
Trial
Part 24 Trial and sentence in a magistrates’ court
Statutory declaration of ignorance of proceedings, CrimPR 24.17 (Word 57kb, 2 pages) [tsm001-eng.doc]
Statutory declaration of ignorance of proceedings, CrimPR 24.17 (PDF 41kb, 2 pages) [tsm001-eng.pdf]
Datganiad Statudol, CrimPR 24.17 (Word 59kb, 2 pages) [tsm001-cym.doc]
Datganiad Statudol, CrimPR 24.17 (PDF 52kb, 2 pages) [tsm001-cym.pdf]
Part 25 Trial and sentence in the Crown Court
There are no forms for use with this Part.
Part 26 Jurors
Notice to jurors, CrimPR 26.3 (PDF 1.2Mb, 3 pages) [j001-eng.pdf]
Pwysig i rheithiwr. CrimPR.26.3 ((PDF 1.9Mb, 6 pages) [j001-cym.pdf]
Part 27 Retrial after acquittal
There are no forms for use with this Part.
Sentencing
Part 28 Sentencing procedures in special cases
There are no forms for use with this Part.
Part 29 Road traffic penalties
Statutory declaration under s. 72(2), Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, CrimPR 29.4 (Word 40kb, 1 page) [rtp002-eng.doc]
Statutory declaration under s. 72(2), Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, CrimPR 29.4 (PDF 24.5kb, 1 page) [rtp002-eng.pdf]
Statutory declaration under s. 73(2), Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, CrimPR 29.4 (Word 45kb, 2 pages) [rtp003-eng.doc]
Statutory declaration under s. 73(2), Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, CrimPR 29.4 (PDF 26.1kb, 2 pages) [rtp003-eng.pdf]
Notice of appeal against recognition of foreign driving disqualification, CrimPR 29.6 (Word 50kb, 2 pages) [rtp001-eng.doc]
Notice of appeal against recognition of foreign driving disqualification, CrimPR 29.6 (PDF 22.0kb, 2 pages) [rtp001-eng.pdf]
Part 30 Enforcement of fines and other orders for payment
There are no forms for use with this Part.
Part 31 Behaviour orders
Notice of intention to apply, and application, for a serious crime prevention order, CrimPR 31.3 (Word 46kb, 4 pages) [cbo001-eng.doc]
Notice of intention to apply, and application, for a serious crime prevention order, CrimPR 31.3 (PDF 24.3kb, 4 pages) [cbo001-eng.pdf]
Notice of intention to apply, and application, for a criminal behaviour order, CrimPR 31.3 (Word 42kb, 3 pages) [cbo002-eng.doc]
Notice of intention to apply, and application, for a criminal behaviour order, CrimPR 31.3 (PDF 24.3kb, 3 pages) [cbo002-eng.pdf]
Application to vary or revoke a behaviour order, CrimPR 31.5 [cbo003-eng.doc]
Application to vary or revoke a behaviour order, CrimPR 31.5 [cbo003-eng.pdf]
Part 32 Breach, revocation and amendment of community and other orders
There are no forms for use with this Part.
Confiscation and related proceedings
Part 33 Confiscation and related proceedings
There are no forms for use with this Part.
Appeal
Part 34 Appeal to the Crown Court
Appeal notice, CrimPR 34.3 (Word 53kb, 2 pages) [acc001-eng.doc]
Appeal notice, CrimPR 34.3 (PDF 32kb, 2 pages) [acc001-eng.pdf]
Appeal notice (easy read version), CrimPR 34.3 (Word 4Mb, 8 pages) [acc003-eng.doc]
Appeal notice (easy read version), CrimPR 34.3 (pdf, 8 pages) [acc003-eng.pdf]
Notice abandoning an appeal, CrimPR 34.9 (Word 32kb, 2 pages) [acc002-eng]
Notice abandoning an appeal, CrimPR 34.9 (PDF, 2 pages) [acc002-eng.pdf]
Part 35 Appeal to the High Court by case stated
Application to magistrates’ court or Crown Court to state a case for an appeal to the High Court, CrimPR 35.2 (Word 45kb, 2 pages) [ahc001-eng.doc]
Application to magistrates’ court or Crown Court to state a case for an appeal to the High Court, CrimPR 35.2 (PDF, 2 pages) [ahc001-eng.pdf]
-
Part 6...
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Part 36 Appeal to the Court of Appeal: general rules
Notice of abandonment of proceedings in the Court of Appeal, CrimPR 36.13 (CAO Form A) (Word 47kb, 2 pages) [form-a(cpr)-eng.doc]
Notice of abandonment of proceedings in the Court of Appeal, CrimPR 36.13 (CAO Form A) (PDF 34.5kb, 2 pages) [form-a(cpr)-eng.pdf]
Notice of abandonment of proceedings instituted under s.9(11) Criminal Justice Act, 1987, s.35(1) Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 or s.47(1) Criminal Justice Act 2003, CrimPR 65.13(3) (CAO Form A, Prep) (Word 47kb, 1 page) [form-a(prep)-eng.doc]
Notice of abandonment of proceedings instituted under s.9(11) Criminal Justice Act, 1987, or s.35(1) Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act, 1996, or s.47(1) Criminal Justice Act 2003, CrimPR 65.13(3) (CAO Form A, Prep) (PDF 22kb, 1 page) [form-a(prep)-eng.pdf]
Notice of abandonment of proceedings instituted under s.58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, CrimPR 36.13 (CoA Form A (Pros)) (Word 46kb, 1 page) [form-a(pros)-eng.doc]
Notice of abandonment of proceedings instituted under s.58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, CrimPR 36.13 (CoA Form A (Pros)) (PDF 27.5kb, 1 page) [form-a(pros)-eng.pdf]
Part 37 Appeal to the Court of Appeal against ruling at preparatory hearing
Notice and grounds of appeal, or application for permission to appeal, against ruling(s) made at a preparatory hearing, CrimPR 37.3 (CAO Form NG (Prep)) (Word 77kb, 4 pages) [form-ng(prep)-eng.doc]
Notice and grounds of appeal, or application for permission to appeal, against ruling(s) made at a preparatory hearing, CrimPR 37.3 (CAO Form NG (Prep)) (PDF 36kb, 4 pages) [form-ng(prep)-eng.pdf]
Respondent’s notice and grounds of opposition to appeal against ruling(s) made at a preparatory hearing, CrimPR 37.5 (CAO form RN(Prep)) (Word 60kb, 3 pages) [form-rn(prep)-eng.doc]
Respondent’s notice and grounds of opposition to appeal against ruling(s) made at a preparatory hearing, CrimPR 37.5 (CAO form RN(Prep)) (PDF 88kb, 3 pages) [form-rn(prep)-eng.pdf]
Part 38 Appeal to the Court of Appeal against ruling adverse to prosecution
Notice and grounds of appeal, or application for permission to appeal, under s.58 Criminal Justice Act 2003, CrimPR 38.4 (CAO Form NG (Pros)) (Word 64kb, 3 pages) [form-ng(pros)-eng.doc]
Notice and grounds of appeal, or application for permission to appeal, under s.58 Criminal Justice Act 2003, CrimPR 38.4 (CAO Form NG (Pros)) (PDF 42.8kb, 3 pages) [form-ng(pros)-eng.pdf]
Respondent’s notice and grounds of opposition to appeal under s.58 Criminal Justice Act 2003, CrimPR 38.7 (CAO Form RN (Pros)) (Word 61kb, 2 pages) [form-rn(pros)-eng.doc]
Respondent’s notice and grounds of opposition to appeal under s.58 Criminal Justice Act 2003, CrimPR 38.7 (CAO Form RN (Pros)) (PDF 37.1kb, 2 pages) [form-rn(pros)-eng.pdf]
Part 39 Appeal to the Court of Appeal about conviction or sentence
Notice and grounds of appeal, or application for permission to appeal, against conviction or sentence, CrimPR 39.3 (CAO Form NG) (Word 120kb, 7 pages) [form-ng-eng.doc]
Notice and grounds of appeal, or application for permission to appeal, against conviction or sentence, CrimPR 39.3 (CAO Form NG) (PDF 129kb, 7 pages) [form-ng-eng.pdf]
Respondent’s notice and grounds of opposition to appeal against conviction or sentence, CrimPR 39.6 (CAO Form RN) (Word 54kb, 3 pages) [form-rn-eng.doc]
Respondent’s notice and grounds of opposition to appeal against conviction or sentence, CrimPR 39.6 (CAO Form RN) (PDF 37.2kb, 3 pages) [form-rn-eng.pdf]
Notice of application for bail, CrimPR 39.8 (CAO Form B) (Word 51kb, 2 pages) [form-b(cpr)-eng.doc]
Notice of application for bail, CrimPR 39.8 (CAO Form B) (PDF 30.5kb, 2 pages) [form-b(cpr)-eng.pdf]
Recognizance of appellant’s surety, CrimPR 39.9 (Word 45kb, 1 page) [cacs015-eng.doc]
Recognizance of appellant’s surety, CrimPR 39.9 (PDF 34kb, 1 page) [cacs015-eng.pdf]
Recognizance of appellant’s surety pending re-trial, CrimPR 39.9 (Word 45kb, 1 page) [cacs016-eng.doc]
Recognizance of appellant’s surety pending re-trial, CrimPR 39.9 (PDF 34kb, 1 page) [cacs016-eng.pdf]
Notice of application for a witness order and / or permission to call a witness, CrimPR 39.3, 39.7 (CAO Form W) (Word 49kb, 2 pages) [form-w-eng.doc]
Notice of application for a witness order and / or permission to call a witness, CrimPR 39.3, 39.7 (CAO Form W) (PDF, 2 pages) [form-w-eng.pdf]
Notice and grounds of appeal, or application for permission to appeal, against a minimum term set or reviewed by the High Court, CrimPR 39.3 (CAO Form NG(MT)) (Word 93kb, 4 pages) [form-ng(mt)-eng.doc]
Notice and grounds of appeal, or application for permission to appeal, against a minimum term set or reviewed by the High Court, CrimPR 39.3 (CAO Form NG(MT)) (PDF 106kb. 4 page) [form-ng(mt)-eng.pdf]
Notice and grounds of appeal, or application for permission to appeal, against a sentence review decision, CrimPR 39.3 (CAO Form NG(RD)) (Word 115kb, 6 pages) [form-ng(rd)-eng.doc]
Notice and grounds of appeal, or application for permission to appeal, against a sentence review decision, CrimPR 39.3 (CAO Form NG(RD)) (PDF 125kb. 6 page) [form-ng(rd)-eng.pdf]
Notice and grounds of appeal, or application for permission to appeal, in relation to a serious crime prevention order under s.24 Serious Crime Act 2007, CrimPR 39.3 (CAO Form NG(SCPO)) (PDF 123kb, 6 pages) [form-ng(scpo)-eng.pdf]
Respondent’s notice and grounds of opposition to appeal in relation to a serious crime prevention order under s.24 Serious Crime Act 2007, CrimPR 39.6 (CAO Form RN(SCPO)) (Word 55kb, 2 pages) [form-rn(scpo)-eng.doc]
Respondent’s notice and grounds of opposition to appeal in relation to a serious crime prevention order under s.24 Serious Crime Act 2007, CrimPR 39.6 (CAO Form RN (SCPO)) (PDF 37.2kb, 2 pages) [form-rn(scpo)-eng.pdf]
Part 40 Appeal to the Court of Appeal about reporting or public access restriction
Notice of application for permission to appeal about reporting or public access restriction, CrimPR 40.3 (CAO Form NG(159)) (Word 57kb, 3 pages) [form-ng(159)-eng.doc]
Notice of application for permission to appeal about reporting or public access restriction, CrimPR 40.3 (CAO Form NG(159)) (PDF 80.8kb, 3 pages) [form-ng(159)-eng.pdf]
Respondent’s notice and grounds of opposition to appeal about reporting or public access restriction, CrimPR Rule 40.6 (CAO Form RN(159)) (PDF 38kb, 2 pages) [form-rn(159)-eng.pdf]
Part 41 Reference to the Court of Appeal of point of law or unduly lenient sentencing
There are no forms for use with this Part.
-
Part 7....
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Part 42 Appeal to the Court of Appeal in confiscation and related proceedings
Notice of application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, CrimPR 42.10 (Word 49kb, 2 pages) [form-poca5-eng.doc]
Notice of application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, CrimPR 42.10 (PDF 24kb, 2 pages) [form-poca5-eng.pdf]
Notice and grounds of application for leave to appeal, and appeal, about confiscation under s.31 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, CrimPR 42.11 (Word 47kb, 5 pages) [form-poca1-eng.doc]
Notice and grounds of application for leave to appeal, and appeal, about confiscation under s.31 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, CrimPR 42.11 (PDF 88.3kb, 5 pages) [form-poca1-eng.pdf]
Respondent’s notice and grounds of opposition to appeal about confiscation under s.31 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, CrimPR 42.12 (Word 64kb, 3 pages) [form-poca2-eng.doc]
Respondent’s notice and grounds of opposition to appeal about confiscation under s.31 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, CrimPR 42.12 (PDF 77kb, 3 pages) [form-poca2-eng.pdf]
Notice and grounds of application for leave to appeal and appeal about compliance, restraint or receivership decision under ss.13B, 43 or 65 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, CrimPR 42.15 (Word 64kb, 6 pages) [form-poca3-eng.doc]
Notice and grounds of application for leave to appeal and appeal about compliance, restraint or receivership decision under ss.13B, 43 or 65 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, CrimPR 42.15 (PDF 84.3kb, 6 pages) [form-poca3-eng.pdf]
Respondent’s notice and grounds of opposition to appeal about compliance, restraint or receivership decision under ss.13B, 43 or 65 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, CrimPR 42.16 (Word 64kb, 6 pages) [form-poca4-eng.doc]
Respondent’s notice and grounds of opposition to appeal about compliance, restraint or receivership decision under ss.13B, 43 or 65 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, CrimPR 42.16 (PDF 72.1kb, 6 pages) [form-poca4-eng.pdf]
Part 43 Appeal or reference to the Supreme Court
Notice of application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, CrimPR 43.2 (CAO Form SC) (Word 78kb, 3 pages) [form-sc-eng.doc]
Notice of application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, CrimPR 43.2 (CAO Form SC) (PDF 80kb, 3 pages) [form-sc-eng.pdf]
Recognizance of defendant's surety on appeal to the Supreme Court, CrimPR 43.4 (PDF 13kb, 1 page) [arsc002-eng.pdf]
Part 44 Request to the European Court for a preliminary ruling
There are no forms for use with this Part.
Costs
Part 45 Costs
Application for a wasted, etc. costs order under CrimPR 45.8, 45.9 or 45.10 (Word 46kb, 2 pages) [costs002-eng.doc]
Application for a wasted, etc. costs order under CrimPR 45.8, 45.9 or 45.10 (PDF 49kb, 2 pages) [costs002-eng.pdf]
Appellant’s notice on costs appeal to a Costs Judge, CrimPR 45.12 (Word 67kb, 3 pages) [costs001-eng.doc]
Appellant’s notice on costs appeal to a Costs Judge, CrimPR 45.12 (PDF 64kb, 3 pages) [costs001-eng.pdf]
Other proceedings
Part 46 Representatives
Application by person with legal aid to change solicitor (Word 164kb, 8 pages) [rep001-eng.doc]
Application by person with legal aid to change solicitor (PDF, 8 pages) [rep001-eng.pdf]
Part 47 Investigation orders and warrants
Investigation orders
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
Application for a production order under PACE Schedule 1, paragraph 4, CrimPR 47.10 (special procedure material; first set of access conditions) (Word 0.09mb, 11 pages) [iw004-eng.doc]
Application for a production order under PACE Schedule 1, paragraph 4, CrimPR 47.10 (excluded or special procedure material; second set of access conditions) (Word 0.09mb, 11 pages) [iw005-eng.doc]
Notice of application for a PACE production order, CrimPR 47.10 (Word 0.05mb, 3 pages) [iw006-eng.doc]
Terrorism Act 2000
Application for a production order and order to grant entry under TA Schedule 5, paragraph 5, CrimPR 47.12 (Word 0.09mb, 12 pages) [iw009-eng.doc]
Notice of application for a TA production order, CrimPR 47.12 (Word 0.04mb, 3 pages) [iw010-eng.doc]
Application for a disclosure order under TA Schedule 5A, CrimPR 47.13 (Word 0.09mb, 10 pages) [iw029-eng.doc]
Notice of application for a TA disclosure order, CrimPR 47.13 (Word 0.05mb, 3 pages) [iw030-eng.doc]
Application for an explanation order under TA Schedule 5, paragraph 13, CrimPR 47.14 (Word 0.08mb, 8 pages) [iw012-eng.doc]
Notice of application for a TA explanation order, CrimPR 47.14 (Word 0.04mb, 2 pages) [iw013-eng.doc]
Application for a customer information order under TA Schedule 6, paragraph 1, CrimPR 47.15 (Word 0.08mb, 8 pages) [iw014-eng.doc]
Notice of application for a TA customer information order, CrimPR 47.15 (Word 0.04mb, 2 pages) [iw015-eng.doc]
Application for an account monitoring order under TA Schedule 6A, paragraph 2, CrimPR 47.16 (Word 0.08mb, 8 pages) [iw016-eng.doc]
Notice of application for a TA account monitoring order, CrimPR 47.16 (Word 0.04mb, 2 pages) [iw017-eng.doc]
-
Part 8...
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
Application for a production order and order to grant entry under POCA sections 345 and 347, CrimPR 47.18 (Word 0.1mb, 11 pages) [iw018-eng.doc]
Notice of application for a POCA production order, CrimPR 47.18 (Word 0.04mb, 2 pages) [iw019-eng.doc]
Application for a disclosure order under POCA section 357, CrimPR 47.20 (Word 0.09mb, 10 pages) [iw021-eng.doc]
Notice of application for a POCA disclosure order, CrimPR 47.20 (Word 0.04mb, 3 pages) [iw022-eng.doc]
Application for a further information order under POCA section 339ZH, CrimPR 47.20 (Word 0.03mb, 3 pages) [iw031-eng.doc]
Application for a customer information order under POCA section 363, CrimPR 47.21 (Word 0.09mb, 10 pages) [iw023-eng.doc]
Notice of application for a POCA customer information order, CrimPR 47.21 (Word 0.04mb, 3 pages) [iw024-eng.doc]
Application for an account monitoring order under POCA section 370, CrimPR 47.22 (Word 0.09mb, 9 pages) [iw025-eng.doc]
Notice of application for a POCA account monitoring order, CrimPR 47.22 (Word 0.04mb, 2 pages) [iw026-eng.doc]
Investigation warrants
Investigation warrants
Application for search warrant under s.8 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, CrimPR 47.28 (Word 0.12mb, 10 pages) [iw001-eng.doc]
Application for search warrant under s.8 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Welsh language edition, CrimPR 47.28 (Word 0.12mb, 10 pages) [iw001-cym.doc]
Application for search warrant under s.2 Criminal Justice Act 1987, CrimPR 47.29 (Word 0.08mb, 7 pages) [iw002-eng.doc]
Application for search warrant under s.2 Criminal Justice Act 1987 Welsh language edition, CrimPR 47.29 (Word 0.08mb, 7 pages) [iw002-cym.doc]
Application for a search warrant under PACE Schedule 1, paragraph 12, CrimPR 47.30 (special procedure material; first set of access conditions) (Word 0.1mb, 13 pages) [iw007-eng.doc]
Application for a search warrant under PACE Schedule 1, paragraph 12, CrimPR 47.30 (excluded or special procedure material; second set of access conditions) (Word 0.1mb, 13 pages) [iw008-eng.doc]
Application for a search warrant under TA Schedule 5, paragraph 11, CrimPR 47.31 (Word 0.09mb, 11 pages) [iw011-eng.doc]
Application for a search warrant under POCA section 352, CrimPR 47.32 (Word 0.09mb, 10 pages) [iw020-eng.doc]
Application for search warrant under ss.15 & 16 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, CrimPR 47.34 (Word 0.11mb, 10 pages) [iw003-eng.doc]
Application for search warrant under ss.15 & 16 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Welsh language edition, CrimPR 47.34 (Word 0.10mb, 10 pages) [iw003-cym.doc]
Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 application
Supplement to application for a search warrant or production order under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 section 16, CrimPR 47.6, 47.10, 47.26, 47.28 & 47.30 (Word 0.05mb, 2 pages) [iw027-eng.doc]
Criminal Justice (European Investigation Order) Regulations 2017 application
Application for a European investigation order under regulations 6, 11 & 15 – 19, Criminal Justice (European Investigation Order) Regulations 2017, CrimPR 47.60 & 47.61 (Word 0.08mb, 8 pages) [iw028-eng.doc]
Investigation warrants
Application for search warrant under s.8 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, CrimPR 47.28 (Word 0.12mb, 10 pages) [iw001-eng.doc]
Application for search warrant under s.8 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Welsh language edition, CrimPR 47.28 (Word 0.12mb, 10 pages) [iw001-cym.doc]
Application for search warrant under s.2 Criminal Justice Act 1987, CrimPR 47.29 (Word 0.08mb, 7 pages) [iw002-eng.doc]
Application for search warrant under s.2 Criminal Justice Act 1987 Welsh language edition, CrimPR 47.29 (Word 0.08mb, 7 pages) [iw002-cym.doc]
Application for a search warrant under PACE Schedule 1, paragraph 12, CrimPR 47.30 (special procedure material; first set of access conditions) (Word 0.1mb, 13 pages) [iw007-eng.doc]
Application for a search warrant under PACE Schedule 1, paragraph 12, CrimPR 47.30 (excluded or special procedure material; second set of access conditions) (Word 0.1mb, 13 pages) [iw008-eng.doc]
Application for a search warrant under TA Schedule 5, paragraph 11, CrimPR 47.31 (Word 0.09mb, 11 pages) [iw011-eng.doc]
Application for a search warrant under POCA section 352, CrimPR 47.32 (Word 0.09mb, 10 pages) [iw020-eng.doc]
Application for search warrant under ss.15 & 16 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, CrimPR 47.34 (Word 0.11mb, 10 pages) [iw003-eng.doc]
Application for search warrant under ss.15 & 16 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Welsh language edition, CrimPR 47.34 (Word 0.10mb, 10 pages) [iw003-cym.doc]
Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 application
Supplement to application for a search warrant or production order under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 section 16, CrimPR 47.6, 47.10, 47.26, 47.28 & 47.30 (Word 0.05mb, 2 pages) [iw027-eng.doc]
Criminal Justice (European Investigation Order) Regulations 2017 application
Application for a European investigation order under regulations 6, 11 & 15 – 19, Criminal Justice (European Investigation Order) Regulations 2017, CrimPR 47.60 & 47.61 (Word 0.08mb, 8 pages) [iw028-eng.doc]
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Every word document and pdf you can download... I can download it and you can down load it they are all links...
You can fill in the word document forms if you like....
With this case we do not know whether everything was done online... We do not know who filled in what and who signed what, we do not have these people telling us in court... We only have what the media has told us about this case and trial... And a Placid Dutchman suddenly deciding to plead guilty to Manslaughter in May 2011, when NO facts have been established by the prosecution.... No evidence connected Dr Vincent Tabak to this case at that point..
Why would a man of Dr Vincent Tabak's profession and standing suddenly decide to spill the beans?? He had already said that the DNA was planted basically... so he could have kept with that and not told us on the stand what he apparently did....
Nothing but the man on the stand puts Dr Vincent Tabak at the scene.... But I want to know was the man on the stand really Dr Vincent Tabak... Or just some civilian who assumed the role???
And as with the witness statement at trial... they were just read out and not by the witness's themselves... So how do we know that the contents of these statements are correct and true?? They could just be another form that was filled out online... Just like Avon and Somerset Police had at the time of this Investigation, an online form for witness's to give evidence to the Police....
But were the people who filled out these forms online for the Police really the person they claimed to be?? What evidence proved the form filler were say for instance Tanja Morson.... Or was it just someone online assuming the role of said person...
It just shows how dangerous it is to accept that someone is say Dr Vincent Tabak, for instance, without any verification of this....
And who verified that the people who wrote statements, were actually the people they said they were??
Nobody...(imo)
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/forms#Anchor3
-
I find it unbelievable and I would say impossible for a thorough Investigation into The Murder of Joanna Yeates was concluded in a matter of weeks... Without every avenue being Investigated and eliminated in this case..
I have posted the longest posts known to man and have been writing about this case 20 months on this forum... I have spent hours and hours not moving from my keyboard, cross referencing, the information i have come across...
So how can we accept the findings of this trial if every possible person connected to Joanna Yeates was NOT eliminated?? Not even her immediate friends and colleagues......
How can we accept that a Placid Dutchman whom did not know Joanna Yeates and had never met her decided to kill her... On a whim...
A Dutch National who had no Forensic Evidence connecting him to this Crime... No CCTV Footage of his Journey in that car that night between different Crime Scenes..... And the smallest window of opportunity known to man, to do it....
But it has been accepted...
Why...
Why and how was this even possible?? Why still does no-one speak of this Case.... It really is a question everyone should ask themselves...
-
Baz you don't need to ask me that question, it is obvious... Now the point of this is because, This entire exercise appears to be electronic....
I actually am genuinely confused by this. So when you say:
have obtained a copy of Dr Vincent Tabak's application for new representation..I will attach copies of this application the application made by Dr Vincent Tabak
Is that actually something Tabak has written? Because in it he claims to have said "Not guilty" but I have never heard him claim to have pleaded not guilty. I'm so confused by your postings at the moment... more so than usual.
-
The form for Bad Character Evidence to be introduced into trial.....
____________________________________________________________________________________________
NOTICE TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE OF A DEFENDANT’S
BAD CHARACTER
(Criminal Procedure Rules, rule 21.4(2))
This notice is given by [the prosecutor]
[ ……………………………………… (name of co-defendant)]
I want to introduce evidence of the bad character of ……………………………...… (defendant’s name) on the following ground(s) in the Criminal Justice Act 2003:
it is important explanatory evidence: s.101(1)(c).
it is relevant to an important matter in issue between that defendant and the prosecution: s.101(1)(d).
it has substantial probative value in relation to an important matter in issue between that defendant and a co-defendant: s.101(1)(e).
it is evidence to correct a false impression given by that defendant: s.101(1)(f).
that defendant has made an attack on another person’s character: s.101(1)(g).
How to use this form
1. Complete the boxes above and give the details required in the boxes below. If you use an electronic version of this form, the boxes will expand. If you use a paper version and need more space, you may attach extra sheets.
2. Sign and date the completed form.
3. Send a copy of the completed form to:
(a) the court, and
(b) each other party to the case.
Notes:
1. You must send this form so as to reach the recipients within the time prescribed by Criminal Procedure Rule 21.4(3) or (4). The court may extend that time limit, but if you are late you must explain why.
2. A party who objects to the introduction of the evidence must apply to the court under Criminal Procedure Rule 21.4(5) not more than 14 days after service of this notice.
1) Facts of the misconduct. If the misconduct is a previous conviction, explain whether you rely on (a) the fact of that conviction, or (b) the circumstances of that offence. If (b), set out the facts on which you rely.
2) How you will prove those facts, if in dispute. A party who objects to the introduction of the evidence must explain which, if any, of the facts set out above are in dispute. Explain in outline on what you will then rely to prove those facts, e.g. whether you rely on (a) a certificate of conviction, (b) another official record (and if so, which), or (c) other evidence (and if so, what).
3) Reasons why the evidence is admissible. Explain why the evidence is admissible, by reference to the provision(s) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 on which you rely.
4) Reasons for any extension of time required. If this notice is served late, explain why.
Signed: …………………………………………………………………...…. [prosecutor]
[co-defendant / co-defendant’s solicitor]
Date: ………………………….
____________________________________________________________________________________________
So where does the apparent porn watching come into this Bad Character Evidence?? We are told by the media which type of porn that Dr Vincent Tabak apparently liked to watch, yet there is NO Evidence that he did, just stories in the media about it.... It was never introduced into evidence making it NONE Evidence.....
How can it be explanatory evidence?? This Crime was always from day one NOT Sexually Motivated, there was no physical sexual assault committed... Dr Vincent Tabak did not rape Joanna Yeates... Joanna Yeates was not raped....
Yet a spurious connection has been made by the media about apparent images and what Dr Vincent Tabak liked to do, when it wasn't even introduced into evidence.... It could have come from anywhere....
There is nothing on this from that I can see which would relate to Dr Vincent Tabak.... It cannot be the reason of a false impression given by the defendant, because it doesn't relate to that... It was always used in terms that the Strangulation Porn was the reason that Dr Vincent Tabak attacked Joanna Yeates....
The prosecution must have known that this evidence of porn was weak, seeing as no person appeared in court or did a live interview about Dr Vincent Tabak's sexual preferences.... (Did someone fill in a form??)
So to even suggest to us that this porn was part of trial seems ridiculous to me.... The judge should have denied the application immediately, long before trial.... Not have it at a trial where jurors heard this.... This Bad Character Evidence should have been argued about behind closed doors... not the press telling us what they can now reveal.....
It wasn't relevant then, it wasn't proven then and the case is still the same today..... Who removed the hard-drive from any computers that Dr Vincent Tabak had access too? Who made a copy of said laptops/computer so the original hard-drive had not been compromised?? No Computer Expert appeared at trial for the prosecution, who explained how they had obtained the information from these hard-drives...
No Independant Computer expert appeared for the defence, to explain whether or not the computer evidence had been handled correctly...
So If we cannot prove the porn evidence, how can we prove that any of the evidence taken from Dr Vincent Tabak's laptop/computers had been extracted in the correct fashion..... Meaning the searches etc also could have been compromised...
Do we just take the Polices word on this, that the correct procedure were followed???
Dr Vincent Tabak had no prior Misconduct charges.... No previous convictions... not even a parking ticket.... No -one attended court or had made a statement to tell us of their experiences of Dr Vincent Tabak not being anything other than a Placid Dutchman...
So literally there wasn't any Bad Character evidence to give about this man... Yet they managed to get a whole population to believe in evidence that had not been proven and had not been introduced, when they wanted us all to be happy with the conviction of Dr Vincent Tabak....
The question has got to be.... Did the prosecution actually apply to introduce the Bad Character Evidence?? Or is it all made up of gossip in the media??
Just because the judge says he is satisfied that this crime had a sexual element to it.. doesn't make it so.... Nothing proved that it was... even the admission of a kiss, we have heard about doesn't make it sexually motivated... Anyone worth their salt could find a good argument against that....
Every time we kiss someone when we greet them or say goodbye isn't considered a sexual assault by any of us... Or more importantly "Sexually motivated"..... So why is Dr Vincent Tabak's apparent Kiss seen any differently?? Was it part of his culture to Kiss someone when you first meet them... We don't know... Was it something Dr Vincent Tabak did when he meet someone... We don't know that either....
But we have been allowed to believe the fact that Dr Vincent Tabak apparently kissed Joanna Yeates was a sexual assault and the Judge said: "I think there was a sexual element to this killing"
But how did the judge come to that conclusion without evidence to support it or introduced into evidence??
Is a Kiss enough to say that it was a sexual killing? Is the judge having an off day?? His comments are taken by everyone as supporting the idea that Dr Vincent Tabak was some kind of sexual deviant , especially with the reports in the media afterwards...
And in what context was this kiss given? Was it a greeting as I have suggested... Because if Dr Vincent Tabak's intention was to get sexual gratification from this assault, he could have threatened Joanna Yeates with an implement from the kitchen.. He could have raped her when she fell to the ground... He could have continued an assault on her at anytime up until he apparently placed her body in the car boot of, which he had over an hour to do this....
Yet he doesn't... Joanna Yeates is not raped.... So what evidence supports the idea that this was a sexually motivated crime other than media reports??
Because if it isn't a sexually motivated crime, as I believe it is not based on the evidence, what possible motive did Dr Vincent Tabak have to apparently go next door and kill his neighbour he had just meet for the first time that day??
Murder needs Motive... And this Case as it stands doesn't have any..... !! (imo)
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/october-2015/ebc003-eng.pdf
http://www.thelawpages.com/court-cases/Vincent-Tabak-7570-1.law
-
I actually am genuinely confused by this. So when you say:
Is that actually something Tabak has written? Because in it he claims to have said "Not guilty" but I have never heard him claim to have pleaded not guilty. I'm so confused by your postings at the moment... more so than usual.
And when at trial did Dr Vincent Tabak say that he had pleaded guilty to Manslaughter?? When at trial did Dr vincent Tabak say that the Live Link from apparently Long Lartin prison was him?? When was it established that Dr Vincent Tabak had entered this plea??
What evidence do we have of this plea???
Video links are not the best... If anyone has ever used facetime or skype they must be aware how the connection drops, and information is Missed.. Where you may hear someone talking , yet the image has disappeared.... I experience this regularly when I talk to family via these ways....
So were is the concrete evidence that it was in fact Dr Vincent Tabak who said those words via Live Link??
Why use Live Link... Why have this particular plea and management hearing at the Old Bailey under U20110387 who's number is that?? That person who is attached to that number does NOT have to be Dr Vincent Tabak... He could have assumed the role....
We have the media telling us that Dr Vincent Tabak has plead guilty to manslaughter... I personally would have wanted to hear this from his defence team... And I would have wanted Dr Vincent Tabak to verify at trial that he had already admitted he plead guilty to manslaughter and on the grounds he did this...
But again... there is no confirmation of this... The jury were told this information... But when Dr Vincent Tabak took the stand that question wasn't put to him.... Clegg didn't explain to the jury that his client had admitted manslaughter and his case was to prove it was Manslaughter and Not Murder....
This case has been about Intent!!... So you have a tainted jury basically because they already believe the defendant guilty, they just have to decide how guilty he is....
Clegg did not introduce into trial any mitigating evidence... He introduced nothing....
So why should we accept that the story Dr Vincent Tabak admitted to Manslaughter was true and right?? Why should we accept without the recording of him admitting this introduced to trial... So that the jury could see it was indeed Dr Vincent Tabak whom had stated this ....
There should be a video recording of Dr Vincent Tabak's Manslaughter Plea... But is there??
Should any of us have ever know that Dr Vincent Tabak pled guilty to Manslaughter before trial... I do not think so!!
So what evidence is there that the man that appeared at The Old Bailey and admitted to Manslaughter was in fact Dr Vincent Tabak... And what proof do we have that this Live Link worked perfectly?? The video of this plea of guilt was never entered into evidence at trial....
Just because you hear hooves doesn't mean that it's a horse... It could quiet easy be that Zebra that no-one brought into the equation... The only way to eliminate the Zebra, is to prove it is indeed a horse.... Or else you are left with doubt... And it is reasonable doubt if we are in a field full of Zebra's and there isn't a horse in sight...
-
I actually am genuinely confused by this. So when you say:
Is that actually something Tabak has written? Because in it he claims to have said "Not guilty" but I have never heard him claim to have pleaded not guilty. I'm so confused by your postings at the moment... more so than usual.
Why are you confused by my posts Baz??
Edit.. Baz.. My apologises..... I am doing what everyone does, I am assuming your name is Barry and you are English speaking, or that English is your first language... I am assuming that you are male... I am assuming you are of a certain age.... I do not know what nationality you are or anything.... I am assuming far too much
Would you please expand on the reasons you do not understand my posts and why you want me to explain....
Nine ?{)(**
-
Why are you confused by my posts Baz??
Let me make it simple. Did Vincent Tabak write that request for a change in representation? When did he write it? Where did you find it?
Edit.. Baz.. My apologises..... I am doing what everyone does, I am assuming your name is Barry and you are English speaking, or that English is your first language... I am assuming that you are male... I am assuming you are of a certain age....
All of those assumptions are accurate.
-
Let me make it simple. Did Vincent Tabak write that request for a change in representation? When did he write it? Where did you find it?
All of those assumptions are accurate.
But would you like to clarify... Because I am still left guessing what your age actually is... What certain age am I assuming you are??
* Am I assuming that you are an adult?
* Am I assuming you are in your 20's ?
* Am I assuming you are in your 30's ?
* Am I assuming you are in your 40's ?
* Am I assuming you are in your 50's ?
* Am I assuming you are in your 60's ?
Am I assuming that you are referring to my assumptions in your response or are you referring to the assumptions of the questions posed??
Did Vincent Tabak write that request for a change in representation? When did he write it? Where did you find it?
There needs to be clarity between us Baz.... So I still do not know whether...
Your name is Barry and you are English speaking, or that English is your first language... I am assuming that you are male... I am assuming you are of a certain age.
I'll put it more simply Baz... please answer each numbered question seperately..
(1) : Are you male or female?
(2): Is English your first lanugage
(3): What nationality are you??
(4): Are you an adult, over 21 years old?
(5): Is Baz your real name? Or just a user name?
(6): Do you ever allow someone else to type your responses for you?
You do not have to respond to the questions I pose.. but if we are to understand each other we need a basis on which to form our opinions... we need clarification.. Just as in the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak... Clarification was Missing... Basic information was Missing,...
If you chose to respond to the questions number each response please... If you don't know , please say so... If you are not at liberty to say leave blank...
-
But would you like to clarify... Because I am still left guessing what your age actually is... What certain age am I assuming you are??
* Am I assuming that you are an adult?
* Am I assuming you are in your 20's ?
* Am I assuming you are in your 30's ?
* Am I assuming you are in your 40's ?
* Am I assuming you are in your 50's ?
* Am I assuming you are in your 60's ?
Am I assuming that you are referring to my assumptions in your response or are you referring to the assumptions of the questions posed??
Did Vincent Tabak write that request for a change in representation? When did he write it? Where did you find it?
There needs to be clarity between us Baz.... So I still do not know whether...
I'll put it more simply Baz... please answer each numbered question seperately..
(1) : Are you male or female?
(2): Is English your first lanugage
(3): What nationality are you??
(4): Are you an adult, over 21 years old?
(5): Is Baz your real name? Or just a user name?
(6): Do you ever allow someone else to type your responses for you?
You do not have to respond to the questions I pose.. but if we are to understand each other we need a basis on which to form our opinions... we need clarification.. Just as in the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak... Clarification was Missing... Basic information was Missing,...
If you chose to respond to the questions number each response please... If you don't know , please say so... If you are not at liberty to say leave blank...
I’m now doing this on a phone so apologies if my formatting goes off the rails:
1) I am male. A cis male if you want me to be more specific.
2) English is my first and sadly only language. I did learn some German, French and Latin at school if you want more specifics.
3) I am British. English if you want to know more.
4) I am an adult over 21. In my thirties to be more precise.
5) Barry is my real name but everyone except my parents call me Baz. So it is both my name and my username.
6) No. I have no response typing flunkies. I have to do it all myself.
Is there anything else you’d like to know that has nothing to do with this? Income? Sexual orientation? Biggest fears?
Just in case you do, the answers are... not much, whoever is willing and snakes (and anything that looks like a snake out of the corner of my eye!!)
I have no idea what this has to do with whether Tabak wrote that thing you said he did or not. I suspect your unwillingness to answer this very simple question answers the question anyway. So will you actually answer now?
-
I’m now doing this on a phone so apologies if my formatting goes off the rails:
1) I am male. A cis male if you want me to be more specific.
2) English is my first and sadly only language. I did learn some German, French and Latin at school if you want more specifics.
3) I am British. English if you want to know more.
4) I am an adult over 21. In my thirties to be more precise.
5) Barry is my real name but everyone except my parents call me Baz. So it is both my name and my username.
6) No. I have no response typing flunkies. I have to do it all myself.
Is there anything else you’d like to know that has nothing to do with this? Income? Sexual orientation? Biggest fears?
Just in case you do, the answers are... not much, whoever is willing and snakes (and anything that looks like a snake out of the corner of my eye!!)
I have no idea what this has to do with whether Tabak wrote that thing you said he did or not. I suspect your unwillingness to answer this very simple question answers the question anyway. So will you actually answer now?
Thank you Baz for being so helpful.... I do not need to know your Income, your sexual orientation or your biggest fears as it is not relevant to me knowing if you understand what I may write, or how you may interpret what i may write...
(1): You may be a highly educated man...
I do not know
(2); you may be a journalist
I do not know
But those two questions make a difference, and will aid in determining what information you may feel you do not understand...
(3): You may be a person whom takes everything literally
I do not know
(4): I do not know if you understand humour
(5): I do not know if you are dyslexic
(6): I do not know what part of the country you come from
Peoples grasp and understanding of certain information could literally depend on their interpretation... As different as North and South and as different as a Horse or a Zebra... everything depends on interpretation... and at trial evidence... So the evidence that is presented at a trial has to be backed up... The statements that have been made need to be backed up... The images that are shown need proof of origin...
I must admit Baz... I have no education to speak of, which is obvious to everyone.. I have no official qualifications whatsoever... Which should make the questions I ask even more worrying, because If I can see this case is flim flam... everyone else who knows about the law should KNOW that it's flim flam...
And I come back to the same question again.... "Why does no-one speak of this case??"...
-
Baz...
If as I have tried to explain in my strange way that anyone can fill in forms electronically online, and information was collected electronically by Avon and Somerset Police online on their dedicated site, which no longer exists.. How do we know which person made said statements, if they were not followed up??
I am taking you at your word that you are the person you say you are, that is for arguments sake... But I don't know that the information you have given me would stand up in a court of law, unless I see you I do not know you are male, I do not know your age either... But for a forum it is ok, that i do not know this as fact....
But for a trial... I want the fact established and backed up.... And that is what is supposed to happen, clearly in the case of Dr Vincent Tabak it didn't...
i'll give you an example... Joanna Yeates is for all intense and purposes is a hetrosexual female... Her mother and father talk in documentaries about Greg being her boyfriend and how she had always remained friends with her ex- boyfriends.... (But is he her boyfriend in a literal sense?)
The trial did not establish anything we didn't really already know.... The Police never established whether or not Joanna Yeates was hetro-sexual or Bi- Sexual or Lesbian... Whether or not she had a normal sexual relationship with her partner... Whether her religious convictions prevented pre- marital sex...
Each aspect can change the Investigation into whom may have wanted Joanna Yeates dead... And whether or not it was intentional or accidental... Being called a professional lady by DS Mark Saunders early on in this investigation could have eluded to something else completely.. But because everything else was chucked in for good measure, that idea was soon spent...
Let me take DS Mark Saunders literally... And she was 'A" professional lady... then that idea of a sexual act gone wrong could resinate for the defence. And the complexion of the idea that it was sexually motivated would change, as evidence supported the idea... And the intention of an act would be different..
But no history of Joanna Yeates was given at trial.. So I am assuming that they never collected evidence of any history of Joanna yeates....
Ann Reddrop said something odd outside Bristol Crown Court... "She said something along the lines of And tried to cast Jo in an unfavourable light....
At trial Dr Vincent Tabak did nothing to cast any doubt on Joanna Yeates in anyway he did not portray her in any infavourable light.... But things were reported in the media and things were said on forum, twitter etc.... So who is Dr Vincent Tabak?? A Journalist?? A Member of the public.. Joe Blogs??
Was it the public on trial or the media??
What was real in this case and what wasn't?? We do not know... Just like I do not know the information you kindly shared with me is accurate and true... I for purposes of this response to your post am taking you on face value..
-
Maybe I haven't been clear in my posts... I thought I had .. I thought i had informed everyone that my posts were my opinion... i thought too much...
And that is part of myself.. i do over analyse everything... I do become self critical... I wonder if what i say will ever have any baring and whether or not it will ever make a difference... When someone responds to my posts, it makes me question...
It makes me question myself and not the person whom may have responded.. So its not that I want to take my bat home... Or that I don't want someone to have a difference of opinion as many may think so...
It is me questioning my own self and whether or not I have wasted countless hours trying to get people to look again at this case... Because if you cannot understand me Baz... Why would anyone else... We all know what evidence or lack of evidence was at trial and what the media have told us about this case,... But we do not know if what took place at trial lawful or real or true.... And unless someone who knows the law can explain what is wrong with this case, then we are forever left guessing... And I am for ever left frustrated, at getting no-where..
And I then come to the conclusion of why do I continue doing this.....
Edit.. Realistically Journalists shouldn't have accepted what was said... They shouldn't have accepted the gossip that went with this case especially after the trial... They know enough to be able to question the narrative and enough to investigate themselves....
I suppose I still live with the idea that there are real investigative journalists out there who make a name for themselves by questioning the narrative... Just like the journalist and the "Watergate Scandal".. I unfortunately am anticipating a major breakthrough and with the information many Journalist must have and know, and the knowledge of law of some journalist, i had hoped they would themselves question this case...
But everything appears to be on lockdown... everyone for a reason i am not aware of never really speaks... So i speak to myself on here.. And prove just why I am not a Lawyer or journalist in my approach to what I write....
And then get frustrated with myself wondering why it is I care.... And I care because as I said from the start I just like fair... That's all... nothing else.. I have learnt from this that the law stinks... I have learnt from this to trust no-one... I have learnt from this that it is people with influence that count... I have learnt from this that a small voice in the corner is just that... a small voice... It will always be a small voice when it is drowned out by the sound of a brass band...
-
Come on Nine, I answered every question you asked me without expecting personal information from you but you have still failed to answer my question:
Did Vincent Tabak write that request for a change of representation?
-
Come on Nine, I answered every question you asked me without expecting personal information from you but you have still failed to answer my question:
Did Vincent Tabak write that request for a change of representation?
You ask for clarification Baz, you want me to answer that question... Why have you not accepted what your eyes see, why have you not accepted the form, does a signature on the bottom not clarify it enough for you??
And I ask were was the clarification of people in this trial was also Baz... I ask why Clegg didn't get anyone to confirm their professional positions and qualifications and years of experience they had in the field they were purported to be in....
But If the defence didn't clarify the evidence for us... then why should I clarify the forms origin for you?? You know i have a connection to Holland... You know I am not a lawyer... You can decide either way in which the form came into existence... even though i have explained in my posts..... But... I will go with you on your question, and respond in the same way as the defence did..... By avoiding it......
maybe you should start asking the defence the questions you are prepared to ask me... And see where it gets you...
regards Nine ?{)(**
-
You ask for clarification Baz, you want me to answer that question... Why have you not accepted what your eyes see, why have you not accepted the form, does a signature on the bottom not clarify it enough for you??
And I ask were was the clarification of people in this trial was also Baz... I ask why Clegg didn't get anyone to confirm their professional positions and qualifications and years of experience they had in the field they were purported to be in....
But If the defence didn't clarify the evidence for us... then why should I clarify the forms origin for you?? You know i have a connection to Holland... You know I am not a lawyer... You can decide either way in which the form came into existence... even though i have explained in my posts..... But... I will go with you on your question, and respond in the same way as the defence did..... By avoiding it......
maybe you should start asking the defence the questions you are prepared to ask me... And see where it gets you...
regards Nine ?{)(**
I'm not trying to trick or attack you. I'm genuinely confused by the form. I've read all your posts and they really didn't clarify the matter. The signature looks like it could be V tabak but then the form mentions you numerous times. I'm so confused. I feel like you might be saying that you've made up the contents on the form. Does that include the signature because that feels like dodgy ground.
I didn't know you had a connection to holland. I don't know anything about you. Are you saying you have an actual connection to Tabak or his family because that's fascinating.
-
I'm not trying to trick or attack you. I'm genuinely confused by the form. I've read all your posts and they really didn't clarify the matter. The signature looks like it could be V tabak but then the form mentions you numerous times. I'm so confused. I feel like you might be saying that you've made up the contents on the form. Does that include the signature because that feels like dodgy ground.
I didn't know you had a connection to holland. I don't know anything about you. Are you saying you have an actual connection to Tabak or his family because that's fascinating.
* And the form is also screenshot....
* So where is the original??
* Was the form sent ?
* If so where was it sent to??
* Was it accepted?
* Is the form the final version?
* Can and could the form still be altered?
* Was I present when the form was filled ?
* Do I know that the form was filled and signed by Dr Vincent Tabak??
* Who confirmed that this was Dr Vincent Tabak filling this form??
* Was the person who filled the form assuming a role??
* Is that the final version??
* Would the finished form still have blue boxes on receipt??
* Would the form be able to be changed on receipt??
It's a word document Baz...
Anyone can change details on a word document,
* who signed the document to confirm it hadn't been changed??
* When was it signed off...
*Did Dr Vincent Tabak ever confirm the documents that were presented at trial were accurate to the best of his
knowledge...
* Who witnessed the signing of these documents...
I obviously want too much... I want assurety that everything is above board and on the level... But that is me... As I have said many times before.... I want it all rubber stamped... So you can take or leave the form, it is your choice.. I do not believe I need to say anything more..
Edit... If Dr Vincent Tabak always answered No comment to the questions posed to him by the Police... What was in the contents of DC Karen Thomas's Interview with him in Holland that took 6 hours??
Pages full of No Comment?? Why did we not heard of Dr Vincent Tabak's responses to these questions posed by DC Karen Thomas??
And if the answers for six hours were No Comment... why did DC Karen Thomas continue with what can only be described as an interrogation...(imo)
And if Dr Vincent Tabak responded with answer to these questions that took 6 hours... why do we not know what these questions were??
It was accepted that because she was a Police Officer what she offered was accurate... yet it was never put to the test!!
-
Oh Nine. Why do you not answer questions with straight answers? I'm genuinely just trying to understand but it's starting to feel like you're actively trying to confuse. Can I try what you did earlier, as I answered you:
1) Did you fill out the information on that form? Yes/no
2) Have you then doctored it to make it look like it was signed by Tabak? Yes/no
3) If the answer is no to those two, where did you get it?
I'm still thoroughly confused but I hope my questions aren't annoying. I'm horribly curious.
-
Oh Nine. Why do you not answer questions with straight answers? I'm genuinely just trying to understand but it's starting to feel like you're actively trying to confuse. Can I try what you did earlier, as I answered you:
1) Did you fill out the information on that form? Yes/no
2) Have you then doctored it to make it look like it was signed by Tabak? Yes/no
3) If the answer is no to those two, where did you get it?
I'm still thoroughly confused but I hope my questions aren't annoying. I'm horribly curious.
I'll start with... This post is deliberately long and could be longer...... And it's off the top of my head...
It's a shame no one was curious enough to question the trial that is Dr Vincent Tabak...
* It's curious no-one will even question it now...
* It's curious that the general public are happy with what they see or are told..
* It's curious that CJ didn't take the witness box
* It's curious that The Tabak's didn't take the witness box
* It's curious that Tanja Morson didn't take the witness bix
* it's curious that DCI Phil Jones didn't take the witness box
* It's curious that the people who signed statements didn't take the witness box to confirm what they had seen or
knew
* It's curious that Peter Stanley didn't take the witness box
* It's curious that work colleagues of Dr vincent Tabak didn't take the witness box
* It's curious that Dr Vincent Tabak's Boss didn't take the witness box
* It's curious that Daniel Birch didn't take the witness box
* It's curious that Mrs Birch didn't make an independent witness statement
* It's curious that PC Martin Faithful didn't take the witness box
* It's curious that Kingdon didn't take the witness box
* It's curious that Hardyman didn't take the witness box
* It's curious that no-one else in the Ram didn't take the witness box
* It's curious that The Yeates didn't take the witness box
* It's curious why nurse Ruth Booth Pearson wasn't in the witness box
* It's curious why Dr White wasn't in the witness box
* It's curious why no other person in the Hope and Anchor was questioned
* It's curious that Jack Carrington manager of the Hope and Anchor didn't take the witness box
* It's curious that Joanna Yeates boss didn't take the witness box
* It's curious that The private CCTV footage of Canygne Road was never shown to the jury, which DS mark saunders
informs us of
* It curious the media ignore this
* It's curious that lawyers do not expand on this
* It's curious that the CCTV footages do not have a time stamp on them
* It's curious that they accepted that Father Henwood was seen as the last person to see or speak to Joanna Yeates,
even though he didn't know her.
* It's curious that what was stated in court was accepted without anything to corroborate it
* It's curious we have never seen Joanna Yeates phone records
* It's curious that we have lead to believe that Rebecca Scott was the last person to talk to her on the phone
* It curious that the messages that Joanna Yeates sent or received were not confirmed at trial
* It's curious that Dr Vincent Tabak's messages sent or received were not confirmed at trial
* It's curious how the Pizza receipt was never presented at trial
* It's curious how Greg's movements or actions were never questioned at trial
* It's curious how the defence accepted Greg's word that the blind was broken
* It's curious how a full size surf board fit in that hallway, and wasn't in any images presented at trial
* It's curious why Joanna Yeates fluids were tested in Scotland
* It's curious that the defence din't cross examine the witness's robustly enough
* It's curious how the defence alienated their own client
* It's curious that this was allowed to happen
* It's curious that the jury didn't pick up on the defence insulting their client
* It's curious that the media didn't comment on this
* It's curious that the judge said that there was a sexual element to this case
* It's curious to understand why Joanna Yeates would let a complete stranger into her house
* It's curious that we do not know the findings of the Inquest into her murder
* It's curious that a Kiss is deemed a sexual element
* It's curious how no-one confirmed Dr vincent Tabak's whereabouts between the 17th December 2010 and the 20th
January 2011
* It's curious that Dr Vincent Tabak was originally charged between the 16th December 2010 and the 26th
December 2010
* It's curious that the dates changed to the 16th December 2010 and the 19th December 2010
* It's curious that these dates din't cause a red flag
* It's curious to think that this is even allowed in law
* It's curious that The Yeates did not attend court on the last day
* It's curious that NO member of the Yeates family extended or otherwise, was at the Police and CPs press
conference outside Bristol Crown Court at the end of trial...
* It's curious that the Head of the Complex Case Unit followed an participated in this prosecution to the bitter end.
* It's curious because it apparently was a simple murder case..
* It's curious that 3 tents were used on Longwood lane
* it's curious that none of these tents covered a body
* It's curious that & fire appliances were used over 4 days
* It's curious that they never attended the trial
* It's curious that no-one mentions the Fire Brigades involvemnet
* It's curious that men in harness were need at The Longwood Lane site
* It's curious that this case was treated as a Murder case before a crime had been comitted
* it's curious that Forensic teams where testing the building whilst Joanna Yeates was still a Missing person
* It's curious that a mobile incident room was parked on Canygne Road as early as the 22nd December 2010
* It's curious that the Police were allowed to invade the privacy of the residents of 44,Canygne Road for a
sustained period
* It's curious why someone familiar to Joanna Yeates wasn't a suspect..
* It's curious why this Investigation was cut short
* It's curious that the sobbing girls information wasn't at trial
* It's curious that Dr Vincent Tabak's apparent phone call from Holland wasn't used in evidence
* It's curious how Crime watches reconstruction shows a staircase in Joanna Yeates Flat
* It's curious how the media had access to Dr vincent Tabak's outside to photograph before he was a suspect
* It's curious why no-one has questioned the date of the 18th December 2011 on the Park street CCTV of Dr vincent
Tabak's car, which could not be identified
* It's curious that the CCTV footage on Clifton Bridge doesn't recognise number plates at night
* It's curious that people milled around Canygne Road attending parties, but no-one saw Joanna Yeates
* It's curious that a description of what Joanna Yeates was wearing that night was added to the appeals
* It's curious why there was originally a Facebook Forum
* It's curious why the facebook discussion group was removed
* It's curious why people on different facebook groups had similar names
* It's curious why Joanna Yeates immediate circle of friends in Bristol didn't appear at trial
* It's curious why the images we see on-line of Joanna Yeates come from social media
* It's curious why images of Greg Reardon come from social media
* It's curious that mages of Dr Vincent Tabak come from social media
* It's curious that images have been photoshopped
* It's curious that Bernard the cat isn't a kitten
* It's curious that Bernard the Cat needs two cat trays
* It's curious that Joanna Yeates kept her fridge in the front room
* It's curious that the microwave that Greg Reardon used on his return is Missing from the kitchen
* It's curious that the Police were appealing for a Pizza, when Joanna yeates being Missing was far more important
* It's curious how DCI Phil Jones states that the Missing sock is size 5 when socks come in a range of sizes an not a
pacific size
* It's curious how they filmed a random old man popping a sock into an evidence bag
* It's curious how they allowed random builders to remove Joanna Yeates front door without protocols being
followed
* It's curious how they removed the Intercom Panel from the outside of Joanna Yeates Flat and it wasn't brought in
evidence
* It's curious how the intercom was never mentioned at trial
* It's curious that because Joanna Yeates belongings were in her flat they assumed she had reached home
* It's curious that Dr Vincent Tabak never applied for bail
* It's curious that Paul Vermij the Tabak family spokesman hasn't spoken publicly since around the 24th January
2011
* It's curious why Dr Vincent Tabak changed law Firms
* It's curious why Dr Vincent Tabak was moved between 3 Prisons in 48 hours
* It's curious why Dr Vincent Tabak appeared at The Old Bailey
* It's curious that he has 2 different numbers.. T20117031 and U20110387
* It's curious that it took until 11th February 2011 for Tanja Morson and The Tabak family to be able to visit Dr
Vincent Tabak
* It's curious that they took Dr Vincent Tabak's glasses away
* It's curious that his family didn't attend the magistrates court
* It's curious that Tanja Morson didn't attend the magistrates court
* It's curious that the low copy DNA wasn't questioned
* It's curious that the spot of blood wasn't questioned
* It's curious that Colin Port reveals at The Leveson that there was CCTV footage from the Nero Cafe
* It's curious that DCI Phil Jones mentions at the Leveson tha trainers were found at 44, Canygne Road with blood
spots upon them
* It's curious that these trainers never came to trial
* It.s curious why CJ was held on bail until March 2011
* It's curious why Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat was available for rent on the 4th May 2011
* It's curious how the jury visited Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat after it was available for rent
* It's curious that we do not know the content of CJ's second witness statement
* It's curious that we do not know who CJ saw at the gate at around 9:00 pm on Friday 17th Decemeber 2010
* It's curious how it's been accepted that a neighbour jump started Greg's car
* It's curious why we have never seen the Ford Ka that Joanna Yeates owned
* It's curious why the Renault Megane was parked on the road
* It's curious why the Renault Megane wasn't parked in the designated parking spaces at 44, Canygne Road
* It's curious how they dterined the first scene of crime
* It's curious how they determined the second scene of crime
* It's curious how no-one saw a body on Longwood Lane for 8 days
* It's curious how no body fluids were found
* It's curious that no body fluids were found in Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat
* It's curious how no body fluids were found in Joanna Yeates Flat
* It's curious how a suitcase was filmed on Longwood Lane by the media
* It's curious how The Yeates family were allowed to walk about a Crime Scene that was still being processed
* It's curious how the media were allowed to get so close
* It's curious that BDP printed that Joanna Yeates was found dead on the 24th December 2010
* It's curious that Jess Siggers received an email telling her Joanna Yeates was Missing the weekend before it was
reported she was..
* It's curious that Greg Reardon asks people to pick up free ski's from Clifton on the 16th October 2010
* It's curious that he and Joanna Yeates moved to Clifton on the 25th October 2010
* It's curious that no-one confirms that Bernard the cat got into Tanja Morson and Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat
* It's curious we have not seen any iamages of Bernard at the Halloween part or in the Flat
* It's curious how the brown leather bean bag is seen in the Halloween Photo's
* It's curious how the brown leather bean bag is seen in the for rent images of Joanna Yeates Flat
* It's curious how the bean bag appeared in photo's when it was advertised as an unfurnished Flat
* It's curious how different the images of Dr Vincent Tabak are on the internet
* It's curious how different the images are of Joanna Yeates on the internet
* It's curious how tiles are not painted in am image of a Flat Frozen in time
* It's curious hopw these tiles end up being painted
* It's curious how the for rent images of this Flat have painted tiles
* It's curious how the sink has no drainage to the outside
* It's curious what happened to the cider that Joanna yeates purchased
* It's curious that Greg drank Flat Cider
* It's curious that it took Greg hours to search that tiny Flat
* It's curious that there are no images of Greg's possessions in that Flat
* It's curious how a Flat frozen in time has no evidence of a boyfriend living there
* It's curious that The Yeates assumed their daughter had been abducted
* It's curious how No significant injuries developed into 43 injuries
* It's curious where Joanna yeates Christmas tree disappeared to
* It's curious why Joanna yeates Flay had old furniture in it when her parents have said she bought new
* It's curious that David yeates saw a pile of clothes ready for washing
* It's curious that no piles of clothing are seen in he images of a Flat Frozen in time..
* It's curious that we find out so much important information from the media at the start of this Missin person
enquiry
* It's curious that no evidence was with held to identify the killer
* It's curious that DCI Phil jones spoke of "KILLERS"
* It's curious that this was soon forgotten
* It's curious why Dr Vincent Tabak didn't leave Joanna Yeates body in her own Flat and shut the door
* It's curious why he would want to take her to his Flat
* It's curious why a sock and Pizza and it's packaging would be dumped to hide evidence
* It's curious why evidence of Joanna Yeates being in Dr vincent Tbak's Flat wasn't found
* It curious that no evidence of Dr Vincent Tabak being in Joanna Yeates was found
* It's curious that Joanna Yeates was found in a flower patterned top
* It's curious that Joanna Yeates had a plain top on in the Ram
* It's curious that a man could easily carry a dead weight so many times
* It's curious why workmen who worked at 42, Canygne Road were not questioned
* It's curious why a Tattinger Champagne cork was on the table
* It's curious a small Flat was rammed with furniture
* It's curious why the sink wasn't covered in forensic powder like the bath and shower
* It's curious why Dr Vincent Tabak's finger prints were never found in Flat 1
* It's curious why no physical evidence came to trial
* It's curious that witness's were identified by the media arriving at trial
* It's curious that Clegg queued up outside Bristol Crown court
* It's curious that CJ never speaks of what happened at his property
* It's curious that CJ kept the Flat vacant for the jury to see
* It's curious that Peter Stanley has never corroberated he helped start Greg's/Joanna Yeates car on Friday the 17th
December 2010
* It's curious that the 17th December 2010 is the official date of Joanna Yeates disappearance
* It's curious that the Missing Facebook Group is called "JOANNA YEATES, MISSING SINCE 17/12/10" when it was
created before it had been established when Joanna Yeates was Missing
* It's curious that the Tesco's receipt wasn't mentioned in any reports at trial and introduced as evidence at trial
* It's curious how the ikea bedding wasn't introduced at trial
* it's curious how tyre impressions were not taken and used at trial
* It's curious how little snow is visible on Christmas day on Longwood Lane
* It's curious how there was a second DNA profile that wasn't identified
* It's curious how Dr vincnet Tabak wasn't connected to the pizza label and note sent to The Ram Pub
* It's curious how the Police tell had a sample of the hand writing on this note
* It's curious how the manger or staff of The Ram pub, were not at trial
* It's curious why Greg didn't issue more recent photo's of the two of them
* It's curious why there's a recording device in the window of a aFlat frozen in time
* It's curious why the air vent has been dismantled in the kitchen window of a flat frozen in time
* It's curious that there are no toys for a kitten in a Flat frozen n time
* It's curious why a hot water bottle is on a couch in a flat frozen in time
* It's curious why there is no signs of a struggle in a flat frozen in time..
* It's curious why there is no pools of blood in a flat frozen in time
* It's curious that there is no blood in Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat
* It's curious that Darragh Bellew didn't verify what Joanna yeates wore to The Ram pub on the evening of the 17th
December 2010
* It's curious that the media filmed Joanna Yeates funeral
* It's curious that we do not see Rebecca Scott at this funeral
* It's curious that we do not see Emma Brookes at this funeral
* it's curious that we do not see Nicko Brooko at this funeral
* It's curious that we don't see Helen Reardon at this funeral
* It's curious that we don't see Mat Fallon at this funeral
* it's curious that we don't see Darragh Bellew at this funeral
* It's curious that we don't see the public anywhere near this funeral
* It.s curious that we do not see hoards of screaming angry public at Bristol magistrates Court
* It's curious that we don't see hoards of screaming public at Bristol Crown Court
* It's curious that this case was allowed to be tweeted as it happened from the court room
* It,s curious why Ann Reddrop appears in Docudrama's
* It's curious why Dc Joe Goff is at Longwood Lane
* It's curious why DC Joe Goff is at a press conference after trial with DCI Phil Jones and The Head of The Complex
Case unit Ann Reddrop
* It's curious why DC Joe Goff appears in the crimewatch program
* It's curious why civilian Andrew Mott took the stand
* It's curious why no medical terms were tweeted about Dr Delaneys testimony
* It's curious how many people word alone was believed
* It's curious why peoples credentials were not established
* It's curious why all the evidence removed from Joanna yeates Flat didn't make it to trial
* It's curious how the coat stand Dr Vincent Tabak popped his coat on, was still in a Flat frozen in time on the 12th
October 2011
* It's curious how Clegg accepted that the blind was broken in the kitchen window and stayed up all the time on
Greg's word alone
Ok I'll stop now I am tired.... But I could carry on....
-
I'll start with... This post is deliberately long and could be longer...... And it's off the top of my head...
It's a shame no one was curious enough to question the trial that is Dr Vincent Tabak...
* It's curious no-one will even question it now...
* It's curious that the general public are happy with what they see or are told..
* It's curious that CJ didn't take the witness box
* It's curious that The Tabak's didn't take the witness box
* It's curious that Tanja Morson didn't take the witness bix
* it's curious that DCI Phil Jones didn't take the witness box
* It's curious that the people who signed statements didn't take the witness box to confirm what they had seen or
knew
* It's curious that Peter Stanley didn't take the witness box
* It's curious that work colleagues of Dr vincent Tabak didn't take the witness box
* It's curious that Dr Vincent Tabak's Boss didn't take the witness box
* It's curious that Daniel Birch didn't take the witness box
* It's curious that Mrs Birch didn't make an independent witness statement
* It's curious that PC Martin Faithful didn't take the witness box
* It's curious that Kingdon didn't take the witness box
* It's curious that Hardyman didn't take the witness box
* It's curious that no-one else in the Ram didn't take the witness box
* It's curious that The Yeates didn't take the witness box
* It's curious why nurse Ruth Booth Pearson wasn't in the witness box
* It's curious why Dr White wasn't in the witness box
* It's curious why no other person in the Hope and Anchor was questioned
* It's curious that Jack Carrington manager of the Hope and Anchor didn't take the witness box
* It's curious that Joanna Yeates boss didn't take the witness box
* It's curious that The private CCTV footage of Canygne Road was never shown to the jury, which DS mark saunders
informs us of
* It curious the media ignore this
* It's curious that lawyers do not expand on this
* It's curious that the CCTV footages do not have a time stamp on them
* It's curious that they accepted that Father Henwood was seen as the last person to see or speak to Joanna Yeates,
even though he didn't know her.
* It's curious that what was stated in court was accepted without anything to corroborate it
* It's curious we have never seen Joanna Yeates phone records
* It's curious that we have lead to believe that Rebecca Scott was the last person to talk to her on the phone
* It curious that the messages that Joanna Yeates sent or received were not confirmed at trial
* It's curious that Dr Vincent Tabak's messages sent or received were not confirmed at trial
* It's curious how the Pizza receipt was never presented at trial
* It's curious how Greg's movements or actions were never questioned at trial
* It's curious how the defence accepted Greg's word that the blind was broken
* It's curious how a full size surf board fit in that hallway, and wasn't in any images presented at trial
* It's curious why Joanna Yeates fluids were tested in Scotland
* It's curious that the defence din't cross examine the witness's robustly enough
* It's curious how the defence alienated their own client
* It's curious that this was allowed to happen
* It's curious that the jury didn't pick up on the defence insulting their client
* It's curious that the media didn't comment on this
* It's curious that the judge said that there was a sexual element to this case
* It's curious to understand why Joanna Yeates would let a complete stranger into her house
* It's curious that we do not know the findings of the Inquest into her murder
* It's curious that a Kiss is deemed a sexual element
* It's curious how no-one confirmed Dr vincent Tabak's whereabouts between the 17th December 2010 and the 20th
January 2011
* It's curious that Dr Vincent Tabak was originally charged between the 16th December 2010 and the 26th
December 2010
* It's curious that the dates changed to the 16th December 2010 and the 19th December 2010
* It's curious that these dates din't cause a red flag
* It's curious to think that this is even allowed in law
* It's curious that The Yeates did not attend court on the last day
* It's curious that NO member of the Yeates family extended or otherwise, was at the Police and CPs press
conference outside Bristol Crown Court at the end of trial...
* It's curious that the Head of the Complex Case Unit followed an participated in this prosecution to the bitter end.
* It's curious because it apparently was a simple murder case..
* It's curious that 3 tents were used on Longwood lane
* it's curious that none of these tents covered a body
* It's curious that & fire appliances were used over 4 days
* It's curious that they never attended the trial
* It's curious that no-one mentions the Fire Brigades involvemnet
* It's curious that men in harness were need at The Longwood Lane site
* It's curious that this case was treated as a Murder case before a crime had been comitted
* it's curious that Forensic teams where testing the building whilst Joanna Yeates was still a Missing person
* It's curious that a mobile incident room was parked on Canygne Road as early as the 22nd December 2010
* It's curious that the Police were allowed to invade the privacy of the residents of 44,Canygne Road for a
sustained period
* It's curious why someone familiar to Joanna Yeates wasn't a suspect..
* It's curious why this Investigation was cut short
* It's curious that the sobbing girls information wasn't at trial
* It's curious that Dr Vincent Tabak's apparent phone call from Holland wasn't used in evidence
* It's curious how Crime watches reconstruction shows a staircase in Joanna Yeates Flat
* It's curious how the media had access to Dr vincent Tabak's outside to photograph before he was a suspect
* It's curious why no-one has questioned the date of the 18th December 2011 on the Park street CCTV of Dr vincent
Tabak's car, which could not be identified
* It's curious that the CCTV footage on Clifton Bridge doesn't recognise number plates at night
* It's curious that people milled around Canygne Road attending parties, but no-one saw Joanna Yeates
* It's curious that a description of what Joanna Yeates was wearing that night was added to the appeals
* It's curious why there was originally a Facebook Forum
* It's curious why the facebook discussion group was removed
* It's curious why people on different facebook groups had similar names
* It's curious why Joanna Yeates immediate circle of friends in Bristol didn't appear at trial
* It's curious why the images we see on-line of Joanna Yeates come from social media
* It's curious why images of Greg Reardon come from social media
* It's curious that mages of Dr Vincent Tabak come from social media
* It's curious that images have been photoshopped
* It's curious that Bernard the cat isn't a kitten
* It's curious that Bernard the Cat needs two cat trays
* It's curious that Joanna Yeates kept her fridge in the front room
* It's curious that the microwave that Greg Reardon used on his return is Missing from the kitchen
* It's curious that the Police were appealing for a Pizza, when Joanna yeates being Missing was far more important
* It's curious how DCI Phil Jones states that the Missing sock is size 5 when socks come in a range of sizes an not a
pacific size
* It's curious how they filmed a random old man popping a sock into an evidence bag
* It's curious how they allowed random builders to remove Joanna Yeates front door without protocols being
followed
* It's curious how they removed the Intercom Panel from the outside of Joanna Yeates Flat and it wasn't brought in
evidence
* It's curious how the intercom was never mentioned at trial
* It's curious that because Joanna Yeates belongings were in her flat they assumed she had reached home
* It's curious that Dr Vincent Tabak never applied for bail
* It's curious that Paul Vermij the Tabak family spokesman hasn't spoken publicly since around the 24th January
2011
* It's curious why Dr Vincent Tabak changed law Firms
* It's curious why Dr Vincent Tabak was moved between 3 Prisons in 48 hours
* It's curious why Dr Vincent Tabak appeared at The Old Bailey
* It's curious that he has 2 different numbers.. T20117031 and U20110387
* It's curious that it took until 11th February 2011 for Tanja Morson and The Tabak family to be able to visit Dr
Vincent Tabak
* It's curious that they took Dr Vincent Tabak's glasses away
* It's curious that his family didn't attend the magistrates court
* It's curious that Tanja Morson didn't attend the magistrates court
* It's curious that the low copy DNA wasn't questioned
* It's curious that the spot of blood wasn't questioned
* It's curious that Colin Port reveals at The Leveson that there was CCTV footage from the Nero Cafe
* It's curious that DCI Phil Jones mentions at the Leveson tha trainers were found at 44, Canygne Road with blood
spots upon them
* It's curious that these trainers never came to trial
* It.s curious why CJ was held on bail until March 2011
* It's curious why Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat was available for rent on the 4th May 2011
* It's curious how the jury visited Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat after it was available for rent
* It's curious that we do not know the content of CJ's second witness statement
* It's curious that we do not know who CJ saw at the gate at around 9:00 pm on Friday 17th Decemeber 2010
* It's curious how it's been accepted that a neighbour jump started Greg's car
* It's curious why we have never seen the Ford Ka that Joanna Yeates owned
* It's curious why the Renault Megane was parked on the road
* It's curious why the Renault Megane wasn't parked in the designated parking spaces at 44, Canygne Road
* It's curious how they dterined the first scene of crime
* It's curious how they determined the second scene of crime
* It's curious how no-one saw a body on Longwood Lane for 8 days
* It's curious how no body fluids were found
* It's curious that no body fluids were found in Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat
* It's curious how no body fluids were found in Joanna Yeates Flat
* It's curious how a suitcase was filmed on Longwood Lane by the media
* It's curious how The Yeates family were allowed to walk about a Crime Scene that was still being processed
* It's curious how the media were allowed to get so close
* It's curious that BDP printed that Joanna Yeates was found dead on the 24th December 2010
* It's curious that Jess Siggers received an email telling her Joanna Yeates was Missing the weekend before it was
reported she was..
* It's curious that Greg Reardon asks people to pick up free ski's from Clifton on the 16th October 2010
* It's curious that he and Joanna Yeates moved to Clifton on the 25th October 2010
* It's curious that no-one confirms that Bernard the cat got into Tanja Morson and Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat
* It's curious we have not seen any iamages of Bernard at the Halloween part or in the Flat
* It's curious how the brown leather bean bag is seen in the Halloween Photo's
* It's curious how the brown leather bean bag is seen in the for rent images of Joanna Yeates Flat
* It's curious how the bean bag appeared in photo's when it was advertised as an unfurnished Flat
* It's curious how different the images of Dr Vincent Tabak are on the internet
* It's curious how different the images are of Joanna Yeates on the internet
* It's curious how tiles are not painted in am image of a Flat Frozen in time
* It's curious hopw these tiles end up being painted
* It's curious how the for rent images of this Flat have painted tiles
* It's curious how the sink has no drainage to the outside
* It's curious what happened to the cider that Joanna yeates purchased
* It's curious that Greg drank Flat Cider
* It's curious that it took Greg hours to search that tiny Flat
* It's curious that there are no images of Greg's possessions in that Flat
* It's curious how a Flat frozen in time has no evidence of a boyfriend living there
* It's curious that The Yeates assumed their daughter had been abducted
* It's curious how No significant injuries developed into 43 injuries
* It's curious where Joanna yeates Christmas tree disappeared to
* It's curious why Joanna yeates Flay had old furniture in it when her parents have said she bought new
* It's curious that David yeates saw a pile of clothes ready for washing
* It's curious that no piles of clothing are seen in he images of a Flat Frozen in time..
* It's curious that we find out so much important information from the media at the start of this Missin person
enquiry
* It's curious that no evidence was with held to identify the killer
* It's curious that DCI Phil jones spoke of "KILLERS"
* It's curious that this was soon forgotten
* It's curious why Dr Vincent Tabak didn't leave Joanna Yeates body in her own Flat and shut the door
* It's curious why he would want to take her to his Flat
* It's curious why a sock and Pizza and it's packaging would be dumped to hide evidence
* It's curious why evidence of Joanna Yeates being in Dr vincent Tbak's Flat wasn't found
* It curious that no evidence of Dr Vincent Tabak being in Joanna Yeates was found
* It's curious that Joanna Yeates was found in a flower patterned top
* It's curious that Joanna Yeates had a plain top on in the Ram
* It's curious that a man could easily carry a dead weight so many times
* It's curious why workmen who worked at 42, Canygne Road were not questioned
* It's curious why a Tattinger Champagne cork was on the table
* It's curious a small Flat was rammed with furniture
* It's curious why the sink wasn't covered in forensic powder like the bath and shower
* It's curious why Dr Vincent Tabak's finger prints were never found in Flat 1
* It's curious why no physical evidence came to trial
* It's curious that witness's were identified by the media arriving at trial
* It's curious that Clegg queued up outside Bristol Crown court
* It's curious that CJ never speaks of what happened at his property
* It's curious that CJ kept the Flat vacant for the jury to see
* It's curious that Peter Stanley has never corroberated he helped start Greg's/Joanna Yeates car on Friday the 17th
December 2010
* It's curious that the 17th December 2010 is the official date of Joanna Yeates disappearance
* It's curious that the Missing Facebook Group is called "JOANNA YEATES, MISSING SINCE 17/12/10" when it was
created before it had been established when Joanna Yeates was Missing
* It's curious that the Tesco's receipt wasn't mentioned in any reports at trial and introduced as evidence at trial
* It's curious how the ikea bedding wasn't introduced at trial
* it's curious how tyre impressions were not taken and used at trial
* It's curious how little snow is visible on Christmas day on Longwood Lane
* It's curious how there was a second DNA profile that wasn't identified
* It's curious how Dr vincnet Tabak wasn't connected to the pizza label and note sent to The Ram Pub
* It's curious how the Police tell had a sample of the hand writing on this note
* It's curious how the manger or staff of The Ram pub, were not at trial
* It's curious why Greg didn't issue more recent photo's of the two of them
* It's curious why there's a recording device in the window of a aFlat frozen in time
* It's curious why the air vent has been dismantled in the kitchen window of a flat frozen in time
* It's curious that there are no toys for a kitten in a Flat frozen n time
* It's curious why a hot water bottle is on a couch in a flat frozen in time
* It's curious why there is no signs of a struggle in a flat frozen in time..
* It's curious why there is no pools of blood in a flat frozen in time
* It's curious that there is no blood in Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat
* It's curious that Darragh Bellew didn't verify what Joanna yeates wore to The Ram pub on the evening of the 17th
December 2010
* It's curious that the media filmed Joanna Yeates funeral
* It's curious that we do not see Rebecca Scott at this funeral
* It's curious that we do not see Emma Brookes at this funeral
* it's curious that we do not see Nicko Brooko at this funeral
* It's curious that we don't see Helen Reardon at this funeral
* It's curious that we don't see Mat Fallon at this funeral
* it's curious that we don't see Darragh Bellew at this funeral
* It's curious that we don't see the public anywhere near this funeral
* It.s curious that we do not see hoards of screaming angry public at Bristol magistrates Court
* It's curious that we don't see hoards of screaming public at Bristol Crown Court
* It's curious that this case was allowed to be tweeted as it happened from the court room
* It,s curious why Ann Reddrop appears in Docudrama's
* It's curious why Dc Joe Goff is at Longwood Lane
* It's curious why DC Joe Goff is at a press conference after trial with DCI Phil Jones and The Head of The Complex
Case unit Ann Reddrop
* It's curious why DC Joe Goff appears in the crimewatch program
* It's curious why civilian Andrew Mott took the stand
* It's curious why no medical terms were tweeted about Dr Delaneys testimony
* It's curious how many people word alone was believed
* It's curious why peoples credentials were not established
* It's curious why all the evidence removed from Joanna yeates Flat didn't make it to trial
* It's curious how the coat stand Dr Vincent Tabak popped his coat on, was still in a Flat frozen in time on the 12th
October 2011
* It's curious how Clegg accepted that the blind was broken in the kitchen window and stayed up all the time on
Greg's word alone
Ok I'll stop now I am tired.... But I could carry on....
So that's a no to answering straight questions.
-
sorry left my comp open... sticky fingers.......
-
Why did you delete your response? It was interesting.
I think you should probably delete the faked document though. Just feels wrong to me.
Do you think meeting Tabak that time is why you have taken such an ardent interest in his case and believe him to be innocent?
-
Your responses keep vanishing. I don't know why. I think your answers make your determination and commitment to his cause more understandable and admirable.
Not that what I think really matters. I hope my questions haven't upset you in some way.
-
Your responses keep vanishing. I don't know why. I think your answers make your determination and commitment to his cause more understandable and admirable.
Not that what I think really matters. I hope my questions haven't upset you in some way.
Baz it was hypothetical....
I'm still racking my brain as to what this is all about and why no-one will speak... The newspapers will not say anything on this case.... There has to be a reason....
The lawyers won't comment on this case... That too means there needs to be a reason....
The Leveson Inquiry is connected to this case.... There has to be a reason....
Leveson 2 is never gonna happen, and until it does I don't think that there will ever be a resolution to this case... Avon and Somerset Police could still be investigating for all I know...
I do not know Dr Vincent Tabak ... I have never meet him Baz.... I have never been to Holland Baz....
It was an experiment, I wondered if you made a claim that would then initiate a response from the newspapers etc... But it doesn't ..
The media had to get there information from somewhere... Now I don't know if the phone hacking scandal has anything to do with this.... Maybe it does..
Dr Vincent Tabak may not even exist for all I know... So how would I meet a man who is not real?
Leveson 2 was going to be about social media and fake news.... So I believe that this part must have something to do with the case...
If the lawyers don't speak or the newspapers don't speak, then it maybe because of The Leveson 2... I don't know...
If it was all fake news and nothing took place at Bristol Crown Court apart from tweets and photographs being taken of the proceeding.. How are we to know any different... And the point then being that the trial etc, could not be talked about as it would then be part of an enquiry...
Rebecca Scott... That image concerns me of her walking to court looking unkempt.. It's like she went from recording the video about her best friend, then went straight to Bristol Crown Court and was filmed walking down the street there...
Your best friend has been murdered and you make no effort in your appearance when you are called as a witness in the trial of the man whom apparently killed her... It almost looks like she spent a night in the cells and was been escorted to the court , if I am being honest,.. Her hair is a mess.... I wonder if it is even her.. Her nose looks different on the images of her coming to trial.. A lot of the images in this case are wrong...
I still have the issue of the facebook posts that are missing from 2010... They too may be evidence for Leveson 2.. I don't know.. just like lawyers keeping quiet....
I'm left in the same position as I have always been.... not knowing what is fake and what is real... Even to the point where I question was Joanna Yeates murdered? which may seem a little insensitive, but I do not know anymore...
There is plenty of information out there, and some which has been removed, but the reason it has been removed is really what the question is.... "Clifton People" for instance... It was on-line discussion and had a twitter page... That has been removed.. That I am presuming is the original source of some of the stories that came into the media's possession... Anyone could write stories for that online publication, or whatever you want to call it...
Is this fantasy? Is it real? Is it fake news?? Is it all just a story?? I have know idea... I don't know where I stand on this anymore... I have spent too long going around in circles, not understanding why no-one will comment on the staging that has taken place in this case....
CJ at The leveson and the vilification that has been spoken of, well.... no one should be vilified in the press... But I find CJ being at the Leveson strange, to be honest... The likes of Barry George and Colin Stagg are people who's lives were destroyed by the press..... Not someone who had a couple of days of stories about them... (I'm not trying to say it wasn't important)
The press reporting on CJ stopped quickly and since then he has been put in a more favourable light... But Colin Stagg never really has been... The Police had always believed that it was him and his life was literally turned upside down... Yet CJ out of many people who have had horrendous stories printed about them, is asked to participate in the Leveson... Odd!
I started this because I believed that a man named Dr Vincent Tabak had been shafted by the establishment.. I felt that he was not represented properly.. I couldn't and still can't understand how none evidence can convict somebody, whilst everyone in their professions are aware of this , yet stay quiet....
My problem is and always will be .. That I do not know the whole picture... I do not know what this case is really about... Yes it's easy to say it's about the murder of Joanna Yeates.... But I do not believe that it is that simple..
And I do not know what I can realistically do... I seem to be chasing a ghost... And I will forever be chasing a ghost...
So Baz... I am not going to add to the false information that is already out there... That was why I removed my post.... It wasn't real and I explained why it wasn't real...
Have I wasted my time chasing a ghost?? I can't answer that either.. Because what I have posted my be relevant in the future.. If I do not know what this is about how do I know whether my opinion and cross referencing of the information on the internet, will not have a purpose in the future...
So do I continue... I don't know that either... I feel deflated, frustrated and confused by the whole thing...
Your comment on being admirable... Made me question what it's worth.... It appears qualities that were revered no longer appear important... And if being admirable has made me look entirely foolish, then that is my problem...
I could have pointlessly been looking at defending a man that may not exist... Which is sad... I have lost sleep over my concerns, I have laughed , cried and got totally engrossed in a conundrum I cannot possibly solve..
And if there is still an ongoing investigation, then nothing new will be stated....
I don't know what else to say....
-
I think everyone has moved on and accepts that Vincent Tabak was guilty of murder and received an appropriate sentence. Tabak for his part will be biding his time quietly until release and deportation whereupon he can disappear into obscurity and restart his life.
-
I think everyone has moved on and accepts that Vincent Tabak was guilty of murder and received an appropriate sentence. Tabak for his part will be biding his time quietly until release and deportation whereupon he can disappear into obscurity and restart his life.
Certainly not "everybody" believes that Vincent Tabak was guilty of murder, John !!!
I think he will find it extremely difficult to "disappear into obscurity and restart his life."
-
Certainly not "everybody" believes that Vincent Tabak was guilty of murder, John !!!
I think he will find it extremely difficult to "disappear into obscurity and restart his life."
Most Dutch people will never have heard about him so I don't really see any problem away from his hometown of Uden.
-
Baz it was hypothetical....
I'm still racking my brain as to what this is all about and why no-one will speak... The newspapers will not say anything on this case.... There has to be a reason....
The lawyers won't comment on this case... That too means there needs to be a reason....
The Leveson Inquiry is connected to this case.... There has to be a reason....
Leveson 2 is never gonna happen, and until it does I don't think that there will ever be a resolution to this case... Avon and Somerset Police could still be investigating for all I know...
I do not know Dr Vincent Tabak ... I have never meet him Baz.... I have never been to Holland Baz....
It was an experiment, I wondered if you made a claim that would then initiate a response from the newspapers etc... But it doesn't ..
The media had to get there information from somewhere... Now I don't know if the phone hacking scandal has anything to do with this.... Maybe it does..
Dr Vincent Tabak may not even exist for all I know... So how would I meet a man who is not real?
Leveson 2 was going to be about social media and fake news.... So I believe that this part must have something to do with the case...
If the lawyers don't speak or the newspapers don't speak, then it maybe because of The Leveson 2... I don't know...
If it was all fake news and nothing took place at Bristol Crown Court apart from tweets and photographs being taken of the proceeding.. How are we to know any different... And the point then being that the trial etc, could not be talked about as it would then be part of an enquiry...
Rebecca Scott... That image concerns me of her walking to court looking unkempt.. It's like she went from recording the video about her best friend, then went straight to Bristol Crown Court and was filmed walking down the street there...
Your best friend has been murdered and you make no effort in your appearance when you are called as a witness in the trial of the man whom apparently killed her... It almost looks like she spent a night in the cells and was been escorted to the court , if I am being honest,.. Her hair is a mess.... I wonder if it is even her.. Her nose looks different on the images of her coming to trial.. A lot of the images in this case are wrong...
I still have the issue of the facebook posts that are missing from 2010... They too may be evidence for Leveson 2.. I don't know.. just like lawyers keeping quiet....
I'm left in the same position as I have always been.... not knowing what is fake and what is real... Even to the point where I question was Joanna Yeates murdered? which may seem a little insensitive, but I do not know anymore...
There is plenty of information out there, and some which has been removed, but the reason it has been removed is really what the question is.... "Clifton People" for instance... It was on-line discussion and had a twitter page... That has been removed.. That I am presuming is the original source of some of the stories that came into the media's possession... Anyone could write stories for that online publication, or whatever you want to call it...
Is this fantasy? Is it real? Is it fake news?? Is it all just a story?? I have know idea... I don't know where I stand on this anymore... I have spent too long going around in circles, not understanding why no-one will comment on the staging that has taken place in this case....
CJ at The leveson and the vilification that has been spoken of, well.... no one should be vilified in the press... But I find CJ being at the Leveson strange, to be honest... The likes of Barry George and Colin Stagg are people who's lives were destroyed by the press..... Not someone who had a couple of days of stories about them... (I'm not trying to say it wasn't important)
The press reporting on CJ stopped quickly and since then he has been put in a more favourable light... But Colin Stagg never really has been... The Police had always believed that it was him and his life was literally turned upside down... Yet CJ out of many people who have had horrendous stories printed about them, is asked to participate in the Leveson... Odd!
I started this because I believed that a man named Dr Vincent Tabak had been shafted by the establishment.. I felt that he was not represented properly.. I couldn't and still can't understand how none evidence can convict somebody, whilst everyone in their professions are aware of this , yet stay quiet....
My problem is and always will be .. That I do not know the whole picture... I do not know what this case is really about... Yes it's easy to say it's about the murder of Joanna Yeates.... But I do not believe that it is that simple..
And I do not know what I can realistically do... I seem to be chasing a ghost... And I will forever be chasing a ghost...
So Baz... I am not going to add to the false information that is already out there... That was why I removed my post.... It wasn't real and I explained why it wasn't real...
Have I wasted my time chasing a ghost?? I can't answer that either.. Because what I have posted my be relevant in the future.. If I do not know what this is about how do I know whether my opinion and cross referencing of the information on the internet, will not have a purpose in the future...
So do I continue... I don't know that either... I feel deflated, frustrated and confused by the whole thing...
Your comment on being admirable... Made me question what it's worth.... It appears qualities that were revered no longer appear important... And if being admirable has made me look entirely foolish, then that is my problem...
I could have pointlessly been looking at defending a man that may not exist... Which is sad... I have lost sleep over my concerns, I have laughed , cried and got totally engrossed in a conundrum I cannot possibly solve..
And if there is still an ongoing investigation, then nothing new will be stated....
I don't know what else to say....
Well, I thought you were being honest with me. So I feel kind of shocked that you were just lying to me.
-
Certainly not "everybody" believes that Vincent Tabak was guilty of murder, John !!!
I think he will find it extremely difficult to "disappear into obscurity and restart his life."
I personally think the charge should have been involuntary manslaughter as Tabak didn't initially intend to kill Joanna. It was through his negligence that she died. The sentence of 20 years minimum was appropriate imo. He will be unrecognisable when he eventually gets released and long forgotten about.
The offence of manslaughter:
Manslaughter is a crime that can be broken down into two groups. These are described as:
voluntary manslaughter - where the offender intended to kill or cause really serious harm but is not guilty of murder due to provocation or mental incapacity (described as diminished responsibility); and
involuntary manslaughter - where the offender did not intend to kill or cause really serious harm but where death results from an unlawful act or from gross negligence.
-
Anyone live close enough to pop along and ask Bill some questions??
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DlNBixBXsAEKjLF.jpg)
William Clegg QC is London’s top murder case lawyer, and the author of Under the Wig. In this vivid memoir he revisits some of his most notorious and intriguing trials, whilst laying bare the secrets of his profession, and how our right to a fair trial is now in great peril.
What's this Now business??
Lets go back some years and question the trial that was Dr Vincent Tabak
https://www.waterstones.com/events/memoirs-from-the-public-sector-adam-kay-sarah-langford-christie-watson-and-william-clegg-in-conversation-with-john-sutherland-at-piccadilly-london/london-piccadilly
-
Here someone has managed to capture David and Theresa Yeates leaving Bristol Crown Court on the 20th September 2011.. The day that was a case management hearing for Dr Vincent Tabak...
No other cameras from the media are present filming Dr Vincent Tabak arrive.. (very odd)...
Why are The Yeates at The Crown Court anyway?? It all seems highly irregular to me...
The clip was uploaded to youtube on the 20th September 2011...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm9DSq3CZZM
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Here someone has managed to capture David and Theresa Yeates leaving Bristol Crown Court on the 20th September 2011.. The day that was a case management hearing for Dr Vincent Tabak...
No other cameras from the media are present filming Dr Vincent Tabak arrive.. (very odd)...
Why are The Yeates at The Crown Court anyway?? It all seems highly irregular to me...
The clip was uploaded to youtube on the 20th September 2011...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm9DSq3CZZM
I don't follow? The parents of the victim are entitled to attend such hearings.
Why highly irregular Nine?
-
I personally think the charge should have been involuntary manslaughter as Tabak didn't initially intend to kill Joanna. It was through his negligence that she died. The sentence of 20 years minimum was appropriate imo. He will be unrecognisable when he eventually gets released and long forgotten about.
The offence of manslaughter:
Manslaughter is a crime that can be broken down into two groups. These are described as:
voluntary manslaughter - where the offender intended to kill or cause really serious harm but is not guilty of murder due to provocation or mental incapacity (described as diminished responsibility); and
involuntary manslaughter - where the offender did not intend to kill or cause really serious harm but where death results from an unlawful act or from gross negligence.
I agree, he was indicted on the wrong charge but sentenced correctly in any event imo.
-
Intent... This case is about Intent...
How was intent proven... And what Intent is it referring too??
Intent is a difficult ask... To prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to commit a crime...
The testimony that Dr Vincent Tabak gave on the witness stand, doesn't really show intent... The evidence that was presented, doesn't show intent... So what intent does it show....??
The only intention that Dr Vincent Tabak indicated was that he had intended to go shopping to Asda, in which we have been shown a CCTV that supports the idea that he carried out his intention and was captured on footage without time stamp... That is the only evidence i can see that appeared at trial that goes towards intent...
The searches, doe not show Intent
The medical evidence doesn't show intent
Nobody was privvy to this intent on the killing of Joanna yeates, so how was Intent proven?
As far as I can tell Dr Vincent Tabak is only guilty of shopping at Asda as he told us of his intention to do so... But he had NO Intention to kill Joanna Yeates, and I still do not believe that he did kill her...
-
Intent... This case is about Intent...
How was intent proven... And what Intent is it referring too??
Intent is a difficult ask... To prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to commit a crime...
The testimony that Dr Vincent Tabak gave on the witness stand, doesn't really show intent... The evidence that was presented, doesn't show intent... So what intent does it show....??
The only intention that Dr Vincent Tabak indicated was that he had intended to go shopping to Asda, in which we have been shown a CCTV that supports the idea that he carried out his intention and was captured on footage without time stamp... That is the only evidence i can see that appeared at trial that goes towards intent...
The searches, doe not show Intent
The medical evidence doesn't show intent
Nobody was privvy to this intent on the killing of Joanna yeates, so how was Intent proven?
As far as I can tell Dr Vincent Tabak is only guilty of shopping at Asda as he told us of his intention to do so... But he had NO Intention to kill Joanna Yeates, and I still do not believe that he did kill her...
He admitted it.
-
He admitted it.
No John. It was a doppelganger or a clone or an actor or he was drugged or intimidated into admitting it. It definitely wasn't just that he killed her and didn't get away with it as he hoped.
-
In my opinion it was a simple sexual assault gone wrong. I don't believe for a minute that he set out to kill her and that what happened was truly very unfortunate. In the final analysis however I too think the sentence was appropriate to the crime.
-
He admitted it.
Admitting to anything doesn't mean that a person has done it.... The evidence is supposed to support what the defendant was saying and it doesn't...
This was a vicious assault apparently on a young woman in her home, and there is no evidence to support this assault... The house is clean and tidy... If there had been evidence of foul play, Mr Reardon cannot be that stupid as to tidy a crime scene?? If there was blood evidence he should have seen it... If the flat was in disarray, he should have noticed it....
There should have been evidence of body fluids in that Flat... or at least in Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat, but there wasn't any... Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have taken Joanna Yeates around to his flat for an hour... Body fluids leak... It's a fact... But there is no evidence of the body fluids leaking... there is no evidence that Joanna Yeates clothes had been soiled.... Therefore that make me believe that she had been killed elsewhere and washed and changed.....
You have the problem still of the CCTV of Canygne Road that DS Mark Saunders saw of cars and people milling about on Friday the 17th December 2010... That CCTV video has never been seen... If Joanna Yeates reached home she should be on that CCTV.... It's that simple... and Dr Vincent Tabak should be on that CCTV also.... So should CJ... and the timing of the people who heard screams etc....
But that is not the case is it, if Colin Port says at The Leveson that the last known sighting of Joanna Yeates is at The Hop House Pub!!
She therefore could not have reached home.... Therefore she was killed elsewhere... Therefore Dr Vincent Tabak could not have killed her.... Therefore the screams that were heard were just party goers .... Therefore Dr Vincent Tabak could have told any story on the stand.... But someone obviously told him what to say, based on the evidence that had been in the papers... That is it... Nothing more.... Why on earth is there a coat stand in the hallway?? Just to prove he knew what the house looked like?? That should have gone with the other evidence that was collected from the flat seeing as he had touched it!!
Dr Vincent Tabak doesn't know the layout of the Flat... He doesn't describe the layout of Joanna Yeates Flat.... He apparently tells us he turns the oven and TV off... but where are they situated in the Flat?? Did he tell us that the dining table was in the way?? There is no room in that flat and therefore there should be evidence of a struggle... chairs kicked out of the way... A messy bed... tables knocked over.... but no.... It looks like the cleaners have been in....
For Dr Vincent Tabak to be Joanna Yeates killer, he needed to know something about the crime scene that no-one else knew.... He needed to notice something about Joanna Yeates that no-one else knew... he had sat with her body for an hour, he must have looked at her if his story is to be believed....
What her eyes looked like.... was her mouth open? Did she have a mole... Did he change her clothes? what colour her bra was... Were her toenails painted?? If he's calm enough to go shopping and he apparently gets turned on by this type of activity, then surely he would have noticed something about Joanna yeates that had not been reported...
He should have noticed the bloody great surf board in the Hallway that Justice Field tells us about... why didn't he knock it over, trying to carry Joanna Yeates out of her Flat?? Where was her bike?? Why not take a piece of jewellery from her jewellery box instead , seeing as he was in her bedroom.... something small that he could squirrel away as his trophy.... But no... Pizza is the order of the day.... Hardly a trophy now is it....
We are told he gets the car from the road... But does he have to undo the large gates?? We don't know.... Did anyone see him on the road getting his car , was he on the CCTV that DS Mark Saunders saw?? Did anyone attending parties on Canygne Road she him?? Well as the evidence presented in court tells us NO!
They left the evidence elsewhere.... and why would they do that.... What is it about Dr Vincent tabak that they wanted to put him away for a very long time when no-one shouted, it's not fair... That is not justice.... that is not how our justice system operates??
The media... The lawyers.... Leveson... CJ... The Yeates .. The Tabak's Greg and Frank Reardon.. Rebecca Scott and everyone else is saying nothing, and as so many years have passed by something must have had alarm bells going for them.... The Lawyers , Leveson and the media are not stupid.... yet they all keep quiet... The know that what we have been told about this case is not right and true....
Unless a completely different case was being heard at Bristol Crown Court and the media just reported a tissue of lies... But why hide the truth.... Why is everyone hiding the truth??
Alternatively the Police know exactly what happened to Joanna Yeates and they Know exactly who killed her and they have been covering it up since day one.... Which is crazy....
The more I think about CJ, the more I find he pisses me off.... A man who was more concerned about his own image than the fact that a tenant of his was murdered on his watch.... A man who is happy to tell the world his woes and how he was vilified, yet skim passed what took place on his own property.... a man that had known Dr Vincent Tabak as a tenant for 2 years yet had nothing to tell us about his character... A man that saw 2-3 people at the gate on Friday the 17th December 2010... yet he doesn't say anything about his second witness statement....
A man that has gone on to be all over the media still, yet he must know something of importance to this case.... And not once does he mention who he saw at The gate.... Not once does he tell us whether he saw Dr Vincent Tabak that evening.... Not once does he tell us whether Dr Vincent Tabak's car was on the drive or on the road.... Not once does he tell us whether he heard any screams that evening, whether it was a girl being attacked or just frivolity outside his premises...
A man of education.. a man whom likes good standing in the community... A man who was on the neighbourhood watch committee... Surely, his first concern should have been for Joanna Yeates.... What the media said has not changed , they'll say it about anyone... then these people get on with their lives... But CJ has made a career out of it...(imo)... he has made a career out of the misfortune of the murder of Joanna Yeates, because someone commented on his blue hair... FFS... I don't give a crap about his hair... or whether he had keys to the Flats, or whether he's eccentric... I care what he knows... I care that he should have come forward since the trial and divulged what he knew....
I care that he helped Greg start his car... I care that he spoke to Peter Stanley.. I care that he was on Canygne Road that evening and didn't say whether he noticed anything strange, or anyone behaving oddly... I care that the CCTV that DS Mark Saunders saw wasn't present at trial... Did it belong to CJ?? because anything to do with him seems a no go area.....
Maybe it's time the public questioned CJ... he 's happy to appear here and there.... he likes his mush all over the place... he is synonymous with this case and always will be.....
CJ... I hear the people say... Oh yes, he was the landlord that got vilified in the press.... My God.... Has everyone forgotten that Joanna Yeates was Murdered in Flat 1 Canygne Road?? Or are they more concerned whether a nobody had some bad publicity....
Get a PR guru CJ... Then get some balls and tell everyone what you actually know....
I have a question for you CJ.... Did you let the Ikea men into Joanna Yeates Flat?? did you see the Ikea men?? Do you know what furniture she had delivered?? Simple question , but they could be important... Not whether you have had your image photoshopped to make you have a blue rinse....
You see i have a problem again.... At The Leveson, you tell us you heard what may have been 2-3 people at the gate talking in hushed tones... And Colin Port claims at The Leveson that you saw 2-3 people at the gate... Now this is where my problem lies.... There a party going on... there are cars and people milling about.... DS Mark Saunders told us so.... Yet it is deathly silent when you arrive home and no one is screaming , laughing beeping a horn , driving past or talking, and you hear hushed tones....
Was it not party goers?? Are you sure it was at the small gate and not on the path.... ?? Did any cars drive past?? Did you have to open the large gate?? Was Joanna yeates outdoor lights on?? Was Dr Vincent Tabaks outdoor lights on... Was there anyone in the shadows....
Were you not more inquisitive seeing as you are on the neighbourhood watch committee as to whom was at the gate?? Did you not go and to check whether or not some unsavoury character had entered your premises... after all you didn't know Joanna Yeates and Greg all that well as they hadn't lived there long.... Or did you know them??
I think you need to put us straight on a few things CJ... You need to tell us what is in that second witness statement... you need to tell us whether you checked to see who was at the gate.... You need to tell us whether or not you heard anything else that night... Because a program on Netflix isn't cutting it for me.... It appears it was all quite on the western front if we are to believe what is depicted on that program....
What was it about Dr Vincent Tabak that you haven't come to his defence in anyway... Or to support that he had seen you the next day and had aided you... Why not do all you can to apprehend the killer of Joanna Yeates by telling us what you know.... Did and do you honestly believe that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates...
What was held between the pages of your 2 witness statements... What piece of information no matter how insignificant you may think it is was on the pages of what you told the Police? Let us now judge whether we believe your statements were not needed at trial... let us now judge, what you say you saw or heard....
You see you will always be known as the landlord who's tenant was murdered, the landlord who had a blue rinse, the land lord who changed his appearance so that no-one would recognise him in the street , then shoves himself in the public limelight so no-one will forget who you are.... You will always be the landlord that The Police arrested for the murder of Joanna Yeates, you will always be remembered for your blue hair... you will always be remembered for the suggestions that where made about you.... Peeking into tenants flats etc... because what I can say is that information came from people the media had talked to ... it came from comments made on social media... But the people who made the comments never came forward.... Passed tenants never spoke for or against you....
We only have what you have done in front of the media and court since.... Which (imo) is nothing sort of shocking.... I don't feel sorry for you at all to be fair.... You have courted the media and still court the media in your own self interest... you have appeared on documentaries telling us about Greg ringing you.... But you didn't tell us who you saw!!
You see... I don't care what the media said... there is fake news everywhere, but I myself decide what I choose to believe.... I myself choose what information I have gathered and form my opinion on that basis.... Just like you CJ.... My opinion is based on what you haven't done..... Not on blue hair.... And what you haven't done is tell everyone what you witness statements say.... All you have managed to do is cast even more doubt...(imo).. what are you trying to hide?? Who are you trying to protect... because i can not see any reason why you didn't appear at trial or haven't since trial, put to bed the questions that people have about this case....
So I think my opinion that you are a self interested man is correct, who doesn't care what really took place in the property you own and doesn't care about truth and justice, who has spent the last 7 years gaining notoriety from the Murder of a woman that most people these days do not know her name... yet they know your name and talk in hushed tones about you....... The taking the media to court didn't put paid to what people think or thought... It never has.... It never will.... The Police statement hasn't put paid to what people think either..... Whilst every fool in this country believes everything the media says, it's the people who are not foolish you need to be concerned about.... The people who do not believe what is drip fed to them on a daily basis....
The whole country didn't need to know your plight to be honest.... when it really should have stayed in Bristol... We would have long forgotten you... But now we can't forget you..... For a man of the standing you have acquired, we do not need to know anymore about your brush with the law, when people are in prison for crimes they didn't commit.... Where people have committed suicide because they see no end to their suffering....
We need to know that someone like you, whom has been given the ability to talk to the media and be heard across the nation... tell us exactly what happened on the weekend of the 17th to the 19th December 2010 and what you may have witnessed....
Or is that too much to ask??
So CJ... The problem is only that what people think about you truly is not in print.... And that is all.... What they imagine or think you may know about this case will forever be questioned... you will forever cast doubt (imo)... because you won't speak up, And i myself have many doubts about your intention with this case!!
-
Maybe it doesnt support what he was saying cos that was a lie? he put the best case forward to try and bag himself a manslaughter conviction. All the 'facts' about the hows and whys are based purely on what he said to get the best possible sentence for himself
Maybe it didnt even happen where he said or how he said for any reason he has given. Hence the clean and tidy flat you say makes him innocent?
You mention CCTV and her reaching home? did she? we only have a calculated killer's word for it
-
Maybe it doesnt support what he was saying cos that was a lie? he put the best case forward to try and bag himself a manslaughter conviction. All the 'facts' about the hows and whys are based purely on what he said to get the best possible sentence for himself
Maybe it didnt even happen where he said or how he said for any reason he has given. Hence the clean and tidy flat you say makes him innocent?
You mention CCTV and her reaching home? did she? we only have a calculated kiler's word for it
&%%6 &%%6 &%%6 &%%6 &%%6
So therefore how can you convict someone on a crime that might not have taken place?? I'm stuck between whether this whole debacle is true or not.... As I keep saying i do not know anymore....
If Joanna Yeates was Murdered, then how , when and where she was Murdered is important... the facts need to be established as to whether it was deliberate or not... whether it was by the hand of one person or more...
You can't just accept that someone said they did it without evidence to support it.... You can't be happy to put someone away for Murder for 20 years when you do not know what took place... If there is evidence to prove that Joanna yeates did not reach home that evening, then the story that Dr Vincent tabak told on the stand is not true....
We cannot accept that Dr Vincent Tabak told the story to get a lighter sentence if he didn't do it... Thats back to front... How did they know he did it, if he only said he did it when he attended trial and nothing was said prior... They need evidence to take him to trial in the first place... Which may I add , never materialised!
If The hop house pub is the last sighting of Joanna Yeates , how can she have reached home?? DS Mark Saunders tells us about the Canygne Road CCTV... But not whether Joanna Yeates is on it.... And she cannot be on it if Colin Port tells the Leveson, that Joanna Yeates was last seen on CCTv on the Hop House pub... some walk from her home...
So Dr Vincent Tabak could not have taken an imaginary Pizza from the Flat , or switched of a TV.... or strangled Joanna Yeates in her Flat.... He has little or no time to do this deed, yet we have a story that is not believable... a story that doesn't make sense, and you are trying to tell me that it is ok for the prosecution to accept this story, just so they can get a conviction??
On your approach, you can basically put anyone away for a crime they didn't commit, just because they say they did something... Whilst the real killer roams free....
Yes a clean and tidy flat goes towards proving the events that the jury believed didn't happen.... The lack of CCTV time stamps to support when and at what time any supermarket was frequented... The lack of witness's on the stand who had direct knowledge of Dr Vincent Tabak..... Simply by not being able to prove by supporting evidence that Dr Vincent tabak's tail on the stand was a fairy story, should have been enough for it to have been thrown out... (imo)... The Defence should have argued that point, not try to support the idea their client was guilty by making their opening statement....
Clegg's an idiot..(imo).. Incompetent (imo) He apparently knows the law, but did nothing to prove or disprove anything about the case... And was happy to watch his client get sentenced... He's supposed to be defending him... Not helping convict him.....
You cannot and should not be allowed to be convicted on an unsupported statement... Where NO EVIDENCE anywhere supports anything in this case.... Why try him in the first place, with NO EVIDENCE?? It should not have got passed first base (imo)... But it went through to a finished game with all the scores on the doors...
Ridiculous...... That is not law... They know it isn't, and you know it isn't.... But again there is silence, and for what reason i do NOT know....
The whole thing could have been made up from start to finish, for all we know.... From Joanna Yeates Missing to her demise... I haven't a clue.... None of it makes sense, I know that much....
For all I know, everyone we see at trial is a dopple ganger, a bit player... a person whom looks like someone, but isn't that someone.... I do not know if a trial really took place.... I do not know anything for sure, but what I do know is this whole episode stinks... This whole media circus that was played out to everyone is questionable...
R V Tabak.... can't find it anywhere, apart from Sally Ramages paper.... No judges summing up... Nothing on BailII.com about Dr Vincent Tabak's case... The only reference there is about CJ....
So did a man named Dr Vincent Tabak go to trial for Murder?? Did he get sentenced?? Did anything we saw in the media actually happen?? And on that basis , if the trial isn't true and it is all a story... then the media can write what they like.... Who's going to question it.... The whole case is a shambles.... But do the public mind.... probably not anymore... They get fed crap on a daily basis, and they love a social media gossip whether it's true or not....
This whole trial and case could be a fabrication.... And should I care.... I don't know.... I am mighty fed up... i'm sick of banging my head against a brick wall, when the obvious is ignored and where nearly everyone is happy with the crap we have been told....
Was it a media exercise by Avon and Somerset Police, that went too far?? Don't know...
But there must be people out there that care about what was done.... There must be people out there who question this sham of a trial.... And hopefully there are people out there who will tell the truth as to what it is all about...
I am just a citizen, who now believes that our law is not just or fair, and our media is pointless.... If there is no-one to trust in authority, what does that say about a country? If the media do not report what this case was truly about... what does that say about the media.??
Truth and Justice seems to be what isn't required anymore... Thats why you have a society that only give a shit about themselves... And until they too get put in a position where they get shafted, then they won't do anything... And if the media, whom so many believe and whom are streamed through our TV's telling us of events world wide are party to telling untruths... Why are we to believe them? Why are we to believe any of them anymore...
I don't need any more lies or untruths or whatever you want to call them... I want the truth... It's simple really...
And I would like a media to go that extra mile and actually publish the truth about this case... And tell us what really took place...
So Jixy... we can go round in circles for an eternity... Doesn't change anything... will never change anything... And again I respond and write,... Why... i do not know... Because we will never find out the truth... And my time on this seems to have been wasted... Wasted nearly 2 years on here banging on about a Placid Dutchman that I believe was treated unfairly, a Placid Dutchman that may not even exist!!
But people know the truth... they just haven't got the ability to share it for some reason!! Maybe it's time they did!!!!
-
oh you so missed the irony of my post! expected.
Will read your lengthy reply when I have some spare time but your opening line speaks volumes. Stop looking for what isnt there!!!!
He is either a well respected trusted man who tells total lies which means none of this is true so you are fighting a ghost or he is a killer who can still be telling a pack of lies to cover his backside
-
oh you so missed the irony of my post! expected.
Will read your lengthy reply when I have some spare time but your opening line speaks volumes. Stop looking for what isnt there!!!!
He is either a well respected trusted man who tells total lies which means none of this is true so you are fighting a ghost or he is a killer who can still be telling a pack of lies to cover his backside
And your post speaks volumes also!!
-
Maybe it doesnt support what he was saying cos that was a lie? he put the best case forward to try and bag himself a manslaughter conviction. All the 'facts' about the hows and whys are based purely on what he said to get the best possible sentence for himself
Maybe it didnt even happen where he said or how he said for any reason he has given. Hence the clean and tidy flat you say makes him innocent?
You mention CCTV and her reaching home? did she? we only have a calculated kiler's word for it
I believe that suspicion was originally raised when personal effects belonging to Joanna were found in her flat which would not have been there had she gone off somewhere. The exact same thing happened in the case of the murder of Kate Prout.
As to what really took place, I agree that we only have Vincent Tabak's version of events on record and for all we know it could be pure fantasy.
-
You mention CCTV and her reaching home? did she? we only have a calculated kiler's word for it
Kiler... was that a Freudian slip ??
-
I believe that suspicion was originally raised when personal effects belonging to Joanna were found in her flat which would not have been there had she gone off somewhere. The exact same thing happened in the case of the murder of Kate Prout.
As to what really took place, I agree that we only have Vincent Tabak's version of events on record and for all we know it could be pure fantasy.
Come on john... you know as well as I , that anyone could return personal belongings back to the Flat!
And yes... it is pure fantasy.... Is this supposed to be someones best selling novel??
-
(ty6e[ Aerial... i can see you hanging here... anything to add?? Anything to report??
-
Come on john... you know as well as I , that anyone could return personal belongings back to the Flat!
And yes... it is pure fantasy.... Is this supposed to be someones best selling novel??
This is where killers tend to make mistakes in their haste to exit a crime scene. Tabak was understandably desperate to be charged with manslaughter but the CPS wasn't having any of it. Had he succeeded he could have been freed within a handful of years but that wasn't to be.
-
This is where killers tend to make mistakes in their haste to exit a crime scene. Tabak was understandably desperate to be charged with manslaughter but the CPS wasn't having any of it.
What mistakes.... ?????
Calculated apparently... even having the stupidity to take the body home... Not leaving said body in situ... and spending what little time he had cleaning up any signs of himself ever being in said Flat... Instead making a meal of it and adding to evidence against himself that was never produced at trial...
You know there was no haste,... It was pedestrian.... The CPS need to take a look at what they put together, because it is hogwash!!
Who did the CPS have working that day???? A trainee???
-
Kiler... was that a Freudian slip ??
If i replied and quoted all yours Nine i would be one busy lady!
-
If i replied and quoted all yours Nine i would be one busy lady!
Does Tabak even know he has such an enthusiastic follower in nine?
-
Does Tabak even know he has such an enthusiastic follower in nine?
Follower?? I wouldn't say that....
It's like everyone is in on the joke.... And I do not know what it is.... Enjoy the fun.... &^&*%
-
I think giving up month after month of your time to devote to this would make you a follower 8@??)( thing is while you are banging your head looking for answers, he is keeping his down serving his sentence without a word
That isnt acceptable because he isnt in Prison, never had a trial and its all a fix. Not the genuine reason of him accepting his fate.
There is a huge difference in a trial where someone goes not guilty. Not sure you are fully accepting of that despite all the time you have been looking into his case.
All the things that dont happen just because thats how you imagine they should doesnt make it wrong! People get murdered every single day.
-
I think giving up month after month of your time to devote to this would make you a follower 8@??)( thing is while you are banging your head looking for answers, he is keeping his down serving his sentence without a word
That isnt acceptable because he isn't in Prison, never had a trial and its all a fix. Not the genuine reason of him accepting his fate.
There is a huge difference in a trial where someone goes not guilty. Not sure you are fully accepting of that despite all the time you have been looking into his case.
All the things that dont happen just because thats how you imagine they should doesnt make it wrong! People get murdered every single day.
Jixy.... I don't understand... There's is obviously more to this than I know.... many people know, the media know... the lawyers know.... I don't...
Dr Vincent Tabak..... Is he real?? I don't know
What I had seen in the media and subsequently looked at, it doesn't add up or make sense.....
Is Dr Vincent Tabak known by another name? I have had many ideas as to what this could be about... But I don't know if they are correct....
The idea that he might not be in prison has always been a possibility.... The idea that the media actually did what they did on purpose as to let that certain someone know what they thought....
The images I see of a man called Dr Vincent Tabak may not even be him.... But if someone has actually gotten away with this murder, and cannot be prosecuted for it... then the media could have got together and produced this production of a trial etc....
Jixy I don't know anymore... I keep saying... I have no idea what this is really about..... Maybe the 20 years is an order of silence? I have no idea about that either... What I have written may be totally pointless, i don't know that either..... maybe what I have written should be removed.....
Again things flash through my mind as I try to see make sense of this..... Did Dr Vincent Tabak help someone else?? is he the silent partner.... Or is someone else the silent partner... again I do not know....
What I do know Jixy... Is.... it is pointless... My Opinion is pointless..... we go round in circles and only on the anniversary will we hear that again The Yeates may put a headstone on the grave... which they've been saying for years...
They could have put one up already... i don't know.... It's almost like it's the only way the media can remind someone of this crime.... Is someone walking around free?? I don't know that....
Jixy... I'm tired.. There's nothing i can do and it appears not to matter anyway.... Media full of shit.... Justice system full of shit... There you go... everyones is happy....
Don't understand why this forum bothered with this issue in the first place....
Edit.... Jixy there is no official information with regards this case... There is nothing i can find... It's like i had a dream.... I cannot continue doing this when nothing gives.... Ordinarily people who fight for people whom they believe are Innocent have a vested interest... They know the person or are related to the person.... I have no vested interest... I just wanted to highlight what I saw as unfair and unjust...
I like CJ am a nobody.. and my opinion counts for nothing.... I maybe just an old fool who has had the proverbial taken out of them.. Wasting my energy, trying to fight my way out of a paper bag...
I do not have the the education or contacts to continue looking at what I cannot change... If someone else really knows what to do let them do it... And yes, they made fools out of us all.... So what... no-one seems to be able to change that... No-one cares...
This thread can go into a big bin... and no-one will know any different... I don't know what I'm pissed off the most with to be honest.... The fact that this is futile or me stupidly believing I could genuinely help someone...
And at the end of the day only a few people are really interested in this case anyway!..
-
I was going to say I admire you for your dedication but you have just taken it to a new low. This has been covered before and explained. Not dragging the forum down to that level but please dont act surprised. You have a lot of time on your hands due to your situation.
You have posted some very strange rambling replies which have been unfair especially to Baz yet met with kindness and understanding of the efforts you have put into this case
Maybe its all about reaction...
I came on to read up about Madeleine McCann as I was mid debate with a friend and noticed your comments...
I will leave it there
-
Nine is to be admired for putting so much effort into the search for justice in the Joanna Yeates case. Just about every aspect of what occurred has been dissected and put under the microscope. Ultimately though, I for one cannot see any possible avenue which could lead to this conviction being challenged let alone being overturned.
Vincent Tabak did what he did in a moment of madness and thereafter set about trying to get a reduced charge for manslaughter. The CPS were determined to charge him with murder and ultimately got their way.
-
I was going to say I admire you for your dedication but you have just taken it to a new low. This has been covered before and explained. Not dragging the forum down to that level but please dont act surprised. You have a lot of time on your hands due to your situation.
You have posted some very strange rambling replies which have been unfair especially to Baz yet met with kindness and understanding of the efforts you have put into this case
Maybe its all about reaction...
I came on to read up about Madeleine McCann as I was mid debate with a friend and noticed your comments...
I will leave it there
You leave it there Jixy.... Because the context has been removed... My last post was reply 1616... And now it is your reply that is that number...
I wrote about MWT and him contacting me... but that appears not to be of interest.... And had been removed....
So nothing is in context.... not even this case!!
-
Nine is to be admired for putting so much effort into the search for justice in the Joanna Yeates case. Just about every aspect of what occurred has been dissected and put under the microscope. Ultimately though, I for one cannot see any possible avenue which could lead to this conviction being challenged let alone being overturned.
Vincent Tabak did what he did in a moment of madness and thereafter set about trying to get a reduced charge for manslaughter. The CPS were determined to charge him with murder and ultimately got their way.
Indeed.... But did they get the right man?? And it will never be challenged if no-one speaks of it!!
-
Indeed.... But did they get the right man?? And it will never be challenged if no-one speaks of it!!
I agree.
I think I have said all that I have to say regarding this case, and I am glad we have this thread, so that people can read it and make up their own minds. After all, the case is probably largely forgotten now.
I doubt the verdict will ever be challenged though----not unless Vincent Tabak challenges it, or somebody else admits to killing Joanna, or admits to knowing who did.
-
So let me get this right. Tabak is innocent because;
1. Him and the victim are secret agents;
2. The jury and the police were actors during the trial;
3. They used a body double to enter a guilty plea for manslaughter;
4. Photo's were photoshopped and the victim may have been pregnant;
5. It was a stitch up to cover for the real perpetrator who was probably her partner;
6. His defence team were really working with the prosecution;
7. Tabak probably doesn't exist;
This cannot be serious surely?
I read somewhere that the DNA was a billion to one match in this case? I assume the reason he pleaded guilty to manslaughter was because he knew there was sufficient evidence to link him to the crime and he tried to play down his culpability but this was rejected by the jury? His defence team did their best with the bad case they were given considering the fact he had already pleaded guilty to manslaughter and hiding the victims body. The defence could hardly paint him in a good light to the jury on that basis. The theories and speculation set out on this thread are too farfetched to even consider being true. He was properly convicted IMO.
-
(ty6e[ justsaying. That seems to be a very concise summing up of the info we have been given here so far.
-
(ty6e[ justsaying. That seems to be a very concise summing up of the info we have been given here so far.
(ty6e[ Jixy. It would seem so, certainly nothing convincing to even touch upon him being innocent.
-
(ty6e[ Jixy. It would seem so, certainly nothing convincing to even touch upon him being innocent.
You obviously haven't read too much of the thread then!
-
I actually wasted my whole day yesterday laughing, sorry I mean reading it.
-
Well we can all agree that we are all beyond impressed by just how much time Nine has put into this. She gives dedication new meaning.
We may never agree but I respect the effort.
-
I actually wasted my whole day yesterday laughing, sorry I mean reading it.
Glad I at least amuse justsaying.. Wouldn't be so bad if this wasn't funny.. I understand if you haven't managed to read the whole thread on this subject, and maybe understand why some of the scenario's and conclusions I have come to, come from....
CJ.. perfect example... A man whom i want answers from... a man whom i just don't want to believe was in it for the money... But when I read tweets like this, i can only then come to one conclusion..
Jules Stenson
@julesstenson
Chris Jefferies vilification was appalling. But wonder if he will mention £60k he wanted from the NOTW to tell his story?
10:39 AM - 28 Nov 2011
Jules Stenson, was an Editor for The News of The World... Interesting, him making said tweet, to be honest, NOTW stopped in July 2011 according to wiki..
Amid a public backlash and the withdrawal of advertising, News International announced the closure of the newspaper on 7 July 2011
It ceased publication on the 10th July 2011.. 19 days before the tabloids were taken to court for contempt...
So is this man telling us the truth about CJ?? By 10th July 2011 the papers had been taken to court, that was on the 29th July 2011, when the attorney General states that CJ is wholly innocent because Dr Vincent Tabak is guilty, when he hasn't had a trial yet, his trial doesn't take place until October 2011.. Any plea that apparently had taken place could be withdrawn... (imo) Making a plea without any evidence to say how this Murder had taken place at that time seems preposterous to me, Dr Vincent Tabak hadn't told anyone how this murder had occurred at this time, so why did Clegg even allow his client make such a plea??
If CJ was courting the media for his story to be told before Dr Vincent Tabak had had his trial, is this the reason that CJ wasn't a witness? And if that was the case why hasn't anyone said anything??
I find it quite disturbing to be honest , if what Jules Stenson states is true... Self Interest is the name of the game... CJ, could never be a witness if he was ready to sell his soul to the devil, and we do not know when the NOTW had wanted his story? It could even be before Dr Vincent Tabak appeared at The Old Bailey... We just don't know..
CJ had no intention to take the stand at the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak if this tweet is accurate... (imo) and me saying that he's been busy courting the media is therefore true... (imo)
One would imagine that the trial was more important really.. A trial about his tenant being murdered, but obviously that cannot be the case (imo)
CJ wanting payment from NOTW to tell his story, that is incredible, think about that for a moment...
He is an incredibly well educated man, a man who had solicitors at the ready, a man who's solicitors surely should have instructed him, not to solicit any publicity before the trial.... A man whom could have been called as a witness at the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak... And should have been called as a witness at the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak...
A man whom had heard/saw people at the gate.... Did Clegg not Interview CJ? i find the idea that CJ is touting for money before a trial has taken place disturbing... he could and should have been a valuable witness, but did his actions preclude him from the trial??
So.. I think my conclusions are correct if the tweet is accurate, and CJ is a self interested man, who cares more about himself than attending a trial as a witness for the prosecution or the defence at the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak.. He cares more about himself (imo) than The Murder of Joanna Yeates...
You see justsaying... you either have to believe that CJ is an upstanding citizen who was wronged by the media, because this case is junk.... Or that he is a self interested individual who doesn't care about his murdered tenant or his tenant whom was on trial for her murder or the case in general, because he had decided early on that he wouldn't be a witness in this case(imo) by wanting NOTW to pay him a substantial amount of money for his story...(imo) yet he allowed the media in Flat 1 to view a flat frozen in time... A Flat that had lain empty for 10 months...
Think about that... the jury didn't need to see the staged flat... not at all, it wasn't a flat owned by Joanna Yeates... The jury could have quiet easily have seen the crime scene photo's... (imo) Did CJ gain financially from the flat being left vacant? I don't know, but I have always found it strange that he allowed this flat to stay vacant when he had decided that he was taking the Police to court... Why would he help the Police with the Flat being vacant for 10 months when he didn't take the stand at trial, to tell everyone what was in his witness statements....
CJ wasn't telling the NOTW to pi**- off was he... he didn't tell them that he might be a witness at a trial.... That what he knew about the weekend of the 17th to 19th December 2010 was more important than him gaining financially from a tabloid before a trial had taken place, which may be seen as vulgar... He was happy to tell sky he wasn't telling the media what he had witnessed, so why was he happy to tell the tabloids his story of woe?? Or was he prepared to tell them what he actually knew??
I have often wondered whether this case is about money? But again I don't know.. But the murder of Joanna Yeates seems to be secondary to everything else...
And whilst I amuse you justsaying, take some time to try and understand where i am coming from... Where i have looked at what is available and come to conclusions based on what I have found...
According to wiki... The Sun is the sister paper of NOTW...
it was transformed into a tabloid in 1984 and became the Sunday sister paper of The Sun.
This is where i question everything...
CJ at The Leveson is complaining about 'The Sun'
I attach copies of the eight worst offending articles:
1. ’The Strange Mr Jefferies’, The Sun, 31 December
2010;
Looking at the pdf document of CJ Leveson statement, these 10 comments i believe come from the Sun..
The Sun, 31 December 2010:
1: "This is the Joanna Yeates murder suspect. Chris
Jefferies - sporting the wispy blue-rinse hairdo that
saw him branded "strange" by school pupils he
taught"
2:"WEIRD, ’strange talk, strange walk’, POSH, ’loved
culture, poetry’, LEWD, ’made sexual remarks’,
CREEPY, ’loner with blue rinse hair."
3:"Former students claimed yesterday that the bluerinse,
long-haired bachelor, who police arrested
yesterday, used to make sleazy comments and
invite them to his home. One recalled: "He was very
flamboyant. We were convinced he was gay". "You
didn’t want him to come near you. He was very
unkempt and had dirty fingernails. He was
weird... He was a stickler for discipline and very
traditional. He used to get very angry and throw
books and pens across the room. He kept repeating
words in an odd way."
4:"A second student said "He was fascinated by
making lewd sexual remarks, tt was really
disturbing".
5. "Another student told how groups of up to ten pupils
were invited to Jefferies’ home... "My parents didn’tknow I went. The conversation didn’t exactly stick to
the curriculum. He was eccentric, odd and could be
described as a loner. We thought it odd that a man
of his age didn’t have a wife and had blue-rinse
hair."
6:"Landlord Chris Jefferies knew Jo Yeates’ boyfriend
was going away for the weekend - and had a key to
the couple’s flat, neighbours said yesterday.
Jefferies even helped Greg Reardon start his
broken-down car so he could drive to stay with his
brother in Sheffield on the night Jo
Disappeared...Another neighbour said:" He had a
key and knew the boyfriend was going to be away in
Yorkshire."
7. "Mr Jefferies was also famous for his utter dislike of
sports."
8. "Neighbours looked on Jefferies as a nutty
professor."
9. "Another neighbour described Jefferies as "a
dominant character". He said: "He was unusual in
that hair was all over the place. He was very posh, a
solitary figure and very cuftured, t wouldn’t used the
word popular to describe him." Family friends of only
child Jefferies described him as "effeminate" as a
youngster."
10. "Jefferies bought a flat in the block where 25 year
old Jo lived from a paedophile who was jailed for
enticing a young boy there for sex, it emerged last
night. Fellow teacher Stephen Johnston used the
ground floor flat to groom the pupil for three years.
Jefferies bought it in 1999."
So why was CJ at The Leveson??? If according to Jules Stensons tweet on the 28th November 2011 CJ had courted NOTW and wanted paying a substantial amount for his story to be told.... But then pleads vilification at The Leveson and The Sun the NOTW sister paper has offended his sensibilities??
Ridiculous... Incredible... Worrying!
This post is based purely on the tweet that I have found.... from a former editor of NOTW... But it seems mental that CJ was trying to sell his story to the NOTW at all, if he wanted to take the papers to court for vilifying him....
The really odd thing is that The Sun didn't say anything about CJ wanting payment for his story when they were taken to court in July 2011.. As reported in The Guardian..
The Daily Mirror has been fined £50,000 and the Sun £18,000 for contempt of court for articles published about a suspect arrested on suspicion of murdering Joanna Yeates.
So is the tweet true... Because i do not understand why The Sun didn't breath a word of what CJ had requested as payment from NOTW for his side of the story.....
Which then has me concluding that there is far more to the Murder of Joanna Yeates than we know... And we the public have been treated as fools....
"Justsaying".. can you not see why I constantly have problems with this case, and why I say nothing adds up... Why would the Sun be happy to be taken to court or be part of The Leveson in regards to CJ... If there was nothing more to this case than a Placid Dutchman, suddenly deciding for no reason to strangle his next door neighbour he had never meet?? The Sun being compliant as to be sued and also appear at the Inquiry of the century? An Inquiry that should have had a second part, but seems that will never happen...
Which always brings me back to who did CJ see at the gate on Friday 17th December 2010?? Because everything in the media's power appears to have been done other than name the Murderer of Joanna Yeates....
This brings me back to CJ is either a self interested man... Or he is part of something much bigger, I do not know... But again nothing makes sense... Again I chase ghosts... Again I get nowhere...
IF Dr Vincent Tabak doesn't exist as I have suggested, then many people know this... That would be why CJ could get away with what he has said... (imo) He obviously knows something that someone wants to keep quiet... He obviously saw someone, who doesn't want identifying..(imo) ... Enough so that so much has been allowed to happen without anyone questioning it....
Justaying.. I just put together what I find, which cannot be ignored (imo).. And if you find my posts amusing, so be it... But It will not change what has taken place in this case... It will not change what is available to view by anyone on the Internet... Anyone can put two and two together and come to their own conclusions, you don't have to listen to me... And you don't have to read my posts...
Whether 10th July 2011 is the correct date the NOTW ceased or not is irrelevant really... More to the point is why The Sun didn't say anything when they where taken to court for contempt, when the person whom felt vilified was happy to be paid a substantial amount for his story... I am surprised The Sun didn't say anything to be honest, but for some reason they too are happy to go along with this charade, I just don't understand why!!
Just one more thing to add... From CJ's Leveson statement..
I do not read newspapers regularly but, when I do, I take
The Guardian, the Financial Times and obcasionally The
Independent. The interview I gave to Brian Cathcart is the
first and only interview I have given for the purposes of a
newspaper article. This was a difficult decision for me but
I chose to give the interview because I wanted to have my
side of the story heard and I was confident that the
Financial Times would report it responsibly
Difficult decision? That cannot be accurate if Jules Stensons tweet is correct....
Did CJ forget to tell the Leveson that the NOTW had wanted an Interview with him, and he wanted £60,000 for the privlege??
Doesn't this now make anyone question what CJ told the Leveson, because it appears he has been caught in an untruth if the tweet is accurate and it is actually the real Jules Stenson ... maybe Colin Port telling us CJ had seen people at The Gate is correct, and CJ's memory failed him... Whatever has been stated at the Leveson, needs to be questioned and Jules Stenson can confirm or deny, when CJ asked for 60k for an interview to put that in context... (imo)
https://twitter.com/julesstenson/status/141103936491896832
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_of_the_World
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122175126/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Christopher-Jefferies.pdf
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/jul/29/sun-daily-mirror-guilty-contempt
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I agree 10 out of 10 for effort, but the conspiracy theories surrounding this case are ridiculous.
The probable reason it could be said that Tabak was guilty before his trial had taken place is that he had already admitted to killing the victim. The fact the confession could be retracted doesn't mean anything, considering it was already public knowledge that he had made the confession anyway. And, whether he retracted the confession or not, the jury would have still been told that he had admitted manslaughter.
Maybe CJ wasn't a witness because there was nothing of material importance that he could bring to the trial? It wouldn't have been his decision regarding him being a witness during the trial, if the CPS thought that he should have been then he would have been summonsed to appear whether he liked it or not. The story he was trying to sell was more than likely about himself and the way he had been treated rather than something linked to the murder case. There is absolutely no reason why he should have been a witness at the trial.
I am sorry nine, but you have used newspaper reports to gather all this info and are then confused as to why things do not add up. Well that is probably because there is very little consistency in news reports. If you go and look at a case of a person whom you think is guilty, using just newspaper reports, then you will find that more or less the same discrepancies will arise. There is nothing in your tediously long post to suggest Tabak is innocent, even if CJ was intending to financially gain from what happened to him does not prove that Tabak is innocent or that CJ should have been a witness during the trial. With all due respect, I agree with Jixy, you're looking for things that aren't there.
-
Also nine, he was not a "placid Dutchman". He admitted to killing the victim, it is disgusting to call him such a thing. Please think of his victim, he was hardly placid when he murdered her and tried to cover his tracks.
-
Also nine, he was not a "placid Dutchman". He admitted to killing the victim, it is disgusting to call him such a thing. Please think of his victim, he was hardly placid when he murdered her and tried to cover his tracks.
I was not the first to call him "Placid"... It was DCI Phil Jones in one of the many documentaries he has appeared in....
-
Nine, if you also take into account that the trial was not about finding out who killed the victim then you will realise why they did not need to call certain witnesses. The trial was about culpability, not whether he killed her or not, which was not disputed by him nor ever has been. I find it really strange that people are arguing his innocence when he is not arguing it himself, no appeal, nothing to suggest he is fighting the conviction. And also ask yourself why all these professional people would collude to convict an ordinary member of the public just to protect another ordinary member of the public, it does not make sense that they would do any of what has been suggested in this thread, which I have read by the way.
-
Well if a News of the World reporter tweeted that he asked for £60K then it is definitely true, right?
And not only that if he DID chose to makes some money off the back of what must have been a truly horrific experience, who can blame him??
Nine, I find it fascinating the way you're willing to talk about some of the people involved in this case and their behaviour (Greg, Chris Jeffries, the parents, the police, the lawyers) with suspicion and or anger but Tabak himself has never been the subject of the same attitudes from you.
-
Sorry for long post....
Nine, if you also take into account that the trial was not about finding out who killed the victim then you will realise why they did not need to call certain witnesses. The trial was about culpability, not whether he killed her or not, which was not disputed by him nor ever has been. I find it really strange that people are arguing his innocence when he is not arguing it himself, no appeal, nothing to suggest he is fighting the conviction. And also ask yourself why all these professional people would collude to convict an ordinary member of the public just to protect another ordinary member of the public, it does not make sense that they would do any of what has been suggested in this thread, which I have read by the way.
Let me just start by saying, that the trial appears to be one sided, the information that we are aware of was from the prosecution or the media..
As the public we were aware of whom had said what surrounding this trial... Rebecca Scott and her videoed interview on the 12th January 2011.. Greg Reardon and the neighbours helping him start his car...
Now if I look at Greg a little more closely for that aspect of what took place, what we know through media reports and what was said at trial, differ slightly...
We are aware that it apparently was Peter Stanley and Christopher Jefferies who aided Greg Reardon in jump starting the KA that was Joanna Yeates which he had borrowed... Yet at trial it doesn't name who assisted him.. It just says neighbours.. But we the public believe that it is Peter Stanley and Christopher Jefferies , because of the reports..
This then makes me question the Prosecution and the Defence...
Is this a case of disclosure problems?? And if so, what does it say about both the Prosecution and the Defence?
The 1300 page document is a good example, disclosed to the Defence at trial, a document where the defence surely hadn't enough time to read it's contents and cross reference said contents or challenge said contents... A document that apparently had the emails and text messages etc of the 4 people who lived in the basement flats at 44, Canygne Road..
We are aware of some of the contents of this document, but NOT all!
What I have been trying to do is to show where I believe that The Defence didn't do everything for their client, and cast him in an unfavourable light to the jury... Where the defence challenged nothing and did nothing to support their client...(imo)
And also where the prosecution failed... allowing the case to be presented, that wasn't a true version of events....
Disclosure is key to this case... And the failings of the Prosecution and the Defence in this case are obvious...
Firstly, I understand that the Defence cannot use what is basically hearsay that has been reported in the media.. The fact that we know Christopher Jefferies saw 2/3 people at the gate on the 17th December 2010 at around 9:00pm.. which was reported by Sky News on the 30th December 2010, when CJ was accosted at the gate of 44, Canygne Road.. CJ also tells the Leveson of what he heard/saw on the evening of the 17th December 2010..
We all know this... I have mentioned this on numerous occasions and could not understand why he was never called...
But then I go back to disclosure... And if the Prosecution did not disclose this fact to the Defence, then this could not be used at trial... (obviously)... But it doesn't stop the public questioning why CJ, hasn't said anything since...
Peter Stanley, another person we are aware the Police spoke to, we see him leaving 42, Canygne Road on the 31st December 2010 with DC Jon Hook.. Peter Stanley drives himself to the Police Station I believe and Jon Hook gets into Peter Stanleys car, as the media photograph the exercise and they are both seen driving away..
Kingdon... whom lived behind Joanna Yeates whom heard a scream of 'Help Me" mid morning on the 18th December 2010
James Crozier and James Alexander.. The Ikea men, who delivered Furniture to Joanna Yeates Flat on the 9th November 2010, who could have told us what the Flat was like and how they managed to gain access that day... Was Joanna Yeates home for instance, or did they get a key? Did CJ, let them in?? Or was it Greg that was at home to receive the furniture?? Was there any obstructions they needed to negotiate.. eg: surfboard..
Tanja Morson, the most obvious person you would have expected to be at trial... The live in girlfriend of Dr Vincent Tabak... The person who knew him more than anyone in this country... The person who could confirm or deny Dr Vincent Tabak's movements on the weekend of the 17th December 2010 to the 19th December 2010.. Who only spoke to the Police on the day that Dr Vincent Tabak was arrested... meaning that The Defence didn't independently take a statement from her... And the prosecution disclosed NOTHING about Tanja Morson other than the said texts, which hadn't been confirmed by her independently...
Mr and Mrs Yeates, who witnessed as much as Greg Reardon did when they arrived at 44, Canygne Road on Monday 20th December 2010 in the early hours of the morning....
Dr Kelly Sheridan a fibre analysis expert who we have since discovered by her own writings that she tested an Ikea duvet.. this wasn't presented at trial..
The Sobbing Girl....... whom apparently was one of the reason that Dr Vincent Tabak was arrested...
Any other friends of Joanna Yeates who made statements, were not presented at trial...
No-one from the building of 44, Canygne Road were witness's at trial not unless you count the useless defence statement from Geoffrey Hardyman that was read to the court, were he speaks of Joanna Yeates cat and has nothing whatsoever to do with Dr Vincent Tabak..... Hardly a defence statement!
No neighbours who could tell us about that evening of 17th December 2010 were at trial....
DS Mark Saunders and his CCTV of Friday the 17th December 2010, showing people milling about and cars up and down were missing from trial....
Jack Carrington, the manager of The Hope and Anchor, who saw Joanna Yeates and her boyfriend on Friday 17th December 2010... who could confirm or deny whether the person with Joanna Yeates on that day was indeed Greg Reardon!
There are many more people I could add , but I am just showing the basics....
No physical evidence that was removed from either flat presented at trial...
No Finger print evidence...
No blood evidence from either flat...
No evidence of body fluids at either Flat or Longwood Lane or in the car of Dr Vincent Tabak....
Literally the trial consisted of an apparent confession to Manslaughter and witness statements that were read to the jury from witness's that didn't appear at the trial themselves... And a few expert witness's who were not robustly cross examined, and didn't go to prove that it was indeed Dr Vincent Tabak who killed Joanna Yeates...
Here are a list of witness who gave statements, but didn't appear at court...
* Nurse Ruth Booth Pearson (examined Dr Vincent Tabak when he was arrested )
* Daniel Birch ( Dog walker who found Joanna Yeates)
* Samuel Huscroft (Friend Joanna Yeates ) (text received from Joanna Yeates )
* Mathew Wood (Chris Yeates Friend... Joanna Yeates (text Received from Joanna Yeates )
* Sarah Maddox (At Dinner Party Dr Vincent Tabak attended )
* PC Steve Archer ( Was there when Dr Vincent Tabak was arrested )
* Mathew Phillips (Heard a shreik... was at party on Canygne Road )
* Louise Althrope (Attended Party with Dr Vincent Tabak)
* Geofrey Hardyman (Tenant of 44 Canygne Road )
* Elizabeth Chandler ( Office Manager at BDP)
* Shrikart Sharma ( Dr Vincent Tabak's Boss )
* Glen O'Hare ( Hosted Part Dr Vincent Tabak attended ).
* Anneleise Jackson, (PC... Greg's Phone Call statement )
* Peter Lindsell ( Friends of Joanna Yeates .. at Bristol Mead Station ( Text received from Joanna Yeates )
* Andrew Lillie (Attended a Dinner Party with Dr Vincent Tabak )
* Linda Marland (Attended Party Dr Vincent Tabak attended ) (party was in a bar in Bristol)
* Micheal Breen... (BDP Employee)
* PC Martin Faithful
So I can understand from a legal stand point that maybe this is why the idea that Joanna Yeates was killed by Dr Vincent Tabak appears to be the case... Because legally we have a plea to Manslaughter and nothing to counteract said plea that had apparently had taken place at The Old Bailey in May 2011..
We have no witness's or statements at trial to say any different... We could have had... But obviously, the information was never disclosed by the prosecution and or The Defence, didn't look into it robustly enough to see whether or not their client was actually guilty...
It almost reminds me of America.. where a plea deal is often the way forward to put a case to bed and the defence do not have the resources or the ability to fight for their client... Where to save their clients life, first and foremost is top of the agenda, as the death penalty is on the table... And where the defence tells the client that the evidence supports them committing said crime....
Well... this isn't America.. no death penalty here... The legal aid system was paying for this case, so what did the legal aid system give??
In my opinion, the defence did little to nothing to find out what happened on the weekend of the 17th December 2010 to the 19th December 2010 in regards to their client.... It appears to me it was a slam dunk case in their eyes and they didn't investigate further... It appears to me that they only used what the prosecution gave them as evidence and we do not know what evidence the Police or The Prosecution failed to disclose....
So on the surface, it may be conceived that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates and was guilty of at least the charge of manslaughter... But if we only know part of the evidence and we do not know the whole picture, how can we convict someone of partial evidence? Knowing what we know now.... Know that the CCTV presented at trial had no time stamp to put Dr Vincent Tabak in Asda at the time stated... Knowing that there were many many witness's who could and should have given evidence at this trial....
CJ, could quiet possibly have seen Dr Vincent Tabak that evening, he could have seen Greg Reardon that evening... he could have seen anyone that evening, but if he is not questioned at trial on the statements he has made in public then the version of events that Dr Vincent Tabak has given can not be confirmed or denied... If peter Stanley hasn't appeared at trial, we also do not know whether he saw anything on that evening.... likewise anyone on Canygne Road on the 17th December 2010..
We have the 3 people who were in Tesco's when Joanna Yeates bought the Pizza... they could confirm or deny the time that they were there.... As the timestamp that has been added to the Tesco's CCTV isn't the original date and time stamp as we can tell...
So looking at the evidence presented purely at trial of a man stating he killed Joanna Yeates and the lack of witness's to contradict any of the evidence presented, one could say that Dr Vincent Tabak is guilty...
But I do not believe that he is guilty.... I do not believe that what we have been told is the truth... And if the evidence is missing from trial, the jury can only go on what they have been told is true, whether it is or not....
I have sent myself around the twist trying to understand this case, and maybe it is far more simple than i have made it.... My many scenarios and theories that i have tried to understand why this case makes no sense and my endless search for the truth...
But if I bring it back to basics, then the real story isn't about whether Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates... or who indeed killed Joanna Yeates... But the lack of disclosure by The Police and the Prosecution in this case... The lack of defending ones client in this case, where I wouldn't call having my client admit to Manslaughter a win!!.. Yet it is on the website of said Defence council as a trial they presented at..... (who would advertise that fact) Hardly an advertisement for the man that is know as The Master Defender... !!
The fact that anything can be presented at trial, that doesn't paint a true picture of the events that took place can put an Innocent Man away in prison for 20 + years and no-one will give a damn.... As long as you back it up later with reports in the media about strangulation porn and prostitutes, then the public will swallow it... They won't question it, because they wouldn't want to be associated with it...
But i haven't swallowed it... I have questioned it... I have questioned virtually everything about it, whether you agree or not with my methods...
Because if with the information I have seen or know can put forward what appear to be ridiculous theories or scenario's.. that just goes to prove that the evidence presented was lacking.... That all this trial consisted of was "A" version of events, without evidence to substantiate what really took place as far as Dr Vincent Tabak is concerned or Joanna Yeates...
Like I questioned CJ... I could be completely wrong on that... He might be apart of a bigger picture... But i was questioning him based on the information available.... And forming an opinion based on said information....
So maybe now we need to talk of disclosure and finally find out the truth about the case of Dr Vincent Tabak and The Murder of Joanna Yeates... And have proper justice in this country.... And not rely on evidence that supports a conviction of what I believe is an Innocent man... By omitting huge amounts of said evidence that could contradict a mans plea to "Manslaughter", based on nothing more than a story told by him on the witness stand... A story that doesn't add up... A story that is not supported by any evidence... A story I or no-one else should believe is true without proper evidence to support this fact.. And with all said witness's who could and should have been at trial, telling us their version of events for that period of time...
And until I know truthfully what everyone connected to this case knows... I will still believe that Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent... I will still believe that our Justice System is flawed.... I will still believe that anyone could and has found themselves in Dr Vincent Tabak's position... You just have to go back a few years and know the case of Stefan Kizco to understand how disclosure in that case failed him, as the Police already knew that he was sterile and could not be the contributor of the semen... But he was incarcerated on the evidence presented at trial....
We shouldn't be ruining the lives of Innocent people.... The Prosecution and Police shouldn't be allowed to get away with not disclosing the information that they have gathered.... And in a timely manner...
There should be some penalty in law for these people who are happy to put Innocent people away, by not disclosing the evidence they have.... maybe if they went to prison for the lack of disclosure, it may change their approach to how they conduct themselves.... instead on taking early retirement by some and then getting a generous handshake as they walk out of the door....
My last question therefore has to be....What DID The Prosecution disclose to The Defence??? Because reading between the lines... Not very much... We have filled in the blanks based on what the media have told us about this case, and not what was actually presented to the defence or what was presented at trial.. (imo)
Leaving massive gaps in a case that is NOT clear cut.... A Case that really needs to be re examined fully for us to every to be able to trust The justice system again... (imo)... Because we should never be happy with a plea from anyone that is NOT supported by any evidence whatsoever!! We should never be happy to accept a case without witness's being present, and witness's we know witnessed important information such as CJ.....
We do not know the TRUE VERSION OF EVENTS.... we only know a story that a man told, a story we should NOT believe as nothing supported this story in any shape or form.... (imo)!! Leaving us with a Plea that had no substance, but was accepted by The Defence as true....
Bit worrying if you ask me...!!
-
Nine, you do not seem to be fully aware of the law and/or trial procedures, I may be wrong but that is what I am getting from your posts.
1. It is not necessary for every person who has given a statement to be called as a witness during the trial, their statements will not have been in dispute hence the reason they were not called. (i.e. why call a witness who heard a scream, the fact she screamed was not disputed, it was in fact admitted by Tabak and was supposed to be the reason he covered the victim's mouth and subsequently strangled her)
2. Police do not release every bit of information in relation to their investigations, this means that they will have evidence which only the killer would have known about - I assume the same will have happened in this case.
3. Newspapers do not print every aspect of the trial, that is the problem with getting information from news reports, there are bound to be huge gaps.
4. No evidence of non-disclosure.
5. As explained previously, the defence had no choice but to paint him the way they did, the jury already knew Tabak had pleaded guilty to manslaughter.
6. You cannot be found guilty on confession alone, there has to be evidence linking you to the crime. Be that circumstantial, direct, indirect etc... (the law states this)
7. Once again, the trial was never about establishing whether Tabak killed the victim, he had already admitted that part.
8. The Crown are allowed to introduce theory on what allegedly happened, not what the actual evidence is. (whether true or not, that is why it is called theory)
We all know this... I have mentioned this on numerous occasions and could not understand why he was never called...
But then I go back to disclosure... And if the Prosecution did not disclose this fact to the Defence, then this could not be used at trial...
If everyone knows this then it is hardly undisclosed...
-
That is a really good explanation justsaying. Clear and to the point! Maybe sticking to the facts in this case, as with Luke Mitchells and things wont get so complicated
Once conspiracy theories come in to it... its all gets tangled!
-
As a further point Nine, considering the trial was about the level of intent, ask yourself what those list of witnesses could have brought to the trial to help prove that Tabak was indeed guilty of murder rather than manslaughter...
Nothing at all.
-
Nine, you do not seem to be fully aware of the law and/or trial procedures, I may be wrong but that is what I am getting from your posts.
1. It is not necessary for every person who has given a statement to be called as a witness during the trial, their statements will not have been in dispute hence the reason they were not called. (i.e. why call a witness who heard a scream, the fact she screamed was not disputed, it was in fact admitted by Tabak and was supposed to be the reason he covered the victim's mouth and subsequently strangled her)
2. Police do not release every bit of information in relation to their investigations, this means that they will have evidence which only the killer would have known about - I assume the same will have happened in this case.
3. Newspapers do not print every aspect of the trial, that is the problem with getting information from news reports, there are bound to be huge gaps.
4. No evidence of non-disclosure.
5. As explained previously, the defence had no choice but to paint him the way they did, the jury already knew Tabak had pleaded guilty to manslaughter.
6. You cannot be found guilty on confession alone, there has to be evidence linking you to the crime. Be that circumstantial, direct, indirect etc... (the law states this)
7. Once again, the trial was never about establishing whether Tabak killed the victim, he had already admitted that part.
8. The Crown are allowed to introduce theory on what allegedly happened, not what the actual evidence is. (whether true or not, that is why it is called theory)
If everyone knows this then it is hardly undisclosed...
(1): I agree that not everyone who makes a statement to a crime will be called as a witness, but if they have relevant information to the events that took place, then i believe they should be called.. If they are the partner of the accused, I believe they can provide invaluable evidence, one way or another. If they witnessed someone at a gate on the relevant evening, they could add to either the defences or prosecutions case... If they found the body of Joanna Yeates, I believe they should be called....
(2): If they were so certain that Dr Vincent Tabak was the man that killed Joanna Yeates and Dr Vincent Tabak apparently states in May 2011 that he was guilty of her Manslaughter, why would the Police need to hold back any information?? Surely there should be something that only Dr Vincent tabak knew.... as you state, that is why the Police hold information back... But i would have thought that was only whilst Investigating and not when a trial is to take place for the man they charged with this Murder...
(3): I agree... It would be impossible for the Newspapers to print every aspect of a trial.... Yet they printed many aspects before the trial...!
(4): Again that statement is true in a sense... I have NO Evidence to prove that NON Disclosure was an issue in this case, and therefore would have to concede that to a degree... But then question what the Defence did in relation to their client?? Because I can only go off what we are aware was produced at trial and who did and who did not take the witness stand... I can only go off the tweets that tell us about physical evidence... And no physical evidence puts Dr Vincent Tabak inside Joanna Yeates Flat.... I would have thought that the prosecution would have used this evidence of Dr Vincent Tabak being in Joanna Yeates Flat and Joanna Yeates being in Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat as proof of his connection to the Murder....
(5): The Defence did have a choice, they had a choice early on in the game when the could have challenged the evidence.. When they could have applied for bail.. long before Dr Vincent Tabak made a plea at the Old Bailey.... They had a choice NOT to put their client on the witness stand at trial, as his story was the only evidence that stated what he apparently did on Friday 17th December 2010.... No Dr Vincent Tabak on the witness stand... No conviction for Murder!
(6): So the only apparent confession, is what Dr Vincent Tabak said on the witness stand at trial... The information wasn't available beforehand, he said NO Comment!! And I cannot see what evidence supported the claim that was made on the stand... unless the jury were aware of other information that was not presented as evidence...
(7): The trial should have been about the truth.... The trial should have answered so many questions... The trial should not have been about a jury finding a man guilty when they were already aware he plead guilty to Manslaughter... The word "Manslaughter" being used daily by the media... The word "Manslaughter being used in the court room.... How was that not prejudicial?
(8): Just like I use theory in my posts... But in a court of law, I would like evidence to support said theory and not let everyone interpret what they choose suits their ideas.... Like how it would be impossible for Dr Vincent Tabak to have Joanna Yeates in the boot of the car that was shown on CCTV coming down Park Street... He wasn't on his way to Asda then as it was implied..... The time stamp may be Missing... But the date of the 18th December 2010 on the CCTV makes that an impossibility, seeing as this all apparently took place on the 17th December 2010...
And as you know Justsaying... I have never professed to know anything abut the law or trial procedures, as you have all come to the conclusion that I have proven I am an uneducated women that doesn't have a CSE to rub together....
So my ramblings are my opinion... my opinion may be flawed... But that shouldn't stop people from wondering what this case is really about... That shouldn't stop people questioning how our justice system works... That shouldn't stop people from contesting whether an Innocent man or woman has been sent to prison....
That shouldn't stop anyone from viewing the videos that have been made from people connected to this case... Video's that they are seen to contradict themselves in.... And why DCI mark Saunders CCTV of Canygne Road was NOT played to a Jury to establish whether or not Joanna Yeates actually reached her home on Friday 17th December 2010....
You may be able to accept a confession, or whatever you want to call it Justsaying.... But the facts should support said confession, and if Joanna Yeates did not reach home on Friday 17th December 2010, then I contend that Dr Vincent Tabak did not kill her as was stated at trial...
Surely we need to know the original scene of Crime and if the victim was there at the said time or at her home at all over that weekend... That I would say is more pressing.... And that I would say should have been of primary concern, in this case....
Edit....
(1): Yes not everyone will be called as a witness... but their evidence should be amongst the disclosure for the defence to view(imo)... The Defence themselves can then decide whether or not a person who made a statement, is relevant to a trial.... The possibility that someone made a statement that contradicts what has been stated at trial, could be nestled away in that disclosure bundle.... (imo)
Just like Kingdon. who made a statement to the Police apparently about hearing someone cry "Help Me" mid morning on the 18th December 2010... Did that not get disclosed??? Or did that just get ignored??
-
(1): I agree that not everyone who makes a statement to a crime will be called as a witness, but if they have relevant information to the events that took place, then i believe they should be called.. If they are the partner of the accused, I believe they can provide invaluable evidence, one way or another. If they witnessed someone at a gate on the relevant evening, they could add to either the defences or prosecutions case... If they found the body of Joanna Yeates, I believe they should be called....
Why would they call these witnesses when the trial was in relation to culpability? Was the person who found her disputed that he did in fact find her?
(2): If they were so certain that Dr Vincent Tabak was the man that killed Joanna Yeates and Dr Vincent Tabak apparently states in May 2011 that he was guilty of her Manslaughter, why would the Police need to hold back any information?? Surely there should be something that only Dr Vincent tabak knew.... as you state, that is why the Police hold information back... But i would have thought that was only whilst Investigating and not when a trial is to take place for the man they charged with this Murder...
They will have held back information from their investigation for when they caught the killer or for when he came forward - as they do in many cases. It stops random people from admitting to crime's they have not committed.
(3): I agree... It would be impossible for the Newspapers to print every aspect of a trial.... Yet they printed many aspects before the trial...!
Yes but not every aspect and it will have certainly been cherry-picked!
(4): Again that statement is true in a sense... I have NO Evidence to prove that NON Disclosure was an issue in this case, and therefore would have to concede that to a degree... But then question what the Defence did in relation to their client?? Because I can only go off what we are aware was produced at trial and who did and who did not take the witness stand... I can only go off the tweets that tell us about physical evidence... And no physical evidence puts Dr Vincent Tabak inside Joanna Yeates Flat.... I would have thought that the prosecution would have used this evidence of Dr Vincent Tabak being in Joanna Yeates Flat and Joanna Yeates being in Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat as proof of his connection to the Murder....
Speculation then...
(5): The Defence did have a choice, they had a choice early on in the game when the could have challenged the evidence.. When they could have applied for bail.. long before Dr Vincent Tabak made a plea at the Old Bailey.... They had a choice NOT to put their client on the witness stand at trial, as his story was the only evidence that stated what he apparently did on Friday 17th December 2010.... No Dr Vincent Tabak on the witness stand... No conviction for Murder!
They did not have a choice, he admitted being a killer! The trial was about culpability!
(6): So the only apparent confession, is what Dr Vincent Tabak said on the witness stand at trial... The information wasn't available beforehand, he said NO Comment!! And I cannot see what evidence supported the claim that was made on the stand... unless the jury were aware of other information that was not presented as evidence...
You do not know this. Again, speculation! Were you present during any video links - he confessed prior to trial, hence the trial was about culpability.
(7): The trial should have been about the truth.... The trial should have answered so many questions... The trial should not have been about a jury finding a man guilty when they were already aware he plead guilty to Manslaughter... The word "Manslaughter" being used daily by the media... The word "Manslaughter being used in the court room.... How was that not prejudicial?
The trial was based on his confession of manslaughter.
(8): Just like I use theory in my posts... But in a court of law, I would like evidence to support said theory and not let everyone interpret what they choose suits their ideas.... Like how it would be impossible for Dr Vincent Tabak to have Joanna Yeates in the boot of the car that was shown on CCTV coming down Park Street... He wasn't on his way to Asda then as it was implied..... The time stamp may be Missing... But the date of the 18th December 2010 on the CCTV makes that an impossibility, seeing as this all apparently took place on the 17th December 2010...
Theory and conspiracy theory are 2 different things. The prosecution theorized based on evidence and fact, you do not.
And as you know Justsaying... I have never professed to know anything abut the law or trial procedures, as you have all come to the conclusion that I have proven I am an uneducated women that doesn't have a CSE to rub together....
I never said this, but your lack of understanding is transparent.
So my ramblings are my opinion... my opinion may be flawed... But that shouldn't stop people from wondering what this case is really about... That shouldn't stop people questioning how our justice system works... That shouldn't stop people from contesting whether an Innocent man or woman has been sent to prison....
He is not innocent, he is a confessed killer.
Everything else you have said is irrelevant on the basis he confessed and on the basis he is not disputing the conviction!
-
I never said this, but your lack of understanding is transparent.
You see, you have a good argument there for why we shouldn't have juries... Then everyone can be royally stuffed by the system even more..... As jurors do not have understanding of the law or court proceedings either...And are picked from a wide ranging population... A jury who should be given all the evidence to make their opinion on guilt or Innocence... Not Cherry Pick what they may or may not see at trial.... A Jury that believe what the Defence and Prosecution bring to the table... A Jury who believe that if the Defence isn't Defending their client... then he must be guilty!!
My god... why have uneducated people making decisions that they possibily cannot have a clue about....
We better leave it to those who know best eh.... And thank our lucky stars that no-one has decided to brand us as being a witch, and duck us to find out whether or not we are Innocent....
So I leave it to your better judgement Justsaying... You appear to have a better handle on what is legal, than I do... And I shall keep my opinions to myself in future.... We do not want decent in the masses now do we... Oh no... People thinking for themselves... whatever next!!
-
You see, you have a good argument there for why we shouldn't have juries... Then everyone can be royally stuffed by the system even more..... As jurors do not have understanding of the law or court proceedings either...And are picked from a wide ranging population... A jury who should be given all the evidence to make their opinion on guilt... Not Cherry Pick what they may or may not see at trial.... A Jury that believe what the Defence and Prosecution bring to the table... A Jury who believe that if the Defence isn't Defending their client... then he must be guilty!!
My god... why have uneducated people making decisions that they possibily cannot have a clue about....
We better leave it to those who know best eh.... And thank our lucky stars that no-one has decided to brand us as being a witch, and duck us to find out whether or not we are Innocent....
So I leave it to your better judgement Justsaying... You appear to have a better handle on what is legal, than I do... And I shall keep my opinions to myself in future.... We do not want decent in the masses now do we... Oh no... People thinking for themselves... whatever next!!
Sorry but you make no sense. Juror's may or may not have an understanding of the law, it is the very reason why they have a judge to direct them.
-
I think the Jury were given a huge helping hand when he admitted killing her dont you? The jury cant be blamed for that. Murder or Manslaughter was the decision!
-
I never once said you were uneducated either Nine, I said you have a lack of understanding when it comes to law and trial procedures.
-
I think the Jury were given a huge helping hand when he admitted killing her dont you? The jury cant be blamed for that. Murder or Manslaughter was the decision!
8@??)( Yes they were definitely given a helping hand by his confession.
And, were definitely given a helping hand as to the law by the judge from his directions I would expect.
-
8@??)( Yes they were definitely given a helping hand by his confession.
And, were definitely given a helping hand as to the law by the judge from his directions I would expect.
I still stay confused.....
OK... Who is Dr Vincent Tabak?? Everyone is convinced that he is guilty of Manslaughter, this was stated in the media about his appearance at The Old Bailey with a unique number U20110387.
Is he and was he known by another name??
We may see images of a man they call Dr Vincent Tabak, but is it?? We know little to zero about him.... I keep trying to understand why it doesn't make sense.... And why Joanna Yeates was killed....
The determining of his guilt was set in stone by the 29th July 2011,... And probably at The Old Bailey, but it is the 29th July 2011 that we are made aware by the Attorney General and the Case taking place at that time that Dr Vincent Tabak is guilty of Manslaughter at least...
The way the trial played out across the media in October 2011 had me questioning everything about this case... And it is from the trial and what i know that i determined that Dr Vincent Tabak was Innocent.... But... I maybe need to look at this differently...
The question keeps coming back to who is Dr Vincent Tabak?? Is he really an engineer? Was he an undercover Police Officer?? Was he trying to silence Joanna Yeates....
The trial is seperate from everything else I believe... And as everyone keeps pointing out to me it was about INTENT... And not whether or not he did it.... Which on the surface seems strange... I don't know law, but it appears all wrong... I cannot think of any case which is similar to this one...
I believe everyone knows that the tale told on the stand was a tall story and it realistically came from what was already known in this case... There were no surprises to be had, and there should have been.... The media went along with the tall tale told... They tweeted about it... (highly unusual).. No criminal case had ever had live tweets before... They reported it on line... The Defence sounded like the Prosecution at times and The Prosecution and even the Judge sounded like the Defence at times.. But why??
I don't get it i don't understand...
I have gone back to :Attorney General v MGN Ltd
29 Jul 2011 [2011] EWHC 2074 (Admin), DC
And there are a couple of paragraphs that make me question everything again.....
The proceedings arise from the killing of a young woman, Joanna Yeates, in Bristol on 17th December 2010. Her landlord, Christopher Jefferies, was arrested on 30th December on suspicion of her murder. He was released from custody on unconditional police bail during the evening of 1st January 2011. On 22nd January another man, Vincent Tabak was charged with the murder of Miss Yeates. On 4th March Mr Jefferies was informed that he was released from police bail. On 5th May Tabak admitted that he was responsible for killing Miss Yeates when, at the Central Criminal Court, he pleaded guilty to her manslaughter. He denied murder on the basis of diminished responsibility. The trial of that issue will take place in the autumn.
So from that quote, I understand that a trial has been agreed to contest INTENT?? But what was the trial really about... Was it putting INTENT on trial?? Was Dr Vincent Tabak ever really on trial in October 2011?? Or did we just have "INTENT" in the dock? I question this because...
There is therefore no doubt about the identity of the man who killed Miss Yeates or that Mr Jefferies is innocent of any involvement in it. By way of emphasis, he is not simply presumed in law to be innocent of the killing. As a matter of fact and reality he is innocent. He is not facing trial, and he will never face trial. However at the time when the articles complained of were published, he was under arrest. For the purposes of the Act proceedings against him were active. No one was to know that before very long he would be entirely exonerated. That feature makes this an unusual case. The articles complained of did not have and could not have had any impact whatever on a trial of Mr Jefferies, just because – as we now know - there will never be one. From the point of view of the defendants that was purely adventitious, and as we shall see, it is irrelevant to our decision. It is also irrelevant that the way in which some elements of the media may have treated Mr Jefferies may justify a substantial award of damages for defamation. This is a prosecution for contempt of court, not an analysis of any possible civil claim by him for compensation.
"There will never be one"... So there will never be a trial full stop if I understand that correctly... The matter must be settled, but it was played out in the media because???
That I do not know....
Something has been covered up, that is obvious, CJ couldn't confidently push forward so early on before a trial his claims for compensation.. You would have imagined he would have waited... I don't understand why the AG has got involved... That is usual... is it??
According to the second paragraph, Dr Vincent Tabak pled not guilty to Murder on the grounds of diminished responsibilities... But guilty to her Manslaughter....
But at trial, nothing to support diminished responsibilities was entered into evidence..... No medical reports, nothing about his character, in fact nothing about him whatsoever... Nobody there to take the stand in his defence at all...
Do we question what the trial was about, or do we question how Joanna Yeates was killed, and in what capacity? Or both??
It appears that they know for certain that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates, the question is why do they know for certain?? It appears that they had in fact decided and concluded this in May 2011, evidence must have appeared at the Old Bailey to support this... I have know idea what is spoken about behind closed doors... Or why Dr Vincent Tabak would have 2 different trial numbers.... But there has to be more to this than meets the eye if he was taken to the Old Bailey, and The Attorney general is happy to state that Dr Vincent Tabak IS guilty of the demise of Joanna Yeates and Christopher Jefferies is wholly Innocent....
I kept saying that Dr Vincent Tabak could retracted his plea at any time, (imo) which makes The Attorney Generals statement even more strange.... And I'm still stumped as to why he got involved...
Would I say that Dr Vincent Tabak is still Innocent..... Yes, because someone is Innocent until proven guilty and we do not know what actually took place, and why The Attorney General was satisfied that Dr Vincent Tabak was guilty back on the 29th July 2011 is beyond me....
Did a real trial take place in October 2011?? I don't know... But a lot off people wanted everyone to know about Dr Vincent Tabak for some reason, so in their eyes he must be guilty of something... But not what we have been told.. (imo) I say a real trial because i do not know of any legal documentation of R V Tabak.. There could be, it would be great if someone could point us to it please.... (Or is it sealed somewhere after his Old Bailey appearance?)
Is Dr Vincent Tabak free somewhere carrying on life as normal?? Well no one can locate him... I wonder if it was some special Police Operation that went awry.. I don't know... But there are 2 people in this case that we know little to nothing about, 2 people who history should have been part of a trial, 2 people who have been all over the media and 2 people no-one will talk about....
So who is Dr Vincent Tabak really??
Who is Joanna Yeates??
And what is it about this case that it gets quoted in many many publications, without anyone questioning anything that I have brought to the table.... Why was it so important for Joanna Yeates case to be mentioned at the Leveson??
I have wondered why The Yeates haven't said anything else since... I have wondered why the Tabak's haven't said anything else since... And it's odd...
Is Dr Vincent Tabak related to the Yeates ??
Have the Yeates been silenced by some court order??
Have the media been silenced?? I don't know.. But this case makes no sense to me and i want to know why everyone believes that Dr Vincent Tabak is guilty of MANSLAUGHTER and on what grounds.... I want to know why they all talk of a confession and when and where this confession took place and were they privvy to this confession...
I want to know if I have just been wasting my time....
http://iclr.co.uk/document/2011201901/%5B2011%5D%20EWHC%202074%20(Admin)/html?query=tabak&filter=content-available%3A%22Transcript%22&fullSearchFields=&page=1&sort=relevance&pageSize=10
-
Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWHC 2383 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICECO/3685/2011
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
Friday 29 July 2011
B e f o r e:
THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND AND WALES
(Lord Judge)
LORD JUSTICE THOMAS
and
MR JUSTICE OWEN
B E T W E E N:
HER MAJESTY'S ATTORNEY GENERAL
Claimant
and
(1) MGN LIMITED
(2) NEWS GROUP NEWSPAPERS LIMITED
Defendants
_______________
Computer Aided Transcription by
Wordwave International Ltd (a Merrill Communications Company)
165 Fleet Street, London EC4
Telephone No: 020 7421 4040
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
_______________
Mr Dominic Grieve QC (Her Majesty's Attorney General)
and Miss Melanie Cumberland
(instructed by the Treasury Solicitor)
appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Mr Jonathan Caplan QC (instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain)
appeared on behalf of the First Defendant
Miss Adrienne Page QC and Mr Anthony Hudson
(instructed by Farrer & Co) appeared on behalf of the Second Defendant
_______________
J U D G M E N T
(As Approved)
_______________
Friday 29 July 2011
THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE:
1. The penalty for both respondents is a fine. In fixing the fine it is irrelevant that Mr Jefferies has successfully pursued a civil remedy for damages for defamation and that damages have been agreed and that an apology has been and will be made to him. His claim was unanswerable.
2. These contempts created substantial risks to the course of justice. Fortunately, in the end justice was not prejudiced or impeded. That was simply good fortune. It had nothing to do with efforts by the two newspapers with which the case is concerned to mitigate the contempts. It no doubt depended on some further good police work and the acceptance in open court by Tabak of his responsibility for this dreadful crime.
3. The Contempt of Court Act 1981 is concerned with substantial risks that justice will be impeded or prejudiced. As we have explained, the concepts are distinct, but in most cases where a trial actually takes place, there is likely to be an overlap. In the end, in this particular case the risks to justice did not eventuate.
4. One aggravating feature of these cases is that in a broadcast on 31 December 2010 the Attorney General gave a clear and salutary warning of the risks to the administration of justice. Unsurprisingly, he did not spell out precisely what coverage might or might not constitute a contempt. We find it impossible to accept that no one in either newspaper knew that the warning had been given, or failed to understand its terms. In the end it was decided nonetheless to publish the articles which we have found to constitute a contempt. That is a significant aggravating feature.
5. Even now, it is implicit in the submissions certainly by Mr Caplan QC that the coverage proceeded, and was entitled to proceed, on the basis that as a result of the "fade factor" and the robust independence of the juries, virtually anything could be published. That was, and is, a serious misapprehension. For the reasons given in the judgment, in every case where an individual has been arrested on suspicion of committing a crime, he must not be vilified. There is nothing new in that principle. It is a perfectly simple one.
6. The issue which must therefore be addressed is the risk to the administration of justice, whether by impeding its proper course, or prejudicing the process. We do not think that any editor can misunderstand the true position.
7. The two newspapers are in different positions. There were two articles in the Daily Mirror and one article in The Sun. The articles in the Daily Mirror were more extreme, and their combined effect on the risks to justice was therefore greater.
8. This case did not involve any guilty plea, or equivalent, or acknowledgement of the contempt by either newspaper. Even now, it is maintained on behalf of the Daily Mirror that this was an issue which it was entitled to contest. So it was. The Sun contested it, but in the light of the judgment that has been given The Sun has offered an apology for what the court has held to be a contempt.
9. Having reflected on the various different decisions which have been drawn to our attention in the written submissions on both sides, we have come to the conclusion that in relation to the Daily Mirror the fine should be fixed at £50,000. In relation to The Sun, making an allowance even for the very late apology, the fine will be fixed at £18,000.
10. The respondents will pay the Attorney General's costs on a standard basis. They will be shared equally between the two respondents.
11. As to the question of an appeal, we take the view that the judgment involved the application of clear statutory language to an unusual factual situation in which a person under arrest has been vilified. We therefore decline to grant leave.
MR CAPLAN: My Lord, may I raise one matter?
THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: Yes.
MR CAPLAN: Under the Administration of Justice Act -- I think it is section 2 -- any application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court should be made within 28 days of your Lordships refusing an application in this court. But your Lordships do have the power under section 2(3) to extend the time within which such an application could be made.
THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: Yes.
MR CAPLAN: Could we respectfully ask your Lordships to agree to extend time to us to make an application on or by 16 September -- that is a further two weeks?
THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: Of course, Mr Caplan.
From (1): What does his claim was unanswerable mean??
http://iclr.co.uk/document/2016040877/%5B2011%5D%20EWHC%202383%20(Admin)/html
-
I still stay confused.....
OK... Who is Dr Vincent Tabak?? Everyone is convinced that he is guilty of Manslaughter, this was stated in the media about his appearance at The Old Bailey with a unique number U20110387.
Is he and was he known by another name??
We may see images of a man they call Dr Vincent Tabak, but is it?? We know little to zero about him.... I keep trying to understand why it doesn't make sense.... And why Joanna Yeates was killed....
The determining of his guilt was set in stone by the 29th July 2011,... And probably at The Old Bailey, but it is the 29th July 2011 that we are made aware by the Attorney General and the Case taking place at that time that Dr Vincent Tabak is guilty of Manslaughter at least...
The way the trial played out across the media in October 2011 had me questioning everything about this case... And it is from the trial and what i know that i determined that Dr Vincent Tabak was Innocent.... But... I maybe need to look at this differently...
The question keeps coming back to who is Dr Vincent Tabak?? Is he really an engineer? Was he an undercover Police Officer?? Was he trying to silence Joanna Yeates....
The trial is seperate from everything else I believe... And as everyone keeps pointing out to me it was about INTENT... And not whether or not he did it.... Which on the surface seems strange... I don't know law, but it appears all wrong... I cannot think of any case which is similar to this one...
I believe everyone knows that the tale told on the stand was a tall story and it realistically came from what was already known in this case... There were no surprises to be had, and there should have been.... The media went along with the tall tale told... They tweeted about it... (highly unusual).. No criminal case had ever had live tweets before... They reported it on line... The Defence sounded like the Prosecution at times and The Prosecution and even the Judge sounded like the Defence at times.. But why??
I don't get it i don't understand...
I have gone back to :Attorney General v MGN Ltd
29 Jul 2011 [2011] EWHC 2074 (Admin), DC
And there are a couple of paragraphs that make me question everything again.....
So from that quote, I understand that a trial has been agreed to contest INTENT?? But what was the trial really about... Was it putting INTENT on trial?? Was Dr Vincent Tabak ever really on trial in October 2011?? Or did we just have "INTENT" in the dock? I question this because...
"There will never be one"... So there will never be a trial full stop if I understand that correctly... The matter must be settled, but it was played out in the media because???
That I do not know....
Something has been covered up, that is obvious, CJ couldn't confidently push forward so early on before a trial his claims for compensation.. You would have imagined he would have waited... I don't understand why the AG has got involved... That is usual... is it??
According to the second paragraph, Dr Vincent Tabak pled not guilty to Murder on the grounds of diminished responsibilities... But guilty to her Manslaughter....
But at trial, nothing to support diminished responsibilities was entered into evidence..... No medical reports, nothing about his character, in fact nothing about him whatsoever... Nobody there to take the stand in his defence at all...
Do we question what the trial was about, or do we question how Joanna Yeates was killed, and in what capacity? Or both??
It appears that they know for certain that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates, the question is why do they know for certain?? It appears that they had in fact decided and concluded this in May 2011, evidence must have appeared at the Old Bailey to support this... I have know idea what is spoken about behind closed doors... Or why Dr Vincent Tabak would have 2 different trial numbers.... But there has to be more to this than meets the eye if he was taken to the Old Bailey, and The Attorney general is happy to state that Dr Vincent Tabak IS guilty of the demise of Joanna Yeates and Christopher Jefferies is wholly Innocent....
I kept saying that Dr Vincent Tabak could retracted his plea at any time, (imo) which makes The Attorney Generals statement even more strange.... And I'm still stumped as to why he got involved...
Would I say that Dr Vincent Tabak is still Innocent..... Yes, because someone is Innocent until proven guilty and we do not know what actually took place, and why The Attorney General was satisfied that Dr Vincent Tabak was guilty back on the 29th July 2011 is beyond me....
Did a real trial take place in October 2011?? I don't know... But a lot off people wanted everyone to know about Dr Vincent Tabak for some reason, so in their eyes he must be guilty of something... But not what we have been told.. (imo) I say a real trial because i do not know of any legal documentation of R V Tabak.. There could be, it would be great if someone could point us to it please.... (Or is it sealed somewhere after his Old Bailey appearance?)
Is Dr Vincent Tabak free somewhere carrying on life as normal?? Well no one can locate him... I wonder if it was some special Police Operation that went awry.. I don't know... But there are 2 people in this case that we know little to nothing about, 2 people who history should have been part of a trial, 2 people who have been all over the media and 2 people no-one will talk about....
So who is Dr Vincent Tabak really??
Who is Joanna Yeates??
And what is it about this case that it gets quoted in many many publications, without anyone questioning anything that I have brought to the table.... Why was it so important for Joanna Yeates case to be mentioned at the Leveson??
I have wondered why The Yeates haven't said anything else since... I have wondered why the Tabak's haven't said anything else since... And it's odd...
Is Dr Vincent Tabak related to the Yeates ??
Have the Yeates been silenced by some court order??
Have the media been silenced?? I don't know.. But this case makes no sense to me and i want to know why everyone believes that Dr Vincent Tabak is guilty of MANSLAUGHTER and on what grounds.... I want to know why they all talk of a confession and when and where this confession took place and were they privvy to this confession...
I want to know if I have just been wasting my time....
http://iclr.co.uk/document/2011201901/%5B2011%5D%20EWHC%202074%20(Admin)/html?query=tabak&filter=content-available%3A%22Transcript%22&fullSearchFields=&page=1&sort=relevance&pageSize=10
8@??)(
Dr Sandra Lean 10th January 2017 re Simon Hall
".....The confession and the circumstances in which it was made, have never been made public. There were other suicide attempts, the last being in February 2014, when he was found dead in his cell. The confession, whether reliable or not, does not alter the fact that the case on which the conviction was founded was extremely weak, and fell far below the standards most of us would expect when a life sentence is the potential outcome of proceedings.
I do hope justsaying will be able to answer your questions Nine, seeing as they've now taken an interest in this case.
It's clear a lot of work has gone into gaining your quite apparent in depth knowledge on this case.
Your questions are valid from my viewpoint, especially considering the public comments made regarding Simon Halls confession and by whom they were made.
You see, to this day, we have only Stephanie’s word about the circumstances leading up to the confession, the circumstances of the confession itself, the state of Simon’s mental and emotional well-being (or otherwise), the content of the confession etc. We have no information about how the confession was given or accepted (it was reported at the inquest that he “told his wife” who then “told him to tell the prison.” I have no idea if that is true or not – it was reported in the media, after all.) I’m not inclined to simply take Stephanie’s word (or anyone else’s for that matter) at face value. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg382961.html#msg382961
-
8@??)(
I do hope justsaying will be able to answer your questions Nine, seeing as they've now taken an interest in this case.
It's clear a lot of work has gone into gaining your quite apparent in depth knowledge on this case.
Your questions are valid from my stand point, especially considering the public comments made regarding Simon Halls confession and guilt and by whom they were made.
I wish someone would answer my questions Stephanie, and thanks for your response, nice to see someone else post...
?{)(**
-
.. its all gets tangled!
Tangled by whom?
-
Tangled by whom?
A question I keep asking... A complex case having Ann Reddrop persuing it till the bitter end, that was a simple strangulation.... Now that makes no sense !
-
A question I keep asking... A complex case having Ann Reddrop persuing it till the bitter end, that was a simple strangulation.... Now that makes no sense !
Yes I saw this by Ann Reddrop
"Tabak was cunning and dishonest towards his girlfriend with whom he maintained a 'normal' relationship and towards his former landlord about whom he lied to the police and which in part led to that person's arrest for the murder.
"He was manipulative of the police by virtue of his own in-depth research on the internet to keep one step ahead of the investigation, prior to his arrest and then very selective admissions surrounding the circumstances of Jo's death, which sought to cast her in an unfavourable light - even when he was giving evidence to the jury.
"Tabak thought his cleverness and deceit would prevent him from being convicted of the brutal murder, but he was wrong https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8856060/CPS-Vincent-Tabak-was-cunning-and-dishonest.html
But as you say where is all the supporting evidence supporting the public claims?
-
Happily. I mean if you have been through this thread you will have seen me state time and time again that Tabak is guilty as charged. There is little to no actually justification for claiming otherwise in my opinion. He has confessed on numerous occasions, made up false information to throw the police off, appears to have made no claims of innocence himself since the trial and those internet searches(!) It all adds up to me.
Your turn
-
I swear if I see the word projecting again, from someone who very much loves to project, I may actually gouge out my own eyes!
-
Happily. I mean if you have been through this thread you will have seen me state time and time again that Tabak is guilty as charged. There is little to no actually justification for claiming otherwise in my opinion. He has confessed on numerous occasions, made up false information to throw the police off, appears to have made no claims of innocence himself since the trial and those internet searches(!) It all adds up to me.
Your turn
Where's the evidence for your claims?
-
Where's the evidence for your claims?
It's scattered throughout this thread and the many many reports on the crime and trial that appeared closer to the time.
-
. Do you think Vincent Tabak is innocent?
I know nothing about him. I didn't follow this case.
-
Happily. I mean if you have been through this thread you will have seen me state time and time again that Tabak is guilty as charged. There is little to no actually justification for claiming otherwise in my opinion. He has confessed on numerous occasions, made up false information to throw the police off, appears to have made no claims of innocence himself since the trial and those internet searches(!) It all adds up to me.
Your turn
Exactly Baz. No one has taken away from Nine the dedication to this even if we dont agree
-
I know nothing about him.
@)(++(*
-
Tabak is guilty as charged, based on the fact he confessed. Now we are being asked to assume he isn't even real. I won't dignify that with an answer. Just ridiculous. We have to keep to opinion based on fact on another thread but on this one the
speculation conspiracy theories are allowed run rife!
-
I think coming on here to take over the thread for ulterior motives is quite wrong considering all the time and effort that Nine has put in to argue the case for Tabak. While I will stand by my view of his guilt which matches his very own, i dont think hijacking someone else's work about issues that are nothing to do with his case or even MOJ in general is the way forward,Just a personal hate campaign that people are very tired of.
-
I think coming on here to take over the thread for ulterior motives is quite wrong considering all the time and effort that Nine has put in to argue the case for Tabak. While I will stand by my view of his guilt which matches his very own, i dont think hijacking someone else's work about issues that are nothing to do with his case or even MOJ in general is the way forward,Just a personal hate campaign that people are very tired of.
I think it's good to have someone elses input to be honest... And someone else asking the questions.. 8(0(*
-
Dont mean to be rude Nine but come on...she knows nothing about the case and one of her first points was now that justsaying is taking an interest in this case. That is was made her post. Justsaying actually posted here first rather than anything Stephanie commented on but she doesnt remember it that way
Whatever way, its not about Tabak just more about Sandra Lean who to the best of my knowledge isnt connected to the case in any way and against the rules John asked us to stick to!
I would appreciate someone taking a proper look at this case and why it makes no sense....
I would still like to know where Dr Vincent Tabak confessed, and how this confession was documented... what was the date of this confession... You know simple things like that.. I could confess I am having tea with the Queen right now.... Doesn't make it true though does it!
-
Clarification please Justsaying...
Please clarify how this confession came about..!!
When... date of confession
Where... where this confession took place..!
-
Clarification please Justsaying...
Please clarify how this confession came about..!!
When... date of confession
Where... where this confession took place..!
Nine there really is no reason for your hostility... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8834133/Vincent-Tabak-confessed-Joanna-Yeates-killing-in-emotional-meeting-with-prison-chaplain.html
-
Nine there really is no reason for your hostility... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8834133/Vincent-Tabak-confessed-Joanna-Yeates-killing-in-emotional-meeting-with-prison-chaplain.html
@)(++(* I'm not being hostile I wish for correct documented information....
@)(++(* The Chaplain... that Old Chestnut..... Brotherton, a man whom assumed the role of chaplain... And wasn't an actual Chaplain...
Did they just take his word for it because they assumed he was a man of god.... Or was there some documentation to go with this info....
Dr Vincent Tabak never stated to the Chaplain that he killed Joanna Yeates anyway.... that is someones interpretation of what was spoken... If people want to believe him guilty, then they will read what ever they want to into a statement that was made at trial by Brotherton...
Edit.... Therefore did AG, know about this apparent confession in July 2011, and if so how??
-
After Tabak confessed procedures will have taken place, he will have submitted a statement with his confession which will have been used in trial against him.
-
After Tabak confessed procedures will have taken place, he will have submitted a statement with his confession which will have been used in trial against him.
Your assuming a lot there.... Where is the evidence of this ??
-
Dr Vincent Tabak never stated to the Chaplain that he killed Joanna Yeates anyway.... that is someones interpretation of what was spoken... If people want to believe him guilty, then they will read what ever they want to into a statement that was made at trial by Brotherton...
How do you know? Were you hiding behind a curtain when he confessed? He had every opportunity to deny this at trial, he did not deny this - hence the trial took place based on the confession. Why can you not understand that, it is very simple!
-
Also if he didn't confess and put in a further statement, which is procedure... Then how on earth did he claim that she screamed when he went to kiss her so he put his hand over her mouth. And, that he only strangled her for 20 seconds. Come on, even you cannot be that blind!
-
How do you know? Were you hiding behind a curtain when he confessed? He had every opportunity to deny this at trial, he did not deny this - hence the trial took place based on the confession. Why can you not understand that, it is very simple!
Maybe it's because I am Simple!!
-
Your assuming a lot there.... Where is the evidence of this ??
Do you honestly think no-one spoke to him after he confessed? His defence will have had to take a statement from him, which will have been produced at trial to play down his alleged intent... It isn't rocket science - it is correct procedure...
-
Nine have you ever looked it from the view point of Tabak being guilty and working your way back? everyone on this forum comments on cases where they have been found guilty. Some say that is enough to convince them that right verdict was reached others totally disagree.
Tabak offered up a version of what he said happened... that could be true or maybe a watered down version to give the best impression of himself and the attack that took place that evening
If you were guilty yourself and looked at your future being spent serving a life sentence, what version of yourself would you put forward?
-
Maybe it's because I am Simple!!
Maybe it is because you have no understanding of the law and trial procedures... No-one called you simple so stop jumping to conclusions. I think Tabak is guilty based on a number of sound facts. You think he is innocent based on all these theories you have conjured. Let's agree to disagree, I've had enough of people's hostility just because I dare to have a different opinion. We are supposed to be adults, yet people are acting like children.
-
Nine have you ever looked it from the view point of Tabak being guilty and working your way back? everyone on this forum comments on cases where they have been found guilty. Some say that is enough to convince them that right verdict was reached others totally disagree.
Tabak offered up a version of what he said happened... that could be true or maybe a watered down version to give the best impression of himself and the attack that took place that evening
If you were guilty yourself and looked at your future being spend serving a life sentence, what version of yourself would you put forward?
Stupidly I would be honest and say exactly what happened... But that is me... I would expect to be represented properly too...
I can work backwards on this , but it still makes no sense..... I can work upside down on this and it won't make any difference....
I have wasted my time... I thought there was a point to the Justice System... But not the point I originally believed...
I won't change my mind until someone proves to me that Dr Vincent Tabak did indeed kill Joanna yeates.... I won't change my mind until DS Mark Saunders CCTV tape of Canygne Road on the 17th December 2010 is seen by the public, to prove one way or another whether or not Joanna Yeates actually arrived home.... Because Colin Port shouldn't be telling The Leveson Inquiry that the last known sighting of Joanna Yeates was at the Hophouse pub...
Meaning Joanna yeates either got home and is on the CCTV that DS Mark Saunders speaks of... Or there is CCTV footage of a time at the HopHouse pub we know nothing about... Because that clip we have seen of Joanna yeates at the end of the street on the HopHouse Pub footage, doesn't clearly indicate who the person is on that footage.... So there has to be more footage, for Colin Pot to say that Joanna Yeates was last seen on the CCTV from the Hophouse pub.... And we are aware that they Police took the entire system away from The Hophouse Pub... Why do that if there wasn't anything else on the footage from that establishment...
So yes.. I will question the events at trial..... because they make no sense either!
-
Stupidly I would be honest and say exactly what happened... But that is me...
And yet you assume Tabak didn't do the same, based on no evidence whatsoever...
-
And yet you assume Tabak didn't do the same, based on no evidence whatsoever...
Yes I do.... Because there is too much detail missing.... He should be able to answer questions put, not say he doesn't know more than 80 times....
-
And yet you assume Tabak didn't do the same, based on no evidence whatsoever...
Exactly..... No Evidence whatsoever!!! 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
http://murderpedia.org/male.T/t/tabak-vincent.htm
"The team deployed a method known as DNA SenCE, which enhances unusable DNA samples through purification and concentration: "We couldn't say whether the DNA was from saliva, or semen, or even touch. But we could say that the probability of it not being a match with Tabak was less than one in a billion."
I suppose the forensic team was in on the collusion as well...
-
Exactly..... No Evidence whatsoever!!! 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
I meant your theories were based on no evidence whatsoever *%87
-
http://murderpedia.org/male.T/t/tabak-vincent.htm
"The team deployed a method known as DNA SenCE, which enhances unusable DNA samples through purification and concentration: "We couldn't say whether the DNA was from saliva, or semen, or even touch. But we could say that the probability of it not being a match with Tabak was less than one in a billion."
I suppose he forensic team was in on the collusion as well...
Not again... It wasn't a billion to one... it was a partial... And they cannot turn around all of the evidence in 48 hrs as Lyndsey Lennen stated in her Guardian Interview... She'd have an issue as Dr Vincent Tabak wasn't a suspect at that time...
You know the drill I am not going over it again.... ?{)(**
-
I meant your theories were based on no evidence whatsoever *%87
Just like the trial then.... 8(0(*
-
There was clearly evidence against him, first and foremost was his confession, whether you accept that or not. Secondly, DNA evidence which was said to be a billion to one match... And probably things that he, the killer, could only tell police...
-
Not again... It wasn't a billion to one... it was a partial... And they cannot turn around all of the evidence in 48 hrs as Lyndsey Lennen stated in her Guardian Interview... She'd have an issue as Dr Vincent Tabak wasn't a suspect at that time...
You know the drill I am not going over it again.... ?{)(**
Oh ok, so you're a forensic scientist now. Should have told me, we could have cleared this up a long time ago...
-
There was clearly evidence against him, first and foremost was his confession, whether you accept that or not. Secondly, DNA evidence which was said to be a billion to one match... And probably things that he, the killer, could only tell police...
According to DCI Phil Jones, Dr Vincent Tabak made a NO Comment statement... He only spoke of an issue around a mobile phone....
So who are you talking about when you say what The Killer told the Police???
Because nothing about an issue around a mobile phone made it to trial either....!!
-
Oh ok, so you're a forensic scientist now. Should have told me, we could have cleared this up a long time ago...
(&^&
No... I am no-one ?{)(**
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/21/opinion/the-dangers-of-dna-testing.html?nytapp=true
-
According to DCI Phil Jones, Dr Vincent Tabak made a NO Comment statement... He only spoke of an issue around a mobile phone....
So who are you talking about when you say what The Killer told the Police???
Because nothing about an issue around a mobile phone made it to trial either....!!
You will be referring to the interview PRIOR to him being remanded in which he made no comment... He made the confession AFTER that whilst on remand.
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/21/opinion/the-dangers-of-dna-testing.html?nytapp=true
Oh well I guess the government should just go back through every case which were convicted on the basis of DNA and release them all on the basis of that article...
-
Would you care to link the article regarding Lindsay Lennen? I can't seem to find it or at least your interpretation of it...
-
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/18/vincent-tabak-no-comment-joanna-yeates
"The jury was told that Tabak made prepared statements when he was interviewed over three days after his arrest. But to most questions he simply replied: "No comment."
-
Would you care to link the article regarding Lindsay Lennen? I can't seem to find it or at least your interpretation of it...
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jan/17/csi-oxford-lgc-forensics
Joanna Yeates
It started as a missing person inquiry on December 18, 2010, says Lindsey Lennen, a body fluids and DNA specialist (who, like many forensic scientists, says the work is "all I ever wanted to do"). The team started by examining items from Joanna's home, looking for foreign DNA. Then on Christmas Day, Yeates was found dead, on a country road.
A colleague went down to supervise the removal of her clothing and preserve any body fluids: "The body was frozen, so that was quite tricky." Under the media glare, the work was flat-out: clothing, swabs, suspect's clothing, all analysed and turned round in 48 hours.
"Eventually, we found something," Lennen says. "On swabs and tapes from her breasts, and tapes from three areas of her jeans. There were DNA components that matched one of the suspects, Vincent Tabak." But there wasn't enough, of enough quality, to evaluate – perhaps because of the high salt levels where the body was found, following heavy snowfall.
So the team deployed an LGC technique known as DNA SenCE, which purifies, concentrates and enhances otherwise unusable DNA: "We couldn't say whether the DNA was from saliva, or semen, or even touch. But we could say that the probability of it not being a match with Tabak was less than one in a billion."
With the killer's confession, Lennen's DNA evidence was not further tested. "It happens, in court," she says. "You get called biased, in the police's pay. You have to tell the truth, not stretch what you have. If you don't know which of two alternatives is more likely, you must say so."
Maybe this is where you get the idea that the match was a billion to one....
-
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/18/vincent-tabak-no-comment-joanna-yeates
"The jury was told that Tabak made prepared statements when he was interviewed over three days after his arrest. But to most questions he simply replied: "No comment."
Who prepared them???
-
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/18/vincent-tabak-no-comment-joanna-yeates
Clegg suggested his client had simply said: "I'm going to plead guilty." He had already told his lawyers that he had killed Yeates, Clegg said, adding that Tabak was "a depressed and distressed man unburdening himself".
All this said in front of Tabak at court yet he said nothing to dispute it. Oh come on!
-
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/18/vincent-tabak-no-comment-joanna-yeates
Clegg suggested his client had simply said: "I'm going to plead guilty." He had already told his lawyers that he had killed Yeates, Clegg said, adding that Tabak was "a depressed and distressed man unburdening himself".
All this said in front of Tabak at court yet he said nothing to dispute it. Oh come on!
Plead Guilty to what exactly?? And why!! And why is Clegg suggesting it anyway??
-
Who prepared them???
Are you for real? or are you just winding me up? Seriously? Prepared statements are made by the client and the lawyer and are given to police prior to any questioning. Prepared statement are also made prior to any trial. The statements have to be signed by the suspect/defendant. Do not question me on this, it is fact!
-
Plead Guilty to what exactly?? And why!! And why is Clegg suggesting it anyway??
Do you really need to ask that question? MANSLAUGHTER - he suggested it because his client had told him it! Oh I forgot his defence was in collusion too @)(++(*
-
Are you for real? or are you just winding me up? Seriously? Prepared statements are made by the client and the lawyer and are given to police prior to any questioning. Prepared statement are also made prior to any trial. The statements have to be signed by the suspect/defendant. Do not question me on this, it is fact!
Which Solicitor prepared these statements..... That is what i mean...
* Duty Solicitor ??
* Paul Cook ??
* Kelsey and Hall ??
* William Clegg ??
Edit.... Or none of the above??????
-
Once again his opportunity to put the best version of Tabak forward . They will have discussed it thoroughly before it was given.
It is very telling which parts of the interview he gave no comment to. Being selective came him more scope to stick to the oh she screamed, it was on 20 seconds and an accident. He wouldnt have wanted to discuss the more calculated events including further sexual advances. Like you have said all the way through your posts, he is a very intelligent man. Shame is anger got the better of him!
-
Once again his opportunity to put the best version of Tabak forward . They will have discussed it thoroughly before it was given.
It is very telling which parts of the interview he gave no comment to. Being selective came him more scope to stick to the oh she screamed, it was on 20 seconds and an accident. He wouldnt have wanted to discuss the more calculated events including further sexual advances. Like you have said all the way through your posts, he is a very intelligent man. Shame is anger got the better of him!
8@??)( No everyone got it wrong, he lied that he killed her just for the sake of it...
-
Doesn't really matter who wrote up the statements, he will have had to read and sign them. Plus it will have been his version of events, not the lawyers...
-
Doesn't really matter who wrote up the statements, he will have had to read and sign them. Plus it will have been his version of events, not the lawyers...
Well Justsaying... You know the law better than me... maybe you could answer your own question....
-
Let's keep it civil people.
Nine: whoever it was that he prepared his statement with, and not knowing exactly the name of the person doesn't mean it didn't happen, the statement was presented in court and if Tabak hadn't made the confession he could have surely disputed in court, rather than go on to give a further confession on the stand?
-
It does not matter, the fact is any statements will have been SIGNED by Tabak otherwise they wouldn't have been used at all...
-
Let's keep it civil people.
Nine: whoever it was that he prepared his statement with, and not knowing exactly the name of the person doesn't mean it didn't happen, the statement was presented in court and if Tabak hadn't made the confession he could have surely disputed in court, rather than go on to give a further confession on the stand?
And to say he how sorry he was. Maybe that is genuine just like his confession.
-
Let's keep it civil people.
Nine: whoever it was that he prepared his statement with, and not knowing exactly the name of the person doesn't mean it didn't happen, the statement was presented in court and if Tabak hadn't made the confession he could have surely disputed in court, rather than go on to give a further confession on the stand?
Baz... Have you never wondered why the Interviews that surely must have been taped at the Police station never appeared at trial??
We have seen evidence of interviews that are taped been shown to the public.... Just look at the Becky Watts Case...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNMQFD3uz3k
I wonder why they were not used to bolster this case, and show just what a manipulating individual Dr Vincent Tabak apparently was... Did he sign any of these statements at the Police Station for instance.... Surely there would be evidence of that!!
-
Well Justsaying... You know the law better than me... maybe you could answer your own question....
Absolutely pathetic. Why don't you think of the victim in all of this, you have called her killer "placid" - suggested everyone right up to his defence has colluded to convict him - he may not be a real person - body double's - hypnotism and then make indirect suggestions that I do not have a clue what I am talking about.
-
Absolutely pathetic. Why don't you think of the victim in all of this, you have called her killer "placid" - suggested everyone right up to his defence has colluded to convict him - he may not be a real person - body double's - hypnotism and then make indirect suggestions that I do not have a clue what I am talking about.
I don't remember the Hypnotism... Would you point me to that please....
-
Tell me Nine, if all this wrong happened to him, then why isn't he trying to appeal? What exactly were you going to say to him if you did make contact... convince him he is innocent @)(++(* Not surprised competent people wouldn't touch this case with a barge pole. Clearly guilty as charged!
-
Baz... Have you never wondered why the Interviews that surely must have been taped at the Police station never appeared at trial??
We have seen evidence of interviews that are taped been shown to the public.... Just look at the Becky Watts Case...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNMQFD3uz3k
I wonder why they were not used to bolster this case, and show just what a manipulating individual Dr Vincent Tabak apparently was... Did he sign any of these statements at the Police Station for instance.... Surely there would be evidence of that!!
have you ever sat through a trial either when they have pleaded guilty or not guilty?
-
Baz... Have you never wondered why the Interviews that surely must have been taped at the Police station never appeared at trial??
We have seen evidence of interviews that are taped been shown to the public.... Just look at the Becky Watts Case...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNMQFD3uz3k
I wonder why they were not used to bolster this case, and show just what a manipulating individual Dr Vincent Tabak apparently was... Did he sign any of these statements at the Police Station for instance.... Surely there would be evidence of that!!
All trials are obviously going to be a bit different. But more importantly, and I do feel like this is the answer to so many of your issues with this case, he had admitted to the killing. Perhaps his taped interviews may have shone some light on whether he was guilty or not but the prosecution obviously didn't feel they had anything to add to the reason for him killing her i.e. murder vs manslaughter. That is what the trial was about. Not IF he did it but WHY. The trial starts with him saying that he killed her.
I can't think of any case in which some of sound mind confesses to killing someone, goes on to plead guilty and take the stand to explain how it happened (even if this isn't true) who turned out to be innocent. Can you?
-
Baz... Have you never wondered why the Interviews that surely must have been taped at the Police station never appeared at trial??
We have seen evidence of interviews that are taped been shown to the public.... Just look at the Becky Watts Case...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNMQFD3uz3k
I wonder why they were not used to bolster this case, and show just what a manipulating individual Dr Vincent Tabak apparently was... Did he sign any of these statements at the Police Station for instance.... Surely there would be evidence of that!!
How do you know they were not presented at court? They will have been put into document form and if he answered questions they most certainly would have been read out - as per any other trial.
-
Look if I am wrong I am wrong.... why does it bother you so much that I am not believing what was said??
I will stick with my belief until proven otherwise...
-
Look if I am wrong I am wrong.... why does it bother you so much that I am not believing what was said??
I will stick with my belief until proven otherwise...
This is a public forum, it is bothering me because some of the things you are saying are very far-fetched and are an insult to the victim. Again I apologise for calling you stupid. I do not think you are but some of the things you are saying are really frustrating.
-
I can't think of any case in which some of sound mind confesses to killing someone, goes on to plead guilty and take the stand to explain how it happened (even if this isn't true) who turned out to be innocent. Can you?
Yes..... This One !!
-
I will say this Nine, had the trial not been about culpability and Tabak pleaded not guilty to both murder and manslaughter you would have a point in some of things you have said (not all)
-
Yes..... This One !!
No Nine, he hasn't been proven innocent. Sorry you are wrong.
-
I will say this Nine, had the trial not been about culpability and Tabak pleaded not guilty to both murder and manslaughter you would have a point in some of thing you have said (not all)
But he didn't plead guilty to both Murder and Manslaughter.... Unless you know something I do not!!
-
Look if I am wrong I am wrong.... why does it bother you so much that I am not believing what was said??
I'm not sure if this is aimed at me but I'll answer for me.
It doesn't bother me so much. It fascinates me and intrigues me when people like you and Leonora with her blog and that Noel O'Gara (who seems awful to me!!) spend so much time and energy trying to prove the innocence of people that are clearly guilty. I'm always slightly in awe of those that dedicate themselves to trying to free someone who is likely to have been a victim of a miscarriage of justice. So when someone dedicates the same to someone as vile as Peter Sutcliffe or Vincent Tabak... then I'm confused.
I also get quite a lot of free time at work so reading this sort of thing helps the time pass.
-
Yes..... This One !!
HAHAHA, sneeky Nine! Very sneeky! But you know what I mean...
-
No Nine, he hasn't been proven innocent. Sorry you are wrong.
Hang on... You said and I'll quote..
Turned out to be Innocent..
And I said this one.... He could turn out to be innocent as I have said... We just don't know till we know the truth about this case...
-
But he didn't plead guilty to both Murder and Manslaughter.... Unless you know something I do not!!
Nine you miss my point entirely, I won't go into it.
-
Hang on... You said and I'll quote..
And I said this one.... He could turn out to be innocent as I have said... We just don't know till we know the truth about this case...
Yes, that is correct. Baz said turned out to be innocent, turned out as in proven to be innocent...
-
Hang on... You said and I'll quote..
And I said this one.... He could turn out to be innocent as I have said... We just don't know till we know the truth about this case...
Allow me to rephrase for clarity then:
I can't think of any case in which someone of sound mind confessed to killing someone, pled guilty, took the stand to explain how it happened and went to prison only to later be exonerated. Can you?
-
I'm not sure if this is aimed at me but I'll answer for me.
It doesn't bother me so much. It fascinates me and intrigues me when people like you and Leonora with her blog and that Noel O'Gara (who seems awful to me!!) spend so much time and energy trying to prove the innocence of people that are clearly guilty. I'm always slightly in awe of those that dedicate themselves to trying to free someone who is likely to have been a victim of a miscarriage of justice. So when someone dedicates the same to someone as vile as Peter Sutcliffe or Vincent Tabak... then I'm confused.
I also get quite a lot of free time at work so reading this sort of thing helps the time pass.
I explained... This case has bothered me from the beginning... From The Original Facebook Forum to the trial and after... There has never been anywhere to talk about this case really... Or question what has been put in front of us since the trial...
I'm not going to comment on Peter Sutcliffe... I know Noel's opinion.. And he makes some Interesting points... But I can only speak for myself and not Leonora either...
This Case has never made any sense to me, it has bugged me for an eternity.... And when i post no longer my mind will not be swayed... I will always say what I believe,.... And if all these posts get removed it won't change my mind... I have actually surprised myself to be honest... I didn't think I would still be doing this after all this time when no-one appears to give a damn.... (Bit of Ret Butler there..)
Most people as I have said before have already probably forgotten about Joanna Yeates and Dr Vincent Tabak... They only know this case because of CJ...
So whether I am right or whether I am wrong will make no difference anyway, if no-one cares, as I am someone who cannot do anything about this. And no-one with any legal standing is taking this case up...
It really doesn't make any difference whether or not I care, because it has more to do with does somone else actually cares!!
-
Allow me to rephrase for clarity then:
I can't think of any case in which someone of sound mind confessed to killing someone, pled guilty, took the stand to explain how it happened and went to prison only to later be exonerated. Can you?
I'm sure there are many cases in America that, that has been the case....
-
I also get quite a lot of free time at work so reading this sort of thing helps the time pass.
I'm happy to keep you occupied in your free time there Baz.....
-
So whether I am right or whether I am wrong will make no difference anyway, if no-one cares, as I am someone who cannot do anything about this. And no-one with any legal standing is taking this case up...
Have you ever asked yourself why this is so? He doesn't have a leg to stand on in terms of now pleading his innocent. As it has been clearly explained had there been irregularities as you suggest, i.e. had he not said he was guilty of manslaughter, he would have had the opportunity during trial to say it was lies. He did not say this, so it is safe to assume that he did in fact confess to killing her.
-
Have you ever asked yourself why this is so? He doesn't have a leg to stand on in terms of now pleading his innocent. As it has been clearly explained had there been irregularities as you suggest, i.e. had he not said he was guilty to manslaughter, he would have had the opportunity during trail to say it was lies. He did not say this, so it is safe to assume that he did in fact confess to killing her.
Justsaying.... Nothing is Safe...
-
Justsaying.... Nothing is Safe...
I disagree, the conviction is safe. Nine, you haven't answered my question and I've answered a lot of yours. Why do you think he has not appealed the conviction if he is not guilty of killing Jo?
-
I disagree, the conviction is safe. Nine, you haven't answered my question and I've answered a lot of yours. Why do you think he has not appealed the conviction if he is not guilty of killing Jo?
As I keep getting reminded... I know nothing about Law... So how would I be able to answer that question....
-
As I keep getting reminded... I know nothing about Law... So how would I be able to answer that question....
I dont think you need to know about law to have a guess at an answer. Would be interesting to see why you think he hasnt?
-
I'm sure there are many cases in America that, that has been the case....
Plenty of famous examples of false confessions in the face of police but I've never heard of any that detailed how they committed the crime on the stand to later be acquitted. If you can find one let me know.
I'm happy to keep you occupied in your free time there Baz.....
It's always between reading these sort of forums or another crossword!!
-
I dont think you need to know about law to have a guess at an answer. Would be interesting to see why you think he hasnt?
I agree, the law is irrelevant when considering this question. Perhaps I should rephrase also. Nine why do you think Tabak isn't claiming innocence?
-
I dont think you need to know about law to have a guess at an answer. Would be interesting to see why you think he hasnt?
There could be a million reasons why.... I just don't know the true reason for this....
-
we were actually getting to a good point in Tabaks case to confess or not to confess. Once again derailed.
-
Stupidly I would be honest and say exactly what happened... But that is me... I would expect to be represented properly too...
I can work backwards on this , but it still makes no sense..... I can work upside down on this and it won't make any difference....
I have wasted my time... I thought there was a point to the Justice System... But not the point I originally believed...
I won't change my mind until someone proves to me that Dr Vincent Tabak did indeed kill Joanna yeates.... I won't change my mind until DS Mark Saunders CCTV tape of Canygne Road on the 17th December 2010 is seen by the public, to prove one way or another whether or not Joanna Yeates actually arrived home.... Because Colin Port shouldn't be telling The Leveson Inquiry that the last known sighting of Joanna Yeates was at the Hophouse pub...
Meaning Joanna yeates either got home and is on the CCTV that DS Mark Saunders speaks of... Or there is CCTV footage of a time at the HopHouse pub we know nothing about... Because that clip we have seen of Joanna yeates at the end of the street on the HopHouse Pub footage, doesn't clearly indicate who the person is on that footage.... So there has to be more footage, for Colin Pot to say that Joanna Yeates was last seen on the CCTV from the Hophouse pub.... And we are aware that they Police took the entire system away from The Hophouse Pub... Why do that if there wasn't anything else on the footage from that establishment...
So yes.. I will question the events at trial..... because they make no sense either!
You aren't alone nine!
-
I think I went a little too far with their help and they have had enough.... I had my daughter lie on the kitchen floor and got my husband to try and carry her between rooms and then outside, going the approximate distance that Dr Vincent Tabak would have needed to go carrying a dead weight..
My husband gave up after he moved her to the front room.. ( equivelant of Joanna Yeates bedroom in Flat)... Think they have both done their bit for science... lol
And if the word Tabak comes up they both say shush... So, It's me myself I... (There I go some Joan Armour Plating) ?{)(**
-
I think I went a little too far with their help and they have had enough.... I had my daughter lie on the kitchen floor and got my husband to try and carry her between rooms and then outside, going the approximate distance that Dr Vincent Tabak would have needed to go carrying a dead weight..
@)(++(* Just a tad too far, your poor family @)(++(*
-
@)(++(* Just a tad too far, your poor family @)(++(*
look it may be a tad too far... But I had to see if it was even possible... And I wasn't gonna have any evidence from the trial to prove if this was even possible... No-one challenged that scenario... !!
My family have got over it now... they are all very happy... They have even got into reading about crime... My hubby Is reading The Nicholas Cases and my Daughter has decided to go for a fiction book called TH1RT3EN.. (I think)... The one about The Killer being on the jury..... Now that idea never entered my head.... lol...
-
look it may be a tad too far... But I had to see if it was even possible... And I wasn't gonna have any evidence from the trial to prove if this was even possible... No-one challenged that scenario... !!
My family have got over it now... they are all very happy... They have even got into reading about crime... My hubby Is reading The Nicholas Cases and my Daughter has decided to go for a fiction book called Thirteen.. (I think)... The one about The Killer being on the jury..... Now that idea never entered my head.... lol...
Nine, I was joking, please don't take offence.
-
Nine, I was joking, please don't take offence.
I didn't take A fence, or a small gate for that matter.... @)(++(*
-
Perhaps when you have the time you should do as Jixy suggested earlier and start looking into other cases, you may find a lot of the answers you seek that way.
-
(1): I agree that not everyone who makes a statement to a crime will be called as a witness, but if they have relevant information to the events that took place, then i believe they should be called.. If they are the partner of the accused, I believe they can provide invaluable evidence, one way or another. If they witnessed someone at a gate on the relevant evening, they could add to either the defences or prosecutions case... If they found the body of Joanna Yeates, I believe they should be called....
(2): If they were so certain that Dr Vincent Tabak was the man that killed Joanna Yeates and Dr Vincent Tabak apparently states in May 2011 that he was guilty of her Manslaughter, why would the Police need to hold back any information?? Surely there should be something that only Dr Vincent tabak knew.... as you state, that is why the Police hold information back... But i would have thought that was only whilst Investigating and not when a trial is to take place for the man they charged with this Murder...
(3): I agree... It would be impossible for the Newspapers to print every aspect of a trial.... Yet they printed many aspects before the trial...!
(4): Again that statement is true in a sense... I have NO Evidence to prove that NON Disclosure was an issue in this case, and therefore would have to concede that to a degree... But then question what the Defence did in relation to their client?? Because I can only go off what we are aware was produced at trial and who did and who did not take the witness stand... I can only go off the tweets that tell us about physical evidence... And no physical evidence puts Dr Vincent Tabak inside Joanna Yeates Flat.... I would have thought that the prosecution would have used this evidence of Dr Vincent Tabak being in Joanna Yeates Flat and Joanna Yeates being in Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat as proof of his connection to the Murder....
(5): The Defence did have a choice, they had a choice early on in the game when the could have challenged the evidence.. When they could have applied for bail.. long before Dr Vincent Tabak made a plea at the Old Bailey.... They had a choice NOT to put their client on the witness stand at trial, as his story was the only evidence that stated what he apparently did on Friday 17th December 2010.... No Dr Vincent Tabak on the witness stand... No conviction for Murder!
(6): So the only apparent confession, is what Dr Vincent Tabak said on the witness stand at trial... The information wasn't available beforehand, he said NO Comment!! And I cannot see what evidence supported the claim that was made on the stand... unless the jury were aware of other information that was not presented as evidence...
(7): The trial should have been about the truth.... The trial should have answered so many questions... The trial should not have been about a jury finding a man guilty when they were already aware he plead guilty to Manslaughter... The word "Manslaughter" being used daily by the media... The word "Manslaughter being used in the court room.... How was that not prejudicial?
(8): Just like I use theory in my posts... But in a court of law, I would like evidence to support said theory and not let everyone interpret what they choose suits their ideas.... Like how it would be impossible for Dr Vincent Tabak to have Joanna Yeates in the boot of the car that was shown on CCTV coming down Park Street... He wasn't on his way to Asda then as it was implied..... The time stamp may be Missing... But the date of the 18th December 2010 on the CCTV makes that an impossibility, seeing as this all apparently took place on the 17th December 2010...
And as you know Justsaying... I have never professed to know anything abut the law or trial procedures, as you have all come to the conclusion that I have proven I am an uneducated women that doesn't have a CSE to rub together....
So my ramblings are my opinion... my opinion may be flawed... But that shouldn't stop people from wondering what this case is really about... That shouldn't stop people questioning how our justice system works... That shouldn't stop people from contesting whether an Innocent man or woman has been sent to prison....
That shouldn't stop anyone from viewing the videos that have been made from people connected to this case... Video's that they are seen to contradict themselves in.... And why DCI mark Saunders CCTV of Canygne Road was NOT played to a Jury to establish whether or not Joanna Yeates actually reached her home on Friday 17th December 2010....
You may be able to accept a confession, or whatever you want to call it Justsaying.... But the facts should support said confession, and if Joanna Yeates did not reach home on Friday 17th December 2010, then I contend that Dr Vincent Tabak did not kill her as was stated at trial...
Surely we need to know the original scene of Crime and if the victim was there at the said time or at her home at all over that weekend... That I would say is more pressing.... And that I would say should have been of primary concern, in this case....
Edit....
(1): Yes not everyone will be called as a witness... but their evidence should be amongst the disclosure for the defence to view(imo)... The Defence themselves can then decide whether or not a person who made a statement, is relevant to a trial.... The possibility that someone made a statement that contradicts what has been stated at trial, could be nestled away in that disclosure bundle.... (imo)
Just like Kingdon. who made a statement to the Police apparently about hearing someone cry "Help Me" mid morning on the 18th December 2010... Did that not get disclosed??? Or did that just get ignored??
I hope to come back to this nine
-
I hope to come back to this nine
Please don't &%54% or if you must make sure you read about the case at least, as you have already stated, you know nothing about it. I am wondering why you haven't taken an interest in this thread before, or are you here just to score points...
On another note, I find it highly amusing that you are entertaining the fact that someone who pleaded guilty may be innocent yet you totally rule out that possibility in LM's case. *%87
-
Please don't &%54% or if you must make sure you read about the case at least, as you have already stated, you know nothing about it. I am wondering why you haven't taken an interest in this thread before, or are you here just to score points...
On another note, I find it highly amusing that you are entertaining the fact that someone who pleaded guilty may be innocent yet you totally rule out that possibility in LM's case. *%87
How can you possibly claim I haven't taken an interest in this thread before? *&^^&
You know NOTHING about what I have and haven't done; what I've taken an interest in or haven't taken an interest in!
Just as you know NOTHING about me (other than a few snippets of my past with Simon Hall). You have a perception of me THAT IS ALL!
-
I know nothing about him. I didn't follow this case.
(ty6e[
-
I hope to come back to this nine
Be interesting to know what you think...
-
Jixy has already pointed out the answer to one of your questions i.e. you yourself saying you know nothing about the case. In relation to your other one, were you not claiming in earlier posts that Nine had a point in what she was saying? and she is claiming Tabak is innocent so...
It really is a shame Nine cannot see what you are up to like everyone else can...
-
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* I must say your avatar is interesting, JustSaying.... You been talking to my husband??
-
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* I must say your avatar is interesting, JustSaying.... You been talking to my husband??
My avatar is not aimed at you Nine if that is what you are thinking. Or does your husband really like frozen @)(++(* nothing wrong with that if he does of course 8(0(*
-
My avatar is not aimed at you Nine if that is what you are thinking. Or does your husband really like frozen @)(++(* nothing wrong with that if he does of course 8(0(*
I wasn't thinking your avatar was aimed at me directly... It amused me when I saw it, because, it is something my husband says any time I mention Dr Vincent Tabak....
As for whether he likes Frozen... you'd have to ask him yourself... @)(++(*
-
I wasn't thinking your avatar was aimed at me directly... It amused me when I saw it, because, it is something my husband says any time I mention Dr Vincent Tabak....
As for whether he likes Frozen... you'd have to ask him yourself... @)(++(*
8((()*/
-
I'm not sure if this is aimed at me but I'll answer for me.
It doesn't bother me so much. It fascinates me and intrigues me when people like you and Leonora with her blog and that Noel O'Gara (who seems awful to me!!) spend so much time and energy trying to prove the innocence of people that are clearly guilty. I'm always slightly in awe of those that dedicate themselves to trying to free someone who is likely to have been a victim of a miscarriage of justice. So when someone dedicates the same to someone as vile as Peter Sutcliffe or Vincent Tabak... then I'm confused.
I also get quite a lot of free time at work so reading this sort of thing helps the time pass.
I agree.
These last few pages have been interesting so please keep responses amiable and above all on topic. I have removed the nasty comments and posts from this thread.
Its good that Nine has had an opportunity to debate this case with other interested parties so please don't spoil it for her.
-
Stupidly I would be honest and say exactly what happened... But that is me... I would expect to be represented properly too...
I can work backwards on this , but it still makes no sense..... I can work upside down on this and it won't make any difference....
I have wasted my time... I thought there was a point to the Justice System... But not the point I originally believed...
I won't change my mind until someone proves to me that Dr Vincent Tabak did indeed kill Joanna yeates.... I won't change my mind until DS Mark Saunders CCTV tape of Canygne Road on the 17th December 2010 is seen by the public, to prove one way or another whether or not Joanna Yeates actually arrived home.... Because Colin Port shouldn't be telling The Leveson Inquiry that the last known sighting of Joanna Yeates was at the Hophouse pub...
Meaning Joanna yeates either got home and is on the CCTV that DS Mark Saunders speaks of... Or there is CCTV footage of a time at the HopHouse pub we know nothing about... Because that clip we have seen of Joanna yeates at the end of the street on the HopHouse Pub footage, doesn't clearly indicate who the person is on that footage.... So there has to be more footage, for Colin Pot to say that Joanna Yeates was last seen on the CCTV from the Hophouse pub.... And we are aware that they Police took the entire system away from The Hophouse Pub... Why do that if there wasn't anything else on the footage from that establishment...
So yes.. I will question the events at trial..... because they make no sense either!
You aren't alone nine!
"One seriously wonders how the two jurors who did not think Vincent Tabak guilty of the murder of Joanna Yeates feel now.
As he had admitted to strangling her, the question was one of doubt over his intent.
If he hadn’t meant to kill her, and if his version of events was to have been believed – an inexperienced man was invited into a lonely woman’s home and got flustered after she refused a kiss – then manslaughter would have been the right verdict. Presumably.
Judges lecture juries on the importance of certainty and warn them that if there is any doubt they must pull back.
Anyone who has actually served on a jury knows that, often, one or two powerful personalities hold sway.
I am glad we have juries but this trial has once again raised issues that many people find hard to comprehend.
The police felt that once they had found that Tabak liked imagery of women, especially young blonde women, being strangled, it should be brought up in court.
The judge ruled this evidence inadmissible
The prosecuting QC argued that Tabak’s penchant for what has been called ‘strangulation porn’ might shed light on the case.
The police also knew that Joanna’s body had been left in a pose copied from a film found on his computer.
Should this evidence have been admissible? Mr Justice Field said that although Tabak’s choice of viewing was reprehensible, it was not valuable enough to outweigh the prejudice it would cause his defence.
There are those who say this is justice at its exemplary best; that criminal trials are often based on negotiations between lawyers and judges about what evidence can be put before a court.
Then there are the rest of us who are left somewhat mystified by the methods used by the legal establishment to ensure justice.
I do not for one minute think that the viewing of pornography or the use of prostitutes leads all men to commit sex crimes. If that were the case, every woman in the land would be in mortal danger.
But the Tabak case shows there are anomalies, to say the least. I complained about the treatment of Milly Dowler’s family during the trial of Milly’s killer, Levi Bellfield, and still fail to understand why her father’s viewing of pornography was relevant when he was a witness, not the defendant.
And we are all well aware that the ‘justice system’ continues to delve into the sexual histories of women who have been raped in ways that make many women feel violated once more.
The jury trying Tabak were swayed perhaps by the 43 injuries found on Joanna’s body – which in themselves implied something far more serious than a brush-off that went wrong.
But I am also disturbed by what we now define as simply ‘porn’.
Pornography used to mean sexually explicit material that men and women may or may not enjoy.
What we are talking about in the case of Tabak is explicitly violent imagery.
This absolute degradation of women, the more brutal the better, is only a few clicks away. It has little to do with sex and everything to do with hate – and many men as well as women are disgusted by it.
I am fairly libertarian about what consenting adults do – but seeing women being choked and undergoing appalling tortures sickens the stomach.
Films that feature children being sexually abused are regarded as evidence of a crime – but similar films involving women are not.
I am not asking for censorship but that the legal system understands this context. Does watching films of violence towards women mean the viewer will go on to commit such crimes? No. But woman-hating imagery surrounds us.
Tabak’s defence, that he misread Joanna’s signals, insults her memory. He took her life because he had indeed ‘misread’ the signals of what he liked to view. He took a life to make it real.
We too are guilty of misreading the signals if we simply dismiss this as ‘porn’. It is more akin to imagery of war crimes – these are photos from an unspoken war a few warped men are waging against women.
That surely is relevant.
But I am not a judge.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2055113/Vincent-Tabak-trial-Secrets-baffling-rules-justice.html
-
I disagree, the conviction is safe. Nine, you haven't answered my question and I've answered a lot of yours. Why do you think he has not appealed the conviction if he is not guilty of killing Jo?
Lets quantify lots.... You have posted in total on this site as far as I can see 124 posts to date... some of those posts are on other topics...
My questions are many... take 'The Hundred Questions topic... that I stopped asking question when I posted 1025 questions...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8053.0
But maybe you just mean the direct questions to you I posed?? Or are we counting every question within this whole discussion including the Hundred Questions Topic....
Just Asking.... ?{)(**
-
I disagree, the conviction is safe. Nine, you haven't answered my question and I've answered a lot of yours. Why do you think he has not appealed the conviction if he is not guilty of killing Jo?
I think this was asked previously somewhere in the labyrinths of this topic. My own thoughts on this are that he has accepted his stupidity and guilt and just wants to do his time and get out eventually and hopefully start a new life somewhere that he is not known. Starting an appeal and opening up old wounds doesn't appeal to everyone.
-
Jixy has already pointed out the answer to one of your questions i.e. you yourself saying you know nothing about the case. In relation to your other one, were you not claiming in earlier posts that Nine had a point in what she was saying? and she is claiming Tabak is innocent so...
Innocence and guilt aside. Is the conviction safe in law?
(1): I agree that not everyone who makes a statement to a crime will be called as a witness, but if they have relevant information to the events that took place, then i believe they should be called.. If they are the partner of the accused, I believe they can provide invaluable evidence, one way or another. If they witnessed someone at a gate on the relevant evening, they could add to either the defences or prosecutions case... If they found the body of Joanna Yeates, I believe they should be called....
(2): If they were so certain that Dr Vincent Tabak was the man that killed Joanna Yeates and Dr Vincent Tabak apparently states in May 2011 that he was guilty of her Manslaughter, why would the Police need to hold back any information?? Surely there should be something that only Dr Vincent tabak knew.... as you state, that is why the Police hold information back... But i would have thought that was only whilst Investigating and not when a trial is to take place for the man they charged with this Murder...
(3): I agree... It would be impossible for the Newspapers to print every aspect of a trial.... Yet they printed many aspects before the trial...!
(4): Again that statement is true in a sense... I have NO Evidence to prove that NON Disclosure was an issue in this case, and therefore would have to concede that to a degree... But then question what the Defence did in relation to their client?? Because I can only go off what we are aware was produced at trial and who did and who did not take the witness stand... I can only go off the tweets that tell us about physical evidence... And no physical evidence puts Dr Vincent Tabak inside Joanna Yeates Flat.... I would have thought that the prosecution would have used this evidence of Dr Vincent Tabak being in Joanna Yeates Flat and Joanna Yeates being in Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat as proof of his connection to the Murder....
(5): The Defence did have a choice, they had a choice early on in the game when the could have challenged the evidence.. When they could have applied for bail.. long before Dr Vincent Tabak made a plea at the Old Bailey.... They had a choice NOT to put their client on the witness stand at trial, as his story was the only evidence that stated what he apparently did on Friday 17th December 2010.... No Dr Vincent Tabak on the witness stand... No conviction for Murder!
(6): So the only apparent confession, is what Dr Vincent Tabak said on the witness stand at trial... The information wasn't available beforehand, he said NO Comment!! And I cannot see what evidence supported the claim that was made on the stand... unless the jury were aware of other information that was not presented as evidence...
(7): The trial should have been about the truth.... The trial should have answered so many questions... The trial should not have been about a jury finding a man guilty when they were already aware he plead guilty to Manslaughter... The word "Manslaughter" being used daily by the media... The word "Manslaughter being used in the court room.... How was that not prejudicial?
(8): Just like I use theory in my posts... But in a court of law, I would like evidence to support said theory and not let everyone interpret what they choose suits their ideas.... Like how it would be impossible for Dr Vincent Tabak to have Joanna Yeates in the boot of the car that was shown on CCTV coming down Park Street... He wasn't on his way to Asda then as it was implied..... The time stamp may be Missing... But the date of the 18th December 2010 on the CCTV makes that an impossibility, seeing as this all apparently took place on the 17th December 2010...
And as you know Justsaying... I have never professed to know anything abut the law or trial procedures, as you have all come to the conclusion that I have proven I am an uneducated women that doesn't have a CSE to rub together....
So my ramblings are my opinion... my opinion may be flawed... But that shouldn't stop people from wondering what this case is really about... That shouldn't stop people questioning how our justice system works... That shouldn't stop people from contesting whether an Innocent man or woman has been sent to prison....
That shouldn't stop anyone from viewing the videos that have been made from people connected to this case... Video's that they are seen to contradict themselves in.... And why DCI mark Saunders CCTV of Canygne Road was NOT played to a Jury to establish whether or not Joanna Yeates actually reached her home on Friday 17th December 2010....
You may be able to accept a confession, or whatever you want to call it Justsaying.... But the facts should support said confession, and if Joanna Yeates did not reach home on Friday 17th December 2010, then I contend that Dr Vincent Tabak did not kill her as was stated at trial...
Surely we need to know the original scene of Crime and if the victim was there at the said time or at her home at all over that weekend... That I would say is more pressing.... And that I would say should have been of primary concern, in this case....
Edit....
(1): Yes not everyone will be called as a witness... but their evidence should be amongst the disclosure for the defence to view(imo)... The Defence themselves can then decide whether or not a person who made a statement, is relevant to a trial.... The possibility that someone made a statement that contradicts what has been stated at trial, could be nestled away in that disclosure bundle.... (imo)
Just like Kingdon. who made a statement to the Police apparently about hearing someone cry "Help Me" mid morning on the 18th December 2010... Did that not get disclosed??? Or did that just get ignored??
Why would they call these witnesses when the trial was in relation to culpability? Was the person who found her disputed that he did in fact find her?
They will have held back information from their investigation for when they caught the killer or for when he came forward - as they do in many cases. It stops random people from admitting to crime's they have not committed.
Yes but not every aspect and it will have certainly been cherry-picked!
Speculation then...
They did not have a choice, he admitted being a killer! The trial was about culpability!
You do not know this. Again, speculation! Were you present during any video links - he confessed prior to trial, hence the trial was about culpability.
The trial was based on his confession of manslaughter.
Theory and conspiracy theory are 2 different things. The prosecution theorized based on evidence and fact, you do not.
I never said this, but your lack of understanding is transparent.
He is not innocent, he is a confessed killer.
Everything else you have said is irrelevant on the basis he confessed and on the basis he is not disputing the conviction!
actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea
"Detectives combing Tabak's home during the murder investigation also discovered 145 indecent images of children stored on the Dell laptop.
Today, Bristol Crown Court heard how the most sickening images involved pre-pubescent girls.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/561436/Vincent-Tabak-Jo-Yeates-child-porn-images
-
Thankfully a sensible Judge and an admission of guilt. Least he had the shame to put his head in his hands but when you like pictures of children what else can you do really?
-
I have a question.... I was looking at duplicity and came across this information that appears to apply to Health and Safety...
Quote from this page...
18. Some defects in an information (and in a summons based upon it) are more serious than others. They can be split into three broad categories:
First, an error may be so minor that no amendment is required. If the defendant knew the true basis of the allegation in the information, a conviction will be upheld even on an unamended information. 14
Second, an error may be substantial enough to require amendment but not so serious that it cannot be cured. Examples include:
The wrong date of offence;
The place of the offence is inaccurately described;
The defendant is wrongly named (but is not the wrong defendant).
In such a situation the court has the power to allow an amendment, although the defence may be allowed an adjournment in the interests of justice.
Third, an error may be so serious that it cannot be cured by any amendment. In such a case, the charge alleged will fail. For example, if the wrong defendant is named in the information, it cannot be amended to show the name of a different defendant. A new information would have to be issued with the correct details and a new summons served.
Now does this just apply to Health and Safety or does this apply to Criminal Court also eg.. A Murder charge???
I am particularly interested in the part where it says that the defendant is named wrongly, but it is the right defendant...
Second, an error may be substantial enough to require amendment but not so serious that it cannot be cured. Examples include:
The wrong date of offence;
The place of the offence is inaccurately described;
The defendant is wrongly named (but is not the wrong defendant).
http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/pretrial/preparing-drafting.htm
-
I have a question.... I was looking at duplicity and came across this information that appears to apply to Health and Safety...
Quote from this page...
Now does this just apply to Health and Safety or does this apply to Criminal Court also eg.. A Murder charge???
I am particularly interested in the part where it says that the defendant is named wrongly, but it is the right defendant...
Second, an error may be substantial enough to require amendment but not so serious that it cannot be cured. Examples include:
The wrong date of offence;
The place of the offence is inaccurately described;
The defendant is wrongly named (but is not the wrong defendant).
http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/pretrial/preparing-drafting.htm
I'm pretty sure this would be true of all criminal cases. Why the interest?
-
I think this was asked previously somewhere in the labyrinths of this topic. My own thoughts on this are that he has accepted his stupidity and guilt and just wants to do his time and get out eventually and hopefully start a new life somewhere that he is not known.
Agreed.
Starting an appeal and opening up old wounds doesn't appeal to everyone.
Again I agree, but surely if you were innocent of such an heinous crime, or any crime for that matter, you would at least try to appeal the conviction.
-
Lets quantify lots.... You have posted in total on this site as far as I can see 124 posts to date... some of those posts are on other topics...
My questions are many... take 'The Hundred Questions topic... that I stopped asking question when I posted 1025 questions...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8053.0
But maybe you just mean the direct questions to you I posed?? Or are we counting every question within this whole discussion including the Hundred Questions Topic....
Just Asking.... ?{)(**
I just meant the questions you had directed at me. Sorry if I missed any, it was a bit busy on this thread yesterday.
-
Thankfully a sensible Judge and an admission of guilt. Least he had the shame to put his head in his hands but when you like pictures of children what else can you do really?
Agreed. Clearly a paedophile as well as a murderer, disgusting man.
-
Perhaps when you have the time you should do as Jixy suggested earlier and start looking into other cases, you may find a lot of the answers you seek that way.
Let's be objective and put personal feelings aside.
What cases do you suggest nine look into? Put your money where your mouth is and give examples. It's clear you haven't considered all the relevant facts carefully by the amount of times your make such sweeping statements.
And what was the state of Tabaks mind when he pleaded guilty to manslaughter?
Are you familiar with the Jeremy Bamber case and the evidence of his ex girlfriend Julie Mugford that helped convict him?
-
Agreed.
Again I agree, but surely if you were innocent of such an heinous crime, or any crime for that matter, you would at least try to appeal the conviction.
Is that your opinion?
Innocence and guilt aside. Is the conviction safe in law?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg490946#msg490946
-
Tell me Nine, if all this wrong happened to him, then why isn't he trying to appeal? What exactly were you going to say to him if you did make contact... convince him he is innocent @)(++(* Not surprised competent people wouldn't touch this case with a barge pole. Clearly guilty as charged!
Define "competent people." Many of us here are surprised how some quite clearly guilty individuals are being supported by campaigns alleging they are victims of a miscarriage of justice.
Are these "competent people" to whom you refer "convincing" those they are supporting they are innocent and to appeal?
Let's not forget there are many opportunists out there driven by personal agendas and motivations.
What is your definition of a miscarriage of justice?
And I'll ask again. What was and is the state of Tabaks mind?
-
I'm pretty sure this would be true of all criminal cases. Why the interest?
"Pretty sure" doesn't answer the question Baz.
-
Agreed.
Again I agree, but surely if you were innocent of such an heinous crime, or any crime for that matter, you would at least try to appeal the conviction.
You would think so unless they think doing the sentence quietly hoping people will forget all about you is an easier option than fighting the conviction, cant see how though , You would expect people to fight with anything they could to be released or like you say at least try.
-
He pleaded guilty to having downloaded child porn images. He admitted Killing Joanna Yeates. I really do not care about his state of mind. The people who support this beast should be ashamed of themselves - it says more about them than it does him.
Tell me what do you think his state of mind was when he downloaded such disgusting images and looked at them? Clearly a paedophile as well as a murderer - who has more than just one victim.
-
So some random comes along to claim he is innocent, he never says a word but based on that you overlook his sex offences and the fact he killed someone quite easily not the placid man he gets called on here
Yes I can see how that works Justsaying who would stop and be disgusted? any normal sane thinking person maybe?
-
I wonder what his state of mind was when he was googling the differences between murder and manslaughter... Clearly had his defence worked out before way before he was even arrested.
-
He pleaded guilty to having downloaded child porn images. He admitted Killing Joanna Yeates. I really do not care about his state of mind. The people who support this beast should be ashamed of themselves - it says more about them than it does him.
And you support other convicted sadistic murderers because.....?
-
Tabak confessed to heinous crimes and was convicted on direct evidence, Luke Mitchell claims innocence and was convicted on circumstantial evidence. Big difference!
-
Sorry I have no time for people who support confessed killers/paedophiles. Please carry on supporting him, but don't expect me to acknowledge you.
-
He pleaded guilty to having downloaded child porn images. He admitted Killing Joanna Yeates. I really do not care about his state of mind. The people who support this beast should be ashamed of themselves - it says more about them than it does him.
Tell me what do you think his state of mind was when he downloaded such disgusting images and looked at them? Clearly a paedophile as well as a murderer - who has more than just one victim.
Unless you are part of the brigade that says they are only pictures yeah with real children at the other side of the lense!
-
Tabak confessed to heinous crimes and was convicted on direct evidence, Luke Mitchell claims innocence and was convicted on circumstantial evidence. Big difference!
Huge difference justsaying. Some people will argue black is white if they dont like the person saying it . Dont waste any time explaining
-
Huge difference justsaying. Some people will argue black is white if they dont like the person saying it . Dont waste any time explaining
Could not agree more. If we were both on here supporting Tabak I am sure she would have something different to say. I cannot understand how people can support a confessed paedophile and confessed killer, it certainly does say something about them. And I really do not care less what people think about that.
-
Unless you are part of the brigade that says they are only pictures yeah with real children at the other side of the lense!
Disgusting, those people need to realise what those children went through for someone else's immoral, sexual gratification!
-
8@??)(
-
Disgusting, those people need to realise what those children went through for someone else's immoral, sexual gratification!
to overlook and even defend such a sick activity speaks volumes about the person who can do that
-
Disgusting, those people need to realise what those children went through for someone else's immoral, sexual gratification!
The point I make is to do with whether or not he is guilty of Murder... And again unless I see what the evidence is supposed to be for his prosecution back in 2015, it's difficult to comment....
If he is guilty of one crime , charge him for that.... Just because you don't like someone , doesn't mean you put them away for Murder....
Dr Vincent Tabak just plead guilty again.... the images amounts changed... The prosecution of him from the discovery of the images took rather a lengthy period... 4 years later... makes it seem as trumped up as the murder charge....
-
The point I make is to do with whether or not he is guilty of Murder... And again unless I see what the evidence is supposed to be for his prosecution back in 2015, it's difficult to comment....
If he is guilty of one crime , charge him for that.... Just because you don't like someone , doesn't mean you put them away for Murder....
Dr Vincent Tabak just plead guilty again.... the images amounts changed... The prosecution of him from the discovery of the images took rather a lengthy period... 4 years later... makes it seem as trumped up as the murder charge....
Nine, to deny this charge is an insult to those children who were in those disgusting images. They already had him for murder, he was going no where, which means there is a reason they charged him with those vile images, that reason is because they found them on his computer. He pleaded guilty, he never denied downloading them, he is vile paedophile. And quite frankly I am shocked that anyone would defend such a depraved beast.
-
Nine, to deny this charge is an insult to those children who were in those disgusting images. They already had him for murder, he was going no where, which means there is a reason they charged him with those vile images, that reason is because they found them on his computer. He pleaded guilty, he never denied downloading them, he is vile paedophile. And quite frankly I am shocked that anyone would defend such a depraved beast.
It's not so much as denying a charge as understanding a charge... And know from where they came... The reason I believe that its as made up as the murder charge, is because Ann Reddrop failed to prosecute him, in a timely manner... And we know that she has been involved with prosecuting people before for such images....
I find it difficult to believe, they waited so long.... I find it odd the image amount changed... I find it odd that the charge is again between dates , from 2009 to 2011....
I understand what you mean and by saying your quite shocked i know where you are coming from... I have to try set aside his other charges at the mo as I am trying to point out that someone else could easily have gotten away with Murder...
I believe the child abuse images, where meant to add to turning him into a monster ,so no-one would ever question this case....
There are plenty of ethical problems I have contemplated about him... And I have to stick with my belief that the Justice System has to be fair.... My family is mixed raced...( So you understand) If he turned out to be a racist, I cannot do anything about that..... And if he incites racism, charge him for that.... But you cannot put anyone away for Murder when they haven't done it.... leaving the real killer free.... You cannot put a person away for murder, because they have committed another crime....
So asking me about the child abuse images is pointless to a degree, because I have always stated that it was the lack of defence and witness's that had me looking at this case again... And for 7 years now I have not been happy with the outcome of that trial...
A trial for any crime should be about TRUTH AND JUSTICE.... it's as simple as that..
I just like fair....
-
How do you know the number of images changed? You're getting your info from news reports. Can you not just accept that it may have been a misprint or the journalist got the numbers wrong. That is the problem when you rely on news reports, they're not always accurate.
-
How do you know the number of images changed? You're getting your info from news reports. Can you not just accept that it may have been a misprint or the journalist got the numbers wrong. That is the problem when you rely on news reports, they're not always accurate.
This entire trial is based on reports on the news and twitter.... This entire case is based on reports from the news and twitter...
This entire case is like some drama that was written by someone... No-one can get any info about this trial... No-one says anything new about this case.... No-one knows whether or not Dr Vincent Tabak is actually in prison.. No one can get a straight answer....
But coming back to the images and changing amounts.... who's to say that the court report about him even going to Court over the images is true??
We don't know... We do not know if anything said about this case is true....
Edit.... Not forgetting facebooks contribution to this case!
-
it only appears like that to you Nine.
-
I believe the child abuse images, where meant to add to turning him into a monster ,so no-one would ever question this case....
Nine, there was no hurry to charge him because he was safely in prison and going no where - if he didn't download them then why would he plead guilty?
Lets face it, no-one was questioning the case before he was charged with those indecent images. I disagree with your flippant attitude when it comes to these charges, those were someone's children on those images.
-
This entire trial is based on reports on the news and twitter.... This entire case is based on reports from the news and twitter...
This entire case is like some drama that was written by someone... No-one can get any info about this trial... No-one says anything new about this case.... No-one knows whether or not Dr Vincent Tabak is actually in prison.. No one can get a straight answer....
But coming back to the images and changing amounts.... who's to say that the court report about him even going to Court over the images is true??
We don't know... We do not know if anything said about this case is true....
Edit.... Not forgetting facebooks contribution to this case!
Nine, no-one says anything new about the case because it is closed. He pleaded guilty to both charges, what you are alleging is not based on anything but a conspiracy theory. Why on earth would they say he had been charged and convicted of child porn if he had not? He had been convicted, as you say, 4 years by then. When it involves children being abused in this way the least you could do is try and be a bit more sensitive. I cannot and will not agree with any of this.
-
it only appears like that to you Nine.
And why would that be..... Find me something new about anyone connected to this case Jixy... Find me images that haven't been photoshopped or are from peoples facebook accounts... Tell me exactly when "Gunter Morson" was identified as being Tanja Morsons brother, then tell me how they knew that Tanja Morson was Dr Vincent tabak's girlfriend...
You see out of nowhere we have a random person on the 20th January 2010 asking a twitter user if he is Tanja Morsons brother... Now why do you think someone would dod that on that particular day?? when Dr Vincent Tabaks name shouldn't even have been mentioned as a suspect in The Murder of Joanna Yeates after what AG said about CJ??
Why does channel 4 mention Dr Vincent Tabak on this date also?? Why identify him with an image?? AG said nothing about that did he *&^^&
J Dav
@johnnydav29
@Uni_Start are u related to tanja morson from Canynge Road?
5:52 PM - 20 Jan 2011
Why would someone question Gunter Morson at this early stage...
https://twitter.com/johnnydav29/status/28147949552799744
https://www.channel4.com/news/joanna-yeates-murder-police-search-neighbours-flat
-
I cannot and will not agree with any of this.
Exactly JustSaying.... i don't agree with any of this either.... 8)--))
-
And why would that be..... Find me something new about anyone connected to this case Jixy... Find me images that haven't been photoshopped or are from peoples facebook accounts... Tell me exactly when "Gunter Morson" was identified as being Tanja Morsons brother, then tell me how they knew that Tanja Morson was Dr Vincent tabak's girlfriend...
You see out of nowhere we have a random person on the 20th January 2010 asking a twitter user if he is Tanja Morsons brother... Now why do you think someone would dod that on that particular day?? when Dr Vincent Tabaks name shouldn't even have been mentioned as a suspect in The Murder of Joanna Yeates after what AG said about CJ??
Why does channel 4 mention Dr Vincent Tabak on this date also?? Why identify him with an image?? AG said nothing about that did he *&^^&
Why would someone question Gunter Morson at this early stage...
https://twitter.com/johnnydav29/status/28147949552799744
https://www.channel4.com/news/joanna-yeates-murder-police-search-neighbours-flat
It says 20th Jan 2011 - the day Tabak was arrested. Could be a journalist looking for a story...
-
Exactly JustSaying.... i don't agree with any of this either.... 8)--))
Please do not use my comments out of context. I was talking about those poor children!
-
You assume photos have been altered. That is just your opinion. You are looking so hard to things that arent there you miss the point of what is.
In previous comments you mention prisoners in America confessing to crimes they didnt do etc... but he even said sorry for the killing on the stand when he had perfect opportunity to scream I didnt do it!
Did he do that? NO!
The disgusting child porn did he deny that? He knows what happens when you admit to crimes? Once again no denial - even putting his head in his hands because he knows how sick he is!
-
You assume photos have been altered. That is just your opinion. You are looking so hard to things that arent there you miss the point of what is.
In previous comments you mention prisoners in America confessing to crimes they didnt do etc... but he even said sorry for the killing on the stand when he had perfect opportunity to scream I didnt do it!
Did he do that? NO!
The disgusting child porn did he deny that? He knows what happens when you admit to crimes? Once again no denial - even putting his head in his hands because he knows how sick he is!
8@??)(
-
It's like a tag team on here....
-
It's like a tag team on here....
Well it is a public forum Nine...
-
I'll refer back to this......
1: his conduct after Yeates died when he hid the body was “frankly disgusting” and had caused untold anguish and agony to her family.
2: “I’m not going to ask you to like Vincent Tabak. There’s probably nothing to like.”
3: And Miss Morson seems to agree, having failed to make a single appearance at court.
4: He had told “lie after lie to the police.
5: “did everything he could to cover his tracks”.
6: He added that he would not try to justify Tabak’s actions after her death, saying his client was “living a lie” by attending dinner parties and attempting to carry on his life as normal.
7: “I’m not going to ask you to have any sympathy for him. He deserves none.
8: “I’m not going to ask you to excuse his conduct. There can be no excuse.
9: “If I was to set out to win a popularity contest I would lose.
10: He told the court: “Of course, afterwards his behaviour is utterly disgraceful. It’s not going to be justified by me
Hardly the words anyone would expect from Their Defence Lawyer... And you are telling me he had a fair trial.... The jury didn't need the Prosecution at trial...(imo)... The Defence told the Jury all they needed to know....
Clegg's finest hours.... @)(++(*
Edit...... And there's me thinking that 'Bad Character Evidence" wasn't introduced at trial...
-
Well it is a public forum Nine...
Indeed.....
-
Dont you still not realise what they were doing when they said all that Nine? they were making the best out of a very grim situation to actually work in his favour
-
Dont you still not realise what they were doing when they said all that Nine? they were making the best out of a very grim situation to actually work in his favour
@)(++(* How do you work that one out??
-
Dont you still not realise what they were doing when they said all that Nine? they were making the best out of a very grim situation to actually work in his favour
Yes they could hardly say what a nice guy he was after killing her and dumping her body. The injuries she had were also not in keeping with what he alleged... i.e. that he did not mean her harm...
-
@)(++(* How do you work that one out??
The defence wanted the jury on their side. He pleaded guilty...the defence had to appear as the good guy saying yes he is this and this and this BUT... he didnt mean it. All games
-
@)(++(* How do you work that one out??
Because Nine what his defence team did was say to the jury, ok he is not a very nice person, he has admitted killing her and dumping her body, but we (his defence) say he still did not intend to kill...
-
had to check you werent behind my sofa then @)(++(*
-
had to check you werent behind my sofa then @)(++(*
Who you checking on Jixy??
-
had to check you werent behind my sofa then @)(++(*
OMG... I'm a dim wit.... "Mouse!! " behind sofa....
-
Anyway.. I am bored of this game... We agree to disagree... Simples!!
-
had to check you werent behind my sofa then @)(++(*
Would have gotten a shock if I was @)(++(*
(ty6e[
-
You wouldnt have lasted long... i was singing!
-
OMG... I'm a dim wit.... "Mouse!! " behind sofa....
no lol just we posted almost the exact same thing at the same time. thought they were peeping @)(++(*
-
Posters are again reminded to keep to the topic under discussion and please refrain from making derogative comments towards other members. TY
-
When looking at 192.com It has Dr Vincent Tabak's age being 40-44
First I didn't take much notice, as the years have passed... Just thought it was correct, but I remembered I'd seen something on twitter... and on the 20th January 2011 a tweet was posted..
Josie Ensor
Verified account
@Josiensor
Follow Follow @Josiensor
More
Although, according to 192 search of 2010 electoral role, Vincent Tabak is the 40-44 age band? http://bit.ly/ehNfCK #joyeates
3:01 PM - 20 Jan 2011
And...
Liz Church
@dailyturnout
20 Jan 2011
More
http://twitpic.com/3rqksc - @SkyNews Vincent Tabak age 40-44 according to electoral roll
Liz Church
@dailyturnout
20 Jan 2011
More
@antonvowl @MinorityThought @press_not_sorry Vincent Tabak aged 40-44 according to my info #JoannaYeates
So how old is Dr Vincent Tabak??
If I remember correctly he was born 10th Feb 1978 ... making him 40 now
It appears that the 192.com age hasn't changed... Which is not a problem,
But how do you account for the age?
This is why I ask questions like was it an undercover operation, It is almost like an identity was pre made... I could be wrong of course, but how else would you explain it?
Edit... We have a man at trial who identity has not been verified as far as I am aware and who's age is questionable..
Surely someone needs to verify these things.. If Dr Vincent Tabak confirmed his age at the time as being 32/33 then that cannot be correct... Did no-one check anything?
https://twitter.com/Josiensor/status/28104792735744000
https://twitter.com/dailyturnout/status/28101010517917696
https://twitter.com/dailyturnout/status/28093282235977728
-
*%87
-
I understand how strange that would look .... so i just tested the theory.
I checked my friend and the date showing is 2002-2003 with an age range of 27-31
15 years ago
They are only 35 now so a huge difference in the age shown to actual age
-
check it out with details you know to be true
-
Jixy... The tweeting that was allowed at this trial, I do not understand why....
The only person I know of that a judge allowed journalists to tweet about was at Julian Assange's hearing..
Is it OK to tweet in court?
Journalists used Twitter to provide live updates from court during Julian Assange's application for bail. But was this legal?
Has this case got anything to do with Julian Assange??
https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2010/dec/15/journalists-use-twitter-in-court
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2010/dec/15/tweeting-court-reporters-julian-assange
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Never thought about Tweeting at a trial but have a look at this link and what it outlines..
https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/guest-blog-how-to-tweet-safely-from-court
-
DECEMBER 19, 2011 CLELAND THOM NEWS
Guest blog:
How to Tweet safely from court
Here’s some practical tips on Tweeting from court, following the Lord Chief Justice’s announcement last week.
1. A journalist or a legal commentator CAN Tweet from a public court case without asking the judge first. If you’re not sure if you’re a journalist or a legal commentator, then you’re probably not one! Best to check with the court – see point 5, below.
2. Live blogging etc by journalists or legal commentators is also acceptable – they can use other media than Twitter.
3. Mobile devices must be set to silent.
4. Tweeting should be silent, unobstrusive and carried out with hand-held devices – not laptops or notebooks.
5. Members of the public, citizen journalists, student journalists and bloggers can only Tweet if they have permission from the court in advance. SO:
* Editors should not allow work experience trainees etc to Tweet from court cases.
* Student journalists, citizen journalists and bloggers cannot Tweet live from court cases without advance consent.
6. Audio recordings of court proceedings are not allowed.
7. Photographs taken in the court, or its precincts, are not allowed
8. A judge can order the media to stop Tweeting at any time. The media does not have an automatic right to challenge this.
9. Tweets should follow the Contempt of Court Act s4 – they should be:
* A fair report of the trial, when taken together.
* Accurate – ie, close to the way the jury heard it.
* Published contemporaneously.
* Published in good faith. This means excluding material that could create a substantial risk of serious prejudice – either to the trial in hand, or another one. Don’t Tweet:
* Anything said in the jury’s absence.
* Information that could allow a witness to change their evidence.
* Links to pre-trial stories about the case.
* Details of mixed pleas – where a defendant admits some offences and denies others.
* Details of any future cases involving a defendant.
10. Do not Tweet anything that could reveal the ID of someone who has anonymity. Remember that the latest Tweet could provide ID information when read with an earlier one.
11. The above applies to public hearings in civil courts and family courts. Although these hearings do not have juries, live Tweeting could cause witnesses worry, distraction and pressure.
12. The new guidance does not mention inquests. Take advice before Tweeting from an inquest.
https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/guest-blog-how-to-tweet-safely-from-court
-
prior to that date journalists could tweet with permission from the judge.
-
Legislation UK
41 Prohibition on taking photographs, &c., in court.
(c)a photograph, portrait or sketch shall be deemed to be a photograph, portrait or sketch taken or made in court if it is taken or made in the court–room or in the building or in the precincts of the building in which the court is held, or if it is a photograph, portrait or sketch taken or made of the person while he is entering or leaving the court–room or any such building or precincts as aforesaid.
Definition: The area within the walls or perceived boundaries of a particular building or place.
So would you class outside the court house a perceived boundary??
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/86/section/41
-
Photographs are allowed to be taken outside the court building itself. There are many, many examples where people/witnesses/defendants have been photographed outside court buildings. I am not sure what relevance this has as to whether or not Tabak is guilty.
-
Photographs are allowed to be taken outside the court building itself. There are many, many examples where people/witnesses/defendants have been photographed outside court buildings. I am not sure what relevance this has as to whether or not Tabak is guilty.
But is that after a trial has finished or during?? Also what about identifying witness's ??
Would you like to share your examples?
I'm sure you know better than me JustSaying... I am just a beginner....
-
There are numerous examples played out on the news all the time. Witnesses can be identified unless the courts say otherwise. Have a look on Google Nine, and pay attention to the news when they are reporting on a trial, you will see it is not uncommon.
-
There are numerous examples played out on the news all the time. Witnesses can be identified unless the courts say otherwise. Have a look on Google Nine, and pay attention to the news when they are reporting on a trial, you will see it is not uncommon.
I don't watch the news any more... So nothing to pay attention too...
I don't know what is real or fake news anymore.... Could you point me in the direction of a reputable news agency.. Because i cannot think of one off hand...
-
Surprising, considering you use news reports to prove Tabaks alleged innocence...
-
But is that after a trial has finished or during?? Also what about identifying witness's ??
Would you like to share your examples?
I'm sure you know better than me JustSaying... I am just a beginner....
Millie Dowler's parents plus murderer Levi Bellfield.
Sian O'Callaghan & Becky Goidden's murderer Christopher Halliwell.
etc., etc.,
-
Millie Dowler's parents plus murderer Levi Bellfield.
Sian O'Callaghan & Becky Goidden's murderer Christopher Halliwell.
etc., etc.,
Thanks for the info..... Hi Nina, it's been a while...
-
Thanks for that have removed offending post....
Nine you have always taken me the wrong way, just because I'm `on the other side'. Your prerogative.
I would like to ask you to please, pretty please, tell us why you think that VT is innocent.
I could maybe understand where you're coming from if I understood that.
-
Sorry Nine thought that was aimed at me.
Yes it has been a while. Will you answer my question?
-
Nine you have always taken me the wrong way, just because I'm `on the other side'. Your prerogative.
I would like to ask you to please, pretty please, tell us why you think that VT is innocent.
I could maybe understand where you're coming from if I understood that.
I've given up Nina.... Don't know anything anymore... I have written what I have thought throughout this thread and I have come to the conclusion, I know nothing.... No reflection on anyone else... Just how I feel...
I had hoped there was evidence to support the conviction, but there isn't... I go round in circles, and I feel like a laughing stock...
I've embarrassed myself for long enough...
-
There is plenty of evidence to support the conviction, the confession being the first and foremost. Followed by DNA which was said by forensic scientists to be a billion to one match. No-one is laughing at you Nine, it is the conspiracy theories which seem pretty far out.
-
The idea behind the theories, is it shows that anything could have happened other than what has been said.... As I keep saying a story on the stand without evidence to support it is just that....
A story!!
-
There is plenty of evidence to support the confession. Unfortunately Nine, you overlook every single bit of it. The story he gave was pretty convincing, enough to see him convicted at the very least.
-
Tabak took the stand in court and told the jury exactly how he killed her. How is that not evidence? It is evidence against him of the strongest kind. He told the jury he strangled her, how would he know she had been strangled if he did not do it himself?
-
The Index of William Cleggs Book.... I'll mark the ones I'm not sure of, difficult to read
Index
Affair, rumours of 260
Africa 217
Alumci 187 *
Allied Brish bank 177*
Allies, the 90
abervautive, arguing in the 133,177
177
Altum, Brian 124
Alzhemers Disease 94
Amsterdam 255
Andrusha the b........ 111, 117
anti-Semitic 91
Antoinette,Marie 63
Archbishop of Canterbury 267
Armed robbery, 59, 273
Armstrong Dean 244
Asia 217
Asperger's syndrome 38
asphyxiated 67
assault 239
Assize Court 30
Astor Lady 46
Atkinson,Richard 38
Attorney General 86,87,178
Australia 121,226
Bachelor of Laws 28
Badge,peter 93
Balkan free regiment 90
Balkans 181
Banfield, Don 169-174
Banfield, Lynette 170-174
Banfield Shirley 170-174
Bank of England 120
bank security 273
Banstead 79
Barclays Bank 29
Bar Council 192
Bar exams 31,43
bar mess 100
Barnet & Camden Rent Tribunal 48
Barry 77
Bar standards board 197
Bar,the 271
Basildon 100
BBC Today program 200
Beaumont QC, Peter 101
Bedford Row 177,200
Belarus 82,92,102,111
Belfast 148,150,152
Belfast Crown Court 149
Berkshire 38
Bingham,Lord 141
Birmingham Six 66
Bishops 152
Bisset, Samantha 35,42
Bisset jasmine 38
Blackberries 264
Blackfriars Crown Court 269
black market fuel 87
Blair,Tony 104,178,269
Bosnia 182
Bosnian Serb Army 182
Bowers, Nicholas 85
Bow Street Magistrates Court 49,112
Brent Walker 144
Brest-Litovsk 110
Bribery Act, 218
bribery and corruption 217
Bristol 241
Bristol Crown Court 246
Bristol Ram 241
Bristol University 28
Britain 90,95
British Army 151,262
British companies 218
British Empire 225
British Overseas Territories 226
Britton, Paul 18
Brixton 20
Broadmoor High Security Hospital
Brooks, Charlie 256-269
Brooks, Rebekah 257-259
Browning, Professor 115
Bryant-Heron QC Mark 260
Bulsara, Barry 206
burglary 48
Burke QC, Trevor 259
Butte Mining 123-129
Butte Mountain 122,123
Callaghan, James 178
call to the bar 32
Can't see any more of the index on the image....
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Tabak took the stand in court and told the jury exactly how he killed her. How is that not evidence? It is evidence against him of the strongest kind. He told the jury he strangled her, how would he know she had been strangled if he did not do it himself?
We all were already aware that she had been strangled... DCI Phil Jones told us so I believe it was on the 28th December 2010
-
Ok I will take your word on that, if you have any news reports on that before the confession that would be great. However, it still does not explain why he took the stand and explained in detail how he killed her if he did not do it. It is still really strong evidence of his guilt.
-
Oh and the billion to one match DNA would also point to his guilt too. Along with the fact he was googling the difference between murder and manslaughter prior to his arrest - this was all pretty damning evidence from which the jury could infer guilt.
-
Ok I will take your word on that, if you have any news reports on that before the confession that would be great. However, it still does not explain why he took the stand and explained in detail how he killed her if he did not do it. It is still really strong evidence of his guilt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8noQpXm0HQU
Police Announce Murder enquiry launched over death of Joanna
Avon and Somerset Constabulary
Published on Dec 28, 2010
Detective Chief Inspector Phil Jones has today (28/12/10) confirmed that the investigation into the death of 25-year-old Joanna Yeates is now a murder enquiry. http://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/jo
Category
News & Politics
At around 58 seconds DCI Phil Jones uses the word STRANGULATION
Everything about this case was in the media on facebook, or twitter... Anyone could have put together a garbled version of supposed events that took place.....
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Oh and the billion to one match DNA would also point to his guilt too. Along with the fact he was googling the difference between murder and manslaughter prior to his arrest - this was all pretty damning evidence from which the jury could infer guilt.
DCI Jones says at the Leveson it was partial a low copy DNA... It was as much use as a chocolate teapot.... And even more to the point, DNA doesn't have a sell by date, transfer can happened, they lived in the same building and used the same gate... Also everyone used the main entrance to collect their mail.. anyone could have transferred Dr Vincent Tabak DNA to any location.... And anyone could have picked Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA up!!
-
Ok, so he confessed to her murder. Took the stand in court and confessed before a jury, and his DNA got on her by other means of transfer... Based on his confession, I very much doubt the DNA was innocently transferred to his murder victim.
-
Think Bills short of a bob or two....
We’re in crisis, our courts are worse than in the Third World
ONE OF the country’s leading barristers warns the judicial system is in crisis and worse than some Third World countries.
By JAMES MURRAY
PUBLISHED: 02:07, Sun, Sep 30, 2018 | UPDATED: 02:29, Sun, Sep 30, 2018
(https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/39/590x/William-Clegg-QC-1024725.jpg?r=1538270969906)
William Clegg, QC, a leading defence lawyer who has worked on high profile cases for half a century and whose clients have included Prince Andrew, said the profession is under attack from cutbacks and revealed he worried about the fairness of trials in the future.
He said morale in the judiciary was at “an all-time low”, with staff shortages, broken facilities and “a general feeling of squalor”.
Speaking from his chambers, 2 Bedford Row in central London, Mr Clegg said barristers now had to have a private income to be able to operate, which he claims sets back diversity by up to 40 years. Mr Clegg, whose clients have included Barry George and Colin Stagg, paints a worrying picture in his book, Under The Wig, published this week.
He said: “At the moment the profession is in crisis and the court system is in crisis.
“It is unbelievable that if you go to a busy crown court in London you will find lavatories that don’t work, lifts that are broken, carpets that are threadbare, roofs that leak and a general feeling of squalor that is difficult to believe when you are in one of the biggest economies in the world.
“Incredibly, if you go to the Third World and a court there, you find they are often in pristine condition – spotless and there is a great pride in the fact that they are able to keep their courts in an immaculate state. There is none of that in this country.” He said government cuts were to blame, explaining: “The profession has been attacked on all fronts by the Government.
“There is no department which has lost more money by way of a percentage of its turnover than the Lord Chancellor’s Department and the Ministry of Justice. They have been hit the hardest of any departments. As a result morale in the judiciary is at an all-time low.
“There are staff cuts, the effect of which means courts cannot sit because there is nobody to open them.
“I have been in court where we are due to start a trial at 10 o’clock but not been able to start it until 10.30 because there is no usher and no clerk to open the door and let me in because one clerk is having to do two or three courts at the same time. And one usher is having to do two courts.” He said the situation is so bad everyone has become “completely depressed” by the way the court system operates.
Mr Clegg added: “The barristers, the practitioners, have had their fees savaged to a fraction of what they were.
“When I defended Barry George [for the murder of Jill Dando] I was paid approximately half as much Michael Mansfield QC was for defending him in his first trial. If I were to defend him today I would be paid half as much again.
“Barristers are undervalued by the Government and it’s getting to the stage now where despite great strides the profession has made to increase diversity in the profession, the fees are so low that unless you have a private income you can’t afford to be a barrister doing publicly funded work.
“It is setting back diversity 30 or 40 years. You either have to have a private income, family money, or you have to subsidise the publicly funded work with private work. In a chambers like this one a lot of our turnover is from private paying individuals – most of it, in fact. Some will take out a second mortgage to pay for their defence. Some will be covered by insurance, the directors of companies. Sometimes a trade union will pay, sometimes a local authority will pay.
Looks like Bill has forgotten all about Dr Vincent Tabak.... And Joanna Yeates..
https://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/books/1024725/We-re-in-crisis-our-courts-are-worse-than-in-the-Third-World
-
He must have forgotten about all his other clients too considering he only mentions two of them @)(++(*
-
He must have forgotten about all his other clients too considering he only mentions two of them @)(++(*
There doesn't appear to be many pages in his book for a man with an illustrious career... The Master Defender appears to have omitted many volumes..
-
William Cleggs Interview on Radio 2 .... A pre recorded Interview.. On Radio 2 today..
A most important insight into his views about people he has defended:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Steve Wright:
William Clegg QC is with us and we are gonna talk about Williams book. The book is called Under The Wig.William Clegg QC has been a barrister for 47 years and has become the go to lawyer for complex murder and fraud cases.
William is head of one of London's leading chambers and tomorrow he publishes his first book Under The Wig a lawyers stories of murder,guilt and Innocence. It's basically a memoir that takes you behind the scenes of what its like to be a top lawyer. So.. Lets go back and find out your history first of all.
I know that you are from South end on Sea, when did you get into lawyering?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
William Clegg:
Well I went to University in 1968 which er, is exactly 50 years ago, to read law there and after that I became a barrister and started in practice on my own account in 1972.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Steve Wright: And that was always your intension yer?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
William Clegg: Always was..
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Steve Wright: Why?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
William Clegg: Always was fascinated by the law, I think with the interest stemmed primarily from television, I enjoyed arguing and talking and giving talks and debates and I just thought that it was probably the best job in the world.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Steve Wright: Perry Mason was largely responsible for you going into the law, thats put what you say in the book...
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Someone: No
____________________________________________________________________________________________
William Clegg: True.. I used to watch Perry Mason every week and he never lost a case. And i thought thats the job for me.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Steve Wright: You prefer to defend,
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
William Clegg: I defend 99% of the time
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Steve Wright: And when you prosecute thats something completely different?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
William Clegg: It is I do it occasionally, i think I'm better suited temperamentally to defending.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Steve Wright: Oh thats an interesting remark.. why?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
William Clegg: I don't know really, i think as my career has developed i have done more defending therefore I'm more comfortable with it, I've had more success defending in as much my biggest cases have tended to be defence cases ,because of that when I've been offered work it tends to have been bigger defence than bigger prosecution cases.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Steve Wright: We've all seen programs on television, you mentioned Perry mason earlier on, but we've all seen back in the old days LA Law and all of these programs that depict what it's like within law firms. Is it very much like that? Is there back biting? Is there competitiveness.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
William Clegg: Not so much no.. As a barrister you have to be a member of what we call a set of chambers , which is an office really, that we share the overheads of but we don't share profit. That really in the best way has a collegiate atmosphere, your there to support each other, there is comparatively little jealousy and back biting, and certainly nothing like you see on the television.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Steve Wright: You talk in the book about making sure that you pay attention to all the details of a particular case, why is that important, because do a jury really follow the detail.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
William Clegg: A jury might not follow all the detail, but it's essential that you have mastered every detail of a case, in order to ascertain exactly what it is that is most important, what it is that is going to appeal to a jury and even more important than that, dangers of missing something that you night have over looked, that could ultimately lose a case.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Steve Wright: And nervousness before a case and or before a verdict
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
William Clegg: One is always nervous before going into court if you're not it's probably time to give up, and the tension before a verdict is returned in a major criminal trial is like no tension you would ever experience in the West End.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Steve Wright: But surely you know that you've done well, before the verdict.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
William Clegg: You never know..whether you've won or lost
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Steve Wright : really
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
William Clegg: You hope you've won you suspect you might have lost, but you never know and a jury can always surprise.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Steve Wright: Can you sense the way that a case is going because, a case would typically last, what, 2 weeks , 4 weeks. Longer maybe sometimes.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
William Clegg: Some of my cases have lasted over 6 months, you try all the time to work out what the jury are thinking, whether they like this point, whether they don't like that point, whether they're with you or against you. It's a very inexact science. I've known juries who smile at you for 2 months and then convict in record time, and juries that look as stern as stern can be and come in and find you not guilty in no time at all.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Steve Wright: umm.. William Clegg is here barrister discussing his book Under The Wig a lawyers stories of Murder, Guilt and Innocence, and we are gonna come back right in a moment don't go..
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Song Playing....... Arthur's Theme by Christopher Cross (Best that you can do)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Steve Wright: All right... William Clegg barrister, is back with us, his book is called Under The Wig a lawyers stories of Murder, Guilt and Innocence. Looking through the book, I'm quite interested in the way that you have to be, i think you say unemotional about each case. How is that possible?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
William Clegg: Yes.. It is very difficult to remain unemotional, I think it come with experience and training. It's not always possible, sometimes you inevitably get caught up in the emotion of a case and that emotion will build up as you approach verdict. I think in a sense the more detached you can be, often the better you can present the case.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Steve Wright: I think you'll know the question that I've been working up to and I think you'll probably expecting it and you always have an answer for it.. Are you ready for it here we go.. The questions basically if you're defending somebody and you know that he or she did it, no matter what it is, then how can you possibly defend them?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
William Clegg: If you know in the strict sense of that word that somebody has done it then your not allowed to defend them.. So if they were to say I have done this but I want to get off you have to say i cannot defend you.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Steve Wright: and theres never been a case where that has happened?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
William Clegg: There's never been a case where someone has said that to me and I have defended them, No... It would be a serious act of professional misconduct... What you of course do do, is defend people who the evidence tends to suggest very strongly is guilty. But... If they tell you that they didn't do it, how ever strong the evidence is, you have to defend them, and we operate a system called the cab-rank rule by which we are required to set the next brief we are offered, even if the case is unattractive, and the reason for that is to ensure that is that nobody is left without representation.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Steve Wright: So you would have gone into court in your career, more or less knowing that someone did the crime but you have to defend them, because on their word, they told you that they didn't..
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
William Clegg: That is true, but I've also gone into court to defend people who everybody thought was guilty, who said they did not and it transpired ultimately they were proved to be innocent and they would never have been defended by anybody had we been allowed to pick and choose our cases..
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Steve Wright: William revisits in this book many of the famous trials that he was involved in, they include 'The First Nazi War Crimes prosecutions in Britain, he was also involved in 'The Phone Hacking Trial'.. The man given life because of an ear print, perhaps you might want to talk us through that one... Interesting
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
William Clegg: That was a young man who was convicted of Murder , the victim of burglary, her house was entered, via a window on the ground floor, when the Police Investigated they found on that window an ear print, which was the only clue left behind by the burglar.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Steve Wright: I've never heard of an ear prints before,
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
William Clegg: To be honest nor had I.. It was a new an emerging science, and the Police found an expert in Holland, who was prepared to say , ear prints are unique to each person in the same way that a finger print is
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Steve Wright: Really..
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
William Clegg: And that expert said that that ear print matched the man in the dock. I was brought in to conduct his second appeal which was won and then just at the time of his retrial, advances in DNA evidence was able to establish , that the DNA profile found in the centre of the ear print was from somebody else.The Prosecution offered no evidence. and there is an example of an innocent man
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Steve Wright: Yes
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
William Clegg: Wrongly charged with Murder,who might have never have been defended had people read the papers and thought, it's obviously him the experts says so....
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Steve Wright: Yer... Fascinating talking to you, thank you so much for coming in and talking to us about this book, the book is called 'Under The Wig' .. talking of which, you don't really think we should wear the wigs anymore..
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
William Clegg: I'm very much in favour of the abolition of the wig , I think it's ridiculous to put a bit of dead horse hair on your head in order to administer justice..
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Steve Wright: It's kind of frightening don't you think,it's kind er,
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Someone: Formality
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Steve Wright: It gives a formality, exactly..
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
William Clegg: I don't think you need to put a wig on your head to achieve formality, you should be able to acheive formality without that as every other country does.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Steve Wright: Point well made,.. A Lawyers Stories of Murder, Guilt and Innocence by William Clegg QC is published tomorrow in hardback, thank you very much, William Clegg everybody... thank you
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Song Finished with: I Gotta Feeling Black Eyed Peas (Tonights gonna be a good night)
____________________________________________________________________________________________
I hope to revisit this and see how William Cleggs Defence of Dr Vincent Tabak plays out.. I believe I need to understand how the defence council works, to get a better understanding of how and why he defended Dr Vincent Tabak..
https://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/play/m0000kct
-
William Clegg: If you know in the strict sense of that word that somebody has done it then your not allowed to defend them.. So if they were to say I have done this but I want to get off you have to say i cannot defend you.
William Clegg: There's never been a case where someone has said that to me and I have defended them, No... It would be a serious act of professional misconduct... What you of course do do, is defend people who the evidence tends to suggest very strongly is guilty. But... If they tell you that they didn't do it, how ever strong the evidence is, you have to defend them, and we operate a system called the cab-rank rule by which we are required to set the next brief we are offered, even if the case is unattractive, and the reason for that is to ensure that is that nobody is left without representation.
As I don't know the law I am enquiring.....
Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have admitted guilt to the Chaplain in 8th February 2011 (I believe) apparently he told Brotherton he killed Joanna Yeates, it was this confession that everyone has harped on about... ( a confession I believe never happened)
So how does that play out??
Clegg says he is not allowed to defend someone who says that that are guilty... His words not mine....
When did Clegg take on Dr Vincent Tabak?? When was he made aware that Dr Vincent Tabak had admitted his guilt to the chaplain?? I'm confused here....
So we then get Dr Vincent Tabak admitting his guilt on the 5th May 2011 , his guilt to Manslaughter and Clegg does an appalling job of Defending him at Dr Vincent Tabak's trial in October 2011..(imo)
Why the trial???? Why was Clegg Defending Dr Vincent Tabak , a man that has apparently admitted his guilt twice ....
Am I missing something here?
Yes i know that Dr Vincent Tabak didn't tell Clegg directly in Feb 2011... But surely Clegg was present at the hearing at The Old Bailey in May 2011, when Dr Vincent Tabak pled guilty to Manslaughter.....
So does that suggest that Dr Vincent Tabak wasn't on the other end of the video link from Long Lartin as leonora has suggested....
Did Clegg talk to Dr Vincent Tabak directly when he was preparing his case? I don't know how this works so, someone will need to explain...
What you of course do do, is defend people who the evidence tends to suggest very strongly is guilty. But... If they tell you that they didn't do it, how ever strong the evidence is, you have to defend them,
What evidence?? What evidence was there that suggested VERY strongly that Dr Vincent Tabak was guilty of killing Joanna Yeates?? What evidence was SO strong that bail wasn't even applied for??
There wasn't any.... We didn't hear about any of this evidence.... How could it possibly suggest strongly that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates?? The only reason anyone knows about how apparently Joanna Yeates came to her demise is because , Dr Vincent Tabak told a story on the stand in October 2011 of how it apparently happened!!! So were was This evidence prior?????
The part where he says :" If they tell you they didn't do it, however strong the evidence is, you have to defend them..."...
It sounds like it's a chore...
Did Dr Vincent Tabak say to William Clegg at any point when he took this case on..... "I didn't do it"??
Did he ever utter those words to William Clegg...... I take thing literal and for me it sounds like he didn't defend him properly because those words were not uttered..... Even though he defended him when he admitted he'd killed Joanna Yeates apparently and he said he didn't defend people who he knew were guilty.... Is this as confusing for everyone else as it is for me??....
Is it because Dr Vincent Tabak didn't say the exact words directly to William Clegg.... I have done this but I want to get off . The reason he accepted the case? Did William Clegg believe that his client was 'Guilty"?
That really needs to be the question that we ask... What did William Clegg think about Dr Vincent Tabak's guilt or Innocence?? Because his actions at trial that were reported do not sound like a man defending his client to the best of their ability...(imo)
1: his conduct after Yeates died when he hid the body was “frankly disgusting” and had caused untold anguish and agony to her family.
2: “I’m not going to ask you to like Vincent Tabak. There’s probably nothing to like.”
3: And Miss Morson seems to agree, having failed to make a single appearance at court.
4: He had told “lie after lie to the police.
5: “did everything he could to cover his tracks”.
6: He added that he would not try to justify Tabak’s actions after her death, saying his client was “living a lie” by attending dinner parties and attempting to carry on his life as normal.
7: “I’m not going to ask you to have any sympathy for him. He deserves none.
8: “I’m not going to ask you to excuse his conduct. There can be no excuse.
9: “If I was to set out to win a popularity contest I would lose.
10: He told the court: “Of course, afterwards his behaviour is utterly disgraceful. It’s not going to be justified by me
Edit... Or was the trial just a sham as i have suggested all along... Dr Vincent Tabak entered a plea of guilty to Manslaughter and it wasn't accepted, by the prosecution.... i would have thought that would have been the judges decision , but what do i know...
What was THAT trial about??
-
William Clegg: A jury might not follow all the detail, but it's essential that you have mastered every detail of a case, in order to ascertain exactly what it is that is most important, what it is that is going to appeal to a jury and even more important than that, dangers of missing something that you night have over looked, that could ultimately lose a case.
Erm... where do I start??
* Time Stamps Missing from the CCTV footage of Asda/ Tesco/ Bargain Booze
* CCTV evidence that DS Mark Saunders spoke about showing Canygne Road on the 17th December 2010, with cars
and people milling about, evidence that could prove or disprove whether or not Joanna Yeates actually reached
home.
* How difficult it would be for a person to move a dead weight so many times on there own.... Why not leave it in
situ
* Having Dr Vincent Tabak's girlfriend Tanja Morson tell us what she knew about that weekends events..
* How the exact day time of death was established??
* Who CJ saw at the gate , where he tells sky news and The Leveson
* The trainer that was found under the sink with blood spots on it
* The ikea duvet cover that Dr Kelly Sheridan tested and said it was connected to the person responsible for Joanna
Yeates death
* How all the DNA samples and suspects clothing was turned around in 48 hours
* How 2 of the searches at 1:46am and 1:47am on Saturday 18th December 2010 couldn't have been done on Dr
Vincent Tabak's computer as he was apparently in Bristol picking up Tanja from her party..
* How Joanna Yeates Flat had the kitchen window tiles painted since her disappearance, when this Flat was
supposed to be frozen in time..
* How Dr Delaney says she had a flower patterned pink top on, when she was in The Ram in a plain top
* How Greg had stated they moved into Canygne Road on the 25th October 2010, when he posts on facebook that
anyone can collect free ski's from Canygne Road on the 16th October 2010
* How Joanna yeates was reported Missing on the 19th December 2010, yet Greg didn't ring the Police until
12:40am on Monday the 20th December 2010.. 9 Her brother was in a state of despair on the 19th December
2010)
* How everyone knew all the details of this case, before it went to trial...
* How he didn't question why The Yeates believed that Joanna Yeates had been abducted
* An independant expert to test the DNA
* An independant computer expert to analyse all the computers they say that Dr Vincent Tabak used..
* GPS Coordinates, putting Dr Vincent Tabak on Longwood lane at said time...
* CCTV from Asda car park showing how Dr Vincent Tabak arrived
* CCTV of any of Dr Vincent Tabaks journey that evening..
* CCTV of Dr Vincent Tabak at the station and leaving on his bike
* Any cat hair analysed or found on either Dr vincent Tabak's coat or Joanna Yeates,
* Question how nobody saw a body on Longwood Lane for over a week, when it's frequented regularly.
* Why the collection of evidence was done by builders on the 29th December 2010
* Why every Tom Dick or harry was allowed to film around a potential crime scene before Joanna yeates was found..
* Why The Yeates where allowed to walk around a secondary Crime scene on the 27th December 2010, before it
was officially announced that Joanna yeates had been Murdered on the 28th December 2010 by DCI Phil Jones at
a press conference.
* Why no Good Character witness's were called
* The Nero cafe CCTV shown, for us to follow Joanna Yeates journey
* Why Colin Port states at the Leveson that 'The HopHouse Pub was the last known sighting of Joanna Yeates if she
had apparently arrived home.
* Why Dr Vincent Tabak was interviewed in Holland for 6 hours as a witness, when they obviously thought he was a
suspect and he wasn't cautioned..
* The phone call from Holland that apparently Dr Vincent Tabak made
* Why The Police never moved their Investigation from that house, when it was a Missing person Inquiry..
* Why Ann Redropp Had decided in late December to Investigate Dr Vincent Tabak, he wasn't a suspect apparently
* Why the Head of The Complex Case Unit was involved with a simple Murder case...
* Why we didn't hear from DCI Phil Jones at trial
* Why 18 witness's just had their statements read out at court..
* Why they need 3 forensic tents on Longwood lane, yet not one covered the body of Joanna Yeates
* Why there was 7 fire Appliances in attendance for the recovery of a Missing woman, when she apparently lay on a
grass verge..
* Why The Fire Service was needed for 4 days over this period
Again I could go on....
-
If Tabak had admitted murder to his barrister but still wanted to plead not guilty to murder, then the barrister would not have been able to represent him, it would be a conflict of interest. He was able to defend him against the murder charge because that is what Tabak was denying. It is the same for all lawyers/barristers.
-
If Tabak had admitted murder to his barrister but still wanted to plead not guilty to murder, then the barrister would not have been able to represent him, it would be a conflict of interest. He was able to defend him against the murder charge because that is what Tabak was denying. It is the same for all lawyers/barristers.
Thank you....
The confusion with me still lies.... Firstly I do not know when Clegg was first given this case to be the defence for Dr Vincent Tabak, I do not know what questions Clegg posed to Dr Vincent Tabak, as far as I am aware Dr Vincent Tabak stated nothing, his Police interviews according to DCI Phil Jones were of a No Comment variety, apart from something surrounding a mobile phone...
I believe Dr Vincent Tabak said nothing else..
He has had many solicitors representing him before he got to trial, we are not aware of what if anything Dr Vincent Tabak told Paul Cook, we do not know if the supposed confession stemmed from there....
We do not know if Paul Cook transferred any information he held on Dr Vincent Tabak to Clegg and his team.. And we do not know if Clegg acted upon what was in that information...
There may be a confession in there, there maybe not, we just don't know... This is why we need to know when Clegg first acted for Dr Vincent Tabak... What was Clegg aware of if anything... Because I still cannot understand why bail was never applied for.... I cannot understand why no-one applied for bail for this man....
We have a man whom has had a duty solicitor, a man who has had Paul Cook and Micheal Fitton represent him, yet we do not know why he changed council to Clegg.... And more importantly when he changed council to Clegg...
The only concrete piece of information I have in terms of anything legal, is the court case against various media publications.. A case that was settled I believe on the 29th July 2011, A case i cannot comprehend, why Dr Vincent Tabak's name was even mentioned, and mentioned in such a way that it was to leave everyone in no doubt that Dr Vincent Tabak was indeed the man that had killed Joanna Yeates..
The statement about Dr Vincent Tabak was used to prove to everyone that CJ was wholly innocent... Now I am not arguing that fact, that this case brought forth exactly... I am trying to understand, why Dr Vincent Tabak's name was even mentioned!!!
Not only was his name mentioned but his plea was mentioned.... According to the document, Dr Vincent Tabak pleaded not guilty to Murder on the grounds of Diminished Responsibility... But guilty to manslaughter....
Now I am a bit of a stickler... I like to understand why....
I like to understand how that may transpire within a legal setting... Did everyone at this time know the details, of how and why Dr Vincent Tabak apparently killed Joanna Yeates??
Manslaughter and Murder are two completely different charges and carry considerably different sentences...
diminished responsibility
noun: ENGLISH LAW
an unbalanced mental state which is considered to make a person less answerable for murder, being recognized as grounds to reduce the charge to that of manslaughter.
"he has admitted manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility"
On 5th May Tabak admitted that he was responsible for killing Miss Yeates when, at the Central Criminal Court, he pleaded guilty to her manslaughter. He denied murder on the basis of diminished responsibility. The trial of that issue will take place in the autumn.
Mental State..... Did Dr Vincent Tabak speak out of turn or did he speak on the advice of his council?? Was Clegg at the hearing at The Old bailey in May 2011??
The glaringly obvious part of the whole trial, was that "Diminshed Responsibilities" NEVER played a part in the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak, when clearly we see here that there was apparent grounds for him to do so.... There was NO medical expert called to the stand to tell us of Dr Vincent Tabak's state of mind... Ad what is more glaringly obvious is that the Defence, never once stated that Dr Vincent Tabak denied murder on The Grounds of Diminshed Responsibilities....
The who trial was based around intent... No mitigating factors reached the juries ears... Nothing to tell the Jury why a Placid Dutchman, had for NO apparent reason, decided to kill his next door neighbour he had never met...
So what were the Grounds for Diminished Responsibilities?? Why did Clegg NOT follow that through?? Did Clegg believe at that point that Dr Vincent Tabak was guilty of Murder?? I don't know.... But what I do know is that the Defence was lacking in Dr Vincent Tabak's trial.. I believe The Defence could have been more robust... I believe the Defence could have supported Dr Vincent Tabak better.....
I'm going to be a mind reader now and guess what people may say on this matter.... That there was no mental health issue that Dr Vincent Tabak had, therefore Clegg couldn't use tis as a Defence....
But I would come back to the fact that everyone appeared to already know that Dr Vincent Tabak was going to plead guilty... The Yeates had taken a special trip to be at The Old Bailey, when everyone else was left stumped and was still waiting to see Dr Vincent Tabak appear at Bristol Crown Court.... And found themselves waiting to see Dr Vincent Tabak and what may transpire... Yet they found out that there had been a sudden shift of venue...
So.. If everyone was aware that Dr Vincent Tabak was going to enter a plea of guilt, that in itself tells us that The Defence should know what the plea is going to be and on what grounds.... It stands to reason...(imo)
In saying that I am of the understanding whether correct or not that Dr Vincent Tabak's council was aware of Dr Vincent Tabak's plea and that Dr Vincent Tabak's plea was that he did not Murder Joanna Yeates on the grounds of diminished responsibilities..
Whether or not we believe that Dr Vincent Tabak had grounds for a case of diminished responsibilities, we need to know whether or not council advised their client to plead on said grounds... Was council shocked, that their client stated this... I don't know...
I have wondered what the story then would have been stated on the stand, if "Diminished Responsibilities" was entered into the argument... Would it have changed??
You see, this opens up a whole can of worms,... Clegg states he will only say what happened and not defend a man who admits to Murder... He may advise his client and mitigating circumstance should come into play, I believe...
But we have a story....
A story that after passing a window on his way to Asda, he was invited in, chatted for 10 minutes, took his coat off and hung it on a stand, was offered a drink, declined said drink, chatted and he misinterpreted Joanna Yeates sunny disposition for flirting, he moved in for a kiss, she screamed, he tried to silence her, she screamed again and within 20 seconds she was dead.......
We have to believe that when Dr Vincent Tabak made his plea at the Old bailey, The Defence where fully aware of what had taken place at this point... We have to believe that The Defence knew the story that Dr Vincent Tabak was to tell us on the stand...
Did Dr Vincent Tabak just ignore his council and blurt out that he denied Murder on the grounds of diminished responsibilities and council could not control their client.. Or did council advise Dr Vincent Tabak on said plea??
Begging the question what mental health problems did Dr Vincent Tabak suffer from, to go from a Placid Computer geek, to a killer within 10 minutes... Attacking and killing his next door neighbour for NO apparent reason...
We have been made aware that Dr Vincent Tabak did not know Joanna Yeates in any shape or form.... Well .. nothing was stated at trial for us to believe any different... One question that could have been put, was did Dr Vincent Tabak ever communicate with the person we know as Joanna Yeates.. Did he ever have a time when he maybe talked via the internet to a person with a username, that may well have been Joanna Yeates??
It may seem an odd question, but I do not understand why a man would kill his next door neighbour, why his next door neighbour would welcome into her home a complete stranger, when she was alone and not very comfortable with the idea... "NO FORCED ENTRY"... that has been established long ago... It was all over the news.... So why would Joanna Yeates invite Dr Vincent Tabak into her home at night, having never meet or set eyes on him before...
A lady with street smarts I would say... A lady who cannot have been that lonely that she would invite a stranger into her home and offer them a drink.... A lady if we remember was enjoying pre christmas drinks with work colleagues, whom see could have stayed with if she was that lonely and in need of company....
But lets not detract too much... I want to under stand , how the story that was told on the stand could come under the guise of "Diminished Responsibilities"? How anything in that story no matter how small or insignificant, would have a jury believing that Dr Vincent Tabak may have had a mental episode.... For him to plead diminished responsibilities in May 2011, either was a case of Dr Vincent Tabak having at that time a 'Mental Episode" and unbeknown to his council decided to throw this plea out there... Or council knew why Dr Vincent Tabak plead guilty to Murder on the grounds of diminished responsibilities.....
Either way Dr Vincent Tabak should have had a psychiatric evaluation... (imo) To either establish why a man of apparent sound mind, whom apparently hadn't said anything up until this point, would suddenly exclaim he was not guilty of Murder on said grounds....
Or that council advised him to plead this way.... And if council advised him to plead this way, on what grounds of diminished responsibility were council going to introduce at trial, and why didn't council introduce grounds for diminished responsibility at trial??
Did Council have the story in May 2011 of how Joanna Yeates came to her demise?? If not why not....
Why allow there client to make such a statement at the Old bailey if that were the case....
And if council had these events in there possession and knew what Dr Vincent Tabak had done...what was so extraordinary about Dr Vincent Tabaks mental state, that he entered a plea of not guilty to Murder on the Grounds of Diminished Responsibility.... When the story told on the stand wouldn't support that , as there were NO witness's called for Dr Vincent Tabak to state otherwise....
So maybe you can understand why I get confused, why i do not see this case as fair in any shape or form... And why I always have questions i feel need answering...
http://iclr.co.uk/document/2011201901/%5B2011%5D%20EWHC%202074%20(Admin)/html
-
Thank you....
The confusion with me still lies.... Firstly I do not know when Clegg was first given this case to be the defence for Dr Vincent Tabak, I do not know what questions Clegg posed to Dr Vincent Tabak, as far as I am aware Dr Vincent Tabak stated nothing, his Police interviews according to DCI Phil Jones were of a No Comment variety, apart from something surrounding a mobile phone...
I believe Dr Vincent Tabak said nothing else..
He has had many solicitors representing him before he got to trial, we are not aware of what if anything Dr Vincent Tabak told Paul Cook, we do not know if the supposed confession stemmed from there....
We do not know if Paul Cook transferred any information he held on Dr Vincent Tabak to Clegg and his team.. And we do not know if Clegg acted upon what was in that information...
There may be a confession in there, there maybe not, we just don't know... This is why we need to know when Clegg first acted for Dr Vincent Tabak... What was Clegg aware of if anything... Because I still cannot understand why bail was never applied for.... I cannot understand why no-one applied for bail for this man....
We have a man whom has had a duty solicitor, a man who has had Paul Cook and Micheal Fitton represent him, yet we do not know why he changed council to Clegg.... And more importantly when he changed council to Clegg...
The only concrete piece of information I have in terms of anything legal, is the court case against various media publications.. A case that was settled I believe on the 29th July 2011, A case i cannot comprehend, why Dr Vincent Tabak's name was even mentioned, and mentioned in such a way that it was to leave everyone in no doubt that Dr Vincent Tabak was indeed the man that had killed Joanna Yeates..
The statement about Dr Vincent Tabak was used to prove to everyone that CJ was wholly innocent... Now I am not arguing that fact, that this case brought forth exactly... I am trying to understand, why Dr Vincent Tabak's name was even mentioned!!!
Not only was his name mentioned but his plea was mentioned.... According to the document, Dr Vincent Tabak pleaded not guilty to Murder on the grounds of Diminished Responsibility... But guilty to manslaughter....
Now I am a bit of a stickler... I like to understand why....
I like to understand how that may transpire within a legal setting... Did everyone at this time know the details, of how and why Dr Vincent Tabak apparently killed Joanna Yeates??
Manslaughter and Murder are two completely different charges and carry considerably different sentences...
Mental State..... Did Dr Vincent Tabak speak out of turn or did he speak on the advice of his council?? Was Clegg at the hearing at The Old bailey in May 2011??
The glaringly obvious part of the whole trial, was that "Diminshed Responsibilities" NEVER played a part in the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak, when clearly we see here that there was apparent grounds for him to do so.... There was NO medical expert called to the stand to tell us of Dr Vincent Tabak's state of mind... Ad what is more glaringly obvious is that the Defence, never once stated that Dr Vincent Tabak denied murder on The Grounds of Diminshed Responsibilities....
The who trial was based around intent... No mitigating factors reached the juries ears... Nothing to tell the Jury why a Placid Dutchman, had for NO apparent reason, decided to kill his next door neighbour he had never met...
So what were the Grounds for Diminished Responsibilities?? Why did Clegg NOT follow that through?? Did Clegg believe at that point that Dr Vincent Tabak was guilty of Murder?? I don't know.... But what I do know is that the Defence was lacking in Dr Vincent Tabak's trial.. I believe The Defence could have been more robust... I believe the Defence could have supported Dr Vincent Tabak better.....
I'm going to be a mind reader now and guess what people may say on this matter.... That there was no mental health issue that Dr Vincent Tabak had, therefore Clegg couldn't use tis as a Defence....
But I would come back to the fact that everyone appeared to already know that Dr Vincent Tabak was going to plead guilty... The Yeates had taken a special trip to be at The Old Bailey, when everyone else was left stumped and was still waiting to see Dr Vincent Tabak appear at Bristol Crown Court.... And found themselves waiting to see Dr Vincent Tabak and what may transpire... Yet they found out that there had been a sudden shift of venue...
So.. If everyone was aware that Dr Vincent Tabak was going to enter a plea of guilt, that in itself tells us that The Defence should know what the plea is going to be and on what grounds.... It stands to reason...(imo)
In saying that I am of the understanding whether correct or not that Dr Vincent Tabak's council was aware of Dr Vincent Tabak's plea and that Dr Vincent Tabak's plea was that he did not Murder Joanna Yeates on the grounds of diminished responsibilities..
Whether or not we believe that Dr Vincent Tabak had grounds for a case of diminished responsibilities, we need to know whether or not council advised their client to plead on said grounds... Was council shocked, that their client stated this... I don't know...
I have wondered what the story then would have been stated on the stand, if "Diminished Responsibilities" was entered into the argument... Would it have changed??
You see, this opens up a whole can of worms,... Clegg states he will only say what happened and not defend a man who admits to Murder... He may advise his client and mitigating circumstance should come into play, I believe...
But we have a story....
A story that after passing a window on his way to Asda, he was invited in, chatted for 10 minutes, took his coat off and hung it on a stand, was offered a drink, declined said drink, chatted and he misinterpreted Joanna Yeates sunny disposition for flirting, he moved in for a kiss, she screamed, he tried to silence her, she screamed again and within 20 seconds she was dead.......
We have to believe that when Dr Vincent Tabak made his plea at the Old bailey, The Defence where fully aware of what had taken place at this point... We have to believe that The Defence knew the story that Dr Vincent Tabak was to tell us on the stand...
Did Dr Vincent Tabak just ignore his council and blurt out that he denied Murder on the grounds of diminished responsibilities and council could not control their client.. Or did council advise Dr Vincent Tabak on said plea??
Begging the question what mental health problems did Dr Vincent Tabak suffer from, to go from a Placid Computer geek, to a killer within 10 minutes... Attacking and killing his next door neighbour for NO apparent reason...
We have been made aware that Dr Vincent Tabak did not know Joanna Yeates in any shape or form.... Well .. nothing was stated at trial for us to believe any different... One question that could have been put, was did Dr Vincent Tabak ever communicate with the person we know as Joanna Yeates.. Did he ever have a time when he maybe talked via the internet to a person with a username, that may well have been Joanna Yeates??
It may seem an odd question, but I do not understand why a man would kill his next door neighbour, why his next door neighbour would welcome into her home a complete stranger, when she was alone and not very comfortable with the idea... "NO FORCED ENTRY"... that has been established long ago... It was all over the news.... So why would Joanna Yeates invite Dr Vincent Tabak into her home at night, having never meet or set eyes on him before...
A lady with street smarts I would say... A lady who cannot have been that lonely that she would invite a stranger into her home and offer them a drink.... A lady if we remember was enjoying pre christmas drinks with work colleagues, whom see could have stayed with if she was that lonely and in need of company....
But lets not detract too much... I want to under stand , how the story that was told on the stand could come under the guise of "Diminished Responsibilities"? How anything in that story no matter how small or insignificant, would have a jury believing that Dr Vincent Tabak may have had a mental episode.... For him to plead diminished responsibilities in May 2011, either was a case of Dr Vincent Tabak having at that time a 'Mental Episode" and unbeknown to his council decided to throw this plea out there... Or council knew why Dr Vincent Tabak plead guilty to Murder on the grounds of diminished responsibilities.....
Either way Dr Vincent Tabak should have had a psychiatric evaluation... (imo) To either establish why a man of apparent sound mind, whom apparently hadn't said anything up until this point, would suddenly exclaim he was not guilty of Murder on said grounds....
Or that council advised him to plead this way.... And if council advised him to plead this way, on what grounds of diminished responsibility were council going to introduce at trial, and why didn't council introduce grounds for diminished responsibility at trial??
Did Council have the story in May 2011 of how Joanna Yeates came to her demise?? If not why not....
Why allow there client to make such a statement at the Old bailey if that were the case....
And if council had these events in there possession and knew what Dr Vincent Tabak had done...what was so extraordinary about Dr Vincent Tabaks mental state, that he entered a plea of not guilty to Murder on the Grounds of Diminished Responsibility.... When the story told on the stand wouldn't support that , as there were NO witness's called for Dr Vincent Tabak to state otherwise....
So maybe you can understand why I get confused, why i do not see this case as fair in any shape or form... And why I always have questions i feel need answering...
http://iclr.co.uk/document/2011201901/%5B2011%5D%20EWHC%202074%20(Admin)/html
You continue to make valid points Nine and it seems to me from the evidence you bring here (I haven't read it all btw) that the anomalies in this case are vast.
When Simon Hall confessed to murder after having lied for around 12 years it became apparent that the original police investigation and subsequent trial were wrong with regards motive. This fact caused problems for the prison and probation service once Hall confessed but it was hushed up!? Hall died a D-cat prisoner. A sexually motivated murder, which it turned out to be, would have carried a much higher jail term for starters.
There are many who claim to be fighting for truth and justice and who say the criminal justice system is flawed etc but I've come to learn that due to the emotive nature of cases such as this, a lot of people simply aren't interested for various reasons. And Objective argument and reasoning is nigh on impossible.
It's a shame because from my view point the possibility that many of the answers they seek in attempting to highlight the flawed criminal justice system lay in cases such as this.
-
Continuing from my above post about Diminished Responsibilities.......
What evidence did council have to put forward such a plea??
What was missing from Dr Vincent Tabak's statement that was told on the stand that could possibily hint that there could be a remote possibility that Grounds of Diminished Responsibility could be used as a defence?
The truth was not stated at this trial... that is for sure....
If Dr Vincent Tabak never admitted to "MURDER" to the defence, what did he say to them, as we are aware he couldn't have represented him as Justsaying posted..
Because he cannot have said it was an accident as I was trying to stifle her screams... Diminished Responsibilities therefore would not have come into his plea at the Old Bailey....
What parts of this story are Missing?? And if they are Missing why?? Or is nothing Missing?
Thinking about this.... Say I am the defence council, my client has told me how when and where said deed was committed, and how this accident came about... Would I then go to The Old Bailey and try to cop a plea of not guilty to Murder on The Grounds of Diminished Responsibilities??
You see I don't know how the law works, so I am stumped....
(A): Diminished Responsibilities = Mental Health Grounds
(B): Manslaughter = Accident no intent
(C): The charge should have been changed to manslaughter??
(D): The intent was not to kill and I therefore do not need to enter a plea at this time, being the 5th May 2011, as
the charge still stands at MURDER
* Again if we go with (A), then on what mental health grounds did Dr Vincent Tabak believe would support his story
on the stand?
* If I go with (B), then Manslaughter should have been the charge
* If I go with (C), why wasn't the charge changed??
* And if I settled on (D) why would Dr Vincent Tabak enter a plea of not guilty to Murder on the Grounds of
Diminished Responsibilities on the 5th May 2011? Why would he simply not say NOT GUILTY! And leave it until
trial for the jury to decide whether or not this was an accident or whether or not Dr Vincent Tabak intended to kill
Joanna Yeates as the charge was not changing anytime soon.
This is where my lack of knowledge fails me.... This is why I cannot understand why a plea of Not Guilty to Murder on the grounds of Diminished Responsibilities was entered into at all and why we know this fact as the document tells us so....
The Defence Council could do with making their position clear for this time, because even if i do not know the law, the fact that "Diminished Responsibilities" was put forward as part of Dr Vincent Tabak's plea... We need to understand why this fact appears to have been ignored..... And why Dr Vincent Tabak, himself or his council would enter such a plea in May 2011, when at trial in October 2011 the case for the Defence was about intent...
Therefore making me question why in the first place "A" plea to Not Guilty To Murder on The Grounds of Diminished Responsibility was ever entered into!!
Confused.. Yes....
-
You continue to make valid points Nine and it seems to me from the evidence you bring here (I haven't read it all btw) that the anomalies in this case are vast.
When Simon Hall confessed to murder after having lied for around 12 years it became apparent that the original police investigation and subsequent trial were wrong with regards motive. This fact caused problems for the prison and probation service once Hall confessed but it was hushed up!? Hall died a D-cat prisoner. A sexually motivated murder, which it turned out to be, would have carried a much higher jail term for starters.
There are many who claim to be fighting for truth and justice and who say the criminal justice system is flawed etc but I've come to learn that due to the emotive nature of cases such as this, a lot of people simply aren't interested for various reasons. And Objective argument and reasoning is nigh on impossible.
It's a shame because from my view point the possibility that many of the answers they seek in attempting to highlight the flawed criminal justice system lay in cases such as this.
I do not understand why no-one questions this case.... Maybe it is time this case was used to highlight the flawed Justice System.... Because if i as a person with no real knowledge of the law can highlight many problems I see with this case... Just think what an educated person with such knowledge could do.....
Or is there a reason they won't?? I don't know....
-
I do not understand why no-one questions this case.... Maybe it is time this case was used to highlight the flawed Justice System.... Because if i as a person with no real knowledge of the law can highlight many problems I see with this case... Just think what an educated person with such knowledge could do.....
Or is there a reason they won't?? I don't know....
I recommend the documentary I am fish-head
-
I do not understand why no-one questions this case.... Maybe it is time this case was used to highlight the flawed Justice System.... Because if i as a person with no real knowledge of the law can highlight many problems I see with this case... Just think what an educated person with such knowledge could do.....
Or is there a reason they won't?? I don't know....
Define "educated?"
Fear?
You'll be hard pressed to find a public law solicitor willing to take on a case like this for judicial review, say for example for an "abuse of power" and you'll find it even more difficult to push for a public inquiry because of the nature of the case and all that a public enquire would entail
Judicial review https://www.judiciary.uk/you-and-the-judiciary/judicial-review/
What do you think is more appealing:
A man convicted of murder who claims to be innocent
or
A man convicted of murder who has confessed to manslaughter and subsequently convicted of possessing indecent images of children?
The other point of course if you look into others cases of convicted murderers (those not claiming innocence) as in depth as you have this one - you'll most probably find numerous anomalies in their cases also.
-
Here is a link which contains the questions Tabak was asked in court and his answers to them. Just keep in mind that the author is unknown, everything else which is said is the authors opinion - it is not very well written and seems quite amateurish, there is also a lot of unwarranted speculation. However - it will give you an insight to the questions and answers in Court.
Based on his answers to the questions he was asked - I still think he is guilty as charged.
https://philarchive.org/archive/RAMTMT-4
-
Here is a link which contains the questions Tabak was asked in court and his answers to them. Just keep in mind that the author is unknown, everything else which is said is the authors opinion - it is not very well written and seems quite amateurish, there is also a lot of unwarranted speculation. However - it will give you an insight to the questions and answers in Court.
Based on his answers to the questions he was asked - I still think he is guilty as charged.
https://philarchive.org/archive/RAMTMT-4
To respond both to you and Stephanie in one post, amateurish , should really be levelled at me....
Define "educated?"
Fear?
Educated in an academic sense of the word.... Have completed various exams from an early age and then taking said qualifications and expanding said qualification to have a career that you have studied for, for many years....
Unlike me, whom went to a Secondary Modern School and did not take an exam, and have not taken any further education in any sense of the word, to better my chances of a career...
As for fear... I don't know... Why would anyone be afraid? It's a simple Murder Case ...
So as far as the unknown person you refer to, this unknown person appears to have a far greater education than me... Someone who uses and quotes cases and therefore I believe must have a knowledge of said cases....
But I am an amateur, I am just a citizen who never really understood why a case didn't make sense to me in part because I was a member of the original Facebook Forum and had followed peoples opinions and any news on this case at the time... My questions stem from the fact I do not understand why (A) A guilty Plea was entered into, and (B)Why the story is full of holes, the lack of Forensics and witness's has always perplexed me.... And (C) why a defence council would make such comments that them in themselves (imo) would sway a jury....
Therefore yes I am an amateur in more sense of the word than anyone could care to describe me as.... And my amateur status will therefore show holes in my arguments...
So I apologise now if I have failed, and will go away quietly leaving others with the correct credentials to either look at this case or leave it..
Regards Nine ?{)(**
-
What do you think is more appealing:
A man convicted of murder who claims to be innocent
or
A man convicted of murder who has confessed to manslaughter and subsequently convicted of possessing indecent images of children?
The other point of course if you look into others cases of convicted murderers (those not claiming innocence) as in depth as you have this one - you'll most probably find numerous anomalies in their cases also.
[/quote]
that is a good idea. one a few people have suggested to Nine.
-
What do you think is more appealing:
A man convicted of murder who claims to be innocent
or
A man convicted of murder who has confessed to manslaughter and subsequently convicted of possessing indecent images of children?
The other point of course if you look into others cases of convicted murderers (those not claiming innocence) as in depth as you have this one - you'll most probably find numerous anomalies in their cases also.
that is a good idea. one a few people have suggested to Nine.
That wasn't my point and I apologise if it's been taken out of context.
Not every one who looks at cases like this can remain objective because of the emotion it stirs up in them.
Why should Nine look at other cases? Numerous anomalies have been pointed out in this one!?
-
I was not referring to you Nine, as you can quite clearly see I was referring to the link I posted. Yes, it is very amateurish, it is full of mistakes, is very repetitive and speaks of things not relevant to the case. I could cite a lot of caselaw, that does not mean I am an expert... The author of that link suggests the evidence against Tabak is purely circumstantial when that is evidently not the case. There was a direct evidence against him. But if you look at the answers he gave in court, it tells you a lot. He even mentions knocking over the victims coat stand - how would he know she had a coat stand if he had never been in her home? It mentions that a priest saw her at or near her home which suggests she did indeed make it home. It answers a lot of your questions - however the authors theories - i.e. Tabak was drugged and the internet search evidence was forged - is unwarranted speculation. Provocation is also unwarranted - he could have just walked away after she screamed, he did not have to kill her. He clearly explains the reason why he admitted killing her, he knew the DNA was going to link him to the crime.
-
To respond both to you and Stephanie in one post, amateurish , should really be levelled at me....
Educated in an academic sense of the word.... Have completed various exams from an early age and then taking said qualifications and expanding said qualification to have a career that you have studied for, for many years....
Unlike me, whom went to a Secondary Modern School and did not take an exam, and have not taken any further education in any sense of the word, to better my chances of a career...
As for fear... I don't know... Why would anyone be afraid? It's a simple Murder Case ...
So as far as the unknown person you refer to, this unknown person appears to have a far greater education than me... Someone who uses and quotes cases and therefore I believe must have a knowledge of said cases....
But I am an amateur, I am just a citizen who never really understood why a case didn't make sense to me in part because I was a member of the original Facebook Forum and had followed peoples opinions and any news on this case at the time... My questions stem from the fact I do not understand why (A) A guilty Plea was entered into, and (B)Why the story is full of holes, the lack of Forensics and witness's has always perplexed me.... And (C) why a defence council would make such comments that them in themselves (imo) would sway a jury....
Therefore yes I am an amateur in more sense of the word than anyone could care to describe me as.... And my amateur status will therefore show holes in my arguments...
So I apologise now if I have failed, and will go away quietly leaving others with the correct credentials to either look at this case or leave it..
Regards Nine ?{)(**
There are many academics who are both manipulative and deceptive and you appear to be neither!
Your knowledge of this case and the workings of the criminal justice system seem vast.
If you were to look at the work of some academics in depth you'll find their qualifications are built on sand
Don't be fooled by a wordsmith - though you clearly don't 8((()*/
And qualifications don't mean a whole lot when your credibility is shot to shit like Vincent Tabaks
-
Why should Nine look at other cases? Numerous anomalies have been pointed out in this one!?
Because she will find that more or less the same "anomalies" will arise in other cases. Maybe these "anomalies" arise in this case because she has not been privy to all the legal documents and is relying on things like social media and news reports to gather her information...
-
That wasn't my point and I apologise if it's been taken out of context.
Not every one who looks at cases like this can remain objective because of the emotion it stirs up in them.
Why should Nine look at other cases? Numerous anomalies have been pointed out in this one!?
I agree. Nine has put at lot of time and effort into this case and maybe looking at others both guilty and ones claiming to be innocent will give a better view on the issues she is having understanding this case.
-
Because she will find that more or less the same "anomalies" will arise in other cases. Maybe these "anomalies" arise in this case because she has not been privy to all the legal documents and is relying on things like social media and news reports to gather her information...
I replied before I read your reply. Its good to compare and maybe things will be clearer or maybe it will all look the same!
Some of the things seem strange that would have most probably happened if he had gone not guilty. Think that is a sticking point!
-
I replied before I read your reply. Its good to compare and maybe things will be clearer or maybe it will all look the same!
Some of the things seem strange that would have most probably happened if he had gone not guilty. Think that is a sticking point!
Of course it is good to compare, the justice system is far from perfect -but that does not mean every person found guilty must be innocent... The answers he gave in court clearly scream guilt, and if I thought he were innocent before I certainly would not after reading what he said in court... Not that I ever have! He is a confessed killer and paedophile!
-
Not sure how you come to find this case or this forum justsaying but despite all the efforts and long posts, I havent changed my mind on Tabak either . In fact the more you read the worse it all sounds..
Conspiracy theories dont help. The facts known about that night, the meeting and how he came to be in the flat are only from what Tabak chose to put forward. Who knows what he was thinking or doing, whether he planned it or not.
I have yet to see one point raised that makes me think for a second he was wrongly convicted. The fact that he has never said that either confirms it
-
Thank you....
The confusion with me still lies.... Firstly I do not know when Clegg was first given this case to be the defence for Dr Vincent Tabak, I do not know what questions Clegg posed to Dr Vincent Tabak, as far as I am aware Dr Vincent Tabak stated nothing, his Police interviews according to DCI Phil Jones were of a No Comment variety, apart from something surrounding a mobile phone...
I believe Dr Vincent Tabak said nothing else..
He has had many solicitors representing him before he got to trial, we are not aware of what if anything Dr Vincent Tabak told Paul Cook, we do not know if the supposed confession stemmed from there....
We do not know if Paul Cook transferred any information he held on Dr Vincent Tabak to Clegg and his team.. And we do not know if Clegg acted upon what was in that information...
There may be a confession in there, there maybe not, we just don't know... This is why we need to know when Clegg first acted for Dr Vincent Tabak... What was Clegg aware of if anything... Because I still cannot understand why bail was never applied for.... I cannot understand why no-one applied for bail for this man....
We have a man whom has had a duty solicitor, a man who has had Paul Cook and Micheal Fitton represent him, yet we do not know why he changed council to Clegg.... And more importantly when he changed council to Clegg...
The only concrete piece of information I have in terms of anything legal, is the court case against various media publications.. A case that was settled I believe on the 29th July 2011, A case i cannot comprehend, why Dr Vincent Tabak's name was even mentioned, and mentioned in such a way that it was to leave everyone in no doubt that Dr Vincent Tabak was indeed the man that had killed Joanna Yeates..
The statement about Dr Vincent Tabak was used to prove to everyone that CJ was wholly innocent... Now I am not arguing that fact, that this case brought forth exactly... I am trying to understand, why Dr Vincent Tabak's name was even mentioned!!!
Not only was his name mentioned but his plea was mentioned.... According to the document, Dr Vincent Tabak pleaded not guilty to Murder on the grounds of Diminished Responsibility... But guilty to manslaughter....
Now I am a bit of a stickler... I like to understand why....
I like to understand how that may transpire within a legal setting... Did everyone at this time know the details, of how and why Dr Vincent Tabak apparently killed Joanna Yeates??
Manslaughter and Murder are two completely different charges and carry considerably different sentences...
Mental State..... Did Dr Vincent Tabak speak out of turn or did he speak on the advice of his council?? Was Clegg at the hearing at The Old bailey in May 2011??
The glaringly obvious part of the whole trial, was that "Diminshed Responsibilities" NEVER played a part in the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak, when clearly we see here that there was apparent grounds for him to do so.... There was NO medical expert called to the stand to tell us of Dr Vincent Tabak's state of mind... Ad what is more glaringly obvious is that the Defence, never once stated that Dr Vincent Tabak denied murder on The Grounds of Diminshed Responsibilities....
The who trial was based around intent... No mitigating factors reached the juries ears... Nothing to tell the Jury why a Placid Dutchman, had for NO apparent reason, decided to kill his next door neighbour he had never met...
So what were the Grounds for Diminished Responsibilities?? Why did Clegg NOT follow that through?? Did Clegg believe at that point that Dr Vincent Tabak was guilty of Murder?? I don't know.... But what I do know is that the Defence was lacking in Dr Vincent Tabak's trial.. I believe The Defence could have been more robust... I believe the Defence could have supported Dr Vincent Tabak better.....
I'm going to be a mind reader now and guess what people may say on this matter.... That there was no mental health issue that Dr Vincent Tabak had, therefore Clegg couldn't use tis as a Defence....
But I would come back to the fact that everyone appeared to already know that Dr Vincent Tabak was going to plead guilty... The Yeates had taken a special trip to be at The Old Bailey, when everyone else was left stumped and was still waiting to see Dr Vincent Tabak appear at Bristol Crown Court.... And found themselves waiting to see Dr Vincent Tabak and what may transpire... Yet they found out that there had been a sudden shift of venue...
So.. If everyone was aware that Dr Vincent Tabak was going to enter a plea of guilt, that in itself tells us that The Defence should know what the plea is going to be and on what grounds.... It stands to reason...(imo)
In saying that I am of the understanding whether correct or not that Dr Vincent Tabak's council was aware of Dr Vincent Tabak's plea and that Dr Vincent Tabak's plea was that he did not Murder Joanna Yeates on the grounds of diminished responsibilities..
Whether or not we believe that Dr Vincent Tabak had grounds for a case of diminished responsibilities, we need to know whether or not council advised their client to plead on said grounds... Was council shocked, that their client stated this... I don't know...
I have wondered what the story then would have been stated on the stand, if "Diminished Responsibilities" was entered into the argument... Would it have changed??
You see, this opens up a whole can of worms,... Clegg states he will only say what happened and not defend a man who admits to Murder... He may advise his client and mitigating circumstance should come into play, I believe...
But we have a story....
A story that after passing a window on his way to Asda, he was invited in, chatted for 10 minutes, took his coat off and hung it on a stand, was offered a drink, declined said drink, chatted and he misinterpreted Joanna Yeates sunny disposition for flirting, he moved in for a kiss, she screamed, he tried to silence her, she screamed again and within 20 seconds she was dead.......
We have to believe that when Dr Vincent Tabak made his plea at the Old bailey, The Defence where fully aware of what had taken place at this point... We have to believe that The Defence knew the story that Dr Vincent Tabak was to tell us on the stand...
Did Dr Vincent Tabak just ignore his council and blurt out that he denied Murder on the grounds of diminished responsibilities and council could not control their client.. Or did council advise Dr Vincent Tabak on said plea??
Begging the question what mental health problems did Dr Vincent Tabak suffer from, to go from a Placid Computer geek, to a killer within 10 minutes... Attacking and killing his next door neighbour for NO apparent reason...
We have been made aware that Dr Vincent Tabak did not know Joanna Yeates in any shape or form.... Well .. nothing was stated at trial for us to believe any different... One question that could have been put, was did Dr Vincent Tabak ever communicate with the person we know as Joanna Yeates.. Did he ever have a time when he maybe talked via the internet to a person with a username, that may well have been Joanna Yeates??
It may seem an odd question, but I do not understand why a man would kill his next door neighbour, why his next door neighbour would welcome into her home a complete stranger, when she was alone and not very comfortable with the idea... "NO FORCED ENTRY"... that has been established long ago... It was all over the news.... So why would Joanna Yeates invite Dr Vincent Tabak into her home at night, having never meet or set eyes on him before...
A lady with street smarts I would say... A lady who cannot have been that lonely that she would invite a stranger into her home and offer them a drink.... A lady if we remember was enjoying pre christmas drinks with work colleagues, whom see could have stayed with if she was that lonely and in need of company....
But lets not detract too much... I want to under stand , how the story that was told on the stand could come under the guise of "Diminished Responsibilities"? How anything in that story no matter how small or insignificant, would have a jury believing that Dr Vincent Tabak may have had a mental episode.... For him to plead diminished responsibilities in May 2011, either was a case of Dr Vincent Tabak having at that time a 'Mental Episode" and unbeknown to his council decided to throw this plea out there... Or council knew why Dr Vincent Tabak plead guilty to Murder on the grounds of diminished responsibilities.....
Either way Dr Vincent Tabak should have had a psychiatric evaluation... (imo) To either establish why a man of apparent sound mind, whom apparently hadn't said anything up until this point, would suddenly exclaim he was not guilty of Murder on said grounds....
Or that council advised him to plead this way.... And if council advised him to plead this way, on what grounds of diminished responsibility were council going to introduce at trial, and why didn't council introduce grounds for diminished responsibility at trial??
Did Council have the story in May 2011 of how Joanna Yeates came to her demise?? If not why not....
Why allow there client to make such a statement at the Old bailey if that were the case....
And if council had these events in there possession and knew what Dr Vincent Tabak had done...what was so extraordinary about Dr Vincent Tabaks mental state, that he entered a plea of not guilty to Murder on the Grounds of Diminished Responsibility.... When the story told on the stand wouldn't support that , as there were NO witness's called for Dr Vincent Tabak to state otherwise....
So maybe you can understand why I get confused, why i do not see this case as fair in any shape or form... And why I always have questions i feel need answering...
http://iclr.co.uk/document/2011201901/%5B2011%5D%20EWHC%202074%20(Admin)/html
Continuing from my above post about Diminished Responsibilities.......
What evidence did council have to put forward such a plea??
What was missing from Dr Vincent Tabak's statement that was told on the stand that could possibily hint that there could be a remote possibility that Grounds of Diminished Responsibility could be used as a defence?
The truth was not stated at this trial... that is for sure....
If Dr Vincent Tabak never admitted to "MURDER" to the defence, what did he say to them, as we are aware he couldn't have represented him as Justsaying posted..
Because he cannot have said it was an accident as I was trying to stifle her screams... Diminished Responsibilities therefore would not have come into his plea at the Old Bailey....
What parts of this story are Missing?? And if they are Missing why?? Or is nothing Missing?
Thinking about this.... Say I am the defence council, my client has told me how when and where said deed was committed, and how this accident came about... Would I then go to The Old Bailey and try to cop a plea of not guilty to Murder on The Grounds of Diminished Responsibilities??
You see I don't know how the law works, so I am stumped....
(A): Diminished Responsibilities = Mental Health Grounds
(B): Manslaughter = Accident no intent
(C): The charge should have been changed to manslaughter??
(D): The intent was not to kill and I therefore do not need to enter a plea at this time, being the 5th May 2011, as
the charge still stands at MURDER
* Again if we go with (A), then on what mental health grounds did Dr Vincent Tabak believe would support his story
on the stand?
* If I go with (B), then Manslaughter should have been the charge
* If I go with (C), why wasn't the charge changed??
* And if I settled on (D) why would Dr Vincent Tabak enter a plea of not guilty to Murder on the Grounds of
Diminished Responsibilities on the 5th May 2011? Why would he simply not say NOT GUILTY! And leave it until
trial for the jury to decide whether or not this was an accident or whether or not Dr Vincent Tabak intended to kill
Joanna Yeates as the charge was not changing anytime soon.
This is where my lack of knowledge fails me.... This is why I cannot understand why a plea of Not Guilty to Murder on the grounds of Diminished Responsibilities was entered into at all and why we know this fact as the document tells us so....
The Defence Council could do with making their position clear for this time, because even if i do not know the law, the fact that "Diminished Responsibilities" was put forward as part of Dr Vincent Tabak's plea... We need to understand why this fact appears to have been ignored..... And why Dr Vincent Tabak, himself or his council would enter such a plea in May 2011, when at trial in October 2011 the case for the Defence was about intent...
Therefore making me question why in the first place "A" plea to Not Guilty To Murder on The Grounds of Diminished Responsibility was ever entered into!!
Confused.. Yes....
"The prosecution has refused to accept Tabak's manslaughter plea and a murder trial will go ahead on 4 October.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-13290187
"He researched "body decomposition time" and an article about a man who strangled his wife and pleaded diminished responsibility. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/19/vincent-tabak-joanna-yeates-death
Homicide Act 1957
2 Persons suffering from diminished responsibility.
(1)Where a person kills or is a party to the killing of another, he shall not be convicted of murder if he was suffering from such abnormality of mind (whether arising from a condition of arrested or retarded development of mind or any inherent causes or induced by disease or injury) as substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing.
(2)On a charge of murder, it shall be for the defence to prove that the person charged is by virtue of this section not liable to be convicted of murder.
(3)A person who but for this section would be liable, whether as principal or as accessory, to be convicted of murder shall be liable instead to be convicted of manslaughter.
(4)The fact that one party to a killing is by virtue of this section not liable to be convicted of murder shall not affect the question whether the killing amounted to murder in the case of any other party to it.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/5-6/11/section/2/1991-02-01?timeline=true
His pre trial assessment reports (medical report) most probably showed he was of sound mind.
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/2015/crim-proc-rules-2015-part-25.pdf
https://mentalhealthcop.wordpress.com/2013/04/23/diminshed-responsibility/
"The 2012 FBI report states that the unique ability of psychopathic criminals to manipulate law enforcement authorities poses legitimate challenges for the criminal justice system. During interrogations, psychopaths are not sensitive to altruistic interview themes such as sympathy for their victims or remorse for their criminal acts.
As a result of their arrogance and illusions of invulnerability, they are more likely than non-psychopaths to deny charges brought against them by authorities. According to the FBI, there is also evidence that psychopaths are able to influence the system to either receive reduced sentences or appeal their sentences to a higher court.
This is likely due to the fact that psychopaths are extremely meticulous, compulsive and relentless by nature which helps them to coerce criminal justice practitioners. Moreover, psychopaths are very adept at imitating emotions such as remorse or guilt in the courtroom if they believe it will mitigate their punishment.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/wicked-deeds/201605/understanding-psychopathic-criminals
-
I agree. Nine has put at lot of time and effort into this case and maybe looking at others both guilty and ones claiming to be innocent will give a better view on the issues she is having understanding this case.
Claims of Innocence are not proof of Innocence, and silence is not proof of guilt either... The reasons for staying silent may be many... To protect someone else who may be guilty... To protect someone else who may be threatened.. To make sure your incarceration isn't anymore difficult than it needs to be... Or to go towards a parole hearing where an admission of responsibility for the crime you are incarcerated for will aid in your release...
Not everyone will be heard either.... there are many whom have made claims of Innocence and it is only new evidence and a team of people whom believe in that persons Innocence that may get somewhere in to getting freedom and justice for that person...
But as in this case, there is virtually no-one who believes in Dr Vincent Tabak's Innocence or the suggestion that he may be innocent and seem to need a declaration from him since his sentence to shed light on a conviction that a few may feel is unsafe...
There is no team batting in his corner... There are no lawyers tackling this case, there are no members of the public even looking at this case.... Dr Vincent Tabak had legal aid for his trial, he obviously does not have the funds to start fighting his case therefore one would need a pro bono lawyer to fight for him as for some reason he was not entitled for an appeal... And that is probably because he stated that he was guilty and told a story on the stand....
But..... And it is a long but... questions should be asked, questions should be asked of the police in this case, a case where we were all too aware from the beginning what apparently took place and what didn't...
A case where the media appeared to have unprecedented access to an Investigation of a Missing person... Where from the very start we knew who was who.... Why would the Police allow this access.... Access onto what could be the first scene of crime and the secondary scene of crime... People wandering about crime scenes whom have no business being there....
* We knew about what apparently had been left behind,
* We knew that the neighbour from 42, Canygne Road had been taken in to answer questions and assist the Police
with there Inquiries,
* We knew that CJ saw 3 people at the gate...
* We knew that Rebecca Scott had called Joanna Yeates on the evening of the 17th December 2010,
* We knew which shops she had visited,
* We knew that the Police said Greg was a witness and not a suspect,
* We knew that Greg had been away for the weekend,
* We knew that Greg had his car jump started by neighbours...
* We knew that an old man handed in a sock, we see images of this happening at Canygne Road...
* We knew what time the Police contacted Rebecca Scott...
* We knew that text messages had been sent...
* We were informed by the family they believed their daughter had been abducted and to bolster that idea the
media pan right to CJ and his knowledge of seeing people at the gate... But the Police do not confirm or deny the
yeates fears...
* We knew the Pizza was Missing...
* We knew the sock was Missing...
* We knew that a note had been sent to the Ram,
* We knew that she had a cat...
* We knew that there was NO forced entry...
* We knew that there were injuries, that changed from insignificant to 43 injuries whilst fighting for her life...
* We knew she was discovered somewhere on Longwood lane....
* We knew that the Police respond immediately to this Missing persons case with full attention., leaving no-one in
any doubt that foul play had to be a reasonable possibility....
* We saw many fire engines attending the second scene of crime planting firmly in our minds that something of
great significance had happened...
* We have the press allowed to enter the flat during the trial to show anyone who may have an interest what the
crime scene looked like... telling us it is frozen in time , when it is apparent that it is not....
* We have the press having access to the back on the building, whilst snow is still on the ground, where under said
snow any evidence may have been disturbed, or trodden into the ground...
* We know about the earring found...
* We have web pages giving us information that contradicts the apparent evidence.. by this I mean the date of
Gregs phone call to the Police..
* We are constantly pointed in a direction by the Police and their use of the media.. A Police Force who could curtail
the media's access and there distance from any possible crime scene... People whom could have been possible
witness's getting their story in the papers....
* We know that various witness's whom heard various screams on various days at various times....
* We know DS Mark Saunders telling us they have CCTV of Canygne Road for that time...
* We know that Gre went to Sheffield for the weekend
* We know when Greg returned from Sheffield...
* We know he went to see his nieces
* We know Rebecca Scott recorded an Interview telling us what a great couple Greg and Joanna were..
* We know that Joanna Yeates visited the Hope and Anchor at lunchtime
* We know the Police had a Facebook advert
* We saw a full on Forensics taking place, for what should have been a Missing person..
* We knew the landlord was arrested
* We has various ex Policemen giving us there take on what had happened, before she was even discovered...
* We have the media permanently parked outside 44,Canygne Road whilst she is a Missing person and during the
investigation to find her killer..
* We have Geoffrey Hardyman brought to our attention, in a way as to suggest a serial killer is at large..
* We have the head of The Complex Crime Unit Investigation Dr Vincent Tabak in Late December 2010, when
realistically there was no evidence at this time to suspect him...
* We know the Pizza and packaging were separate, As no sign of either was at the Flat, and the Police mention the
packaging as a separate item, not that they were taken away or that Joanna Yeates got a lift from someone had
shared her Pizza around at their home...
* We know the last sighting was at the Hop House Pub
* We know a couple walking their dog found Joanna Yeates on Longwood Lane
* We know that the Ikea delivery men delivered Furniture to Joanna Yeates Flat on the 9th November 2010
* We knew he keys, purse and bankcards were at home..
* We Know that a receipt for a Pizza had been found
* We knew that the Flat was in a mess
* We knew that cider had been drunk from a bottle
* We knew there was No signs of a struggle, as Greg Reardon would have called the Police sooner
* We knew how long Greg and Joanna had been together..
* We knew that Joanna Yeates had been strangled
* We knew that her body had frozen
* We knew Tanja Morson was Dr Vincent Tabak's girlfriend
* We knew that Dr Vincent Tabak had moved out of Canygne Road
* We knew the apparent layout of the basement flats
* We knew that the Police carried bags and bags of Forensics out of the Flat
* We knew that a suitcase or some similar was used to transport Joanna yeates from the Flat
* We knew it was called Operation Braid
* We Knew that samples of DNA were found on Joanna yeates Jeans
* We knew samples of DNA were found on her body
* A sexual assault was being implied
* We knew of the times Joanna Yeates visited each shop
* We knew that Rebecca Scott and Joanna Yeates talked of their Christmas plans
* We knew all about Dr Vincent Tabak and his girlfriend before he was charged with this crime
* We knew that Dr Vincent Tabak had a brother called Marcel
* We knew Dr Vincent Tabak had a mother called sonia
* We knew that his father had died
* We knew he was Dutch
* We knew Joanna Yeates apparently arrived home at 8:45pm
* We knew that Joanna Yeates final text message was sent to Mathew Wood
* We knew that Joanna Yeates was found fully clothed
* We knew that her boots were found at home
* We knew her coat was found at home
* We knew she was home alone
* We knew that Joanna Yeates didn't always answer her phone or respond to text messages
* We knew that Joanna Yeates phone still worked after not being charged all weekend
* We knew that the front door was removed
We knew virtually every little bit of information about this case before it had gone to trial.... At trial nothing significant or new came out.. Nothing in Dr Vincent Tabak's tale on the stand, differed from the information everybody already knew about this case...
This is another reason the story on the stand bothers me.... Another reason to question why nothing different came to trial than was already held in the public domain.... Anyone and I mean anyone could have said they had done it, and told the exact same story as Dr Vincent Tabak told.... Because anyone who followed the story knew all the detail already.....
The surprises only came after trial, when DCI Phil Jones tells us that a trainer with blood spots on them were under the kitchen sink, And Colin Port stating that The Hop House Pub was the last known sighting of Joanna yeates...
Shouldn't it have been Dr Vincent Tabak revealing something nobody knew about this case whilst he was on the stand, so as to put to bed any doubts anyone may have about said story.....
I wonder why the Justice System appeared happy with the so called evidence that was at the trial, where everything we heard had already been stated or said, where the only knew thing that came to light was that Joanna Yeates had a flower patterned top on, clearly suggesting she had either been re-dressed, or that she had changed her own clothes at some point.... No wonder Dr Vincent Tabak couldn't answer over 80 questions, if he had no idea what the answer to those questions should be ..as everything else he stated had been in the public domain before trial....
And that is really the point.... There should have been real evidence at trial.. something that only connected the killer to Joanna Yeates.. Something that would categorically to to bed any doubts that people may have had....
The Prosecution themselves should have had something to offer at trial we didn't already know.... And i don't mean putting someone in a boot of a car, which miraculously had no evidence inside, apart from a spot of blood that was on the rubber seal according to DCI Phil Jones.... Dr Vincent Tabak managed to put Joanna yeates body in a cover as to stop any transfer, odd that seeing as we had already heard about some type of item being used to transport her in from the flat....
So the story told on the stand, basically mirrored what was stated in the press... Hardly evidence of Dr vincent Tabak being the man that killed Joanna Yeates...(imo)
-
I agree Nine that claiming to be innocent is indeed not proof but you cant say staying silence isnt proof of guilt can you?
He didnt stay silent. He said he was guilty in a court of law and went on long enough to say sorry. That isnt silence. Maybe guilt did take over and he was genuine about his remorse. We dont know him or know anyone who does to know that is in fact the case either. He said it and lets hope for the family he did mean it!
We could go on and on with various scenarios about why he said sorry but we will never know!
-
I haven' t posted theories really Jixy... Since when have internet searches been proof of committing a crime??
And your entitled to your opinion, which differs to mine.
And i'll reiterate.. I don't know what made him make a plea of guilty to manslaughter..
If he made a plea of guilt.. you still have to back it up with concrete evidence.
If the case is closed...?? " SEND" Dr Vincent Tabak Back to his own country to serve out his sentence.. his family didn't commit any crimes, his mother is old.. it's called compassion for them... The Tabak family are guilty off nothing!!!
This Country might despise him with a passion, But his family loves him.....
So what is wrong with sending Dr Vincent Tabak back to Holland to serve his sentence???
You have him in Prison... The Dutch want there offenders back to their own country, It's part of the stipulation of their EU Treaty...... which I posted the other day...
Maybe there should be a thread on sending him Back to Holland!!!!!!
Quite honestly I'd cry... He's in a hopeless situation..
Think its called Catch22
Ive looked back at a few of your first posts Nine in order to try to understand how you got involved in this case and where your interest in alleged miscarriages of justice stemmed from?
With regards his plea of manslaughter have you considered he could be a psychopath attempting to get a lesser sentence for his crimes?
And can I ask you what you consider to be "concrete evidence" with regards a plea of guilt/confession to murder?
And why a guilty plea in a court of law doesn't suffice for you?
-
Everything that we know about the case looks like Tabak was trying to get a lesser sentence. From the start of the posts to now there doesnt seem to be anything new available that says otherwise.
Any mention of the internet searches connected to the case are always dismissed for one reason or another when they are valid to his case and decision to admit to manslaughter
-
I do not understand why no-one questions this case.... Maybe it is time this case was used to highlight the flawed Justice System.... Because if i as a person with no real knowledge of the law can highlight many problems I see with this case... Just think what an educated person with such knowledge could do.....
Or is there a reason they won't?? I don't know....
How many cases do you know of that have been questioned and challenged after someone has said they are guilty and never changed that acknowledgement themselves?
-
Dr Vincent Tabak was a extremely competent computer user, more than competent, he had an understanding that is greater than most people, the pic i've attached shows Dr Vincent Tabaks Qualifications and Computer skills..
Under Activities it describes that Dr Vincent tabak: Programming Active Server Pages (ASP)
(Did you understand that, because I didn't)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Server_Pages
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
I don't understand why his Lawyer didn't direct the Jury as to Dr Vincent Tabaks knowledge of Computing and his ability to program computer, Dr Tabak Mentions Computer Science.
So..Why didn't he show them what Asp programming was, why didn't he show the Jury Computer Script, most wouldn't be able to understand it, but it would have created doubt as to why Someone who is so computer literate would leave damning evidence on his computer, or just get rid of the hard drive.
Why Not? He helped the Prosecution
Had the Jury know of Dr Vincent Tabaks abilities they might have found the Prosecutions claim difficult to believe...
If he is computer literate and had Committed this crime before he went to Holland, why didn't he take the hard drive with him, dump it somewhere.
(Apparently he was clever enough to dump a pizza and sock)
He clearly has a great understanding and education in Computing and would be extremly aware of what could be perceived as damaging evidence against him..
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/nov/02/vincent-tabak-trial-tweeted
So did the computer evidence show Intention?
Because that was the only EVIDENCE they had as a way to persuade the JURY that Dr Vincent Tabak intended to murder...
If he Intended to Murder someone that evening, why didn't he just walk the streets?
He had been out earlier... He had a keen Interest in Photography..
Why Didn't his Defence mention Dr Vincent Tabak had opportunity that evening to MURDER anyone!!
If searches cannot prove intent,.. How could the Prosecution have proven Dr Vincent Tabak Intended to do anything
Like I originally posted.. when I saw Dr Vincent Tabak on the stand, I saw a man just going through the motion's..
A man that was not being defended.... A man that could see his Defence was not trying to help him,(IMO) was not challenging anything that the Prosecution placed in front of a JURY..
He just sat there as this supposed Evidence was being piled upon him..
So I can clearly understand Dr Vincent Tabak sobbing in court.. He knew the situation was hopeless, because nobody was there to help him..
No Character Witness's called to testify to his nature
No Tanja Morson called to testify to their relationship or Dr Vincent Tabak's behaviour.
No Christopher Jefferies to say whether or not he had indeed seen Dr Vincent Tabak that evening or moved the car.
No Family to testify what A loving son he is and they couldn't understand him being charged.
No employer to testify as to his Character.
No friends to testify to any knowledge they had good/or bad
Even his Lawyer had nothing good to say about him...
That's when I thought his Goose was cooked, If Your Lawyer is against you.. You must be Guilty.. (IMO)
No Neighbours who knew him to say:http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/10/28/joanna-yeates-murder-tria_n_1063591.html
Infact he didn't have anything going for him...
Because people wanted him to be the Monster..
And if you call that a fair Trial.... In My Opinion It isn't..
Though our country prided itself on being Fair Open and Honest..
In My Opinion this Trial was far from being a FAIR FIGHT...
Were you at his trial Nine?
-
Claims of Innocence are not proof of Innocence, and silence is not proof of guilt either... The reasons for staying silent may be many... To protect someone else who may be guilty... To protect someone else who may be threatened.. To make sure your incarceration isn't anymore difficult than it needs to be... Or to go towards a parole hearing where an admission of responsibility for the crime you are incarcerated for will aid in your release...
Not everyone will be heard either.... there are many whom have made claims of Innocence and it is only new evidence and a team of people whom believe in that persons Innocence that may get somewhere in to getting freedom and justice for that person...
But as in this case, there is virtually no-one who believes in Dr Vincent Tabak's Innocence or the suggestion that he may be innocent and seem to need a declaration from him since his sentence to shed light on a conviction that a few may feel is unsafe...
There is no team batting in his corner... There are no lawyers tackling this case, there are no members of the public even looking at this case.... Dr Vincent Tabak had legal aid for his trial, he obviously does not have the funds to start fighting his case therefore one would need a pro bono lawyer to fight for him as for some reason he was not entitled for an appeal... And that is probably because he stated that he was guilty and told a story on the stand....
But..... And it is a long but... questions should be asked, questions should be asked of the police in this case, a case where we were all too aware from the beginning what apparently took place and what didn't...
A case where the media appeared to have unprecedented access to an Investigation of a Missing person... Where from the very start we knew who was who.... Why would the Police allow this access.... Access onto what could be the first scene of crime and the secondary scene of crime... People wandering about crime scenes whom have no business being there....
* We knew about what apparently had been left behind,
* We knew that the neighbour from 42, Canygne Road had been taken in to answer questions and assist the Police
with there Inquiries,
* We knew that CJ saw 3 people at the gate...
* We knew that Rebecca Scott had called Joanna Yeates on the evening of the 17th December 2010,
* We knew which shops she had visited,
* We knew that the Police said Greg was a witness and not a suspect,
* We knew that Greg had been away for the weekend,
* We knew that Greg had his car jump started by neighbours...
* We knew that an old man handed in a sock, we see images of this happening at Canygne Road...
* We knew what time the Police contacted Rebecca Scott...
* We knew that text messages had been sent...
* We were informed by the family they believed their daughter had been abducted and to bolster that idea the
media pan right to CJ and his knowledge of seeing people at the gate... But the Police do not confirm or deny the
yeates fears...
* We knew the Pizza was Missing...
* We knew the sock was Missing...
* We knew that a note had been sent to the Ram,
* We knew that she had a cat...
* We knew that there was NO forced entry...
* We knew that there were injuries, that changed from insignificant to 43 injuries whilst fighting for her life...
* We knew she was discovered somewhere on Longwood lane....
* We knew that the Police respond immediately to this Missing persons case with full attention., leaving no-one in
any doubt that foul play had to be a reasonable possibility....
* We saw many fire engines attending the second scene of crime planting firmly in our minds that something of
great significance had happened...
* We have the press allowed to enter the flat during the trial to show anyone who may have an interest what the
crime scene looked like... telling us it is frozen in time , when it is apparent that it is not....
* We have the press having access to the back on the building, whilst snow is still on the ground, where under said
snow any evidence may have been disturbed, or trodden into the ground...
* We know about the earring found...
* We have web pages giving us information that contradicts the apparent evidence.. by this I mean the date of
Gregs phone call to the Police..
* We are constantly pointed in a direction by the Police and their use of the media.. A Police Force who could curtail
the media's access and there distance from any possible crime scene... People whom could have been possible
witness's getting their story in the papers....
* We know that various witness's whom heard various screams on various days at various times....
* We know DS Mark Saunders telling us they have CCTV of Canygne Road for that time...
* We know that Gre went to Sheffield for the weekend
* We know when Greg returned from Sheffield...
* We know he went to see his nieces
* We know Rebecca Scott recorded an Interview telling us what a great couple Greg and Joanna were..
* We know that Joanna Yeates visited the Hope and Anchor at lunchtime
* We know the Police had a Facebook advert
* We saw a full on Forensics taking place, for what should have been a Missing person..
* We knew the landlord was arrested
* We has various ex Policemen giving us there take on what had happened, before she was even discovered...
* We have the media permanently parked outside 44,Canygne Road whilst she is a Missing person and during the
investigation to find her killer..
* We have Geoffrey Hardyman brought to our attention, in a way as to suggest a serial killer is at large..
* We have the head of The Complex Crime Unit Investigation Dr Vincent Tabak in Late December 2010, when
realistically there was no evidence at this time to suspect him...
* We know the Pizza and packaging were separate, As no sign of either was at the Flat, and the Police mention the
packaging as a separate item, not that they were taken away or that Joanna Yeates got a lift from someone had
shared her Pizza around at their home...
* We know the last sighting was at the Hop House Pub
* We know a couple walking their dog found Joanna Yeates on Longwood Lane
* We know that the Ikea delivery men delivered Furniture to Joanna Yeates Flat on the 9th November 2010
* We knew he keys, purse and bankcards were at home..
* We Know that a receipt for a Pizza had been found
* We knew that the Flat was in a mess
* We knew that cider had been drunk from a bottle
* We knew there was No signs of a struggle, as Greg Reardon would have called the Police sooner
* We knew how long Greg and Joanna had been together..
* We knew that Joanna Yeates had been strangled
* We knew that her body had frozen
* We knew Tanja Morson was Dr Vincent Tabak's girlfriend
* We knew that Dr Vincent Tabak had moved out of Canygne Road
* We knew the apparent layout of the basement flats
* We knew that the Police carried bags and bags of Forensics out of the Flat
* We knew that a suitcase or some similar was used to transport Joanna yeates from the Flat
* We knew it was called Operation Braid
* We Knew that samples of DNA were found on Joanna yeates Jeans
* We knew samples of DNA were found on her body
* A sexual assault was being implied
* We knew of the times Joanna Yeates visited each shop
* We knew that Rebecca Scott and Joanna Yeates talked of their Christmas plans
* We knew all about Dr Vincent Tabak and his girlfriend before he was charged with this crime
* We knew that Dr Vincent Tabak had a brother called Marcel
* We knew Dr Vincent Tabak had a mother called sonia
* We knew that his father had died
* We knew he was Dutch
* We knew Joanna Yeates apparently arrived home at 8:45pm
* We knew that Joanna Yeates final text message was sent to Mathew Wood
* We knew that Joanna Yeates was found fully clothed
* We knew that her boots were found at home
* We knew her coat was found at home
* We knew she was home alone
* We knew that Joanna Yeates didn't always answer her phone or respond to text messages
* We knew that Joanna Yeates phone still worked after not being charged all weekend
* We knew that the front door was removed
We knew virtually every little bit of information about this case before it had gone to trial.... At trial nothing significant or new came out.. Nothing in Dr Vincent Tabak's tale on the stand, differed from the information everybody already knew about this case...
This is another reason the story on the stand bothers me.... Another reason to question why nothing different came to trial than was already held in the public domain.... Anyone and I mean anyone could have said they had done it, and told the exact same story as Dr Vincent Tabak told.... Because anyone who followed the story knew all the detail already.....
The surprises only came after trial, when DCI Phil Jones tells us that a trainer with blood spots on them were under the kitchen sink, And Colin Port stating that The Hop House Pub was the last known sighting of Joanna yeates...
Shouldn't it have been Dr Vincent Tabak revealing something nobody knew about this case whilst he was on the stand, so as to put to bed any doubts anyone may have about said story.....
I wonder why the Justice System appeared happy with the so called evidence that was at the trial, where everything we heard had already been stated or said, where the only knew thing that came to light was that Joanna Yeates had a flower patterned top on, clearly suggesting she had either been re-dressed, or that she had changed her own clothes at some point.... No wonder Dr Vincent Tabak couldn't answer over 80 questions, if he had no idea what the answer to those questions should be ..as everything else he stated had been in the public domain before trial....
And that is really the point.... There should have been real evidence at trial.. something that only connected the killer to Joanna Yeates.. Something that would categorically to to bed any doubts that people may have had....
The Prosecution themselves should have had something to offer at trial we didn't already know.... And i don't mean putting someone in a boot of a car, which miraculously had no evidence inside, apart from a spot of blood that was on the rubber seal according to DCI Phil Jones.... Dr Vincent Tabak managed to put Joanna yeates body in a cover as to stop any transfer, odd that seeing as we had already heard about some type of item being used to transport her in from the flat....
So the story told on the stand, basically mirrored what was stated in the press... Hardly evidence of Dr vincent Tabak being the man that killed Joanna Yeates...(imo)
What makes you say this?
And you appear to have suggested numerous times his confessin was unreliable? Why? What makes you cling to this belief?
-
There was "real" evidence presented during the trial. DNA, Internet searches regarding the differences between murder and manslaughter, body decomposition, the area where he dumped her, local bin collections because (as claimed by him) he had dumped the pizza, sock and bicycle cover in a commercial waste bin. Last but not least, his detailed confession in which it is clear he had been in her home. He explains that he knew the DNA would link him to the crime, he was panicking because he knew it was just a matter of time before he was caught. Just because you fail to accept this Nine does not mean there was no evidence. There clearly was evidence and it was quite damning, hence the guilty verdict.
-
A very good round up of the facts
-
A very good round up of the facts
Clegg: In your first statement, you lied, Why did you liew?
I was hoping that they didn’t have enough evidence and was hoping they would let me go.
Clegg: When did you realise that they hasd enough evidence
When I leant that they found SDNA on the body.
You met Brother ton and told him whay you did.
Did you want to kill oanna:
No definitely not
(sic)
The evidence speaks for itself, and so does his confession...
-
You continue to make valid points Nine and it seems to me from the evidence you bring here (I haven't read it all btw) that the anomalies in this case are vast.
Nine - Have you heard of my side bias and the concept illusion of explanatory depth?
-
Nine - Have you heard of my side bias and the concept illusion of explanatory depth?
Sorry never heard of the term... I'll have to google it..
The Illusion of Explanatory Depth
If you asked one hundred people on the street if they understand how a refrigerator works, most would respond, yes, they do. But ask them to then produce a detailed, step-by-step explanation of how exactly a refrigerator works and you would likely hear silence or stammering. This powerful but inaccurate feeling of knowing is what Leonid Rozenblit and Frank Keil in 2002 termed, the illusion of explanatory depth (IOED), stating, “Most people feel they understand the world with far greater detail, coherence, and depth than they really do.”
Therefore applying this to myself... I have no understanding of the workings of the law... I have no understanding of this case...
The information that is Missing makes it impossible to have an accurate evaluation of what took place and who or who not was involved and to what capacity....
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
I find myself questioning my self about this case and whether or not it is real, There are too many possibilities, there are too many questions left unanswered.. And I always have more....
This is a 'Missing Persons Inquiry for all intense and purposes... A Crime as far as we are made aware of at the start of this Inquiry has not been committed... We do not know what we are searching for... And what I mean by that is we do not know what is Missing and what is left behind...
The Flat that was frozen in time
I know it's not frozen in time.... I can see it's not frozen in time.... So what time is it supposed to be Frozen in...???
Greg Reardon.... Greg has been back to the Flat according to the information we are aware of, from around 8:00pm on Sunday the 19th December 2010,... Now we know nothing about Greg... We know nothing about his habits or whether or not he has OCD for instance... But the little we do know on what happened when he arrived home and what was left behind, has been documented all over the media..
* Arrived home 8:00pm Sunday 19th December 2010
* Cleaned up cat trays
* Fed Bernard
* Drunk from an open bottle of cider
* Had Pizza for his tea
* Tidied up the Flat
* Looked through Joanna Yeates clothes to see what she was wearing
* Went back outside to his car
* Was in the Flat for hours before ringing The Yeates ( around midnight)
* Rung CJ (around midnight)
* Rung Joanna Yeates phone at 9;00pm
* found phone in her coat pocket
* Searched her rucksack at around 11:00pm
* Found her Glasses, keys, bankcards
* Rings the Police at 12:45am on Monday 20th December 2010
There obviously was NO signs of a struggle in the Flat, there can't have been, And if there had have been Greg Reardon had already tidied up what every signs may have been there, making the Flat NOT FROZEN IN TIME....
We decide for ourselves that Greg Reardon must have gone to stay with someone... But why? This is a Missing Persons Inquiry, a crime has not been committed yet as far as we know..... So that stands to reason that Greg Reardon would still be residing in his Flat waiting for his girlfriend to hopefully return home...
He would sleep in the bed... he would watch TV possibily, he would make food maybe... He would brush his teeth, he would use the toilet, he would shower... He would have been around every part of that Flat... He may have sat at the dining table... He may have sat on the settees... He may have gone in and out of the flat putting up posters... Bring debris, back into the Flat...
Why would he not stay there?? She is a Missing Person... What other Indications where there that she wasn't?
And more importantly why would Greg leave the Flat?
He wouldn't (imo) He would be out looking for her, or pace back and forwards inside the flat waiting on her return.... he would want to be near the house phone just incase she rings..
So realistically he isn't going anywhere... He has no reason too... And we have days until she is discovered when anything could have happened inside that Flat....
He could have carried on with the painting to try and take his mind off things, he would have had visitors maybe supporting him in his hours of need... The media footage of the tour of the Flat and the images of the flat show what?? A virtually empty flat... where there is no signs of Greg ever living there.... No bedding... no carpets... No TV no appliances in the kitchen, yet everyone has accepted that this is how the flat looked since the day that Joanna yeates went Missing.... No christmas Tree....
It can't be.... It simply can't be....
So any forensics that may have been collected from the flat are virtually useless... Seeing as we have had... The Police... Mr and Mrs Yeates, Greg Reardon all being inside this flat before any forensics had been done.....
How did The Yeates not notice any blood when they arrived?? 43 significant Injuries blood in her hair and dripping from her nose.... Enough blood was produced that a smear of said blood was apparently found on the wall at Longwood Lane... And if we are to believe a spot was found on the rubber seal of the car that Dr Vincent tabak used...
Yet not a smidgen of blood inside what is supposed to be the original scene of crime.... Nothing on the walls... Nothing on the bed... nothing on the carpets... nothing in the kitchen...
Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have place Joanna Yeates on the bed.... blood surely would have trickled or smeared on the bed....
He then has taken her around to his flat and placed her down... surely blood would have trickled or smeared somewhere there...
But no... It only manages to appear on a rubber seal in a car boot and on a wall on Longwood lane...
Dr Vincent Tabak didn't go around tidying up the scene of crime... He left took Joanna Yeates around to his house for an hour and then put her in the boot and drove to Asda's.... Really , ones gonna pop to the shops...
So if he didn't tidy the scene and Greg and The Yeates didn't see any signs of blood in the Flat, she cannot have been killed there....
The Yeates would have said that there was blood in the flat... They have done so many interviews for documentaries and not once do they say that there was evidence of blood....
So the automatic response then has to be that Greg cleaned it up.... But why would he do that??? Why would he lie about what took place... And why go to trial and tell his story on the stand.... So if Greg didn't need to clean any blood up and The Yeates didn't notice any blood... Joanna Yeates wasn't killed in her flat.... It stands to reason...
So how can that FLAT be frozen in time?? When there are so many possibilities as to who stayed there and who used what, whilst waiting for news on the whereabout of Joanna Yeates...
So how can a flat be presented to the jury as a scene of Crime when there was nothing to suggest that this is indeed the place that Joanna Yeates met her fate?
And more to the point,, why didn't the defence notice the condition of the Flat and lack of evidence within this flat??
Did it not make him question his clients story??
I don't get it... Clegg a man of reputation, a man who has been educated in the law, a man that should know what a crime scene look like, never once stops to look at his client and ask him how on earth he managed to do this crime... (imo)..
Mr Tabak, how did you manage to get into said Flat??
Mr Tabak how did you manage not to leave any traces behind if you say you are guilty of this crime....
Mr Tabak, could you tell me where the TV was positioned?
Mr Tabak, could you tell me the colour of the oven?
Mr Tabak could you tell me what the bed looked like that you placed Miss Yeates upon...
Mr Tabak, where was Miss Yeates cat at the time of the attack??
Mr Tabak, could you describe Bernard to me...
Mr Tabak, what type of lock did Miss yeates door have??
Mr Tabak when did you grab your coat back of the stand???
Mr Tabak, did you go back to collect your coat??
Mr Tabak , did you wrap Miss Yeates in your coat....
Mr Tabak we can see from the CCTV image that you had your coat on on the 19th January 2011
Mr Tabak, were you wearing your coat when you carried Miss Yeates??
Mr Tabak was Miss Yeates bleeding ??
Mr Tabak, did any of Miss Yeates blood get onto your coat??
Mr Tabak did you have Miss Yeates head near your coat as you carried her??
Mr Tabak what other clothes were you wearing that evening?
Mr tabak have you still got these clothes??
Mr Tabak, If you didn't have blood on your coat, did any blood transfer to any of your other clothes??
Mr Tabak did you dispose of these clothes....
Mr Tabak, Did you have the red top on we can see you wearing in Asda??
Mr Tabak, did you take a shower??
Mr Tabak did you clean the blood evidence from the Flat??
Mr Tabak why the need to turn off the TV??
Mr Tabak, do you think that I believe your story??
The list is endless... So what of the answers....
To establish that Dr Vincent Tabak is telling the truth, one needs to establish how it was even a possibility...
How a man who had No connection to a victim, would be incited into a home, commit a violent act and leave no traces whatsoever of said act having been committed inside said Flat....
And no evidence on ones person of said person committing said act...
I don't know what lawyers really do, yes they apply the law, but do they not question what their client states.. Do they just accept a story no matter how implausible said story is, and No Evidence to back up said story....
The DNA and Fibres could be explained away.... But what about how it would be possible to commit this violent act on a woman in her own home who I would imagined putting up a fight for her life, where when her boyfriend came home, he didn't notice that any signs of said violent struggle had taken place... And not just him... Her parents failed to notice any signs of a violent struggle taking place in said flat....
Her mother I would be sure... Would have combed every inch of that flat looking for something that may indicate where her daughter may or may not have gone.... Giving her opportunity, to see signs of a struggle...
Teresa Yeates tells us that the minute they received the phone call, she knew something was untoward... Her and David came straight to Bristol to start looking for her.... So if she suspected foul play or an abduction, I am of the belief that she would have been looking for signs of foul play whilst she was in that flat...
But there cannot have been any.... maybe that is why she believed that Joanna Yeates was abducted... So how did Dr Vincent Tabak manage to kill Joanna Yeates in said Flat without leaving any traces behind?? Or leaving any traces of Joanna Yeates on himself or in his own flat??
So NO.... That Flat is NOT FROZEN IN TIME.... It never was!!
And if we are to believe that fibres from Dr Vincent Tabak's coat were on Miss Yeates, then how and when did that happen?? You would guess he must have had his coat on at sometime whilst being in direct contact with her... Therefore how did he manage not to transfer any blood whatsoever onto said coat??
He either took his coat around to his flat when he popped around there to panic for a moment, when he realised she was dead... meaning his clothing he was wearing at the time would have had evidence of said violent act... Or he put his coat on and buttoned it up before carrying Miss yeates around to his flat, leaving untold traces of blood on said coat....
But at trial we have neither.... No mention of what he wore that evening and no mention of nay blood transfer on either his coat or his clothes....
Odd that.... !!
These are the type of questions I would have expected the defence to ask there client... They do not know him... He could be a serial story teller... But the evidence that has been shown, in itself casts doubt on the story told on the stand...
We know Dr Vincent Tabak had his black coat on in Asda.... So.... where is the evidence upon it.... and shouldn't the defence have questioned that!!
-
Ok... The media told us that fibres were found on said black coat... I do not know what the media tell us is true...
Traces of Yeates's blood were discovered in the boot of Tabak's car, the court heard. Fibres found on Yeates's body indicated she had come into contact with Tabak's black coat and his silver Renault Mégane, the prosecution claimed.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/11/vincent-tabak-joanna-yeates
-
Nine - Have you heard of my side bias and the concept illusion of explanatory depth?
Sorry never heard of the term... I'll have to google it..
Therefore applying this to myself... I have no understanding of the workings of the law... I have no understanding of this case...
The information that is Missing makes it impossible to have an accurate evaluation of what took place and who or who not was involved and to what capacity....
What about myside bias?
-
Sorry never heard of the term... I'll have to google it..
Therefore applying this to myself... I have no understanding of the workings of the law... I have no understanding of this case...
The information that is Missing makes it impossible to have an accurate evaluation of what took place and who or who not was involved and to what capacity....
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
I find myself questioning my self about this case and whether or not it is real, There are too many possibilities, there are too many questions left unanswered.. And I always have more....
This is a 'Missing Persons Inquiry for all intense and purposes... A Crime as far as we are made aware of at the start of this Inquiry has not been committed... We do not know what we are searching for... And what I mean by that is we do not know what is Missing and what is left behind...
The Flat that was frozen in time
I know it's not frozen in time.... I can see it's not frozen in time.... So what time is it supposed to be Frozen in...???
Greg Reardon.... Greg has been back to the Flat according to the information we are aware of, from around 8:00pm on Sunday the 19th December 2010,... Now we know nothing about Greg... We know nothing about his habits or whether or not he has OCD for instance... But the little we do know on what happened when he arrived home and what was left behind, has been documented all over the media..
* Arrived home 8:00pm Sunday 19th December 2010
* Cleaned up cat trays
* Fed Bernard
* Drunk from an open bottle of cider
* Had Pizza for his tea
* Tidied up the Flat
* Looked through Joanna Yeates clothes to see what she was wearing
* Went back outside to his car
* Was in the Flat for hours before ringing The Yeates ( around midnight)
* Rung CJ (around midnight)
* Rung Joanna Yeates phone at 9;00pm
* found phone in her coat pocket
* Searched her rucksack at around 11:00pm
* Found her Glasses, keys, bankcards
* Rings the Police at 12:45am on Monday 20th December 2010
There obviously was NO signs of a struggle in the Flat, there can't have been, And if there had have been Greg Reardon had already tidied up what every signs may have been there, making the Flat NOT FROZEN IN TIME....
We decide for ourselves that Greg Reardon must have gone to stay with someone... But why? This is a Missing Persons Inquiry, a crime has not been committed yet as far as we know..... So that stands to reason that Greg Reardon would still be residing in his Flat waiting for his girlfriend to hopefully return home...
He would sleep in the bed... he would watch TV possibily, he would make food maybe... He would brush his teeth, he would use the toilet, he would shower... He would have been around every part of that Flat... He may have sat at the dining table... He may have sat on the settees... He may have gone in and out of the flat putting up posters... Bring debris, back into the Flat...
Why would he not stay there?? She is a Missing Person... What other Indications where there that she wasn't?
And more importantly why would Greg leave the Flat?
He wouldn't (imo) He would be out looking for her, or pace back and forwards inside the flat waiting on her return.... he would want to be near the house phone just incase she rings..
So realistically he isn't going anywhere... He has no reason too... And we have days until she is discovered when anything could have happened inside that Flat....
He could have carried on with the painting to try and take his mind off things, he would have had visitors maybe supporting him in his hours of need... The media footage of the tour of the Flat and the images of the flat show what?? A virtually empty flat... where there is no signs of Greg ever living there.... No bedding... no carpets... No TV no appliances in the kitchen, yet everyone has accepted that this is how the flat looked since the day that Joanna yeates went Missing.... No christmas Tree....
It can't be.... It simply can't be....
So any forensics that may have been collected from the flat are virtually useless... Seeing as we have had... The Police... Mr and Mrs Yeates, Greg Reardon all being inside this flat before any forensics had been done.....
How did The Yeates not notice any blood when they arrived?? 43 significant Injuries blood in her hair and dripping from her nose.... Enough blood was produced that a smear of said blood was apparently found on the wall at Longwood Lane... And if we are to believe a spot was found on the rubber seal of the car that Dr Vincent tabak used...
Yet not a smidgen of blood inside what is supposed to be the original scene of crime.... Nothing on the walls... Nothing on the bed... nothing on the carpets... nothing in the kitchen...
Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have place Joanna Yeates on the bed.... blood surely would have trickled or smeared on the bed....
He then has taken her around to his flat and placed her down... surely blood would have trickled or smeared somewhere there...
But no... It only manages to appear on a rubber seal in a car boot and on a wall on Longwood lane...
Dr Vincent Tabak didn't go around tidying up the scene of crime... He left took Joanna Yeates around to his house for an hour and then put her in the boot and drove to Asda's.... Really , ones gonna pop to the shops...
So if he didn't tidy the scene and Greg and The Yeates didn't see any signs of blood in the Flat, she cannot have been killed there....
The Yeates would have said that there was blood in the flat... They have done so many interviews for documentaries and not once do they say that there was evidence of blood....
So the automatic response then has to be that Greg cleaned it up.... But why would he do that??? Why would he lie about what took place... And why go to trial and tell his story on the stand.... So if Greg didn't need to clean any blood up and The Yeates didn't notice any blood... Joanna Yeates wasn't killed in her flat.... It stands to reason...
So how can that FLAT be frozen in time?? When there are so many possibilities as to who stayed there and who used what, whilst waiting for news on the whereabout of Joanna Yeates...
So how can a flat be presented to the jury as a scene of Crime when there was nothing to suggest that this is indeed the place that Joanna Yeates met her fate?
And more to the point,, why didn't the defence notice the condition of the Flat and lack of evidence within this flat??
Did it not make him question his clients story??
I don't get it... Clegg a man of reputation, a man who has been educated in the law, a man that should know what a crime scene look like, never once stops to look at his client and ask him how on earth he managed to do this crime... (imo)..
Mr Tabak, how did you manage to get into said Flat??
Mr Tabak how did you manage not to leave any traces behind if you say you are guilty of this crime....
Mr Tabak, could you tell me where the TV was positioned?
Mr Tabak, could you tell me the colour of the oven?
Mr Tabak could you tell me what the bed looked like that you placed Miss Yeates upon...
Mr Tabak, where was Miss Yeates cat at the time of the attack??
Mr Tabak, could you describe Bernard to me...
Mr Tabak, what type of lock did Miss yeates door have??
Mr Tabak when did you grab your coat back of the stand???
Mr Tabak, did you go back to collect your coat??
Mr Tabak , did you wrap Miss Yeates in your coat....
Mr Tabak we can see from the CCTV image that you had your coat on on the 19th January 2011
Mr Tabak, were you wearing your coat when you carried Miss Yeates??
Mr Tabak was Miss Yeates bleeding ??
Mr Tabak, did any of Miss Yeates blood get onto your coat??
Mr Tabak did you have Miss Yeates head near your coat as you carried her??
Mr Tabak what other clothes were you wearing that evening?
Mr tabak have you still got these clothes??
Mr Tabak, If you didn't have blood on your coat, did any blood transfer to any of your other clothes??
Mr Tabak did you dispose of these clothes....
Mr Tabak, Did you have the red top on we can see you wearing in Asda??
Mr Tabak, did you take a shower??
Mr Tabak did you clean the blood evidence from the Flat??
Mr Tabak why the need to turn off the TV??
Mr Tabak, do you think that I believe your story??
The list is endless... So what of the answers....
To establish that Dr Vincent Tabak is telling the truth, one needs to establish how it was even a possibility...
How a man who had No connection to a victim, would be incited into a home, commit a violent act and leave no traces whatsoever of said act having been committed inside said Flat....
And no evidence on ones person of said person committing said act...
I don't know what lawyers really do, yes they apply the law, but do they not question what their client states.. Do they just accept a story no matter how implausible said story is, and No Evidence to back up said story....
The DNA and Fibres could be explained away.... But what about how it would be possible to commit this violent act on a woman in her own home who I would imagined putting up a fight for her life, where when her boyfriend came home, he didn't notice that any signs of said violent struggle had taken place... And not just him... Her parents failed to notice any signs of a violent struggle taking place in said flat....
Her mother I would be sure... Would have combed every inch of that flat looking for something that may indicate where her daughter may or may not have gone.... Giving her opportunity, to see signs of a struggle...
Teresa Yeates tells us that the minute they received the phone call, she knew something was untoward... Her and David came straight to Bristol to start looking for her.... So if she suspected foul play or an abduction, I am of the belief that she would have been looking for signs of foul play whilst she was in that flat...
But there cannot have been any.... maybe that is why she believed that Joanna Yeates was abducted... So how did Dr Vincent Tabak manage to kill Joanna Yeates in said Flat without leaving any traces behind?? Or leaving any traces of Joanna Yeates on himself or in his own flat??
So NO.... That Flat is NOT FROZEN IN TIME.... It never was!!
And if we are to believe that fibres from Dr Vincent Tabak's coat were on Miss Yeates, then how and when did that happen?? You would guess he must have had his coat on at sometime whilst being in direct contact with her... Therefore how did he manage not to transfer any blood whatsoever onto said coat??
He either took his coat around to his flat when he popped around there to panic for a moment, when he realised she was dead... meaning his clothing he was wearing at the time would have had evidence of said violent act... Or he put his coat on and buttoned it up before carrying Miss yeates around to his flat, leaving untold traces of blood on said coat....
But at trial we have neither.... No mention of what he wore that evening and no mention of nay blood transfer on either his coat or his clothes....
Odd that.... !!
These are the type of questions I would have expected the defence to ask there client... They do not know him... He could be a serial story teller... But the evidence that has been shown, in itself casts doubt on the story told on the stand...
We know Dr Vincent Tabak had his black coat on in Asda.... So.... where is the evidence upon it.... and shouldn't the defence have questioned that!!
It will help you if you separate the facts from the myths. Reality as opposed to the illusion
-
Sorry never heard of the term... I'll have to google it..
Therefore applying this to myself... I have no understanding of the workings of the law... I have no understanding of this case...
The information that is Missing makes it impossible to have an accurate evaluation of what took place and who or who not was involved and to what capacity....
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
I find myself questioning my self about this case and whether or not it is real, There are too many possibilities, there are too many questions left unanswered.. And I always have more....
This is a 'Missing Persons Inquiry for all intense and purposes... A Crime as far as we are made aware of at the start of this Inquiry has not been committed... We do not know what we are searching for... And what I mean by that is we do not know what is Missing and what is left behind...
The Flat that was frozen in time
I know it's not frozen in time.... I can see it's not frozen in time.... So what time is it supposed to be Frozen in...???
Greg Reardon.... Greg has been back to the Flat according to the information we are aware of, from around 8:00pm on Sunday the 19th December 2010,... Now we know nothing about Greg... We know nothing about his habits or whether or not he has OCD for instance... But the little we do know on what happened when he arrived home and what was left behind, has been documented all over the media..
* Arrived home 8:00pm Sunday 19th December 2010
* Cleaned up cat trays
* Fed Bernard
* Drunk from an open bottle of cider
* Had Pizza for his tea
* Tidied up the Flat
* Looked through Joanna Yeates clothes to see what she was wearing
* Went back outside to his car
* Was in the Flat for hours before ringing The Yeates ( around midnight)
* Rung CJ (around midnight)
* Rung Joanna Yeates phone at 9;00pm
* found phone in her coat pocket
* Searched her rucksack at around 11:00pm
* Found her Glasses, keys, bankcards
* Rings the Police at 12:45am on Monday 20th December 2010
There obviously was NO signs of a struggle in the Flat, there can't have been, And if there had have been Greg Reardon had already tidied up what every signs may have been there, making the Flat NOT FROZEN IN TIME....
We decide for ourselves that Greg Reardon must have gone to stay with someone... But why? This is a Missing Persons Inquiry, a crime has not been committed yet as far as we know..... So that stands to reason that Greg Reardon would still be residing in his Flat waiting for his girlfriend to hopefully return home...
He would sleep in the bed... he would watch TV possibily, he would make food maybe... He would brush his teeth, he would use the toilet, he would shower... He would have been around every part of that Flat... He may have sat at the dining table... He may have sat on the settees... He may have gone in and out of the flat putting up posters... Bring debris, back into the Flat...
Why would he not stay there?? She is a Missing Person... What other Indications where there that she wasn't?
And more importantly why would Greg leave the Flat?
He wouldn't (imo) He would be out looking for her, or pace back and forwards inside the flat waiting on her return.... he would want to be near the house phone just incase she rings..
So realistically he isn't going anywhere... He has no reason too... And we have days until she is discovered when anything could have happened inside that Flat....
He could have carried on with the painting to try and take his mind off things, he would have had visitors maybe supporting him in his hours of need... The media footage of the tour of the Flat and the images of the flat show what?? A virtually empty flat... where there is no signs of Greg ever living there.... No bedding... no carpets... No TV no appliances in the kitchen, yet everyone has accepted that this is how the flat looked since the day that Joanna yeates went Missing.... No christmas Tree....
It can't be.... It simply can't be....
So any forensics that may have been collected from the flat are virtually useless... Seeing as we have had... The Police... Mr and Mrs Yeates, Greg Reardon all being inside this flat before any forensics had been done.....
How did The Yeates not notice any blood when they arrived?? 43 significant Injuries blood in her hair and dripping from her nose.... Enough blood was produced that a smear of said blood was apparently found on the wall at Longwood Lane... And if we are to believe a spot was found on the rubber seal of the car that Dr Vincent tabak used...
Yet not a smidgen of blood inside what is supposed to be the original scene of crime.... Nothing on the walls... Nothing on the bed... nothing on the carpets... nothing in the kitchen...
Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have place Joanna Yeates on the bed.... blood surely would have trickled or smeared on the bed....
He then has taken her around to his flat and placed her down... surely blood would have trickled or smeared somewhere there...
But no... It only manages to appear on a rubber seal in a car boot and on a wall on Longwood lane...
Dr Vincent Tabak didn't go around tidying up the scene of crime... He left took Joanna Yeates around to his house for an hour and then put her in the boot and drove to Asda's.... Really , ones gonna pop to the shops...
So if he didn't tidy the scene and Greg and The Yeates didn't see any signs of blood in the Flat, she cannot have been killed there....
The Yeates would have said that there was blood in the flat... They have done so many interviews for documentaries and not once do they say that there was evidence of blood....
So the automatic response then has to be that Greg cleaned it up.... But why would he do that??? Why would he lie about what took place... And why go to trial and tell his story on the stand.... So if Greg didn't need to clean any blood up and The Yeates didn't notice any blood... Joanna Yeates wasn't killed in her flat.... It stands to reason...
So how can that FLAT be frozen in time?? When there are so many possibilities as to who stayed there and who used what, whilst waiting for news on the whereabout of Joanna Yeates...
So how can a flat be presented to the jury as a scene of Crime when there was nothing to suggest that this is indeed the place that Joanna Yeates met her fate?
And more to the point,, why didn't the defence notice the condition of the Flat and lack of evidence within this flat??
Did it not make him question his clients story??
I don't get it... Clegg a man of reputation, a man who has been educated in the law, a man that should know what a crime scene look like, never once stops to look at his client and ask him how on earth he managed to do this crime... (imo)..
Mr Tabak, how did you manage to get into said Flat??
Mr Tabak how did you manage not to leave any traces behind if you say you are guilty of this crime....
Mr Tabak, could you tell me where the TV was positioned?
Mr Tabak, could you tell me the colour of the oven?
Mr Tabak could you tell me what the bed looked like that you placed Miss Yeates upon...
Mr Tabak, where was Miss Yeates cat at the time of the attack??
Mr Tabak, could you describe Bernard to me...
Mr Tabak, what type of lock did Miss yeates door have??
Mr Tabak when did you grab your coat back of the stand???
Mr Tabak, did you go back to collect your coat??
Mr Tabak , did you wrap Miss Yeates in your coat....
Mr Tabak we can see from the CCTV image that you had your coat on on the 19th January 2011
Mr Tabak, were you wearing your coat when you carried Miss Yeates??
Mr Tabak was Miss Yeates bleeding ??
Mr Tabak, did any of Miss Yeates blood get onto your coat??
Mr Tabak did you have Miss Yeates head near your coat as you carried her??
Mr Tabak what other clothes were you wearing that evening?
Mr tabak have you still got these clothes??
Mr Tabak, If you didn't have blood on your coat, did any blood transfer to any of your other clothes??
Mr Tabak did you dispose of these clothes....
Mr Tabak, Did you have the red top on we can see you wearing in Asda??
Mr Tabak, did you take a shower??
Mr Tabak did you clean the blood evidence from the Flat??
Mr Tabak why the need to turn off the TV??
Mr Tabak, do you think that I believe your story??
The list is endless... So what of the answers....
To establish that Dr Vincent Tabak is telling the truth, one needs to establish how it was even a possibility...
How a man who had No connection to a victim, would be incited into a home, commit a violent act and leave no traces whatsoever of said act having been committed inside said Flat....
And no evidence on ones person of said person committing said act...
I don't know what lawyers really do, yes they apply the law, but do they not question what their client states.. Do they just accept a story no matter how implausible said story is, and No Evidence to back up said story....
The DNA and Fibres could be explained away.... But what about how it would be possible to commit this violent act on a woman in her own home who I would imagined putting up a fight for her life, where when her boyfriend came home, he didn't notice that any signs of said violent struggle had taken place... And not just him... Her parents failed to notice any signs of a violent struggle taking place in said flat....
Her mother I would be sure... Would have combed every inch of that flat looking for something that may indicate where her daughter may or may not have gone.... Giving her opportunity, to see signs of a struggle...
Teresa Yeates tells us that the minute they received the phone call, she knew something was untoward... Her and David came straight to Bristol to start looking for her.... So if she suspected foul play or an abduction, I am of the belief that she would have been looking for signs of foul play whilst she was in that flat...
But there cannot have been any.... maybe that is why she believed that Joanna Yeates was abducted... So how did Dr Vincent Tabak manage to kill Joanna Yeates in said Flat without leaving any traces behind?? Or leaving any traces of Joanna Yeates on himself or in his own flat??
So NO.... That Flat is NOT FROZEN IN TIME.... It never was!!
And if we are to believe that fibres from Dr Vincent Tabak's coat were on Miss Yeates, then how and when did that happen?? You would guess he must have had his coat on at sometime whilst being in direct contact with her... Therefore how did he manage not to transfer any blood whatsoever onto said coat??
He either took his coat around to his flat when he popped around there to panic for a moment, when he realised she was dead... meaning his clothing he was wearing at the time would have had evidence of said violent act... Or he put his coat on and buttoned it up before carrying Miss yeates around to his flat, leaving untold traces of blood on said coat....
But at trial we have neither.... No mention of what he wore that evening and no mention of nay blood transfer on either his coat or his clothes....
Odd that.... !!
These are the type of questions I would have expected the defence to ask there client... They do not know him... He could be a serial story teller... But the evidence that has been shown, in itself casts doubt on the story told on the stand...
We know Dr Vincent Tabak had his black coat on in Asda.... So.... where is the evidence upon it.... and shouldn't the defence have questioned that!!
You are allowing your bias to take over objective arguement
I've no idea who set up the following http://vincent-tabak-is-innocent.blogspot.com nor do I care but after reading in bold "Vincent Tabak has a PhD" I didn't need to read anything else.
So what he has a PhD, Psychopaths often do.
-
Sorry never heard of the term... I'll have to google it..
Therefore applying this to myself... I have no understanding of the workings of the law... I have no understanding of this case...
The information that is Missing makes it impossible to have an accurate evaluation of what took place and who or who not was involved and to what capacity....
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
I find myself questioning my self about this case and whether or not it is real, There are too many possibilities, there are too many questions left unanswered.. And I always have more....
This is a 'Missing Persons Inquiry for all intense and purposes... A Crime as far as we are made aware of at the start of this Inquiry has not been committed... We do not know what we are searching for... And what I mean by that is we do not know what is Missing and what is left behind...
The Flat that was frozen in time
I know it's not frozen in time.... I can see it's not frozen in time.... So what time is it supposed to be Frozen in...???
Greg Reardon.... Greg has been back to the Flat according to the information we are aware of, from around 8:00pm on Sunday the 19th December 2010,... Now we know nothing about Greg... We know nothing about his habits or whether or not he has OCD for instance... But the little we do know on what happened when he arrived home and what was left behind, has been documented all over the media..
* Arrived home 8:00pm Sunday 19th December 2010
* Cleaned up cat trays
* Fed Bernard
* Drunk from an open bottle of cider
* Had Pizza for his tea
* Tidied up the Flat
* Looked through Joanna Yeates clothes to see what she was wearing
* Went back outside to his car
* Was in the Flat for hours before ringing The Yeates ( around midnight)
* Rung CJ (around midnight)
* Rung Joanna Yeates phone at 9;00pm
* found phone in her coat pocket
* Searched her rucksack at around 11:00pm
* Found her Glasses, keys, bankcards
* Rings the Police at 12:45am on Monday 20th December 2010
There obviously was NO signs of a struggle in the Flat, there can't have been, And if there had have been Greg Reardon had already tidied up what every signs may have been there, making the Flat NOT FROZEN IN TIME....
We decide for ourselves that Greg Reardon must have gone to stay with someone... But why? This is a Missing Persons Inquiry, a crime has not been committed yet as far as we know..... So that stands to reason that Greg Reardon would still be residing in his Flat waiting for his girlfriend to hopefully return home...
He would sleep in the bed... he would watch TV possibily, he would make food maybe... He would brush his teeth, he would use the toilet, he would shower... He would have been around every part of that Flat... He may have sat at the dining table... He may have sat on the settees... He may have gone in and out of the flat putting up posters... Bring debris, back into the Flat...
Why would he not stay there?? She is a Missing Person... What other Indications where there that she wasn't?
And more importantly why would Greg leave the Flat?
He wouldn't (imo) He would be out looking for her, or pace back and forwards inside the flat waiting on her return.... he would want to be near the house phone just incase she rings..
So realistically he isn't going anywhere... He has no reason too... And we have days until she is discovered when anything could have happened inside that Flat....
He could have carried on with the painting to try and take his mind off things, he would have had visitors maybe supporting him in his hours of need... The media footage of the tour of the Flat and the images of the flat show what?? A virtually empty flat... where there is no signs of Greg ever living there.... No bedding... no carpets... No TV no appliances in the kitchen, yet everyone has accepted that this is how the flat looked since the day that Joanna yeates went Missing.... No christmas Tree....
It can't be.... It simply can't be....
So any forensics that may have been collected from the flat are virtually useless... Seeing as we have had... The Police... Mr and Mrs Yeates, Greg Reardon all being inside this flat before any forensics had been done.....
How did The Yeates not notice any blood when they arrived?? 43 significant Injuries blood in her hair and dripping from her nose.... Enough blood was produced that a smear of said blood was apparently found on the wall at Longwood Lane... And if we are to believe a spot was found on the rubber seal of the car that Dr Vincent tabak used...
Yet not a smidgen of blood inside what is supposed to be the original scene of crime.... Nothing on the walls... Nothing on the bed... nothing on the carpets... nothing in the kitchen...
Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have place Joanna Yeates on the bed.... blood surely would have trickled or smeared on the bed....
He then has taken her around to his flat and placed her down... surely blood would have trickled or smeared somewhere there...
But no... It only manages to appear on a rubber seal in a car boot and on a wall on Longwood lane...
Dr Vincent Tabak didn't go around tidying up the scene of crime... He left took Joanna Yeates around to his house for an hour and then put her in the boot and drove to Asda's.... Really , ones gonna pop to the shops...
So if he didn't tidy the scene and Greg and The Yeates didn't see any signs of blood in the Flat, she cannot have been killed there....
The Yeates would have said that there was blood in the flat... They have done so many interviews for documentaries and not once do they say that there was evidence of blood....
So the automatic response then has to be that Greg cleaned it up.... But why would he do that??? Why would he lie about what took place... And why go to trial and tell his story on the stand.... So if Greg didn't need to clean any blood up and The Yeates didn't notice any blood... Joanna Yeates wasn't killed in her flat.... It stands to reason...
So how can that FLAT be frozen in time?? When there are so many possibilities as to who stayed there and who used what, whilst waiting for news on the whereabout of Joanna Yeates...
So how can a flat be presented to the jury as a scene of Crime when there was nothing to suggest that this is indeed the place that Joanna Yeates met her fate?
And more to the point,, why didn't the defence notice the condition of the Flat and lack of evidence within this flat??
Did it not make him question his clients story??
I don't get it... Clegg a man of reputation, a man who has been educated in the law, a man that should know what a crime scene look like, never once stops to look at his client and ask him how on earth he managed to do this crime... (imo)..
Mr Tabak, how did you manage to get into said Flat??
Mr Tabak how did you manage not to leave any traces behind if you say you are guilty of this crime....
Mr Tabak, could you tell me where the TV was positioned?
Mr Tabak, could you tell me the colour of the oven?
Mr Tabak could you tell me what the bed looked like that you placed Miss Yeates upon...
Mr Tabak, where was Miss Yeates cat at the time of the attack??
Mr Tabak, could you describe Bernard to me...
Mr Tabak, what type of lock did Miss yeates door have??
Mr Tabak when did you grab your coat back of the stand???
Mr Tabak, did you go back to collect your coat??
Mr Tabak , did you wrap Miss Yeates in your coat....
Mr Tabak we can see from the CCTV image that you had your coat on on the 19th January 2011
Mr Tabak, were you wearing your coat when you carried Miss Yeates??
Mr Tabak was Miss Yeates bleeding ??
Mr Tabak, did any of Miss Yeates blood get onto your coat??
Mr Tabak did you have Miss Yeates head near your coat as you carried her??
Mr Tabak what other clothes were you wearing that evening?
Mr tabak have you still got these clothes??
Mr Tabak, If you didn't have blood on your coat, did any blood transfer to any of your other clothes??
Mr Tabak did you dispose of these clothes....
Mr Tabak, Did you have the red top on we can see you wearing in Asda??
Mr Tabak, did you take a shower??
Mr Tabak did you clean the blood evidence from the Flat??
Mr Tabak why the need to turn off the TV??
Mr Tabak, do you think that I believe your story??
The list is endless... So what of the answers....
To establish that Dr Vincent Tabak is telling the truth, one needs to establish how it was even a possibility...
How a man who had No connection to a victim, would be incited into a home, commit a violent act and leave no traces whatsoever of said act having been committed inside said Flat....
And no evidence on ones person of said person committing said act...
I don't know what lawyers really do, yes they apply the law, but do they not question what their client states.. Do they just accept a story no matter how implausible said story is, and No Evidence to back up said story....
The DNA and Fibres could be explained away.... But what about how it would be possible to commit this violent act on a woman in her own home who I would imagined putting up a fight for her life, where when her boyfriend came home, he didn't notice that any signs of said violent struggle had taken place... And not just him... Her parents failed to notice any signs of a violent struggle taking place in said flat....
Her mother I would be sure... Would have combed every inch of that flat looking for something that may indicate where her daughter may or may not have gone.... Giving her opportunity, to see signs of a struggle...
Teresa Yeates tells us that the minute they received the phone call, she knew something was untoward... Her and David came straight to Bristol to start looking for her.... So if she suspected foul play or an abduction, I am of the belief that she would have been looking for signs of foul play whilst she was in that flat...
But there cannot have been any.... maybe that is why she believed that Joanna Yeates was abducted... So how did Dr Vincent Tabak manage to kill Joanna Yeates in said Flat without leaving any traces behind?? Or leaving any traces of Joanna Yeates on himself or in his own flat??
So NO.... That Flat is NOT FROZEN IN TIME.... It never was!!
And if we are to believe that fibres from Dr Vincent Tabak's coat were on Miss Yeates, then how and when did that happen?? You would guess he must have had his coat on at sometime whilst being in direct contact with her... Therefore how did he manage not to transfer any blood whatsoever onto said coat??
He either took his coat around to his flat when he popped around there to panic for a moment, when he realised she was dead... meaning his clothing he was wearing at the time would have had evidence of said violent act... Or he put his coat on and buttoned it up before carrying Miss yeates around to his flat, leaving untold traces of blood on said coat....
But at trial we have neither.... No mention of what he wore that evening and no mention of nay blood transfer on either his coat or his clothes....
Odd that.... !!
These are the type of questions I would have expected the defence to ask there client... They do not know him... He could be a serial story teller... But the evidence that has been shown, in itself casts doubt on the story told on the stand...
We know Dr Vincent Tabak had his black coat on in Asda.... So.... where is the evidence upon it.... and shouldn't the defence have questioned that!!
No it isn't. The case has been solved and closed.
Who is WE? You keep referring to WE?
-
Sorry never heard of the term... I'll have to google it..
Therefore applying this to myself... I have no understanding of the workings of the law... I have no understanding of this case...
The information that is Missing makes it impossible to have an accurate evaluation of what took place and who or who not was involved and to what capacity....
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
I find myself questioning my self about this case and whether or not it is real, There are too many possibilities, there are too many questions left unanswered.. And I always have more....
This is a 'Missing Persons Inquiry for all intense and purposes... A Crime as far as we are made aware of at the start of this Inquiry has not been committed... We do not know what we are searching for... And what I mean by that is we do not know what is Missing and what is left behind...
The Flat that was frozen in time
I know it's not frozen in time.... I can see it's not frozen in time.... So what time is it supposed to be Frozen in...???
Greg Reardon.... Greg has been back to the Flat according to the information we are aware of, from around 8:00pm on Sunday the 19th December 2010,... Now we know nothing about Greg... We know nothing about his habits or whether or not he has OCD for instance... But the little we do know on what happened when he arrived home and what was left behind, has been documented all over the media..
* Arrived home 8:00pm Sunday 19th December 2010
* Cleaned up cat trays
* Fed Bernard
* Drunk from an open bottle of cider
* Had Pizza for his tea
* Tidied up the Flat
* Looked through Joanna Yeates clothes to see what she was wearing
* Went back outside to his car
* Was in the Flat for hours before ringing The Yeates ( around midnight)
* Rung CJ (around midnight)
* Rung Joanna Yeates phone at 9;00pm
* found phone in her coat pocket
* Searched her rucksack at around 11:00pm
* Found her Glasses, keys, bankcards
* Rings the Police at 12:45am on Monday 20th December 2010
There obviously was NO signs of a struggle in the Flat, there can't have been, And if there had have been Greg Reardon had already tidied up what every signs may have been there, making the Flat NOT FROZEN IN TIME....
We decide for ourselves that Greg Reardon must have gone to stay with someone... But why? This is a Missing Persons Inquiry, a crime has not been committed yet as far as we know..... So that stands to reason that Greg Reardon would still be residing in his Flat waiting for his girlfriend to hopefully return home...
He would sleep in the bed... he would watch TV possibily, he would make food maybe... He would brush his teeth, he would use the toilet, he would shower... He would have been around every part of that Flat... He may have sat at the dining table... He may have sat on the settees... He may have gone in and out of the flat putting up posters... Bring debris, back into the Flat...
Why would he not stay there?? She is a Missing Person... What other Indications where there that she wasn't?
And more importantly why would Greg leave the Flat?
He wouldn't (imo) He would be out looking for her, or pace back and forwards inside the flat waiting on her return.... he would want to be near the house phone just incase she rings..
So realistically he isn't going anywhere... He has no reason too... And we have days until she is discovered when anything could have happened inside that Flat....
He could have carried on with the painting to try and take his mind off things, he would have had visitors maybe supporting him in his hours of need... The media footage of the tour of the Flat and the images of the flat show what?? A virtually empty flat... where there is no signs of Greg ever living there.... No bedding... no carpets... No TV no appliances in the kitchen, yet everyone has accepted that this is how the flat looked since the day that Joanna yeates went Missing.... No christmas Tree....
It can't be.... It simply can't be....
So any forensics that may have been collected from the flat are virtually useless... Seeing as we have had... The Police... Mr and Mrs Yeates, Greg Reardon all being inside this flat before any forensics had been done.....
How did The Yeates not notice any blood when they arrived?? 43 significant Injuries blood in her hair and dripping from her nose.... Enough blood was produced that a smear of said blood was apparently found on the wall at Longwood Lane... And if we are to believe a spot was found on the rubber seal of the car that Dr Vincent tabak used...
Yet not a smidgen of blood inside what is supposed to be the original scene of crime.... Nothing on the walls... Nothing on the bed... nothing on the carpets... nothing in the kitchen...
Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have place Joanna Yeates on the bed.... blood surely would have trickled or smeared on the bed....
He then has taken her around to his flat and placed her down... surely blood would have trickled or smeared somewhere there...
But no... It only manages to appear on a rubber seal in a car boot and on a wall on Longwood lane...
Dr Vincent Tabak didn't go around tidying up the scene of crime... He left took Joanna Yeates around to his house for an hour and then put her in the boot and drove to Asda's.... Really , ones gonna pop to the shops...
So if he didn't tidy the scene and Greg and The Yeates didn't see any signs of blood in the Flat, she cannot have been killed there....
The Yeates would have said that there was blood in the flat... They have done so many interviews for documentaries and not once do they say that there was evidence of blood....
So the automatic response then has to be that Greg cleaned it up.... But why would he do that??? Why would he lie about what took place... And why go to trial and tell his story on the stand.... So if Greg didn't need to clean any blood up and The Yeates didn't notice any blood... Joanna Yeates wasn't killed in her flat.... It stands to reason...
So how can that FLAT be frozen in time?? When there are so many possibilities as to who stayed there and who used what, whilst waiting for news on the whereabout of Joanna Yeates...
So how can a flat be presented to the jury as a scene of Crime when there was nothing to suggest that this is indeed the place that Joanna Yeates met her fate?
And more to the point,, why didn't the defence notice the condition of the Flat and lack of evidence within this flat??
Did it not make him question his clients story??
I don't get it... Clegg a man of reputation, a man who has been educated in the law, a man that should know what a crime scene look like, never once stops to look at his client and ask him how on earth he managed to do this crime... (imo)..
Mr Tabak, how did you manage to get into said Flat??
Mr Tabak how did you manage not to leave any traces behind if you say you are guilty of this crime....
Mr Tabak, could you tell me where the TV was positioned?
Mr Tabak, could you tell me the colour of the oven?
Mr Tabak could you tell me what the bed looked like that you placed Miss Yeates upon...
Mr Tabak, where was Miss Yeates cat at the time of the attack??
Mr Tabak, could you describe Bernard to me...
Mr Tabak, what type of lock did Miss yeates door have??
Mr Tabak when did you grab your coat back of the stand???
Mr Tabak, did you go back to collect your coat??
Mr Tabak , did you wrap Miss Yeates in your coat....
Mr Tabak we can see from the CCTV image that you had your coat on on the 19th January 2011
Mr Tabak, were you wearing your coat when you carried Miss Yeates??
Mr Tabak was Miss Yeates bleeding ??
Mr Tabak, did any of Miss Yeates blood get onto your coat??
Mr Tabak did you have Miss Yeates head near your coat as you carried her??
Mr Tabak what other clothes were you wearing that evening?
Mr tabak have you still got these clothes??
Mr Tabak, If you didn't have blood on your coat, did any blood transfer to any of your other clothes??
Mr Tabak did you dispose of these clothes....
Mr Tabak, Did you have the red top on we can see you wearing in Asda??
Mr Tabak, did you take a shower??
Mr Tabak did you clean the blood evidence from the Flat??
Mr Tabak why the need to turn off the TV??
Mr Tabak, do you think that I believe your story??
The list is endless... So what of the answers....
To establish that Dr Vincent Tabak is telling the truth, one needs to establish how it was even a possibility...
How a man who had No connection to a victim, would be incited into a home, commit a violent act and leave no traces whatsoever of said act having been committed inside said Flat....
And no evidence on ones person of said person committing said act...
I don't know what lawyers really do, yes they apply the law, but do they not question what their client states.. Do they just accept a story no matter how implausible said story is, and No Evidence to back up said story....
The DNA and Fibres could be explained away.... But what about how it would be possible to commit this violent act on a woman in her own home who I would imagined putting up a fight for her life, where when her boyfriend came home, he didn't notice that any signs of said violent struggle had taken place... And not just him... Her parents failed to notice any signs of a violent struggle taking place in said flat....
Her mother I would be sure... Would have combed every inch of that flat looking for something that may indicate where her daughter may or may not have gone.... Giving her opportunity, to see signs of a struggle...
Teresa Yeates tells us that the minute they received the phone call, she knew something was untoward... Her and David came straight to Bristol to start looking for her.... So if she suspected foul play or an abduction, I am of the belief that she would have been looking for signs of foul play whilst she was in that flat...
But there cannot have been any.... maybe that is why she believed that Joanna Yeates was abducted... So how did Dr Vincent Tabak manage to kill Joanna Yeates in said Flat without leaving any traces behind?? Or leaving any traces of Joanna Yeates on himself or in his own flat??
So NO.... That Flat is NOT FROZEN IN TIME.... It never was!!
And if we are to believe that fibres from Dr Vincent Tabak's coat were on Miss Yeates, then how and when did that happen?? You would guess he must have had his coat on at sometime whilst being in direct contact with her... Therefore how did he manage not to transfer any blood whatsoever onto said coat??
He either took his coat around to his flat when he popped around there to panic for a moment, when he realised she was dead... meaning his clothing he was wearing at the time would have had evidence of said violent act... Or he put his coat on and buttoned it up before carrying Miss yeates around to his flat, leaving untold traces of blood on said coat....
But at trial we have neither.... No mention of what he wore that evening and no mention of nay blood transfer on either his coat or his clothes....
Odd that.... !!
These are the type of questions I would have expected the defence to ask there client... They do not know him... He could be a serial story teller... But the evidence that has been shown, in itself casts doubt on the story told on the stand...
We know Dr Vincent Tabak had his black coat on in Asda.... So.... where is the evidence upon it.... and shouldn't the defence have questioned that!!
Greg Reardon was the partner of Joanna Yeates who was murdered. Why are you introducing conspiracy theories?
-
You are allowing your bias to take over objective arguement
Thanks Stephanie... My argument was to show why i believed the Defence failed Dr Vincent Tabak... My argument was, based on what I believe...
OMG... This all gives me a headache.... I'm busy baking bread... You can take that as a fact .... 11:09am on Sunday 7th October 2018 and the dough to my brown loaf is rising as we speak....
As for unbiased..your obviously not getting an unbiased argument from me... My head has been cabbaged by the glaringly obvious... Maybe it was the Defences bias that we should be looking at....
-
Sorry never heard of the term... I'll have to google it..
Therefore applying this to myself... I have no understanding of the workings of the law... I have no understanding of this case...
The information that is Missing makes it impossible to have an accurate evaluation of what took place and who or who not was involved and to what capacity....
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
I find myself questioning my self about this case and whether or not it is real, There are too many possibilities, there are too many questions left unanswered.. And I always have more....
This is a 'Missing Persons Inquiry for all intense and purposes... A Crime as far as we are made aware of at the start of this Inquiry has not been committed... We do not know what we are searching for... And what I mean by that is we do not know what is Missing and what is left behind...
The Flat that was frozen in time
I know it's not frozen in time.... I can see it's not frozen in time.... So what time is it supposed to be Frozen in...???
Greg Reardon.... Greg has been back to the Flat according to the information we are aware of, from around 8:00pm on Sunday the 19th December 2010,... Now we know nothing about Greg... We know nothing about his habits or whether or not he has OCD for instance... But the little we do know on what happened when he arrived home and what was left behind, has been documented all over the media..
* Arrived home 8:00pm Sunday 19th December 2010
* Cleaned up cat trays
* Fed Bernard
* Drunk from an open bottle of cider
* Had Pizza for his tea
* Tidied up the Flat
* Looked through Joanna Yeates clothes to see what she was wearing
* Went back outside to his car
* Was in the Flat for hours before ringing The Yeates ( around midnight)
* Rung CJ (around midnight)
* Rung Joanna Yeates phone at 9;00pm
* found phone in her coat pocket
* Searched her rucksack at around 11:00pm
* Found her Glasses, keys, bankcards
* Rings the Police at 12:45am on Monday 20th December 2010
There obviously was NO signs of a struggle in the Flat, there can't have been, And if there had have been Greg Reardon had already tidied up what every signs may have been there, making the Flat NOT FROZEN IN TIME....
We decide for ourselves that Greg Reardon must have gone to stay with someone... But why? This is a Missing Persons Inquiry, a crime has not been committed yet as far as we know..... So that stands to reason that Greg Reardon would still be residing in his Flat waiting for his girlfriend to hopefully return home...
He would sleep in the bed... he would watch TV possibily, he would make food maybe... He would brush his teeth, he would use the toilet, he would shower... He would have been around every part of that Flat... He may have sat at the dining table... He may have sat on the settees... He may have gone in and out of the flat putting up posters... Bring debris, back into the Flat...
Why would he not stay there?? She is a Missing Person... What other Indications where there that she wasn't?
And more importantly why would Greg leave the Flat?
He wouldn't (imo) He would be out looking for her, or pace back and forwards inside the flat waiting on her return.... he would want to be near the house phone just incase she rings..
So realistically he isn't going anywhere... He has no reason too... And we have days until she is discovered when anything could have happened inside that Flat....
He could have carried on with the painting to try and take his mind off things, he would have had visitors maybe supporting him in his hours of need... The media footage of the tour of the Flat and the images of the flat show what?? A virtually empty flat... where there is no signs of Greg ever living there.... No bedding... no carpets... No TV no appliances in the kitchen, yet everyone has accepted that this is how the flat looked since the day that Joanna yeates went Missing.... No christmas Tree....
It can't be.... It simply can't be....
So any forensics that may have been collected from the flat are virtually useless... Seeing as we have had... The Police... Mr and Mrs Yeates, Greg Reardon all being inside this flat before any forensics had been done.....
How did The Yeates not notice any blood when they arrived?? 43 significant Injuries blood in her hair and dripping from her nose.... Enough blood was produced that a smear of said blood was apparently found on the wall at Longwood Lane... And if we are to believe a spot was found on the rubber seal of the car that Dr Vincent tabak used...
Yet not a smidgen of blood inside what is supposed to be the original scene of crime.... Nothing on the walls... Nothing on the bed... nothing on the carpets... nothing in the kitchen...
Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have place Joanna Yeates on the bed.... blood surely would have trickled or smeared on the bed....
He then has taken her around to his flat and placed her down... surely blood would have trickled or smeared somewhere there...
But no... It only manages to appear on a rubber seal in a car boot and on a wall on Longwood lane...
Dr Vincent Tabak didn't go around tidying up the scene of crime... He left took Joanna Yeates around to his house for an hour and then put her in the boot and drove to Asda's.... Really , ones gonna pop to the shops...
So if he didn't tidy the scene and Greg and The Yeates didn't see any signs of blood in the Flat, she cannot have been killed there....
The Yeates would have said that there was blood in the flat... They have done so many interviews for documentaries and not once do they say that there was evidence of blood....
So the automatic response then has to be that Greg cleaned it up.... But why would he do that??? Why would he lie about what took place... And why go to trial and tell his story on the stand.... So if Greg didn't need to clean any blood up and The Yeates didn't notice any blood... Joanna Yeates wasn't killed in her flat.... It stands to reason...
So how can that FLAT be frozen in time?? When there are so many possibilities as to who stayed there and who used what, whilst waiting for news on the whereabout of Joanna Yeates...
So how can a flat be presented to the jury as a scene of Crime when there was nothing to suggest that this is indeed the place that Joanna Yeates met her fate?
And more to the point,, why didn't the defence notice the condition of the Flat and lack of evidence within this flat??
Did it not make him question his clients story??
I don't get it... Clegg a man of reputation, a man who has been educated in the law, a man that should know what a crime scene look like, never once stops to look at his client and ask him how on earth he managed to do this crime... (imo)..
Mr Tabak, how did you manage to get into said Flat??
Mr Tabak how did you manage not to leave any traces behind if you say you are guilty of this crime....
Mr Tabak, could you tell me where the TV was positioned?
Mr Tabak, could you tell me the colour of the oven?
Mr Tabak could you tell me what the bed looked like that you placed Miss Yeates upon...
Mr Tabak, where was Miss Yeates cat at the time of the attack??
Mr Tabak, could you describe Bernard to me...
Mr Tabak, what type of lock did Miss yeates door have??
Mr Tabak when did you grab your coat back of the stand???
Mr Tabak, did you go back to collect your coat??
Mr Tabak , did you wrap Miss Yeates in your coat....
Mr Tabak we can see from the CCTV image that you had your coat on on the 19th January 2011
Mr Tabak, were you wearing your coat when you carried Miss Yeates??
Mr Tabak was Miss Yeates bleeding ??
Mr Tabak, did any of Miss Yeates blood get onto your coat??
Mr Tabak did you have Miss Yeates head near your coat as you carried her??
Mr Tabak what other clothes were you wearing that evening?
Mr tabak have you still got these clothes??
Mr Tabak, If you didn't have blood on your coat, did any blood transfer to any of your other clothes??
Mr Tabak did you dispose of these clothes....
Mr Tabak, Did you have the red top on we can see you wearing in Asda??
Mr Tabak, did you take a shower??
Mr Tabak did you clean the blood evidence from the Flat??
Mr Tabak why the need to turn off the TV??
Mr Tabak, do you think that I believe your story??
The list is endless... So what of the answers....
To establish that Dr Vincent Tabak is telling the truth, one needs to establish how it was even a possibility...
How a man who had No connection to a victim, would be incited into a home, commit a violent act and leave no traces whatsoever of said act having been committed inside said Flat....
And no evidence on ones person of said person committing said act...
I don't know what lawyers really do, yes they apply the law, but do they not question what their client states.. Do they just accept a story no matter how implausible said story is, and No Evidence to back up said story....
The DNA and Fibres could be explained away.... But what about how it would be possible to commit this violent act on a woman in her own home who I would imagined putting up a fight for her life, where when her boyfriend came home, he didn't notice that any signs of said violent struggle had taken place... And not just him... Her parents failed to notice any signs of a violent struggle taking place in said flat....
Her mother I would be sure... Would have combed every inch of that flat looking for something that may indicate where her daughter may or may not have gone.... Giving her opportunity, to see signs of a struggle...
Teresa Yeates tells us that the minute they received the phone call, she knew something was untoward... Her and David came straight to Bristol to start looking for her.... So if she suspected foul play or an abduction, I am of the belief that she would have been looking for signs of foul play whilst she was in that flat...
But there cannot have been any.... maybe that is why she believed that Joanna Yeates was abducted... So how did Dr Vincent Tabak manage to kill Joanna Yeates in said Flat without leaving any traces behind?? Or leaving any traces of Joanna Yeates on himself or in his own flat??
So NO.... That Flat is NOT FROZEN IN TIME.... It never was!!
And if we are to believe that fibres from Dr Vincent Tabak's coat were on Miss Yeates, then how and when did that happen?? You would guess he must have had his coat on at sometime whilst being in direct contact with her... Therefore how did he manage not to transfer any blood whatsoever onto said coat??
He either took his coat around to his flat when he popped around there to panic for a moment, when he realised she was dead... meaning his clothing he was wearing at the time would have had evidence of said violent act... Or he put his coat on and buttoned it up before carrying Miss yeates around to his flat, leaving untold traces of blood on said coat....
But at trial we have neither.... No mention of what he wore that evening and no mention of nay blood transfer on either his coat or his clothes....
Odd that.... !!
These are the type of questions I would have expected the defence to ask there client... They do not know him... He could be a serial story teller... But the evidence that has been shown, in itself casts doubt on the story told on the stand...
We know Dr Vincent Tabak had his black coat on in Asda.... So.... where is the evidence upon it.... and shouldn't the defence have questioned that!!
Are you a police officer Nine? I'm joking 8((()*/
But answer me this; what makes you think the police didn't investigate this case properly? Because they made a mistake over Christopher Jeffries?
-
It will help you if you separate the facts from the myths. Reality as opposed to the illusion
Yes.... This whole case is an illusion.... Built on myths....
-
Yes.... This whole case is an illusion.... Built on myths....
Only in your mind Nine.
-
Thanks Stephanie... My argument was to show why i believed the Defence failed Dr Vincent Tabak... My argument was, based on what I believe...
OMG... This all gives me a headache.... I'm busy baking bread... You can take that as a fact .... 11:09am on Sunday 7th October 2018 and the dough to my brown loaf is rising as we speak....
As for unbiased..your obviously not getting an unbiased argument from me... My head has been cabbaged by the glaringly obvious... Maybe it was the Defences bias that we should be looking at....
But your argument isn't based in reality. You've admitted it here:
Yes.... This whole case is an illusion.... Built on myths....
Why don't you take Vincent Tabaks confession as fact as opposed to trying to convince me you are baking bread?
What's "glaringly obvious" is it appears you've built a conspiracy theory with regards this case and your supposed headache is most probably caused by:
A) lack of reasoning and objectivity
B) you've got the oven on too high
C) you need to drink more fluids?
-
Thanks Stephanie... My argument was to show why i believed the Defence failed Dr Vincent Tabak...
How would YOU defend someone who has confessed to YOU they had murdered?
And what would you do with that information?
-
Are you a police officer Nine?
No.... I at present do not work... I have never worked for the Police... I am for all intense and purposes a kept woman... I wish i had gainful employment , but find it increasingly more difficult, due to my circumstances...
I have no education, which I keep saying, which is glaringly obvious.... I have made a complete idiot of myself.... I thought our Justice System worked... I thought our Justice system was fair....
I have wasted the best part of 2 years on here arguing what i believe was a sham trial from start to finish... I have questioned many things... I question myself and why it bothers me so much.... I have bored my family to tears with this case... I no longer mention it to anyone.....
It will never make an ounce of difference what I write as to whether or not anyone will look at this case in any other light...
It will never make any difference to Justice.... I may be ill informed, I may have made errors... And who really give a flying Fig what My Opinions are to be honest....
So let this languish with all the other unfair unjust cases.... of course that is just my opinion.... As it is glaringly obvious no-one cares.... (imo)
-
Do you really not see the contractions in your arguments and the illogical reasoning?
You state:
To establish that Dr Vincent Tabak is telling the truth, one needs to establish how it was even a possibility.
Yet you've claimed this case is an illusion based on myth?! *%87
-
What I actually posted was
Are you a police officer Nine? I'm joking 8((()*/
But answer me this; what makes you think the police didn't investigate this case properly? Because they made a mistake over Christopher Jeffries?
Though I did go back and edit my post and you may have quoted it before I finished editimg it?
No.... I at present do not work... I have never worked for the Police... I am for all intense and purposes a kept woman... I wish i had gainful employment , but find it increasingly more difficult, due to my circumstances...
I have no education, which I keep saying, which is glaringly obvious.... I have made a complete idiot of myself.... I thought our Justice System worked... I thought our Justice system was fair....
I have wasted the best part of 2 years on here arguing what i believe was a sham trial from start to finish... I have questioned many things... I question myself and why it bothers me so much.... I have bored my family to tears with this case... I no longer mention it to anyone.....
It will never make an ounce of difference what I write as to whether or not anyone will look at this case in any other light...
It will never make any difference to Justice.... I may be ill informed, I may have made errors... And who really give a flying Fig what My Opinions are to be honest....
So let this languish with all the other unfair unjust cases.... of course that is just my opinion.... As it is glaringly obvious no-one cares.... (imo)
?
What makes you think no one cares? Care about what exactly?
-
How would YOU defend someone who has confessed to YOU they had murdered?
Nearly responded to this with a long post... Then realised it was pointless....
-
Nearly responded to this with a long post... Then realised it was pointless....
Humour me
I don't view murder confessions as pointless.
Simon Hall confessed after nearly 12 years of lies!
-
But your argument isn't based in reality. You've admitted it here:
Why don't you take Vincent Tabaks confession as fact as opposed to trying to convince me you are baking bread?
What's "glaringly obvious" is it appears you've built a conspiracy theory with regards this case and your supposed headache is most probably caused by:
A) lack of reasoning and objectivity
B) you've got the oven on too high
C) you need to drink more fluids?
I am not on trial..... I cannot argue said points in a trial setting I have no training as a barrister, you could make mincemeat out of me on the stand , by preventing me from finishing a sentence, or by twisting everything i mean and say... You could ridicule me and make me look totally inept... And you could apply any argument, to whatever I may or may not have said...
It only goes to prove that facts can be twisted and interpreted in different ways...
A) I give up
B) I give up
C) I give up
-
Dr Vincent Tabak didn't go around tidying up the scene of crime...
How do you know what he did and didn't do? A) You were not there and B) You only have the word of a confessed killer who was trying to play down his culpability.
-
You tell me if the oven was too high.... (image attached..)
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=14830;image)
Yes you could argue every point as to whether the image is taken in my home, did I find image on internet, am I being honest...
Well yes I am being honest, It is my bread that I made that is cooling on my tray.... But how do I prove that too you...?? Just like how was it proven that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates on Friday 17th December 2010, just on his word on the stand!!
He was a liar apparently!!!!
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I am not on trial..... I cannot argue said points in a trial setting
You what? *%87
-
Nine do you believe she was killed in her flat?
-
Nine I have a serious question... Why do you ignore the DNA evidence and the internet search evidence? Even without his confession those bits of evidence are quite damning. Tabak himself does not dispute that his DNA would have been on her, after all he is the person claiming he killed her. You wonder why no-one will look at the case, have you ever considered that is because Tabak himself would have to be the one asking and not just some random person who cannot accept there was evidence to prove guilt?
What confuses me is that you think Tabak was incapable of telling lies, even though you have never ever met him. I do not believe his version of events either, I do not believe Joanna screamed just because he made a pass at her. I believe he attacked her with sexual motive in mind. I believe he is a liar and tried to play down his culpability so he would not spend years in prison. There are many, many people just like him behind bars for the exact same thing he has done - are these people innocent too?
-
Yes you could argue every point as to whether the image is taken in my home, did I find image on internet, am I being honest...
Well yes I am being honest, It is my bread that I made that is cooling on my tray.... But how do I prove that too you...?? Just like how was it proven that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates on Friday 17th December 2010, just on his word on the stand!!
He was a liar apparently!!!!
It is not unknown for a suspect to admit to a crime that he or she did not commit, however, in such cases it is usual to have the suspect declared unfit to plead and thereafter committed to some mental health facility where they can be treated. There is no evidence that Vincent Tabak suffered from any mental health problems and so was deemed fit to plead.
-
Yes you could argue every point as to whether the image is taken in my home, did I find image on internet, am I being honest...
We could DNA test the bread and prove you touched it at least!
-
Nine do you believe she was killed in her flat?
I don't know if she was... I have no evidence to prove that she even reached home.... I have no evidence that as to what date or time this took place...
The only way she could have been killed in her flat was if it was by a hand of a person who knew her... A person who could gain access without an issue... A person or persons who had the time to cover up said crime scene and clean said crime scene.... For a boyfriend not to notice there was a problem,when he entered the home... or her parents not to notice any signs of struggle.. Suggest nothing took place there....
We appear to be ignoring to conflicting statements made by 2 different Police Officers....
* Colin Port states at leveson, The Hophouse Pub was last known sighting.....
* DS Mark Saunders states he has seen CCTV footage of cars and people Milling around Canygne Road...
Now either she didn't walk home and was driven to the designated car parking space at Canygne Road walking around the back of the building to reach her door..and therefore she wasn't seen on any other footage on the CCTV images DS Mark Saunders speaks of.....
Or she didn't reach home full stop..... If they are 100% sure that Joanna Yeates was killed in her home , she would have had to reach it in an alternative way other than walking down the street....
Meaning someone she knew had been involved with her demise.... And if Dr Vincent Tabak had given Joanna Yeates a lift home I am sure evidence of this would have been produced.... But he did not know her....
If someone can get a body out of a flat without arousing suspicion or anyone noticing..then it is just as possible for a person to arrive at a flat without anyone noticing.....
-
We could DNA test the bread and prove you touched it at least!
But by the time you want to do that... I would have eaten the evidence!!!
-
If someone can get a body out of a flat without arousing suspicion or anyone noticing..then it is just as possible for a person to arrive at a flat without anyone noticing.....
At last we agree on something.
-
But by the time you want to do that... I would have eaten the evidence!!!
Just like Tabak thought he had got rid of the evidence, although not by eating it, but by dumping it away from the scene, and probably tidying up the flat too!
-
Just like Tabak thought he had got rid of the evidence, although not by eating it, but by dumping it away from the scene, and probably tidying up the flat too!
How do you know whether or not he ate it??
He ate Pizza apparently.... Greg Reardon too ate Pizza on his return from Sheffield, how do you know that the Pizza was thrown away??
-
How do you not know he ate it??
He ate Pizza apparently.... Greg Reardon too ate Pizza on his return from Sheffield, how do you know that the Pizza was thrown away??
So he ate the sock and the bicycle cover too? Oh and the body... *&^^&
-
Just like Tabak thought he had got rid of the evidence, although not by eating it, but by dumping it away from the scene, and probably tidying up the flat too!
Probably??
Not Fact??
Don't we need facts at trial.... Or does probability now rule in court....
-
Probably??
Not Fact??
Don't we need facts at trial.... Or does probability now rule in court....
We aren't in a courtroom. You are basing your arguments on numerous probabilities, all of which are completely unfounded.
-
Nine how did Tabak know about the coat stand if he never went in the flat and the whole story is just a lie? I live in quite a big house yet dont have the room or need for one
Could he just guess someone living in a flat would have one?
-
Nine how did Tabak know about the coat stand if he never went in the flat and the whole story is just a lie? I live in quite a big house yet dont have the room or need for one
Could he just guess someone living in a flat would have one?
Because he knocked it over during/after he attacked her, as stated by him in a court of law.
-
i agree
-
We aren't in a courtroom. You are basing your arguments on numerous probabilities, all of which are completely unfounded.
But only when it appears to help the case for him being not guilty
-
But only when it appears to help the case for him being not guilty
I just do not get it. Nine speaks of him like they were best pals and she knows him inside out. Why would someone who was trying to get away with murder not lie? He clearly lied to his girlfriend and to the police - in fact he admitted as much in court.
He admitted the internet searches. His confession was a lot more detailed than Nine seems to accept.
-
how do you know that the Pizza was thrown away??
Perhaps because Tabak admitted throwing it away, although you are right he could have ate it and lied about that too!
-
I really dont know the answer to that or who she expects to come along and help him. He doesnt require any help or want any it seems.
When it all caught up with him he gave an explanation. If there are flaws, its only in his story to cover himself and get a lesser sentence not because he isnt guilty
-
I really dont know the answer to that or who she expects to come along and help him. He doesnt require any help or want any it seems.
When it all caught up with him he gave an explanation. If there are flaws, its only in his story to cover himself and get a lesser sentence not because he isnt guilty
Well he is not a liar - but on the other hand lied when he gave the confession... apparently.
-
I'd like to know what makes Nine think the police didn't investigate this case properly?
-
Sorry never heard of the term... I'll have to google it..
Therefore applying this to myself... I have no understanding of the workings of the law... I have no understanding of this case...
The information that is Missing makes it impossible to have an accurate evaluation of what took place and who or who not was involved and to what capacity....
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
I find myself questioning my self about this case and whether or not it is real, There are too many possibilities, there are too many questions left unanswered.. And I always have more....
This is a 'Missing Persons Inquiry for all intense and purposes... A Crime as far as we are made aware of at the start of this Inquiry has not been committed... We do not know what we are searching for... And what I mean by that is we do not know what is Missing and what is left behind...
The Flat that was frozen in time
I know it's not frozen in time.... I can see it's not frozen in time.... So what time is it supposed to be Frozen in...???
Greg Reardon.... Greg has been back to the Flat according to the information we are aware of, from around 8:00pm on Sunday the 19th December 2010,... Now we know nothing about Greg... We know nothing about his habits or whether or not he has OCD for instance... But the little we do know on what happened when he arrived home and what was left behind, has been documented all over the media..
* Arrived home 8:00pm Sunday 19th December 2010
* Cleaned up cat trays
* Fed Bernard
* Drunk from an open bottle of cider
* Had Pizza for his tea
* Tidied up the Flat
* Looked through Joanna Yeates clothes to see what she was wearing
* Went back outside to his car
* Was in the Flat for hours before ringing The Yeates ( around midnight)
* Rung CJ (around midnight)
* Rung Joanna Yeates phone at 9;00pm
* found phone in her coat pocket
* Searched her rucksack at around 11:00pm
* Found her Glasses, keys, bankcards
* Rings the Police at 12:45am on Monday 20th December 2010
There obviously was NO signs of a struggle in the Flat, there can't have been, And if there had have been Greg Reardon had already tidied up what every signs may have been there, making the Flat NOT FROZEN IN TIME....
We decide for ourselves that Greg Reardon must have gone to stay with someone... But why? This is a Missing Persons Inquiry, a crime has not been committed yet as far as we know..... So that stands to reason that Greg Reardon would still be residing in his Flat waiting for his girlfriend to hopefully return home...
He would sleep in the bed... he would watch TV possibily, he would make food maybe... He would brush his teeth, he would use the toilet, he would shower... He would have been around every part of that Flat... He may have sat at the dining table... He may have sat on the settees... He may have gone in and out of the flat putting up posters... Bring debris, back into the Flat...
Why would he not stay there?? She is a Missing Person... What other Indications where there that she wasn't?
And more importantly why would Greg leave the Flat?
He wouldn't (imo) He would be out looking for her, or pace back and forwards inside the flat waiting on her return.... he would want to be near the house phone just incase she rings..
So realistically he isn't going anywhere... He has no reason too... And we have days until she is discovered when anything could have happened inside that Flat....
He could have carried on with the painting to try and take his mind off things, he would have had visitors maybe supporting him in his hours of need... The media footage of the tour of the Flat and the images of the flat show what?? A virtually empty flat... where there is no signs of Greg ever living there.... No bedding... no carpets... No TV no appliances in the kitchen, yet everyone has accepted that this is how the flat looked since the day that Joanna yeates went Missing.... No christmas Tree....
It can't be.... It simply can't be....
So any forensics that may have been collected from the flat are virtually useless... Seeing as we have had... The Police... Mr and Mrs Yeates, Greg Reardon all being inside this flat before any forensics had been done.....
How did The Yeates not notice any blood when they arrived?? 43 significant Injuries blood in her hair and dripping from her nose.... Enough blood was produced that a smear of said blood was apparently found on the wall at Longwood Lane... And if we are to believe a spot was found on the rubber seal of the car that Dr Vincent tabak used...
Yet not a smidgen of blood inside what is supposed to be the original scene of crime.... Nothing on the walls... Nothing on the bed... nothing on the carpets... nothing in the kitchen...
Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have place Joanna Yeates on the bed.... blood surely would have trickled or smeared on the bed....
He then has taken her around to his flat and placed her down... surely blood would have trickled or smeared somewhere there...
But no... It only manages to appear on a rubber seal in a car boot and on a wall on Longwood lane...
Dr Vincent Tabak didn't go around tidying up the scene of crime... He left took Joanna Yeates around to his house for an hour and then put her in the boot and drove to Asda's.... Really , ones gonna pop to the shops...
So if he didn't tidy the scene and Greg and The Yeates didn't see any signs of blood in the Flat, she cannot have been killed there....
The Yeates would have said that there was blood in the flat... They have done so many interviews for documentaries and not once do they say that there was evidence of blood....
So the automatic response then has to be that Greg cleaned it up.... But why would he do that??? Why would he lie about what took place... And why go to trial and tell his story on the stand.... So if Greg didn't need to clean any blood up and The Yeates didn't notice any blood... Joanna Yeates wasn't killed in her flat.... It stands to reason...
So how can that FLAT be frozen in time?? When there are so many possibilities as to who stayed there and who used what, whilst waiting for news on the whereabout of Joanna Yeates...
So how can a flat be presented to the jury as a scene of Crime when there was nothing to suggest that this is indeed the place that Joanna Yeates met her fate?
And more to the point,, why didn't the defence notice the condition of the Flat and lack of evidence within this flat??
Did it not make him question his clients story??
I don't get it... Clegg a man of reputation, a man who has been educated in the law, a man that should know what a crime scene look like, never once stops to look at his client and ask him how on earth he managed to do this crime... (imo)..
Mr Tabak, how did you manage to get into said Flat??
Mr Tabak how did you manage not to leave any traces behind if you say you are guilty of this crime....
Mr Tabak, could you tell me where the TV was positioned?
Mr Tabak, could you tell me the colour of the oven?
Mr Tabak could you tell me what the bed looked like that you placed Miss Yeates upon...
Mr Tabak, where was Miss Yeates cat at the time of the attack??
Mr Tabak, could you describe Bernard to me...
Mr Tabak, what type of lock did Miss yeates door have??
Mr Tabak when did you grab your coat back of the stand???
Mr Tabak, did you go back to collect your coat??
Mr Tabak , did you wrap Miss Yeates in your coat....
Mr Tabak we can see from the CCTV image that you had your coat on on the 19th January 2011
Mr Tabak, were you wearing your coat when you carried Miss Yeates??
Mr Tabak was Miss Yeates bleeding ??
Mr Tabak, did any of Miss Yeates blood get onto your coat??
Mr Tabak did you have Miss Yeates head near your coat as you carried her??
Mr Tabak what other clothes were you wearing that evening?
Mr tabak have you still got these clothes??
Mr Tabak, If you didn't have blood on your coat, did any blood transfer to any of your other clothes??
Mr Tabak did you dispose of these clothes....
Mr Tabak, Did you have the red top on we can see you wearing in Asda??
Mr Tabak, did you take a shower??
Mr Tabak did you clean the blood evidence from the Flat??
Mr Tabak why the need to turn off the TV??
Mr Tabak, do you think that I believe your story??
The list is endless... So what of the answers....
To establish that Dr Vincent Tabak is telling the truth, one needs to establish how it was even a possibility...
How a man who had No connection to a victim, would be incited into a home, commit a violent act and leave no traces whatsoever of said act having been committed inside said Flat....
And no evidence on ones person of said person committing said act...
I don't know what lawyers really do, yes they apply the law, but do they not question what their client states.. Do they just accept a story no matter how implausible said story is, and No Evidence to back up said story....
The DNA and Fibres could be explained away.... But what about how it would be possible to commit this violent act on a woman in her own home who I would imagined putting up a fight for her life, where when her boyfriend came home, he didn't notice that any signs of said violent struggle had taken place... And not just him... Her parents failed to notice any signs of a violent struggle taking place in said flat....
Her mother I would be sure... Would have combed every inch of that flat looking for something that may indicate where her daughter may or may not have gone.... Giving her opportunity, to see signs of a struggle...
Teresa Yeates tells us that the minute they received the phone call, she knew something was untoward... Her and David came straight to Bristol to start looking for her.... So if she suspected foul play or an abduction, I am of the belief that she would have been looking for signs of foul play whilst she was in that flat...
But there cannot have been any.... maybe that is why she believed that Joanna Yeates was abducted... So how did Dr Vincent Tabak manage to kill Joanna Yeates in said Flat without leaving any traces behind?? Or leaving any traces of Joanna Yeates on himself or in his own flat??
So NO.... That Flat is NOT FROZEN IN TIME.... It never was!!
And if we are to believe that fibres from Dr Vincent Tabak's coat were on Miss Yeates, then how and when did that happen?? You would guess he must have had his coat on at sometime whilst being in direct contact with her... Therefore how did he manage not to transfer any blood whatsoever onto said coat??
He either took his coat around to his flat when he popped around there to panic for a moment, when he realised she was dead... meaning his clothing he was wearing at the time would have had evidence of said violent act... Or he put his coat on and buttoned it up before carrying Miss yeates around to his flat, leaving untold traces of blood on said coat....
But at trial we have neither.... No mention of what he wore that evening and no mention of nay blood transfer on either his coat or his clothes....
Odd that.... !!
These are the type of questions I would have expected the defence to ask there client... They do not know him... He could be a serial story teller... But the evidence that has been shown, in itself casts doubt on the story told on the stand...
We know Dr Vincent Tabak had his black coat on in Asda.... So.... where is the evidence upon it.... and shouldn't the defence have questioned that!!
Thank goodness you aren't a police officer hey 8((()*/
-
You continue to make valid points Nine and it seems to me from the evidence you bring here (I haven't read it all btw) that the anomalies in this case are vast.
When Simon Hall confessed to murder after having lied for around 12 years it became apparent that the original police investigation and subsequent trial were wrong with regards motive. This fact caused problems for the prison and probation service once Hall confessed but it was hushed up!? Hall died a D-cat prisoner. A sexually motivated murder, which it turned out to be, would have carried a much higher jail term for starters.
There are many who claim to be fighting for truth and justice and who say the criminal justice system is flawed etc but I've come to learn that due to the emotive nature of cases such as this, a lot of people simply aren't interested for various reasons. And Objective argument and reasoning is nigh on impossible.
It's a shame because from my view point the possibility that many of the answers they seek in attempting to highlight the flawed criminal justice system lay in cases such as this.
I am curious Stephanie. What changed your mind?
-
I'd like to know what makes Nine think the police didn't investigate this case properly?
The police didn't have to do much after they linked Tabak to the body of the victim. Once a confession was had then that was it, no more resources needed to be spent on the case. When someone admits guilt, the police will restrict any further enquiries to joining up the dots.
-
I am curious Stephanie. What changed your mind?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg493604#msg493604
-
Nine - Have you heard of my side bias and the concept illusion of explanatory depth?
Sorry never heard of the term... I'll have to google it..
Therefore applying this to myself... I have no understanding of the workings of the law... I have no understanding of this case...
The information that is Missing makes it impossible to have an accurate evaluation of what took place and who or who not was involved and to what capacity....
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
I find myself questioning my self about this case and whether or not it is real, There are too many possibilities, there are too many questions left unanswered.. And I always have more....
This is a 'Missing Persons Inquiry for all intense and purposes... A Crime as far as we are made aware of at the start of this Inquiry has not been committed... We do not know what we are searching for... And what I mean by that is we do not know what is Missing and what is left behind...
The Flat that was frozen in time
I know it's not frozen in time.... I can see it's not frozen in time.... So what time is it supposed to be Frozen in...???
Greg Reardon.... Greg has been back to the Flat according to the information we are aware of, from around 8:00pm on Sunday the 19th December 2010,... Now we know nothing about Greg... We know nothing about his habits or whether or not he has OCD for instance... But the little we do know on what happened when he arrived home and what was left behind, has been documented all over the media..
* Arrived home 8:00pm Sunday 19th December 2010
* Cleaned up cat trays
* Fed Bernard
* Drunk from an open bottle of cider
* Had Pizza for his tea
* Tidied up the Flat
* Looked through Joanna Yeates clothes to see what she was wearing
* Went back outside to his car
* Was in the Flat for hours before ringing The Yeates ( around midnight)
* Rung CJ (around midnight)
* Rung Joanna Yeates phone at 9;00pm
* found phone in her coat pocket
* Searched her rucksack at around 11:00pm
* Found her Glasses, keys, bankcards
* Rings the Police at 12:45am on Monday 20th December 2010
There obviously was NO signs of a struggle in the Flat, there can't have been, And if there had have been Greg Reardon had already tidied up what every signs may have been there, making the Flat NOT FROZEN IN TIME....
We decide for ourselves that Greg Reardon must have gone to stay with someone... But why? This is a Missing Persons Inquiry, a crime has not been committed yet as far as we know..... So that stands to reason that Greg Reardon would still be residing in his Flat waiting for his girlfriend to hopefully return home...
He would sleep in the bed... he would watch TV possibily, he would make food maybe... He would brush his teeth, he would use the toilet, he would shower... He would have been around every part of that Flat... He may have sat at the dining table... He may have sat on the settees... He may have gone in and out of the flat putting up posters... Bring debris, back into the Flat...
Why would he not stay there?? She is a Missing Person... What other Indications where there that she wasn't?
And more importantly why would Greg leave the Flat?
He wouldn't (imo) He would be out looking for her, or pace back and forwards inside the flat waiting on her return.... he would want to be near the house phone just incase she rings..
So realistically he isn't going anywhere... He has no reason too... And we have days until she is discovered when anything could have happened inside that Flat....
He could have carried on with the painting to try and take his mind off things, he would have had visitors maybe supporting him in his hours of need... The media footage of the tour of the Flat and the images of the flat show what?? A virtually empty flat... where there is no signs of Greg ever living there.... No bedding... no carpets... No TV no appliances in the kitchen, yet everyone has accepted that this is how the flat looked since the day that Joanna yeates went Missing.... No christmas Tree....
It can't be.... It simply can't be....
So any forensics that may have been collected from the flat are virtually useless... Seeing as we have had... The Police... Mr and Mrs Yeates, Greg Reardon all being inside this flat before any forensics had been done.....
How did The Yeates not notice any blood when they arrived?? 43 significant Injuries blood in her hair and dripping from her nose.... Enough blood was produced that a smear of said blood was apparently found on the wall at Longwood Lane... And if we are to believe a spot was found on the rubber seal of the car that Dr Vincent tabak used...
Yet not a smidgen of blood inside what is supposed to be the original scene of crime.... Nothing on the walls... Nothing on the bed... nothing on the carpets... nothing in the kitchen...
Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have place Joanna Yeates on the bed.... blood surely would have trickled or smeared on the bed....
He then has taken her around to his flat and placed her down... surely blood would have trickled or smeared somewhere there...
But no... It only manages to appear on a rubber seal in a car boot and on a wall on Longwood lane...
Dr Vincent Tabak didn't go around tidying up the scene of crime... He left took Joanna Yeates around to his house for an hour and then put her in the boot and drove to Asda's.... Really , ones gonna pop to the shops...
So if he didn't tidy the scene and Greg and The Yeates didn't see any signs of blood in the Flat, she cannot have been killed there....
The Yeates would have said that there was blood in the flat... They have done so many interviews for documentaries and not once do they say that there was evidence of blood....
So the automatic response then has to be that Greg cleaned it up.... But why would he do that??? Why would he lie about what took place... And why go to trial and tell his story on the stand.... So if Greg didn't need to clean any blood up and The Yeates didn't notice any blood... Joanna Yeates wasn't killed in her flat.... It stands to reason...
So how can that FLAT be frozen in time?? When there are so many possibilities as to who stayed there and who used what, whilst waiting for news on the whereabout of Joanna Yeates...
So how can a flat be presented to the jury as a scene of Crime when there was nothing to suggest that this is indeed the place that Joanna Yeates met her fate?
And more to the point,, why didn't the defence notice the condition of the Flat and lack of evidence within this flat??
Did it not make him question his clients story??
I don't get it... Clegg a man of reputation, a man who has been educated in the law, a man that should know what a crime scene look like, never once stops to look at his client and ask him how on earth he managed to do this crime... (imo)..
Mr Tabak, how did you manage to get into said Flat??
Mr Tabak how did you manage not to leave any traces behind if you say you are guilty of this crime....
Mr Tabak, could you tell me where the TV was positioned?
Mr Tabak, could you tell me the colour of the oven?
Mr Tabak could you tell me what the bed looked like that you placed Miss Yeates upon...
Mr Tabak, where was Miss Yeates cat at the time of the attack??
Mr Tabak, could you describe Bernard to me...
Mr Tabak, what type of lock did Miss yeates door have??
Mr Tabak when did you grab your coat back of the stand???
Mr Tabak, did you go back to collect your coat??
Mr Tabak , did you wrap Miss Yeates in your coat....
Mr Tabak we can see from the CCTV image that you had your coat on on the 19th January 2011
Mr Tabak, were you wearing your coat when you carried Miss Yeates??
Mr Tabak was Miss Yeates bleeding ??
Mr Tabak, did any of Miss Yeates blood get onto your coat??
Mr Tabak did you have Miss Yeates head near your coat as you carried her??
Mr Tabak what other clothes were you wearing that evening?
Mr tabak have you still got these clothes??
Mr Tabak, If you didn't have blood on your coat, did any blood transfer to any of your other clothes??
Mr Tabak did you dispose of these clothes....
Mr Tabak, Did you have the red top on we can see you wearing in Asda??
Mr Tabak, did you take a shower??
Mr Tabak did you clean the blood evidence from the Flat??
Mr Tabak why the need to turn off the TV??
Mr Tabak, do you think that I believe your story??
The list is endless... So what of the answers....
To establish that Dr Vincent Tabak is telling the truth, one needs to establish how it was even a possibility...
How a man who had No connection to a victim, would be incited into a home, commit a violent act and leave no traces whatsoever of said act having been committed inside said Flat....
And no evidence on ones person of said person committing said act...
I don't know what lawyers really do, yes they apply the law, but do they not question what their client states.. Do they just accept a story no matter how implausible said story is, and No Evidence to back up said story....
The DNA and Fibres could be explained away.... But what about how it would be possible to commit this violent act on a woman in her own home who I would imagined putting up a fight for her life, where when her boyfriend came home, he didn't notice that any signs of said violent struggle had taken place... And not just him... Her parents failed to notice any signs of a violent struggle taking place in said flat....
Her mother I would be sure... Would have combed every inch of that flat looking for something that may indicate where her daughter may or may not have gone.... Giving her opportunity, to see signs of a struggle...
Teresa Yeates tells us that the minute they received the phone call, she knew something was untoward... Her and David came straight to Bristol to start looking for her.... So if she suspected foul play or an abduction, I am of the belief that she would have been looking for signs of foul play whilst she was in that flat...
But there cannot have been any.... maybe that is why she believed that Joanna Yeates was abducted... So how did Dr Vincent Tabak manage to kill Joanna Yeates in said Flat without leaving any traces behind?? Or leaving any traces of Joanna Yeates on himself or in his own flat??
So NO.... That Flat is NOT FROZEN IN TIME.... It never was!!
And if we are to believe that fibres from Dr Vincent Tabak's coat were on Miss Yeates, then how and when did that happen?? You would guess he must have had his coat on at sometime whilst being in direct contact with her... Therefore how did he manage not to transfer any blood whatsoever onto said coat??
He either took his coat around to his flat when he popped around there to panic for a moment, when he realised she was dead... meaning his clothing he was wearing at the time would have had evidence of said violent act... Or he put his coat on and buttoned it up before carrying Miss yeates around to his flat, leaving untold traces of blood on said coat....
But at trial we have neither.... No mention of what he wore that evening and no mention of nay blood transfer on either his coat or his clothes....
Odd that.... !!
These are the type of questions I would have expected the defence to ask there client... They do not know him... He could be a serial story teller... But the evidence that has been shown, in itself casts doubt on the story told on the stand...
We know Dr Vincent Tabak had his black coat on in Asda.... So.... where is the evidence upon it.... and shouldn't the defence have questioned that!!
No - your opinions are flawed
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ejsp.2504
http://scienceblogs.com/mixingmemory/2006/11/16/the-illusion-of-explanatory-de/
https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27117
-
No - your opinions are flawed
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ejsp.2504
http://scienceblogs.com/mixingmemory/2006/11/16/the-illusion-of-explanatory-de/
https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27117
In that context yes.... Therefore everyone elses opinions are flawed, if they haven't been furnished with the full facts... Or is my opinion again flawed??
-
I would say that Nine has made many valid points about this case but has provided nothing in the form of any evidence which could support any view that VT is innocent. The mere fact that VT has already freely admitted his guilt and is sane closes this chapter for me.
-
In that context yes.... Therefore everyone elses opinions are flawed, if they haven't been furnished with the full facts... Or is my opinion again flawed??
My opinion is based on fact. The fact he admitted killing the victim and based on the facts of what he said in court whilst giving his evidence in chief. Your opinion, Nine, is based on the fact that you refuse to accept any of the evidence against him.
-
My opinion is based on fact. The fact he admitted killing the victim and based on the facts of what he said in court whilst giving his evidence in chief. Your opinion, Nine, is based on the fact that you refuse to accept any of the evidence against him.
Do you mean whilst giving live evidence?
-
Do you mean whilst giving live evidence?
http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095802999
-
My opinion is based on fact. The fact he admitted killing the victim and based on the facts of what he said in court whilst giving his evidence in chief. Your opinion, Nine, is based on the fact that you refuse to accept any of the evidence against him.
He was the defendent not a prosecution witness?
-
He was the defendent not a prosecution witness?
Correct. He gave evidence in chief when he was called to the stand in his own defence.
The questioning of one's own witness in order to adduce evidence to prove one's own case and disprove the opponent's case.
-
Correct. He gave evidence in chief when he was called to the stand in his own defence.
The questioning of one's own witness in order to adduce evidence to prove one's own case and disprove the opponent's case.
He was charged with murder ergo the defendant
-
He was charged with murder ergo the defendant
Stephanie I do not need that explaining to me, I am quite aware that he was the defendant. However - he was called to the stand by his own defence team, he was questioned by his own defence team in order to adduce evidence to disprove the prosecution case - he was his own witness - in fact the only witness to the crime he committed. He took the witness stand to give his evidence in chief led by his own defence barrister. The defence, as you well know, can call witnesses and that also includes any defendant.
-
Correct. He gave evidence in chief when he was called to the stand in his own defence.
The questioning of one's own witness in order to adduce evidence to prove one's own case and disprove the opponent's case.
Go on, admit it, you copied the above from here https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/evidence-in-chief.3312105/
@)(++(*
-
Stephanie I do not need that explaining to me, I am quite aware that he was the defendant. However - he was called to the stand by his own defence team, he was questioned by his own defence team in order to adduce evidence to disprove the prosecution case - he was his own witness - in fact the only witness to the crime he committed. He took the witness stand to give his evidence in chief led by his own defence barrister. The defence, as you well know, can call witnesses and that also includes any defendant.
@)(++(*. @)(++(*.
-
Go on, admit it, you copied the above from here https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/evidence-in-chief.3312105/
@)(++(*
No Stephanie, I did not. I used the latter part of my post from the oxford link I put up in an earlier post. I happen to know what evidence in chief means, unlike yourself who like's to copy copious amounts of information.
-
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2018/2082.html
15 . The appellant's evidence to the jury amounted to an admission of serious criminality on his part. He gave evidence, too, that Mr Mahmood was a major drug dealer. In giving his evidence, the appellant gave a detailed exposition of his own history of drug dealing. The purpose was to explain to the jury how he came to be in frequent contact with Mahmood. That history is sufficiently described by the trial judge during the course of a ruling she made:
"I turn then to the evidence … that he gave in chief. …
No I am totally wrong, defendants cannot give evidence in chief, the appeal court must be wrong also... *%87
-
Stephanie I do not need that explaining to me, I am quite aware that he was the defendant. However - he was called to the stand by his own defence team, he was questioned by his own defence team in order to adduce evidence to disprove the prosecution case - he was his own witness - in fact the only witness to the crime he committed. He took the witness stand to give his evidence in chief led by his own defence barrister. The defence, as you well know, can call witnesses and that also includes any defendant.
OVERVIEW
evidence in chief
QUICK REFERENCE
(colloq ‘chief’)
The questioning of one's own witness in order to adduce evidence to prove one's own case and disprove the opponent's case. Leading questions are not permitted in chief (unlike cross-examination).
[...]
From: evidence in chief in Australian Law Dictionary »
Subjects: Law
I'm glad you all understand the working of the law.... It still throws me, but if I follow correctly, then Clegg should not have called Dr Vincent Tabak to the stand, and questioned him...
Therefore, why does no-one shout from the roof tops that this case stinks..... And that the defence behaved improper... Or is it a sham trial like I have said previous..
-
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2018/2082.html
15 . The appellant's evidence to the jury amounted to an admission of serious criminality on his part. He gave evidence, too, that Mr Mahmood was a major drug dealer. In giving his evidence, the appellant gave a detailed exposition of his own history of drug dealing. The purpose was to explain to the jury how he came to be in frequent contact with Mahmood. That history is sufficiently described by the trial judge during the course of a ruling she made:
"I turn then to the evidence … that he gave in chief. …
No I am totally wrong, defendants cannot give evidence in chief, the appeal court must be wrong also... *%87
"In chief"
or
"evidence in chief?"
-
I'm glad you all understand the working of the law.... It still throws me, but if I follow correctly, then Clegg should not have called Dr Vincent Tabak to the stand, and questioned him...
Therefore, why does no-one shout from the roof tops that this case stinks..... And that the defence behaved improper... Or is it a sham trial like I have said previous..
It is the defendants choice to take the stand, when he takes the stand it is up to his own defence barrister to call him to the stand and they question him before the prosecution.
-
"In chief"
or
"evidence in chief?"
"I turn then to the evidence … that he gave in chief. …
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2018/1743.html
Between:
SIMON TAJ
Appellant
- and -
THE CROWN
11. As to the events, in evidence in chief, Taj explained that he attacked Mr Awain with a tyre lever:
Would you like me to carry on disproving you? @)(++(*
-
Can't get my tiny little mind around all this.... will leave it to those whom understand better.... I will stick with my bias, and if I am wrong, who cares, everyone can carry on as normal.. I may have learnt not to get involved in things I clearly have no comprehension of...
-
"I turn then to the evidence … that he gave in chief. …
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2018/1743.html
11. As to the events, in evidence in chief, Taj explained that he attacked Mr Awain with a tyre lever:
Would you like me to carry on disproving you? @)(++(*
-
Humiliating me... enjoy
That was aimed at Stephanie, who clearly does not know what evidence in chief is.
-
Would you like me to carry on disproving you? @)(++(*
Says the one with Disney's Elsa - let it go avatar 8@??)(
-
Says the one with Disney's Elsa - let it go avatar 8@??)(
Yes, isn't it great? It was aimed at you and your obsession with Sandra Lean! @)(++(*
Although I have absolutely no idea what my avatar has to do with you being proven wrong, as you clearly have been. Oh dear!
-
Yes, isn't it great? It was aimed at you and your obsession with Sandra Lean! @)(++(*
Although I have absolutely no idea what my avatar has to do with you being proven wrong, as you clearly have been. Oh dear!
Deflection as there nothing else to argue about. It is clear you know what you are talking about and that makes people feel uncomfortable. You dont need links and copy and paste.
-
Says the one with Disney's Elsa - let it go avatar 8@??)(
Yours says Peace Stephanie, hope you find it
-
Deflection as there nothing else to argue about. It is clear you know what you are talking about and that makes people feel uncomfortable. You dont need links and copy and paste.
Thank you Jixy.
A better person would have admitted they were wrong, apologised and moved on...
-
Theories and Ideas....
CJ's second witness statement.... The fact that he may have seen or heard 2-3 people at the gate on the 17th December 2010, was one of the reasons that the Police had an interest in him....
But I couldn't understand why the Police may have a similar interest in Dr Vincent Tabak... Why would The Police contact him when he was away in Cambridge?? I believe DC Karen Thomas called him whilst he and Tanja were visiting her parents over Christmas...
What statements to the Police did Dr Vincent Tabak make?? I was looking at the FOI request that N. Osey made asking if she could see any statements that Dr Vincent Tabak signed, and to cut a long story short the request was denied...
Dr Vincent Tabak has said little to nothing as far as we are aware, DC Karen Thomas tells us it was when she was in Holland that Dr Vincent Tabak's over interest in forensics was the reason the alarm bells started to ring....
But that cannot be the case.... Ann Reddrop states that it was late December 2010 that the Police had gone to seek advise and I believe it is from that time forward they began to Investigate Dr Vincent Tabak....
But what had it been before, to have DC Karen Thomas needing to contact Dr Vincent Tabak whilst he was away in Cambridge? There had to be something of importance that she felt the need to contact him again... He is a neighbour just like the rest of the people who live in that house, they were not contacted so many times.... The Police do not shift from that house, so what was found in and around that house?
The Police are wanting us to believe that because of a phone call about a car changing position, they wasted money to fly out to Holland to ask Dr Vincent Tabak about this incident.... When in reality I believe they could and should have waited on his return.... There has to be more to that interview in Holland than meets the eye...
I keep going back to DCI Phil Jones and his comment he made about Dr Vincent Tabak and saying that Dr Vincent Tabak wouldn't answer questions about CJ, and would only comment on an issue surrounding a mobile phone....
That in itself is an odd comment to make..... Why would a mobile phone be of such great importance??
Did Dr Vincent Tabak find a mobile phone?? Did he find it, did he use it?? Did Joanna Yeates have a secondary phone?? a works phone maybe??
There has to be a reason why DC Karen Thomas felt the need to contact Dr Vincent Tabak on the 23rd December 2010, I think it was, to speak to him.... He has had to divulge or suggest something for them to want to keep questioning him....
Dr Vincent Tabak has used the main gate and the little gate, either exit could have had something lying on the ground...
Did he find a phone and hand it into Police? Was it the blackberry everyone keeps hinting at... Because we have not been told which type of phone anybody owns...
DC Karen Thomas needs a jolly good reason to phone him when he's in Cambridge, he's just a neighbour, who had said he didn't see anything... So what was of such great importance DC Karen Thomas is keen to keep Dr Vincent Tabak in her sights, days before the Holland interview??
Dr Vincent Tabak didn't know Joanna Yeates had never met Joanna Yeates had never seen Joanna Yeates.... He isn't a viable suspect at this point....
Clegg says that Dr Vincent Tabak lied and lied to the Police, if he made a No Comment statements as DCI Jones tells us, and only answers questions surrounding a mobile phone, then it has to be the mobile phone he is lying about... It stands to reason....
And the only reason I could think a mobile phone would be important, is that it belonged to Joanna Yeates...
There has to be something that only the Police know.... There has to be something they held back....
There was a Police Officer who apparently went around to Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat on the early hours of Monday 20th December 2010 to ask Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson if they had seen their neighbour.... It could be at this point that Dr Vincent Tabak tells them he found a phone.... Even gives them said phone.....
Now my reasoning comes from the fact that Greg Reardon didn't ring Rebecca Scott or Darragh Bellew as far as I know on the Sunday 19th December 2010... Now if there was only one of her phones in her coat pocket, maybe that didn't reveal whom she had called...
Rebecca Scott first learnt of Joanna Yeates disappearance when the Police contacted her at about 4:00am, I believe she notices a missed message... So which phone was in Joanna Yeates coat pocket?? Her work phone or her personal phone??
Greg Rings, Mr and Mrs Yeates, his mother we have been lead to believe, CJ and the Police.... What about the people she text?? What about anyone else she may have rung or anyone who may have rung her??
He would have CJ's number in his own phone, and Mr and Mrs Yeates, he could well have had Rebecca Scotts number, but if the phone in the pocket was one of two phones, then that phone might not have revealed whom she had last spoken too....
Another reason I believe she possibly had two phones, Mr and Mrs Yeates did not call Rebecca Scott either... Now they know Rebecca Scott and they know that their daughter and her are good friends... And I am more than sure they would have rung her if the phone that was left behind had details of a call made to Rebecca Scott on the evening of the 17th December 2010... Mrs Yeates had found the receipt, she tells us this on video.... which makes me positive, if she had known that the last phone call made on that evening she would have immediately called Rebecca Scott to ask her if Joanna Yeates had said anything about going anywhere....
This might also explain why the phone had battery life still left in it of it wasn't used at all... no incoming calls to speak of no messages to run the phone battery life down...
Did the Yeates ring Rebecca Scott anyway?? To ask them if they had heard anything from Joanna Yeates?? Is that why Rebecca Scott knew immediately that when the Police had tried to contact her, that something was wrong...
She phoned me on the Friday ... erm.. I travelled home for Christmas on the Sunday..(gulp).. Erm... It was about 4 O'clock in the morning I woke up. Erm.. (licks lips) And saw that there was a message, on my phone from the police... Er... Informing me that she had gone missing...
Er... Obviously they'd seen on the phone that she'd phoned me. And.. obviously wanted me to get in touch... Erm.... I immediately sort of panicked and phoned Jo...
And Greg... Greg answered the phone.... I knew something was wrong... er I think, we all did.
Erm.. (pause)(licks lips) As soon as I found out her possessions were in the flat, you know , that was it.. I knew that hadn't left the house of her own intention.
Which phone did Rebecca Scott ring?? The house phone, Joanna Yeates phone or a secondary phone of Joanna Yeates??
If the Police are contacting her to tell her that Joanna Yeates is Missing, then it has to be the phone that is of importance....
The Police are not gonna ring her and say your best friend is Missing and we know that you were the last person to speak to her, they are not going to reveal what they know to a person they may need to interview...
It is Rebecca Scott telling us that the Police had seen on Joanna Yeates phone that she had rung her... So why didn't Greg see it or Mr and Mrs Yeates??
There is always something Missing... In this case... And it has been a case of everything Missing.... You just have to look at the staged flat to realise that.....
So was Dr Vincent Tabak in possession of a mobile phone that wasn't his?? Had someone given it to him and asked him to pass it to her seeing as he lived in the same building.....
The Police don't just do an inquiry around one building unless they believe a crime has been committed... And they were very slow to gather evidence of any significance.... Took them over a week to retrieve the footage from The Hop House Pub....
One more thing... There was more in CJ's second witness statement other than who he may have seen/heard at the gate.... That was only part of it.... Did Dr Vincent Tabak tell CJ about this mobile phone business that DCI Phil Jones speaks of??? Just like CJ had told the neighbours about seeing someone at the gate?? Now if the mobile phone is the crux of the case, because it appears to be of too great an importance, then is this the reason that CJ didn't take the stand!!!
We have all been busy, chasing CJ's second witness statement.... And I believe that Leonora is CORRECT.... !!!!
It is the most vital piece of evidence that we need to see at present... The contents must be mind blowing for it not to have been used at trial....!!(imo)
-
Some points of Interest..... I may have an answer to a couple of questions....
Applicable to all barristers
301. A barrister must have regard to paragraph 104 and must not:
(a) engage in conduct whether in pursuit of his profession or otherwise which is:
(i) dishonest or otherwise discreditable to a barrister;
(ii) prejudicial to the administration of justice; or
(iii) likely to diminish public confidence in the legal profession or the administration of justice or otherwise bring the legal profession into disrepute;
(b) engage directly or indirectly in any occupation if his association with that occupation may adversely affect the reputation of the Bar or in the case of a practising barrister prejudice his ability to attend properly to his practice.
Applicable to practising barristers
302. A barrister has an overriding duty to the Court to act with independence in the interests of justice: he must assist the Court in the administration of justice and must not deceive or knowingly or recklessly mislead the Court.
303. A barrister:
(a) must promote and protect fearlessly and by all proper and lawful means the lay client's best interests and do so without regard to his own interests or to any consequences to himself or to any other person (including any colleague, professional client or other intermediary or another barrister, the barrister's employer or any Authorised Body of which the barrister may be an owner or manager);
(b) owes his primary duty as between the lay client and any other person to the lay client and must not permit any other person to limit his discretion as to how the interests of the lay client can best be served;
(c) when supplying legal services funded by the Legal Services Commission as part of the Community Legal Service or the Criminal Defence Service owes his primary duty to the lay client subject only to compliance with paragraph 304.
304. A barrister who supplies legal services funded by the Legal Services Commission as part of the Community Legal Service or the Criminal Defence Service must in connection with the supply of such services comply with any duty imposed on him by or under the Access to Justice Act 1999 or any regulations or code in effect under that Act and in particular with the duties set out in Annex E.
305.1. A barrister must not, in his professional practice, discriminate unlawfully against, victimise or harass any other person on the grounds of race, colour, ethnic or national origin, nationality, citizenship, sex, gender re-assignment, sexual orientation, marital or civil partnership status, disability, age, religion or belief or pregnancy and maternity.
305.2. Deleted from 1st October 2005.
306. A barrister is individually and personally responsible for his own conduct and for his professional work: he must exercise his own personal judgement in all his professional activities.
307. A barrister must not:
(a) permit his absolute independence integrity and freedom from external pressures to be compromised;
(b) do anything (for example accept a present) in such circumstances as may lead to any inference that his independence may be compromised;
(c) compromise his professional standards in order to please his client the Court or a third party, including any mediator ;
(d) give a commission or present (save for small promotional items ) or lend any money for any professional purpose to or (save as a remuneration in accordance with the provisions of this Code) accept any money by way of loan or otherwise from any client or any person entitled to instruct him as an intermediary;
(e) make any payment (other than a payment for advertising or publicity permitted by this Code or in the case of a self-employed barrister remuneration paid to any clerk or other employee or staff of his chambers) to any person for the purpose of procuring professional instructions;
Provided that nothing in paragraph 307(d) or (e) shall prevent a barrister from paying a reasonable fee or fees required by an alternative dispute resolution body that appoints or recommends persons to provide mediation, arbitration or adjudication services, or from entering into a reasonable fee-sharing arrangement required by such a body, if the payment or arrangement is of a kind similar to that made by other persons who provide such services through the body;
(f) Deleted from 26th March 2010.
https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/regulatory-requirements/the-old-code-of-conduct/the-old-code-of-conduct/part-iii-fundamental-principles/
-
Finally I believe I now have an answer to the silence..... I know understand I believe why no-one will speak.....
Firstly The Media.... It is possible that there is a gagging order in place, they cannot speak of it, they won't speak of it and they haven't spoken of it..... They may for all intense and purposes spill the same spiel as if it happened yesterday, but they cannot (imo) form an opinion or express and opinion, without falling foul of any restraining type order that gags The media from taking any other line on this case.....
From my above post.....
ii) prejudicial to the administration of justice; or
(iii) likely to diminish public confidence in the legal profession or the administration of justice or otherwise bring the legal profession into disrepute;
(b) engage directly or indirectly in any occupation if his association with that occupation may adversely affect the reputation of the Bar or in the case of a practising barrister prejudice his ability to attend properly to his practice.
The Lawyers can't say anything either because it may be prejudicial to The Justice System!!!
I am slow sometimes... I hadn't really thought that one through.... But again it makes sense.....
You see I have had plenty to say on Clegg, a man who (imo) is not fit for purpose.... But thats my opinion...
There are many reasons, I find him difficult to put in a nutshell... he almost braggs as to what he has or hasn't done....
The interview with Fiona Bruce for instance.... Where he was happy to tell us he believed that the man that had killed Jasmine Bisset, was the man who must have killed Racheal Nickell....
Ordinarily you wouldn't think it a problem, but the trouble for me is he was representing Colin Stagg at the time he made those remarks about napper, then he ends up representing napper....
Conflict of interests or what!! (imo)
No-one in The Justice System is going to public tell us what a crap lawyer someone is... no-one is going to tell the public, if something untoward has taken place.... These chats are for behind closed doors....
And they tell us Justice is open and transparent..... @)(++(* Must be only when there's a "Z" in the month..
I have sent myself bonkers, I have questioned my own self, I had thought that it must be something I was Missing.... And it was....
DO NOT BRING THE JUDICIARY INTO DISREPUTE.....
So they didn't.... They made a mockery of it instead, and right in front of our eyes.... Well, we believe they know better... They can make us doubt our own abilities....
So I will say again... I believe that Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent... The only way he is guilty is if he would bring the judiciary into disrepute, was that why he appeared at the Old Bailey?? To keep hushed up what took place.... Or was he the scapegoat, and he took the blame for someone else who was in the judiciary??
Everyone has been pointing to this trial being a sham trial.... The media with all of their photo images and news clips, they didn't tell us anything, but a picture tells a thousand words..... And a video even more....
I believe that it was a deliberate act on their part..... silenced by something I do not know..... So are Joanna Yeates parents grieving even more knowing that the real killer has gotten away.... i still feel that they know something else.... But they too may have been silenced, maybe that was the reason they too went to the Old Bailey... i do not know....
But what can we do about this miscarriage of Justice I believe has taken place??? What can we do without the media being able to speak of it or lawyers being able to say anything either????
I do not know.... It's almost like coming full circle.... Knowing that what I have always believed was Dr Vincent Tabak didn't have a fair trial and was not represented as robustly as council could have done (imo).. we are forever silenced... And a Placid Dutchman may be languishing in prison as we speak....
And that is not the worst of it.... A killer has been left to roam the street of this nation, and anywhere abroad, to maybe continue attacking woman at will... Knowing that in this country.... no-one will touch him with a barge pole...
But that is just my opinion.... !!!!
I will go back to why I started posting about Dr Vincent Tabak, and I would say it was because, I felt he was unfairly treated... He was not represented to the best of councils ability... The information and talks on the original facebook forum that I was apart of in the beginning had drawn me into this case.... And I have never forgotten it....
It was always with me for some reason, I couldn't understand why it didn't make sense.... But now I think I do... And will it ever change anything??? I can't say....
But I am just an ordinary person, who just like fair.... And for Justice to be seem to be done and give the public confidence, it's time the question of Dr Vincent Tabak and Joanna yeates was brought to the public attention.... How that would be possible, is difficult for me to say.... But honesty is the best policy....
And for all my headaches, tears, laughter whilst I have been writing on here mean Justice will happen.. Then it will be worth it all...
As I said in the beginning.... I just like fair!! It's as straight forward as that.....
-
Theories and Ideas....
CJ's second witness statement.... The fact that he may have seen or heard 2-3 people at the gate on the 17th December 2010, was one of the reasons that the Police had an interest in him....
But I couldn't understand why the Police may have a similar interest in Dr Vincent Tabak... Why would The Police contact him when he was away in Cambridge?? I believe DC Karen Thomas called him whilst he and Tanja were visiting her parents over Christmas...
What statements to the Police did Dr Vincent Tabak make?? I was looking at the FOI request that N. Osey made asking if she could see any statements that Dr Vincent Tabak signed, and to cut a long story short the request was denied...
Dr Vincent Tabak has said little to nothing as far as we are aware, DC Karen Thomas tells us it was when she was in Holland that Dr Vincent Tabak's over interest in forensics was the reason the alarm bells started to ring....
But that cannot be the case.... Ann Reddrop states that it was late December 2010 that the Police had gone to seek advise and I believe it is from that time forward they began to Investigate Dr Vincent Tabak....
But what had it been before, to have DC Karen Thomas needing to contact Dr Vincent Tabak whilst he was away in Cambridge? There had to be something of importance that she felt the need to contact him again... He is a neighbour just like the rest of the people who live in that house, they were not contacted so many times.... The Police do not shift from that house, so what was found in and around that house?
The Police are wanting us to believe that because of a phone call about a car changing position, they wasted money to fly out to Holland to ask Dr Vincent Tabak about this incident.... When in reality I believe they could and should have waited on his return.... There has to be more to that interview in Holland than meets the eye...
I keep going back to DCI Phil Jones and his comment he made about Dr Vincent Tabak and saying that Dr Vincent Tabak wouldn't answer questions about CJ, and would only comment on an issue surrounding a mobile phone....
That in itself is an odd comment to make..... Why would a mobile phone be of such great importance??
Did Dr Vincent Tabak find a mobile phone?? Did he find it, did he use it?? Did Joanna Yeates have a secondary phone?? a works phone maybe??
There has to be a reason why DC Karen Thomas felt the need to contact Dr Vincent Tabak on the 23rd December 2010, I think it was, to speak to him.... He has had to divulge or suggest something for them to want to keep questioning him....
Dr Vincent Tabak has used the main gate and the little gate, either exit could have had something lying on the ground...
Did he find a phone and hand it into Police? Was it the blackberry everyone keeps hinting at... Because we have not been told which type of phone anybody owns...
DC Karen Thomas needs a jolly good reason to phone him when he's in Cambridge, he's just a neighbour, who had said he didn't see anything... So what was of such great importance DC Karen Thomas is keen to keep Dr Vincent Tabak in her sights, days before the Holland interview??
Dr Vincent Tabak didn't know Joanna Yeates had never met Joanna Yeates had never seen Joanna Yeates.... He isn't a viable suspect at this point....
Clegg says that Dr Vincent Tabak lied and lied to the Police, if he made a No Comment statements as DCI Jones tells us, and only answers questions surrounding a mobile phone, then it has to be the mobile phone he is lying about... It stands to reason....
And the only reason I could think a mobile phone would be important, is that it belonged to Joanna Yeates...
There has to be something that only the Police know.... There has to be something they held back....
There was a Police Officer who apparently went around to Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat on the early hours of Monday 20th December 2010 to ask Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson if they had seen their neighbour.... It could be at this point that Dr Vincent Tabak tells them he found a phone.... Even gives them said phone.....
Now my reasoning comes from the fact that Greg Reardon didn't ring Rebecca Scott or Darragh Bellew as far as I know on the Sunday 19th December 2010... Now if there was only one of her phones in her coat pocket, maybe that didn't reveal whom she had called...
Rebecca Scott first learnt of Joanna Yeates disappearance when the Police contacted her at about 4:00am, I believe she notices a missed message... So which phone was in Joanna Yeates coat pocket?? Her work phone or her personal phone??
Greg Rings, Mr and Mrs Yeates, his mother we have been lead to believe, CJ and the Police.... What about the people she text?? What about anyone else she may have rung or anyone who may have rung her??
He would have CJ's number in his own phone, and Mr and Mrs Yeates, he could well have had Rebecca Scotts number, but if the phone in the pocket was one of two phones, then that phone might not have revealed whom she had last spoken too....
Another reason I believe she possibly had two phones, Mr and Mrs Yeates did not call Rebecca Scott either... Now they know Rebecca Scott and they know that their daughter and her are good friends... And I am more than sure they would have rung her if the phone that was left behind had details of a call made to Rebecca Scott on the evening of the 17th December 2010... Mrs Yeates had found the receipt, she tells us this on video.... which makes me positive, if she had known that the last phone call made on that evening she would have immediately called Rebecca Scott to ask her if Joanna Yeates had said anything about going anywhere....
This might also explain why the phone had battery life still left in it of it wasn't used at all... no incoming calls to speak of no messages to run the phone battery life down...
Did the Yeates ring Rebecca Scott anyway?? To ask them if they had heard anything from Joanna Yeates?? Is that why Rebecca Scott knew immediately that when the Police had tried to contact her, that something was wrong...
Which phone did Rebecca Scott ring?? The house phone, Joanna Yeates phone or a secondary phone of Joanna Yeates??
If the Police are contacting her to tell her that Joanna Yeates is Missing, then it has to be the phone that is of importance....
The Police are not gonna ring her and say your best friend is Missing and we know that you were the last person to speak to her, they are not going to reveal what they know to a person they may need to interview...
It is Rebecca Scott telling us that the Police had seen on Joanna Yeates phone that she had rung her... So why didn't Greg see it or Mr and Mrs Yeates??
There is always something Missing... In this case... And it has been a case of everything Missing.... You just have to look at the staged flat to realise that.....
So was Dr Vincent Tabak in possession of a mobile phone that wasn't his?? Had someone given it to him and asked him to pass it to her seeing as he lived in the same building.....
The Police don't just do an inquiry around one building unless they believe a crime has been committed... And they were very slow to gather evidence of any significance.... Took them over a week to retrieve the footage from The Hop House Pub....
One more thing... There was more in CJ's second witness statement other than who he may have seen/heard at the gate.... That was only part of it.... Did Dr Vincent Tabak tell CJ about this mobile phone business that DCI Phil Jones speaks of??? Just like CJ had told the neighbours about seeing someone at the gate?? Now if the mobile phone is the crux of the case, because it appears to be of too great an importance, then is this the reason that CJ didn't take the stand!!!
We have all been busy, chasing CJ's second witness statement.... And I believe that Leonora is CORRECT.... !!!!
It is the most vital piece of evidence that we need to see at present... The contents must be mind blowing for it not to have been used at trial....!!(imo)
I really dont know which part to use as a quote but I think if you read your own post back you could answer a lot of your questions
-
Finally I believe I now have an answer to the silence..... I know understand I believe why no-one will speak.....
Firstly The Media.... It is possible that there is a gagging order in place, they cannot speak of it, they won't speak of it and they haven't spoken of it..... They may for all intense and purposes spill the same spiel as if it happened yesterday, but they cannot (imo) form an opinion or express and opinion, without falling foul of any restraining type order that gags The media from taking any other line on this case.....
From my above post.....
The Lawyers can't say anything either because it may be prejudicial to The Justice System!!!
I am slow sometimes... I hadn't really thought that one through.... But again it makes sense.....
You see I have had plenty to say on Clegg, a man who (imo) is not fit for purpose.... But thats my opinion...
There are many reasons, I find him difficult to put in a nutshell... he almost braggs as to what he has or hasn't done....
The interview with Fiona Bruce for instance.... Where he was happy to tell us he believed that the man that had killed Jasmine Bisset, was the man who must have killed Racheal Nickell....
Ordinarily you wouldn't think it a problem, but the trouble for me is he was representing Colin Stagg at the time he made those remarks about napper, then he ends up representing napper....
Conflict of interests or what!! (imo)
No-one in The Justice System is going to public tell us what a crap lawyer someone is... no-one is going to tell the public, if something untoward has taken place.... These chats are for behind closed doors....
And they tell us Justice is open and transparent..... @)(++(* Must be only when there's a "Z" in the month..
I have sent myself bonkers, I have questioned my own self, I had thought that it must be something I was Missing.... And it was....
DO NOT BRING THE JUDICIARY INTO DISREPUTE.....
So they didn't.... They made a mockery of it instead, and right in front of our eyes.... Well, we believe they know better... They can make us doubt our own abilities....
So I will say again... I believe that Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent... The only way he is guilty is if he would bring the judiciary into disrepute, was that why he appeared at the Old Bailey?? To keep hushed up what took place.... Or was he the scapegoat, and he took the blame for someone else who was in the judiciary??
Everyone has been pointing to this trial being a sham trial.... The media with all of their photo images and news clips, they didn't tell us anything, but a picture tells a thousand words..... And a video even more....
I believe that it was a deliberate act on their part..... silenced by something I do not know..... So are Joanna Yeates parents grieving even more knowing that the real killer has gotten away.... i still feel that they know something else.... But they too may have been silenced, maybe that was the reason they too went to the Old Bailey... i do not know....
But what can we do about this miscarriage of Justice I believe has taken place??? What can we do without the media being able to speak of it or lawyers being able to say anything either????
I do not know.... It's almost like coming full circle.... Knowing that what I have always believed was Dr Vincent Tabak didn't have a fair trial and was not represented as robustly as council could have done (imo).. we are forever silenced... And a Placid Dutchman may be languishing in prison as we speak....
And that is not the worst of it.... A killer has been left to roam the street of this nation, and anywhere abroad, to maybe continue attacking woman at will... Knowing that in this country.... no-one will touch him with a barge pole...
But that is just my opinion.... !!!!
I will go back to why I started posting about Dr Vincent Tabak, and I would say it was because, I felt he was unfairly treated... He was not represented to the best of councils ability... The information and talks on the original facebook forum that I was apart of in the beginning had drawn me into this case.... And I have never forgotten it....
It was always with me for some reason, I couldn't understand why it didn't make sense.... But now I think I do... And will it ever change anything??? I can't say....
But I am just an ordinary person, who just like fair.... And for Justice to be seem to be done and give the public confidence, it's time the question of Dr Vincent Tabak and Joanna yeates was brought to the public attention.... How that would be possible, is difficult for me to say.... But honesty is the best policy....
And for all my headaches, tears, laughter whilst I have been writing on here mean Justice will happen.. Then it will be worth it all...
As I said in the beginning.... I just like fair!! It's as straight forward as that.....
I think this is getting rather silly now
-
I think this is getting rather silly now
I thought it couldn't get any more far fetched then I read the last few posts. Honestly, I have no words!
-
It is the most vital piece of evidence that we need to see at present... The contents must be mind blowing for it not to have been used at trial....!!(imo)
It is more likely that CJ's statement could not offer anything in terms of whether Tabak was guilty of murder or manslaughter and that is the reason it was not used in the trial. I think this has already been explained numerous times. Some of your points are way off and suggesting he is innocent as well as placid really is absurd.
-
I couldn't understand why I could apply so many scenarios to this case.... Too many possibilities.... Why no-one questioned why we had builders doing forensics...
Maybe Dr Vincent Tabak, killed Joanna Yeates.... maybe he found out later what it was about when he plead guilty.... Or confessed as everyones says... Maybe thats why he apologises to The Yeates, because he had put paid to any investigation that might have taken place, by admitting to said crime.....
I shouldn't get to a point where I believe that Joanna Yeates may not have even existed.... But I have been there... I have been there and everywhere with this case....
So the narratives is Dr Vincent Tabak did killed Joanna Yeates or maybe not... Thats what the media say and that is what the lawyers say ( He is guilty of manslaughter).... Well they are hardly gonna tell us any different......
So is this case about the death of a woman called Joanna Yeates or did she die because she was a lure for some kind of operation?? I don't know..... I do not know who killed her and I do not know if any of the information I have gone on about is true and accurate.....
So.. What was Operation Braid really about?? Because I cannot see it being purely a name of an operation for a Missing person....
It could still be in effect.... I don't know that either..... And I my have lost sleep over a story that was complete fabrication.... I don't know that either....
So is Dr Vincent Tabak guilty..... and if so guilty of what exactly... And why the sham trial and photoshopped images... staged flat and fire engines that were not needed to recover a body.....
I believe the media want the truth about this case exposed... that is in part is why I believe the media have taken it upon themselves to deal with this in the way they have done.....
So what am I fighting for?? The freedom of a man I know nothing of?? The ideals I have were I like fair?? I cant say... Because if I have NO COMPREHENSION of what this case is all about, I might as well fight for the freedom of the Man In The Moon.... Because I have no knowledge of what this is all really about!!
And I still do not know whether or not I have wasted my time....
-
To suggest her parents are part of some massive cover up really is awful.
-
Nine, there are numerous cases where it has started out as a missing person only to end up a murder investigation. Do you not watch true crime stories on TV? Or read any books? It is totally irrelevant that it started out as a missing person investigation. The police must have known that it was out of character for the victim to just go missing and leave all her personal belongings behind, that would have caused alarm bells to ring.
-
I think this is getting rather silly now
I think it's been silly from the start....
I am no-one and really my opinion counts for nothing....
-
Nine, there are numerous cases where it has started out as a missing person only to end up a murder investigation. Do you not watch true crime stories on TV? Or read any books? It is totally irrelevant that it started out as a missing person investigation. The police must have known that it was out of character for the victim to just go missing and leave all her personal belonging behind, that would have caused alarm bells to ring.
The Missing Posters that the friends of Joanna Yeates originally did, that were not official Police posters, asked people to contact.. CID and mentioned "Operation Braid"
We can argue points all day long....nothing will change...
-
The Missing Posters that the friends of Joanna Yeates originally did, that were not official Police posters, asked people to contact.. CID and mentioned "Operation Braid"
We can argue points all day long....nothing will change...
Because that is what friends and family do when they do not know what has happened to their loved one! That does not mean they won't have been suspicious regarding the way she went missing without a trace, which was probably out of character. No, nothing will change because you are barking up the wrong tree, no-one will reopen this case just because you happen to think it should be reopened. He is rightly serving his time in prison, I just
hope if/when he does get out he never ever does this kind of disgusting thing again!
-
Where do you get the idea from that builders did the forensic work? @)(++(*
-
I might as well fight for the freedom of the Man In The Moon....
I think you would have a better chance of proving there is a man in the moon than you have proving Tabaks innocence...
-
Where do you get the idea from that builders did the forensic work? @)(++(*
From here: https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/police-investigation-continues-flat-door-removed-people-news-footage/685650778
Also here: https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/police-investigation-continues-flat-door-removed-england-news-footage/685655606
Images attached too....
D.R.A Maintenance... I have cover this before ....
I have gone on about Bob The Builder and lack of protocols....
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I think you would have a better chance of proving there is a man in the moon than you have proving Tabaks innocence...
I cannot prove anything Justsaying... and thats the point, I can't even prove if there was a real trial.... I cannot prove what this is about, because i do not know what this is about......
The question has to be Who is Dr Vincent Tabak and who is Joanna Yeates... i said maybe I have wasted nearly 2 years on here... This case is not what it has been made out to be... But thats my belief i just don't know what it is about...
And to quote Justice Field... The Truth may Never be known.....
And there's me like a silly person, thinking I could understand what had happened..... Chasing ghosts and shadows..... Of something I know nothing about.... 8@??)(
-
From here: https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/police-investigation-continues-flat-door-removed-people-news-footage/685650778
Also here: https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/police-investigation-continues-flat-door-removed-england-news-footage/685655606
Images attached too....
D.R.A Maintenance... I have cover this before ....
I have gone on about Bob The Builder and lack of protocols....
I do not see any builders doing forensic work. I see them removing a door which will more than likely have been forensically tested by experts before it was removed...
-
I cannot prove anything Justsaying... and thats the point, I can't even prove if there was a real trial.... I cannot prove what this is about, because i do not know what this is about......
The question has to be Who is Dr Vincent Tabak and who is Joanna Yeates... i said maybe I have wasted nearly 2 years on here... This case is not what it has been made out to be... But thats my belief i just don't know what it is about...
And to quote Justice Field... And there's me like a silly person, thinking I could understand what had happened..... Chasing ghosts and shadows..... Of something I know nothing about.... 8@??)(
I think Mr Justice Field would have said that because he knew that Tabak was a liar and was giving a version of events that were in his favour when it came to the issues of murder or manslaughter. Only Tabak knows the truth, as I have said before I do not believe for one second that he made a pass at her and she started screaming. Him attacking her and then she screamed is the most likely scenario.
-
I can't even prove if there was a real trial....
The trial was as real as any other trial in which a person was convicted of murder.
-
The Missing Posters that the friends of Joanna Yeates originally did, that were not official Police posters, asked people to contact.. CID and mentioned "Operation Braid"
We can argue points all day long....nothing will change...
This article may help you Nine.
The Full Truth May Never Be Known
"The case began as a missing-person inquiry, made more poignant and newsworthy because the young woman had disappeared during the festive period.
But after Joanna Yeates's frozen body was discovered on a snowy roadside verge on Christmas morning, it became a huge murder hunt and a story that gripped the UK and international media.
The solution to the mystery turned out to be simple: the 25-year-old landscape architect was killed by her neighbour, the Dutch-born engineer Vincent Tabak.
To the torment of her loved ones, however, the truth about exactly what happened on the night of 17 December last year in Flat one, 44 Canynge Road, Bristol, may never be known.
Tabak waited until the last possible moment – when he was in the witness box – to offer his version of events.
He claims Yeates invited him into her flat and made a flirty remark as they chatted in the kitchen, which encouraged him to make a pass at her.Tabak says she screamed, and to stop her he gripped her throat with his right hand and put his left over her mouth. After about 20 seconds she slumped lifelessly to the floor.
The police and prosecution believe there are huge holes in Tabak's account. They think this was a sex attack and that Tabak might have derived a thrill from the act of strangling his neighbour, from having her at his mercy and under his control.
They have suggested Tabak might have been spying on Yeates and may have found an excuse to knock on her door that night rather than being spontaneously invited in.
The attack may have started in the hallway, which was found in a chaotic state. It could have continued in the bedroom: one of the earrings Yeates is thought to have been wearing was discovered beneath the duvet. There is also the possibility that something may have happened after Tabak carried Yeates's body back to his own flat. Certainly, according to the prosecution, there was a delay of more than an hour before he put her body into the boot of his car and drove it away.
Finally, what police and pathologists discovered when they examined Yeates's body suggested more went on than Tabak admits to recalling.
She had suffered 43 injuries, including wounds to her face, throat and arms. Though her jeans had not been tampered with, her T-shirt had been pulled up above her breasts and part of her right breast exposed. A sample of Tabak's DNA was found on her chest, however scientists could not establish what it came from.
The bottom line is that nobody apart from Tabak can say what happened – and he claims his memory of exactly what happened remains sketchy.
Not at all sketchy are the last known moments of Yeates's life. They have become all too familiar. She vanished eight days before Christmas after leaving the Ram pub on Park Street in Bristol, where she had been enjoying after-work drinks with work colleagues. It was cold and snow and ice lay thick on the pavements.
Yeates bought a tomato, mozzarella and basil pizza from a supermarket and picked up two bottles of cider from an off-licence. Police believe she got back to her Clifton flat, which was already decorated in readiness for Christmas, at about 8.45pm.
Within moments – at about 8.50pm – partygoers heading to a nearby house heard two screams. And then silence.
Yeates's boyfriend, Greg Reardon, returned from a weekend away on the evening of Sunday 19 December to find Yeates missing, though her mobile phone, keys, purse and coat were there.
At 12.45am he dialled 999 and less than four hours later a police officer banged on the door of Flat two. Tabak answered and denied all knowledge.
His denial led to – in Tabak's own words – a "week of hell" for Yeates's family and friends. Over the next seven days police and family issued a series of increasingly desperate appeals for help in finding her.
On 23 December police revisited Tabak and carried out a routine search of the flat he shared with his girlfriend, Tanja Morson, to check Yeates was not there. He joked to friends that they must have thought he had stashed her in a drawer.
Tabak and Morson, the daughter of a Harvard-educated lawyer, then left Bristol to spend Christmas in Cambridge at her parents' home.
On Christmas Eve, Detective Constable Karen Thomas, a member of the police's major crime investigation team, spoke to Tabak by telephone about his movements on the night of Yeates's disappearance. He told her he was in all evening before driving in the early hours of the morning to pick up Morson after a work party.
He was able to say he did not know Yeates. She and Reardon moved in at the start of October 2010 and he left for a business trip in California on 6 November, only returning on 11 December, six days before the killing. They were in effect strangers.
On Christmas morning, at about the time Tabak and Morson – who remained ignorant of her boyfriend's crime – were opening their gifts, Yeates's body was found by a dog walker, covered in leaves and a pile of snow next to a quarry wall at Longwood Lane, Failand, three miles from Clifton. It looked as if the killer had tried to heave the body over the wall. Had he succeeded Yeates could still be a missing person.
The media interest became a frenzy. One tabloid suggested Yeates may have been held captive for several days before she was killed. Another theory was that she may have been dumped at the scene alive and died of hypothermia. The public was fascinated by the details. What had happened to the pizza, which was never found? Why had she bought two bottles of cider? Was she meeting someone? Was the killer waiting for her at the flat? Why was there no sign of a break-in?
Only Tabak knew the truth and he was not telling. On 28 December he and Morson drove via Eurotunnel to the Netherlands where they were to spend new year with Tabak's family.
There was no escape from the Yeates story in the Netherlands. On 30 December, Tabak and Morson watched a television news report of the arrest of Joanna Yeates's landlord, the former public school teacher Christopher Jefferies, over the killing.
At this point Tabak made a huge mistake. Spotting a chance to frame Jefferies, he contacted Avon and Somerset police and suggested the landlord had been out and about in his car on the night of Yeates's death. The murder team sent DC Karen Thomas to Amsterdam and on New Year's Eve she spoke to Tabak at a hotel near Schiphol airport for six hours.
For the first time, Tabak's behaviour seemed suspicious. He talked to her about Jefferies but seemed, in Thomas's words, "overly interested" in the forensic examinations police were carrying out. Tabak also gave Thomas a different version of what he had done on the night of Yeates's disappearance, explaining that he had gone out twice, once to take photographs of the snow and the second time to go to Asda.
He also suggested he may have once set foot in the hallway of Yeates's flat, not when she was there but when he was chatting to Christopher Jefferies before Yeates disappeared. Thomas asked him to provide a DNA sample and fingerprints so they could be eliminated if they were found in the flat. Tabak appeared concerned but cooperated.
Jefferies was released on police bail on New Year's day and Avon and Somerset police found themselves on the back foot, having to deny they were back to square one.
Tabak, of course, assumed the net was closing in. When he and Morson drove back to the UK on 2 January, Tabak expected to be arrested as soon as he cleared customs. Every day he waited for the police to knock on his door. He began to drink and take sleeping pills. He thought about jumping off Clifton suspension bridge.
The knock finally came on 20 January – three weeks after he spoke to police in Amsterdam. He was told that his DNA had linked him to Yeates's body.
He tried to blame the laboratory that had carried out the testing, suggesting it was insecure, even that a scientist may have been paid to set him up.
But the DNA evidence was damning and 30 days after killing Joanna Yeates, Vincent Tabak appeared before Bristol magistrates charged with her murder. In May at the Old Bailey he admitted manslaughter but denied murder.
In court he told his extraordinary story during two days in the witness box. How, after Yeates's death, he had bundled her body into his car boot before going shopping to Asda for beer and crisps and texting his girlfriend that he was "bored". He accepted that, following the killing, he had researched subjects such as the difference between murder and manslaughter and the definition of sexual assault. But he repeatedly said he could not remember how Yeates had come by her 43 injuries – beamed on screens around the court – or even whether she had been frightened.
Privately, detectives believe Tabak can recall what happened in Yeates's flat perfectly. They think he calculated that there was no point in denying that he had killed her but gambled that the detectives would not be able to prove he meant to do so.
Avon and Somerset police may now have some questions to answer. Why did they not look into Yeates's next-door neighbour more closely until he contacted them with supposed information about Christopher Jefferies? Did they preserve the scene of the crime properly in the early days? Why did it still take three weeks for them to arrest Tabak after he gave his DNA sample?
The police deny they were slow in getting to Tabak, saying he left the Bristol area before Yeates' body was found. Officers also revealed that it was "early January" when they had an "interesting development" regarding Tabak's DNA sample and possible links to Yeates' body. Confirmation took more time.
Of course, in the end, the death of Joanna Yeates and the continuing agony her family must suffer partly because so much remains unclear is down to Vincent Tabak.
"He is a clever young man who thinks he can play a clever game," said one senior police source. If he is playing a game, it is a cruel one for those who were closest to Joanna Yeates.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/28/joanna-yeates-case-vincent-tabak
-
All the attention that went his way was all of his own doing Not quite the picture Nine has posted on here. His over interest caused suspicion then his lies started to seal his fate .
He wasnt wrongly perused at random he drew himself right into the middle of the investigation. A master manipulator who thought he was clever but it backfired and identified him as a killer!
-
All the attention that went his way was all of his own doing Not quite the picture Nine has posted on here. His over interest caused suspicion then his lies started to seal his fate .
He wasnt wrongly perused at random he drew himself right into the middle of the investigation. A master manipulator who thought he was clever but it backfired and identified him as a killer!
So who's over interest are we talking about??
And how did he draw himself right into the middle of the investigation??
-
Im off to work so cant debate it but please reread you posts and see how much he put himself right in the middle. the post from Stephanie puts it all in one place
You think all the questions he asked arent important or in fact relevant - the Police thought differently.
Just because you dont see that doesnt mean it isnt real
sorry I dont mean to be rude but your view of the case is very childlike...what you think should happen and then doesnt blurs what did happen because it should have.
-
Im off to work so cant debate it but please reread you posts and see how much he put himself right in the middle. the post from Stephanie puts it all in one place
You think all the questions he asked arent important or in fact relevant - the Police thought differently.
Just because you dont see that doesnt mean it isnt real
sorry I dont mean to be rude but your view of the case is very childlike...what you think should happen and then doesnt blurs what did happen because it should have.
The only people who were bang right in the middle of the investigation, that we could see are..
* Greg Reardon
* David Yeates
* Theresa Yeates
* CJ
The person we know as Dr Vincent Tabak has done nothing to put himself bang in the middle of an investigation... If he had the evidence of this would have been used at trial....
There were various Police officers around at the time also... Do I put them bang in the middle of the Investigation??
And since the trial the only person who has made anything out of this is CJ.... He's everywhere.... So what is that about???
Edit...... And Rebecca Scott......
-
The only people who were bang right in the middle of the investigation, that we could see are..
* Greg Reardon
* David Yeates
* Theresa Yeates
* CJ
The person we know as Dr Vincent Tabak has done nothing to put himself bang in the middle of an investigation... If he had the evidence of this would have been used at trial....
There were various Police officers around at the time also... Do I put them bang in the middle of the Investigation??
And since the trial the only person who has made anything out of this is CJ.... He's everywhere.... So what is that about???
Edit...... And Rebecca Scott......
Nine I think the highlights below answer a lot of your questions. Unfortunately you only see what you want to see.
At this point Tabak made a huge mistake. Spotting a chance to frame Jefferies, he contacted Avon and Somerset police and suggested the landlord had been out and about in his car on the night of Yeates's death. The murder team sent DC Karen Thomas to Amsterdam and on New Year's Eve she spoke to Tabak at a hotel near Schiphol airport for six hours.
For the first time, Tabak's behaviour seemed suspicious. He talked to her about Jefferies but seemed, in Thomas's words, "overly interested" in the forensic examinations police were carrying out. Tabak also gave Thomas a different version of what he had done on the night of Yeates's disappearance, explaining that he had gone out twice, once to take photographs of the snow and the second time to go to Asda.
He also suggested he may have once set foot in the hallway of Yeates's flat, not when she was there but when he was chatting to Christopher Jefferies before Yeates disappeared. Thomas asked him to provide a DNA sample and fingerprints so they could be eliminated if they were found in the flat. Tabak appeared concerned but cooperated...
Tabak, of course, assumed the net was closing in. When he and Morson drove back to the UK on 2 January, Tabak expected to be arrested as soon as he cleared customs. Every day he waited for the police to knock on his door. He began to drink and take sleeping pills. He thought about jumping off Clifton suspension bridge...
...He was told that his DNA had linked him to Yeates's body...
...But the DNA evidence was damning and 30 days after killing Joanna Yeates, Vincent Tabak appeared before Bristol magistrates charged with her murder...
...He accepted that, following the killing, he had researched subjects such as the difference between murder and manslaughter and the definition of sexual assault. But he repeatedly said he could not remember how Yeates had come by her 43 injuries...
-
So who's over interest are we talking about??
And how did he draw himself right into the middle of the investigation??
Something or someone appears to have distorted your thinking Nine? You seem to have been brainwashed into holding onto to your beliefs of this case?
How did you get involved in this case in the first place? What sparked your interest?
Self deception
"Self-deception is a process of denying or rationalizing away the relevance, significance, or importance of opposing evidence and logical argument. Self-deception involves convincing oneself of a truth so that one does not reveal any self-knowledge of the deception
"The folly of fools-The Logic of Deceit and Self-Deception in Human Life " https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L5EcIvVuAxg
-
The person we know as Dr Vincent Tabak
You should read about serial killer (& professor) Theodore John Kaczynski
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QQnJGoFnC6Q
-
Something or someone appears to have distorted your thinking Nine? You seem to have been brainwashed into holding onto to your beliefs of this case?
How did you get involved in this case in the first place? What sparked your interest?
Self deception
"Self-deception is a process of denying or rationalizing away the relevance, significance, or importance of opposing evidence and logical argument. Self-deception involves convincing oneself of a truth so that one does not reveal any self-knowledge of the deception
"The folly of fools-The Logic of Deceit and Self-Deception in Human Life " https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L5EcIvVuAxg
Therefore, using techniques on Dr Vincent Tabak, you may get him to believe and admit he has committed said act , when in actual fact he didn't.... The fact that he didn't have enough knowledge of said crime and was unable to answer 80 questions, could be interpreted in two ways....
(A): He was being deceptive
(B): He had no knowledge because he didn't do it..
Whether or not you think I am brain washed, is neither here nor there.... I still believe that Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent...
But since I started on here, nothing knew has come along to make me believe he is Guilty...
Nothing new in the media.... Nothing new at all.... Whether or not my beliefs differ from yours, is here nor there... i won't change your mind and you won't change mine... And not because i am being stubborn, because i would like to see evidence supporting Dr Vincent Tabak's claims he made on the stand.....
Saying he went to Asda, isn't proof he went to Asda... There a man walking around Asda that may resemble Dr Vincent Tabak... It may not be him..... Just because someone has told me it is him doesn't make it so.... Telling me that a blurred image of a car coming down Park Street is Dr Vincent Tabak's car doesn't make it so.... I see NO number plate, I cannot see who is driving... It could be anybody and any car.... And the time the footage comes from could also differ... It could be from Midnight on the 18th December 2010, up until 11:59pm on the 18th December 2010, so, who's car, what person is driving it and what time... Is extremely important.. You have a full 24 hours in which to establish someones where abouts, and there whereabouts are important, because if they are not on Park Street at 12:00am say... Then it cannot be them or their car, if they are drinking with friends for instance...
The footage could be at 5:00pm on the 18th December 2010... blowing the prosecutions idea, that Dr Vincent Tabak is driving around with Joanna Yeates in the car.... So we need to establish the facts and not just take the say so of someone....
So you believe I am brainwashed... Or am I thinking independently... There will always be influences upon someones perception of any idea, to not have such influences is an impossibility...
Or is the brainwashing the game of good cop bad cop..... Whilst I have been on here, i have questioned my own sanity, I have questioned my own self, I have cried plenty, I have got to the point at to whether i know if i am on my arse or elbow....
But nothing has changed.... Nothing has changed whatsoever.... I may have looked at some aspects in a different light, but my core belief that Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent still stands.....
I have felt like an experiment sometimes, On the one hand, sometimes people seem supportive, then the next they have cut me down to the quick without explanation....
But is it our human nature that makes us respond that way, when we feel that we need to be accepted somehow... and other peoples opinions count in support of our own ideas....
The world won't stop spinning because a small person as myself, have a belief that most do not.... Those who believe what has been said at a trial, have that option to believe that too... The FULL FACTS do not appear to have been presented.... The story in itself maybe true.... Just the wrong person saying it....
I have not seen an autopsy report, so I have reports that skim on the evidence of what this report actually tells us of Joanna Yeates... For all I know she may have been pregnant.... She may have already had had a child,.. I am not stating this as fact, but saying nothing about Joanna Yeates has been fully explained... telling me she has bruises, doesn't tell me how she sustained said bruises, and by what mechanism, not telling me whether or not she had DNA under her finger nails, doesn't tell me whether she fought back...
Where there a pattern to these bruises that indict she was either grabbed or deflected a weapon,... I don't know that information... She could have been rendered unconcious as far as anyone knows... Because for all intense and purposes, she hasn't fought back.... WHY?
If it was a stranger, she most certainly would have fought back (imo)... And if it was someone known to her once she realised her life was in danger, she would have fought back too...
The sexual assault, or sexually motivated crime... This idea was planted in our heads long ago.... By denying that it was sexually motivated, people would have made there own mind up, trying to find a reason for an attack by someone not known to her... And by the time we are at trial, the mire suggestion that it was sexually motivated, tells our own minds, that she must have been assaulted, especially, if she is wearing different clothes..Especially, if she was posed, especially, if they talk of re-dressing.. And especially if we did not see images of her... her clothes could have been inside out for all I know... I do not know what the jury saw.... But the motive as I have stated, was subliminally planted back in December 2010..
Where was the evidence to support that Joanna Yeates had been sexually assaulted.... She very well may have been, but the autopsy report we haven't seen would tell us that... If someone omits something on a stand, doesn't mean it didn't happen... Or it wasn't a possibility....
As with whether or not I feel brainwashed, that depends on whether or not i interpret what has been said to me as brainwashing and whether or not my mind gets changed.... If Dr Vincent Tabak was brainwashed, that is more of a possibility.. Because that would depend on who is telling him what... And the fact that he is in isolation, having nothing familiar, to bounce back opinions from, makes him more susceptible, into believing what has been said...
He maybe sleep deprived, he may have been questioned for ever we don't know... But I can walk away from my computer... I can freely move about.... But Dr Vincent Tabak did not have that luxury... So was he brainwashed into believing he had committed this act?? or brainwashed into believing that he would be incarcerated for this act and evidence supports that it is him therefore admitting to Manslaughter, would be the safer option....
I cannot tell you who killed her... I can suggest people based on the information I know, but there are to many variables to that for me to be 100% sure.... If I base it on interviews of people I have seen that shortens the percentage... But If the real perp has not been identified in any manner in the media, then I have nothing to go on...
I don't know what else to say other than I still believe that Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent, and does it really matter, to those who don't believe this, that I believe this?? It shouldn't... As I have said many times... I am nobody, I have no influence on any outcome of this case.. I am just a person, who has always believed that Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent... And will forever believe this until i have been proved incorrect in my beliefs with concrete evidence...
-
Something or someone appears to have distorted your thinking Nine? You seem to have been brainwashed into holding onto to your beliefs of this case?
How did you get involved in this case in the first place? What sparked your interest?
Self deception
"Self-deception is a process of denying or rationalizing away the relevance, significance, or importance of opposing evidence and logical argument. Self-deception involves convincing oneself of a truth so that one does not reveal any self-knowledge of the deception
"The folly of fools-The Logic of Deceit and Self-Deception in Human Life " https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L5EcIvVuAxg
Therefore, using techniques on Dr Vincent Tabak
NO - he's clearly pathological
I was referring to you and your posts on this forum
I asked you questions which could help you understand where your flawed opinions and distortions stemmed from.
-
The fact that he didn't have enough knowledge of said crime and was unable to answer 80 questions, could be interpreted in two ways....
Being unable to answer questions and refusing to answer questions are two entirely different things. It is not uncommon, Nine, for suspects to give no comment answers to questions in interview.
-
Saying he went to Asda, isn't proof he went to Asda... There a man walking around Asda that may resemble Dr Vincent Tabak... It may not be him..... Just because someone has told me it is him doesn't make it so....
The footage could be at 5:00pm on the 18th December 2010... blowing the prosecutions idea, that Dr Vincent Tabak is driving around with Joanna Yeates in the car.... So we need to establish the facts and not just take the say so of someone....
He admitted that he went to Asda. He admitted that it was his car seen on CCTV. It is strong evidence considering he accepted it as fact. That is why people find your view on things really strange, the perpetrator accepted it himself yet you do not... Perhaps he should have ran about with a neon sign and his name flashing in lights. Although I am not sure that would convince you still.
-
Wasn't it a fact that he messaged his girlfriend whilst he was in Asda, telling her he was in Asda buying crisps? Why would he do that if he was not there? Why would he make that up, especially to his girlfriend? The time of the text message and the time on the CCTV in Asda most likely matched, so the prosecution could safely say he was in Asda at that time.
Also, why would he search the definition of sexual assault, body decomposition, the difference between murder and manslaughter and bin collection times? Why would he say he searched bin collection times because he was worried the police would find the pizza etc, etc? If you stopped with the conspiracy theories and applied some logic you would reach the conclusion that he did in fact kill Joanna and there is an abundance of evidence which points to his guilt.
-
The person we know as Dr Vincent Tabak has done nothing to put himself bang in the middle of an investigation... If he had the evidence of this would have been used at trial....
There were various Police officers around at the time also... Do I put them bang in the middle of the Investigation??
[/quote]
Im sorry Nine but the parts justsaying has highlighted clearly shows this just isnt true!
-
Nine you stated:
I have not seen an autopsy report, so I have reports that skim on the evidence of what this report actually tells us of Joanna Yeates... For all I know she may have been pregnant.... She may have already had had a child,.. I am not stating this as fact, but saying nothing about Joanna Yeates has been fully explained... telling me she has bruises, doesn't tell me how she sustained said bruises, and by what mechanism, not telling me whether or not she had DNA under her finger nails, doesn't tell me whether she fought back
Why would you?
-
He maybe sleep deprived, he may have been questioned for ever we don't know... But I can walk away from my computer... I can freely move about.... But Dr Vincent Tabak did not have that luxury... So was he brainwashed into believing he had committed this act?? or brainwashed into believing that he would be incarcerated for this act and evidence supports that it is him therefore admitting to Manslaughter, would be the safer option....
[/quote]
You really cant believe this? So he was sleep deprived yet stood up in court, showing emotion saying sorry? Even if he had the longest interview possible, why didnt he speak up?
The years have rolled on... why not now?
Brainwashed? are you sure that isnt you Nine? this is becoming unreal that you wont accept ANYTHING he admitted but will make up stories to suit your very vivid imagination. Im sure even without sleep that a few weeks prison would bring him to his senses and say what the heck am i doing here?
Look at any other case, see what is available in the media. You might be very surprised that it doesnt fit your mould of how a trial should be especially when someone has pleaded guilty!
-
Just reading the parts about fighting back...firstly what you think you would do and what you actually do can work out very differently, i know that first hand!
Secondly if it was 20 seconds .... what you can do it that time? You dont know where she was, standing sitting. You only have his word that any of that was actually how it happened.
-
Just reading the parts about fighting back...firstly what you think you would do and what you actually do can work out very differently, i know that first hand!
Secondly if it was 20 seconds .... what you can do it that time? You dont know where she was, standing sitting. You only have his word that any of that was actually how it happened.
She sustained over 40 injuries, that does not sound like he merely strangled her for 20 seconds. There were bruise marks on her neck etc. He clearly lied to play down the fact that he did in fact assault her prior to/during the strangulation. He said on the stand that he could remember dumping items in bins etc, yet he could not remember how she got all those injuries... If he did merely try to kiss why would she scream? Why would she not decline and tell him to leave or at worst slap his face? He probably did try to kiss her and she refuted his advances so he went on to attack/kill her. He could have walked away but he chose not too. He tried to blame an innocent person for the crime. That is the type of person the "placid" Tabak is.
-
And then blaming an innocent man and his interest in the case lead to his downfall as we said earlier. He put himself right in the middle of it all
-
Does nobody find it very strange that, although it seems, from media reports, that Joanna's flat was thoroughly examined forensically, no trace of Vincent Tabak's DNA was found in that flat?
He was supposed to have taken Joanna's body to his flat, but no trace of her DNA was found there.
The police believed that Joanna was killed in her flat, and VT said he killed her there, so why no DNA?
He would not have been able to clean up every trace, IMO. That must be pretty hard to do .
DNA from VT in Jo's flat, or DNA from Jo in his would have been better evidence than the low copy stuff. If there was any, therefore, why was it never mentioned?
In my opinion, there wasn't any. How do you kill someone and inflict 43 injuries on them without leaving a trace of yourself at the scene?
-
Does nobody find it very strange that, although it seems, from media reports, that Joanna's flat was thoroughly examined forensically, no trace of Vincent Tabak's DNA was found in that flat?
He was supposed to have taken Joanna's body to his flat, but no trace of her DNA was found there.
The police believed that Joanna was killed in her flat, and VT said he killed her there, so why no DNA?
He would not have been able to clean up every trace, IMO. That must be pretty hard to do .
DNA from VT in Jo's flat, or DNA from Jo in his would have been better evidence than the low copy stuff. If there was any, therefore, why was it never mentioned?
In my opinion, there wasn't any. How do you kill someone and inflict 43 injuries on them without leaving a trace of yourself at the scene?
In this case, no I do not find it strange. There are a number of scenarios, he could have cleaned up where he had been in Jo's flat. We know that he went back to his flat after killing the victim (before removing her body) He could have laid something out to put her body on, hence no DNA evidence in his flat. There was a billion to one match of DNA evidence on her breast, of all places. Let us not forget there was no trace of any other person's DNA in her flat either, so did this mysterious killer manage to clean away all of his DNA even though you allege it would have been impossible for Tabak? He told the police he may have stepped foot in her flat, this was probably so he could dispute any traces of him if they were found.
I have argued this point in Luke Mitchell's case and what I have said there is I find it quite impossible that he could have removed every trace of his own DNA whilst managing to leave DNA belonging to other people behind. Either he should have been successful in removing every bit of DNA, including that belong to other people, or his DNA should have been there along with the others. (My opinion)
-
In this case, no I do not find it strange. There are a number of scenarios, he could have cleaned up where he had been in Jo's flat. We know that he went back to his flat after killing the victim (before removing her body) He could have laid something out to put her body on, hence no DNA evidence in his flat. There was a billion to one match of DNA evidence on her breast, of all places. Let us not forget there was no trace of any other person's DNA in her flat either, so did this mysterious killer manage to clean away all of his DNA even though you allege it would have been impossible for Tabak? He told the police he may have stepped foot in her flat, this was probably so he could dispute any traces of him if they were found.
I have argued this point in Luke Mitchell's case and what I have said there is I find it quite impossible that he could have removed every trace of his own DNA whilst managing to leave DNA belonging to other people behind. Either he should have been successful in removing every bit of DNA, including that belong to other people, or his DNA should have been there along with the others. (My opinion)
Let us not forget there was no trace of any other person's DNA in her flat either,
Doesn't that therefore tell you that a professional cleanup had taken place in said Flat!!!
-
Let us not forget there was no trace of any other person's DNA in her flat either,
Doesn't that therefore tell you that a professional cleanup had taken place in said Flat!!!
The short answer to that is no it does not tell us that. I am assuming her boyfriends DNA would have been in the flat considering he lived there. I should have said no trace of DNA from persons that should not have been there.
-
What I will say is that they would not have forensically tested every single part of the flat. I know of a person who claims he is not guilty, he tried to appeal on the basis his DNA was not found at the scene. He was told that the reason his DNA was not found at the scene could be because all areas are not DNA tested, just areas that are of interest... Doors, door handles, places where there is blood, the body etc. True fact!
-
May I ask, where is the source which suggests low copy techniques were used to establish a DNA profile in this case?
-
May I ask, where is the source which suggests low copy techniques were used to establish a DNA profile in this case?
LGC Forensics provides key evidence in Jo Yeates investigation
14 NOV 2011
Tags: Biological, Forensic
LGC Forensics' analysis provides key evidence in Joanna Yeates investigation
LGC Forensics, the UK's largest independent provider of forensic services, successfully used a range of advanced forensic techniques, including LGC’s proprietary DNA enhancement method, DNASenCE, to link Vincent Tabak to the 2010 murder of Joanna Yeates.
Joanna disappeared after walking to her home in Bristol on 17 December 2010 and her body was finally found on Christmas Day in a country lane a few miles from her home. Working closely with Avon & Somerset Police, LGC Forensics was instrumental in obtaining a DNA profile from evidence found at the crime scene and in linking this with a range of supporting forensic evidence, including from Tabak’s car. The crucial evidence was provided by the work to refine the DNA procedures in order to enhance the DNA samples – which were inhibited, possibly by the unusually high levels of salt at the location of the body, because of a recent snow fall.
Teamwork played a vital role in this case and LGC Forensics set up an internal focus group of forensic scientists who carried out the technical DNA examinations, as well as interpretation, peer review, and quality review. The group analysed a number of items taken from Joanna’s flat and submitted by Police for analysis as well as further evidence from the area where Joanna’s body was found. The scientists used a combination of analytical tools including exacting DNA enhancement work and fibre analysis, and consideration was also given for recovery of hair, ecology and biological samples.
Steve Allen, Managing Director of LGC Forensics, said: “The successful use of painstaking forensic analysis in this case is a positive result for the Yeates family and for Avon & Somerset Police. We always welcome the opportunity to contribute our skills and expertise to important investigations such as this one, and we are pleased that the very detailed and thorough work of our forensic scientists helped bring resolution to this case.”
https://www.lgcgroup.com/about-us/media-room/latest-news/2011/lgc-forensics-provides-key-evidence-in-jo-yeates-i/#.W736ERNKii4
-
https://www.lgcgroup.com/about-us/media-room/latest-news/2011/lgc-forensics-provides-key-evidence-in-jo-yeates-i/#.W736ERNKii4
Thank you Nine.
-
Thank you Nine.
You're welcome...
-
From what I have read and what I understand, is that low copy DNA and DNAsense are two different things, there are certainly different definitions for them both. It seems quite gobbledygook to me but as far as I can see, low copy builds up a profile from a minute source whereas DNAsense was used in this case to clean up the DNA strands which were contaminated by salt.
I do not see anywhere in which it is claimed that low copy techniques were used. Low copy DNA, as I have read it, is quite controversial. I think, perhaps, in this case (I could be wrong) there was an ample amount of DNA to test but it needed further forensics to remove the contamination caused by the snow.
The crucial evidence was provided by the work to refine the DNA procedures in order to enhance the DNA samples – which were inhibited, possibly by the unusually high levels of salt at the location of the body, because of a recent snow fall.
-
https://www.lgcgroup.com/about-us/media-room/latest-news/2011/lgc-forensics-provides-key-evidence-in-jo-yeates-i/#.W736ERNKii4
What evidence was found in the his car? I don't remember ever reading about evidence being found in his car.
-
What evidence was found in the his car? I don't remember ever reading about evidence being found in his car.
I believe it was a spot of the victims blood.
-
From what I have read and what I understand, is that low copy DNA and DNAsense are two different things, there are certainly different definitions for them both. It seems quite gobbledygook to me but as far as I can see, low copy builds up a profile from a minute source whereas DNAsense was used in this case to clean up the DNA strands which were contaminated by salt.
I do not see anywhere in which it is claimed that low copy techniques were used. Low copy DNA, as I have read it, is quite controversial. I think, perhaps, in this case (I could be wrong) there was an ample amount of DNA to test but it needed further forensics to remove the contamination caused by the snow.
The crucial evidence was provided by the work to refine the DNA procedures in order to enhance the DNA samples – which were inhibited, possibly by the unusually high levels of salt at the location of the body, because of a recent snow fall.
I was under the impression that the DNASense was the technique used to amplify the low copy DNA.. `but i may be wrong...
DNA components... ?
"Eventually, we found something," Lennen says. "On swabs and tapes from her breasts, and tapes from three areas of her jeans. There were DNA components that matched one of the suspects, Vincent Tabak." But there wasn't enough, of enough quality, to evaluate – perhaps because of the high salt levels where the body was found, following heavy snowfall.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jan/17/csi-oxford-lgc-forensics
-
I was under the impression that the DNASense was the technique used to amplify the low copy DNA.. `but i may be wrong...
DNA components... ?
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jan/17/csi-oxford-lgc-forensics
It speaks of the quality not quantity...
If you take a look on wiki, they are completely separate and different definitions of both DNA techniques.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_copy_number
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense_(molecular_biology)
https://www.lgcgroup.com/our-science/molecular-biology-science-cluster/#.W74zIPZFzIU
-
It speaks of the quality not quantity...
If you take a look on wiki, they are completely separate and different definitions of both DNA techniques.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_copy_number
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense_(molecular_biology)
https://www.lgcgroup.com/our-science/molecular-biology-science-cluster/#.W74zIPZFzIU
The low copy comes directly from DCI Phil Jones...
The Joanna Yates murder inquiry
166. Detective Chief Inspector Philip Jones of Avon and Somerset Constabulary told
the Inquiry that the Daily Mail called the Constabulary Communications Department
during the investigation and said that low copy DNA was found on Joanna Yates
body. This was true and either came from the police or other agencies which had
tested the DNA. The leak investigation was still ongoing when he gave evidence. He
stated that this leak damaged morale of the police and damaged trust2°°.
Am I Missing something?? Low Copy DNA is useless....
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122194510/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Submission-from-Core-Participant-Victims-Module-2.pdf
-
So did LGC know how to amplify the Low Copy DNA??
The increased sensitivity of LCN also increases the risks posed by contamination of samples in the laboratory. Since LCN aims to amplify levels of DNA as low as 100 picograms, even breathing on a sample may contaminate it substantially enough to render the final profile unusable[citation needed]. Contamination is particularly problematic before the sample has undergone amplification because both the suspect's and the contaminator's DNA will be amplified, resulting in a mixed profile. Moreover, the small amounts of DNA that LCN aims to amplify also increase the probability of PCR artifacts appearing on profiles such as stochastic effects.
Is that what was meant by the mixed DNA??
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_copy_number
-
The low copy comes directly from DCI Phil Jones...
Am I Missing something?? Low Copy DNA is useless....
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122194510/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Submission-from-Core-Participant-Victims-Module-2.pdf
I think they have confused "LCN" with DNASenSE… These are two different techniques for DNA profiling. I would trust what the scientist says rather than the Leveson enquiry... I would assume if the techniques were exactly the same then there wouldn't be the need for entirely different definition of both.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jan/17/csi-oxford-lgc-forensics
So the team deployed an LGC technique known as DNA SenCE, which purifies, concentrates and enhances otherwise unusable DNA:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_copy_number
LCN is an extension of Second Generation Multiplex Plus (SGM Plus) profiling technique. It is a more sensitive technique because it involves a greater amount of copying via polymerase chain reaction (PCR) from a smaller amount of starting material, meaning that a profile can be obtained from only a few cells, which may be as small as a millionth the size of a grain of salt, and amount to just a few cells of skin or sweat left from a fingerprint.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense_(molecular_biology)#DNA_sense
DNA sense
Molecular biologists call a single strand of DNA sense (or positive (+)) if an RNA version of the same sequence is translated or translatable into protein. Its complementary strand is called [ censored word]ense (or negative (-) sense). Sometimes the phrases coding strand (for sense) and template strand (for [ censored word]ense) are encountered; however, protein coding and non-coding RNAs can be transcribed from the sense strand. Additionally, the terms "sense" and "[ censored word]ense" are relative to the RNA transcript in question and not to the DNA strand as a whole. In other words, either DNA strand can serve as the sense or [ censored word]ense strand for a particular RNA transcript. In some cases, RNA transcripts can be transcribed in both directions (i.e. on either strand) from a common promoter region, or be transcribed from within introns on either strand (see "ambisense" below).
-
I assume, again I could be wrong, that DNA strands are found in what is called sense DNA. Whereas it is much smaller than a strand in LCN.
It was DNA sense not LCN which was used in this case, as verified by the forensic scientists.
LCN = as small as a millionth the size of a grain of salt
DNA Sense = Molecular biologists call a single strand of DNA sense
Also, from what I understand, LCN techniques could not be said to be a billion to one match, whereas it could be said using the DNASenSe technique - hence the allegation that the DNA match in this case was a billion to one.
-
I assume, again I could be wrong, that DNA strands are found in what is called sense DNA. Whereas it is much smaller than a strand in LCN.
It was DNA sense not LCN which was used in this case, as verified by the forensic scientists.
LCN = as small as a millionth the size of a grain of salt
DNA Sense = Molecular biologists call a single strand of DNA sense
Also, from what I understand, LCN techniques could not be said to be a billion to one match, whereas it could be said using the DNASenSe technique - hence the allegation that the DNA match in this case was a billion to one.
So how did they apparently tie it to Dr Vincent Tabak?? Is it possible to have had the same result with another person?? Depending on + or - ??
Molecular biologists call a single strand of DNA sense (or positive (+)) if an RNA version of the same sequence is translated or translatable into protein. Its complementary strand is called [ censored word]ense (or negative (-) sense). Sometimes the phrases coding strand (for sense) and template strand (for [ censored word]ense) are encountered; however, protein coding and non-coding RNAs can be transcribed from the sense strand. Additionally, the terms "sense" and "[ censored word]ense" are relative to the RNA transcript in question and not to the DNA strand as a whole. In other words, either DNA strand can serve as the sense or [ censored word]ense strand for a particular RNA transcript. In some cases, RNA transcripts can be transcribed in both directions (i.e. on either strand) from a common promoter region, or be transcribed from within introns on either strand (see "ambisense" below).[1][2][3]
[ censored word]ense DNA
The two complementary strands of double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) are usually differentiated as the "sense" strand and the "[ censored word]ense" strand. The DNA sense strand looks like the messenger RNA (mRNA) and can be used to read the expected protein code; for example, ATG in the sense DNA may correspond to an AUG codon in the mRNA, encoding the amino acid methionine.
However, the DNA sense strand itself is not used to make protein by the cell. It is the DNA [ censored word]ense strand which serves as the source for the protein code, because, with bases complementary to the DNA sense strand, it is used as a template for the mRNA. Since transcription results in an RNA product complementary to the DNA template strand, the mRNA is complementary to the DNA [ censored word]ense strand. The mRNA is what is used for translation (protein synthesis).
Hence, a base triplet 3'-TAC-5' in the DNA [ censored word]ense strand can be used as a template which will result in an 5'-AUG-3' base triplet in mRNA (AUG is the codon for methionine, the start codon). The DNA sense strand will have the triplet ATG, which looks just like AUG but will not be used to make methionine because it will not be used to make mRNA. The DNA sense strand is called a "sense" strand not because it will be used to make protein (it won't be), but because it has a sequence that looks like the protein codon sequence.
In biology and research, short [ censored word]ense molecules can interact with complementary strands of nucleic acids, modifying expression of genes. See the section on "[ censored word]ense oligonucleotides" below.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/19/[ censored word]ense_DNA_oligonucleotide.png/250px-[ censored word]ense_DNA_oligonucleotide.png)
Example with double-stranded DNA
DNA strand 1: [ censored word]ense strand (transcribed to)→ RNA strand (sense)
DNA strand 2: sense strand
Some regions within a double strand of DNA code for genes, which are usually instructions specifying the order of amino acids in a protein along with regulatory sequences, splicing sites, noncoding introns, and other complicating details. For a cell to use this information, one strand of the DNA serves as a template for the synthesis of a complementary strand of RNA. The template DNA strand is called the transcribed strand with [ censored word]ense sequence and the mRNA transcript is said to be sense sequence (the complement of [ censored word]ense). Because the DNA is double-stranded, the strand complementary to the [ censored word]ense sequence is called the non-transcribed strand and has the same sense sequence as the mRNA transcript (though T bases in DNA are substituted with U bases in RNA).
A note on the confusion between "sense" and "[ censored word]ense" strands: The strand names actually depend on which direction you are writing the sequence that contains the information for proteins (the "sense" information), not on which strand is on the top or bottom (that is arbitrary). The only real biological information that is important for labeling strands is the location of the 5' phosphate group and the 3' hydroxyl group because these ends determine the direction of transcription and translation. A sequence 5' CGCTAT 3' is equivalent to a sequence written 3' TATCGC 5' as long as the 5' and 3' ends are noted. If the ends are not labeled, convention is to assume that the sequence is written from left to right in the 5' to 3' direction. Watson strand refers to 5' to 3' top strand (5' → 3'), whereas Crick strand refers to 5' to 3' bottom strand (3' ← 5').[4] Both Watson and Crick strands can be either sense or [ censored word]ense strands depending on the gene whose sequences are displayed in the genome sequence database. For example, YEL021W, an alias of URA3 gene used in NCBI database, defines that this gene is located on the 21st open reading frame (ORF) from the centromere of the left arm (L) of Yeast (Y) chromosome number V (E), and that the expression coding strand is Watson strand (W). YKL074C defines the 74th ORF to the left of the centromere of chromosome XI and denotes coding strand from the Crick strand (C). Another confusing term referring to "Plus" and "Minus" strand is also widely used. Whether the strand is sense (positive) or [ censored word]ense (negative), the default query sequence in NCBI BLAST alignment is "Plus" strand.
[ censored word]ense RNA
Main article: [ censored word]ense RNA
[ censored word]ense RNA is an RNA transcript that is complementary to endogenous mRNA. In other words, it is a non-coding strand complementary to the coding sequence of RNA; this is similar to negative-sense viral RNA. Introducing a transgene coding for [ censored word]ense RNA is a technique used to block expression of a gene of interest. Radioactively-labelled [ censored word]ense RNA can be used to show the level of transcription of genes in various cell types. Some alternative [ censored word]ense structural types are being experimentally applied as [ censored word]ense therapy, with at least one [ censored word]ense therapy approved for use in humans.[citation needed]
When mRNA forms a duplex with a complementary [ censored word]ense RNA sequence, translation is blocked. This process is related to RNA interference.
[ censored word]ense nucleic acid molecules have been used experimentally to bind to mRNA and prevent expression of specific genes. [ censored word]ense therapies are also in development; in the USA, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved phosphorothioate [ censored word]ense oligos fomivirsen (Vitravene) and mipomersen (Kynamro)[5] for human therapeutic use.
Cells can produce [ censored word]ense RNA molecules naturally, called microRNA, which interact with complementary mRNA molecules and inhibit their expression.
RNA sense in viruses
In virology, the genome of an RNA virus can be said to be either positive-sense, also known as a "plus-strand", or negative-sense, also known as a "minus-strand". In most cases, the terms sense and strand are used interchangeably, making such terms as positive-strand equivalent to positive-sense, and plus-strand equivalent to plus-sense. Whether a virus genome is positive-sense or negative-sense can be used as a basis for classifying viruses.
Positive-sense
Positive-sense (5' to 3') viral RNA signifies that a particular viral RNA sequence may be directly translated into the desired viral proteins. Therefore, in positive-sense RNA viruses, the viral RNA genome can be considered viral mRNA, and can be immediately translated by the host cell. Unlike negative-sense RNA, positive-sense RNA is of the same sense as mRNA. Some viruses (e.g., Coronaviridae) have positive-sense genomes that can act as mRNA and be used directly to synthesize proteins without the help of a complementary RNA intermediate. Because of this, these viruses do not need to have an RNA polymerase packaged into the virion.
Negative-sense
Negative-sense (3' to 5') viral RNA is complementary to the viral mRNA and thus from it a positive-sense RNA must be produced by an RNA-dependent RNA polymerase prior to translation. Negative-sense RNA (like DNA) has a nucleotide sequence complementary to the mRNA that it encodes. Like DNA, this RNA cannot be translated into protein directly. Instead, it must first be transcribed into a positive-sense RNA that acts as an mRNA. Some viruses (Influenza, for example) have negative-sense genomes and so must carry an RNA polymerase inside the virion.
[ censored word]ense oligonucleotides
Gene silencing can be achieved by introducing into cells a short "[ censored word]ense oligonucleotide" that is complementary to an RNA target. This experiment was first done by Zamecnik and Stephenson in 1978[6] and continues to be a useful approach, both for laboratory experiments and potentially for clinical applications ([ censored word]ense therapy).[7]
If the [ censored word]ense oligonucleotide contains a stretch of DNA or a DNA mimic (phosphorothioate DNA, 2'F-ANA, or others) it can recruit RNase H to degrade the target RNA. This makes the mechanism of gene silencing catalytic. Double-stranded RNA can also act as a catalytic, enzyme-dependent [ censored word]ense agent through the RNAi/siRNA pathway, involving target mRNA recognition through sense-[ censored word]ense strand pairing followed by target mRNA degradation by the RNA-induced silencing complex (RISC). The R1 plasmid hok/sok system provides yet another example of an enzyme-dependent [ censored word]ense regulation process through enzymatic degradation of the resulting RNA duplex.
Other [ censored word]ense mechanisms are not enzyme-dependent, but involve steric blocking of their target RNA (e.g. to prevent translation or induce alternative splicing). Steric blocking [ censored word]ense mechanisms often use oligonucleotides that are heavily modified. Since there is no need for RNase H recognition, this can include chemistries such as 2'-O-alkyl, peptide nucleic acid (PNA), locked nucleic acid (LNA), and Morpholino oligomers.
I am at a loss understanding that.... So how did Clegg decide that what the forensics stated was accurate?? Remember he was completely flummoxed by the idea of an ear print being able to identify someone... So how did he manage to understand Molecular Biology??? He cannot (imo) have had anyone at anytime check anything to do with the DNA....
Clegg didn't verify any of this with these expert witness's?? Having them explain how Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA was a match??
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense_(molecular_biology)
Edit.... If breath can give you a DNA recording, then wasn't it possible that the DNA sample of Dr Vincent Tabak came from something that belonged to CJ?? They would have been in close contact...
And the Forensically tested CJ's clothes etc.....
Or am I mistaken??
-
So how did they apparently tie it to Dr Vincent Tabak?? Is it possible to have had the same result with another person?? Depending on + or - ??
I honestly do not know - but it being said to be one in a billion, the chances of it being someone else's DNA are slim.
I am at a loss understanding that.... So how did Clegg decide that what the forensics stated was accurate?? Remember he was completely flummoxed by the idea of an ear print being able to identify someone... So how did he manage to understand Molecular Biology??? He cannot (imo) have had anyone at anytime check anything to do with the DNA....
Clegg didn't verify any of this with these expert witness's?? Having them explain how Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA was a match??
I do not know if he will have requested tests of his own, taking into account that it was not disputed that Tabak had in fact touched her body whilst killing/moving her. I would assume that the experts did take the stand though. I would also assume that if he did not admit to killing her then the defence would have had to hire its own experts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense_(molecular_biology)
Edit.... If breath can give you a DNA recording, then wasn't it possible that the DNA sample of Dr Vincent Tabak came from something that belonged to CJ?? They would have been in close contact...
And the Forensically tested CJ's clothes etc.....
Or am I mistaken??
I think you're mistaken. If you compare where the DNA was found to what Tabak stated, then it is fair to say he himself put the DNA on her, as opposed to innocent transfer. He said he carried her under her knees, which is where his DNA was found on her. DNA was found on her breast but not on her top. It points to the DNA being left there by Tabak himself.
-
Also Nine, if CJ had transferred Tabaks DNA to the victim, then both profiles would have been found. As it were, only Tabaks was found on her body/clothes.
-
I honestly do not know - but it being said to be one in a billion, the chances of it being someone else's DNA are slim.
I do not know if he will have requested tests of his own, taking into account that it was not disputed that Tabak had in fact touched her body whilst killing/moving her. I would assume that the experts did take the stand though. I would also assume that if he did not admit to killing her then the defence would have had to hire its own experts.
I think you're mistaken. If you compare where the DNA was found to what Tabak stated, then it is fair to say he himself put the DNA on her, as opposed to innocent transfer. He said he carried her under her knees, which is where his DNA was found on her. DNA was found on her breast but not on her top. It points to the DNA being left there by Tabak himself.
If it is only Dr Vincent Tabak's story which he doesn't divulge until he takes the stand in October 2011 that tells us how and why the DNA was where ever it was....
What happened before... When he said that they tests were false... What happened before when they kept him on remand.... Did any of the defence ever question the DNA at any point of Dr Vincent Tabak's incarceration??
What evidence did they have to keep him on remand??? Or to even charge him for that matter??
JustSaying... Assume nothing..... This case is made up of assumptions.... They have allowed everyone to fill in their own gaps...
-
If it is only Dr Vincent Tabak's story which he doesn't divulge until he takes the stand in October 2011 that tells us how and why the DNA was where ever it was....
What happened before... When he said that they tests were false... What happened before when they kept him on remand.... Did any of the defence ever question the DNA at any point of Dr Vincent Tabak's incarceration??
What evidence did they have to keep him on remand??? Or to even charge him for that matter??
JustSaying... Assume nothing..... This case is made up of assumptions.... They have allowed everyone to fill in their own gaps...
Evidence the prosecution had????
* Dr Vincent Tabak lived in the same building
* Dr Vincent Tabak drove a car
* Dr Vincent Tabak was apparently seen driving on Park Street on the 18th December 2010
* Dr Vincent Tabak went shopping in Asda
* Dr Vincent Tabak searched about things related to the case (like so many of us)
* Low Copy DNA was found ( They lived in the same building.. transfer) When was it transferred??
So that is it.... And remember before they even had Dr Vincent Tabak searched his car, what evidence did they have to arrest him with??
Until the apparent story comes into play months and months after his arrest and actually at trial, they had no- idea how Joanna Yeates was killed or even when she was killed...
So why on earth did Ann Redropp have Dr Vincent Tabak in her sights from late December 2010, when there was NO evidence to connect Dr Vincent Tabak to Joanna Yeates whatsoever!!!
-
Apparently Dr Vincent Tabak searched the difference between 'Murder and manslaughter" and his answer was that he did apparently...
But why did he search those differences??
Was he looking at a different case... Was the search related to Joanna Yeates or not??? We don't know, we just know he apparently agreed that he had searched those things....
Body decomposition.... Something that was supposed to be incriminating.... Again in which context was he viewing said inquiry??? frozen bodies don't decompose!!!
Every search has to be put into proper context and not just let everyone decide it means it was all related to Joanna Yeates...
-
If it is only Dr Vincent Tabak's story which he doesn't divulge until he takes the stand in October 2011 that tells us how and why the DNA was where ever it was....
What happened before... When he said that they tests were false... What happened before when they kept him on remand.... Did any of the defence ever question the DNA at any point of Dr Vincent Tabak's incarceration??
What evidence did they have to keep him on remand??? Or to even charge him for that matter??
The evidence they had to keep him on remand comes not only from the DNA but also the research he did on his computer, the fact he changed his story etc. Nine, when DNA is found on a murder victim and the police are sure it has come from the person who killed said victim, the usual procedure is for them to make an arrest. The time for dispute of any DNA is during the trial. For all we know his lawyers could have been in the process of hiring experts when Tabak confessed - they would have to ask for additional funds to do this.
JustSaying... Assume nothing..... This case is made up of assumptions.... They have allowed everyone to fill in their own gaps...
This is where I disagree with you. I believe the case was built on solid evidence. Your interpretation was that it was built on assumption. The fact is it cannot be disputed that his DNA was found on the victim and it cannot be disputed where it was found - her blood was found in his car. As I have said before, if you look at what Tabak said on the stand, it is very telling. He lost so much weight due to the stress of knowing he was going to be caught out etc. The coat stand he knocked over, how did he know she even had a coat stand? Little things like this make a big difference to what you are alleging. Instead of looking at everything individually, put them all together and it paints a pretty strong case against him.
But as you say, you will never believe anything different - I think this is because you have invested so much time in the case and you do not want to be wrong. I think I've said all I can say in terms of pointing out the evidence and explaining things. You ask questions but never accept the answers. On that note I will leave to your speculation and wild theories. I honestly do think you're wasting your time, but it is your time to waste.
-
But as you say, you will never believe anything different - I think this is because you have invested so much time in the case and you do not want to be wrong. I think I've said all I can say in terms of pointing out the evidence and explaining things. You ask questions but never accept the answers. On that note I will leave to your speculation and wild theories. I honestly do think you're wasting your time, but it is your time to waste.
If I am wrong I am wrong... no matter how much time I have invested in this case.... And you may be correct that I am wasting my time, and I probably am as no-one will ever look at this case any differently... And what I believe will make no difference either..
Edit... I will leave it to everyone else, to make their points... If the evidence presented at trial didn't convince me that Dr Vincent Tabak is guilty , then how is anyone else going to change my belief, without anything new being in the picture.... It's not the length of time I have invested in this case, that makes me stay with my belief, but the fact that the trial was not beyond a reasonable doubt (imo) i have listed the reasons for this in my many posts...
-
So why on earth did Ann Redropp have Dr Vincent Tabak in her sights from late December 2010, when there was NO evidence to connect Dr Vincent Tabak to Joanna Yeates whatsoever!!!
Sorry Nine, I did not see this before my last post, so I will answer this last question.
It is called having a suspect in your sights. Do you not think they will have suspected the boyfriend before eliminating him? Police seem to have a sixth sense sometimes. They know when someone is acting suspicious. Have you ever watched a police programme on TV where they stop a car, purely because they have an hunch, and find drugs etc in there. It is not unheard of for them to have suspicion, after all that is their job.
-
Just because someone says they did something doesn't make it so......
The strange case of a woman who has confessed to killing a man, but the police insist she is innocent.
#AmIAMurderer? Tonight 9pm @ITV
#CrimeAndPunishment
https://twitter.com/ITV/status/1050083449888010241
-
can I just ask...
was the womans DNA found on the victims body? or the victims blood found in her car? *%87
-
I assume, again I could be wrong, that DNA strands are found in what is called sense DNA. Whereas it is much smaller than a strand in LCN.
It was DNA sense not LCN which was used in this case, as verified by the forensic scientists.
LCN = as small as a millionth the size of a grain of salt
DNA Sense = Molecular biologists call a single strand of DNA sense
Also, from what I understand, LCN techniques could not be said to be a billion to one match, whereas it could be said using the DNASenSe technique - hence the allegation that the DNA match in this case was a billion to one.
Not too sure about this----I'm certainly no scientist! Any scientists on this thread???
From what I'm reading, I think DNA SenCE is LGC's method for enhancing DNA, and has nothing to do with sense DNA , which is something quite different, but I can't find much information at all.
I can't believe that ONLY VT's DNA was found on Jo------she had been at work , in the pub, and with other people all day.
-
Not too sure about this----I'm certainly no scientist! Any scientists on this thread???
From what I'm reading, I think DNA SenCE is LGC's method for enhancing DNA, and has nothing to do with sense DNA , which is something quite different, but I can't find much information at all.
I can't believe that ONLY VT's DNA was found on Jo------she had been at work , in the pub, and with other people all day.
You could very well be right Mrswah, I did say I could be wrong and will admit if I am. I am no scientist and as I also said it looked way over my head.
Again I agree with what you are saying about the DNA found on Joanna, but I assume only Tabaks DNA was found on her breast. How do you think it got there? There was none her top.
-
Not too sure about this----I'm certainly no scientist! Any scientists on this thread???
From what I'm reading, I think DNA SenCE is LGC's method for enhancing DNA, and has nothing to do with sense DNA , which is something quite different, but I can't find much information at all.
I can't believe that ONLY VT's DNA was found on Jo------she had been at work , in the pub, and with other people all day.
https://www.lgcgroup.com/our-science/molecular-biology-science-cluster/#.W78CRPZFzIU
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense_(molecular_biology)
DNAsense - same thing on LGC group as it is on Wiki...
-
https://www.lgcgroup.com/our-science/molecular-biology-science-cluster/#.W78CRPZFzIU
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense_(molecular_biology)
DNAsense - same thing on LGC group as it is on Wiki...
Anyone can fill in wiki.... Doesn't make it accurate..
-
Anyone can fill in wiki.... Doesn't make it accurate..
Very true, but it seems accurate given all the other information regarding DNAsense which is available online.
Maybe you should try obtaining the judge's summing up from the trial. I do not know if members of the public can request it, but it seems to be so from the link below. It will cost £200+ depending on how long it is.
https://www.justanswer.com/uk-law/2yg7r-transcripts-particular-court-case.html
-
Very true, but it seems accurate given all the other information regarding DNAsense which is available online.
Maybe you should try obtaining the judge's summing up from the trial. I do not know if members of the public can request it, but it seems to be so from the link below. It will cost £200+ depending on how long it is.
https://www.justanswer.com/uk-law/2yg7r-transcripts-particular-court-case.html
£200... might sound like not a lot to you, but I do not have that kind of money... And when looking at the site they talk in terms of £780 + also needing the judges permission in that case if your not involved in that case....
Well thats not gonna be happening anytime soon.... Even if I could afford it....
-
£200... might sound like not a lot to you, but I do not have that kind of money... And when looking at the site they talk in terms of £780 + also needing the judges permission in that case if your not involved in that case....
Well thats not gonna be happening anytime soon.... Even if I could afford it....
£780 is for the whole days proceedings. I thought I would suggest it purely because you are so obsessed with finding out what went on the courtroom. I read on another site that they are not hard to obtain for members of the public, considering it was a public trial. I have obtained numerous summing up in the past but it was for work purposes, they cost around £200+.
-
£780 is for the whole days proceedings. I thought I would suggest it purely because you are so obsessed with finding out what went on the courtroom. I read on another site that they are not hard to obtain for members of the public, considering it was a public trial. I have obtained numerous summing up in the past but it was for work purposes, they cost around £200+.
It's not obsessed as to what took place at the trial, more of a case of knowing what the evidence there was that was produced, and what was said by whom... It would give me a more accurate picture in which I have support to my argument either for or against...
And every witness that were called... did anyone have anonymity, they may not have been reported about in the paper, but I would imagine, I could be wrong, that they should be recorded somewhere....
Another bug bare I have, was that we went straight to sentencing.... I thought sentencing reports were gathered first and a date would be set for sentencing?? The fact that no medical assessment appears to have been done and used in mitigation, has me wondering if there could have been anything in Dr Vincent Tabak's history that may have reflected a reason for him to behave as they are telling us, completely out of character...
Because I do not understand law, I have been left with many questions.... But first and foremost of any trial, is the presumption of Innocence... I believe I know that much... And it is for the Prosecution to prove their case.. Not for the Defence to prove the Prosecutions case for them....
I keep saying,... No-one will care to look at this case.... It's done and dusted as far as anyone... virtually everyone else is concerned...
And with the many miscarriages of justice that have taken place, I think Dr Vincent Tabak will not even reach the bottom of the pile if there isn't anyone out there to fight for his case, I am unable to do this..
And so I will find out maybe when he is released, if he dares to speak out even then... As there are other charges I believe left on file in regards the 2015 conviction, and as anyone knows thats leverage for keep quite...(imo)
So it may be when everyone is gone, dead and buried and they will say... wow that case made no sense... They cut how many corners.... And the fact that I may be correct will be of little importance to the people who are here now...
Being found not guilty after you have died is not really any use.... The family might be lucky to get an apology... If they care to contend it at that point....
-
I have started to write a reply and already deleted so many attempts.... all I am left with is this
Please tell me you cant be serious?
-
I have started to write a reply and already deleted so many attempts.... all I am left with is this
Please tell me you cant be serious?
How do you mean? Can't be serious about what exactly??
-
Part 1 of post..
Christopher Jefferies @ 5x15 - Gives His Perspective
5x15 Stories
Published on Jun 11, 2015
Educated at University College London and Oxford University. Head of Sixth Form Special Studies and Deputy Head of English at Clifton College, and also Manager of the Redgrave Theatre in Bristol. Christopher spends as much time as possible in France. Since appearing at the Leveson Inquiry he has become a Patron of the Hacked Off campaign for press reform.
Learn more about 5x15 events - www.5x15.com
Thank you... Well I'm going to talk a little bit about the campaign of vicious vilification that was waged against me in the media. Erm.. when I was in er custody accused of the murder of Jo Yeates, erm but.. First of all just one or two things about the way in which Jo herself was presented in the media after all she was the, tragic victim at the centre of this drama.
She was young, she was quite attractive, she was vulnerable, er, she was home loving, she was at the start of what promised to be a very successful career as landscape er er architect. Erm and she was just about to spend her first christmas with her boyfriend, she was presented in effect as everybodys favourite daughter. And they were everybodys ideal couple. And then suddenly all this was destroyed and her body was found, remember callously dumped at the side of the road on Christmas Day of all days....
And so evidentally ,we are looking for a depraved monster who's responsible for all this, I'm the person who's been arrested, and immediately a large part of the press were determined to believe that the person who had been arrested was the genuine murderer and so to portray me in as dark and as lurid a light as possible.
And the first thing that happened was that somebody remembered that 30 odd years previously there'd been an unsolved murder of another young woman, erm less than a quarter of a mile away from where Jo had been living.
Erm and of course I had also been living in the area at that times, so there was quite a bit of excitement that perhaps not just a murderer had been discovered, but somebody who was a serial murderer and erm in fact much later I was rung up by somebody I didn't know to say that while I'd been in custody erm, he'd overheard a conversation between a couple of reporters erm who were speculating um that almost certainly a serial murderer had been uncovered.
Erm and, then it seemed quite possible in the end this did indeed turn out to be absolutely true that there was a sexual motive for the a murder. Now erm I suppose that if your a reporter who's interested first and foremost in the sensational story thats going to sell copies you may talk lets say to a hundred people if 99 of them say one thing but the 100th, perhaps becawse you've offered them some money or some other inducements as what you want to hear,then thats what you are going to go with.
And.. reports where published that 2 anonymous women had come forward who very conveniently no longer lived in Bristol.. Erm it was said, erm who'd apparently suffered form of sexual harrassment and were prepared to insist that I was guilty of that harrassment. But in my case the tabloids weren't just content with simple sexual harrassment just to be er sexual predator that perhaps not quite spicy enough, so somebody managed er to unearth the most tenuous connection imaginable between me and somebody who had been in prison several years earlier, for an offence with an underaged boy. Erm... Of course the papers stressed that there was no evidence that I'd been involved in that offence but er, simply by saying there was no evidence they raised the possibility that perhaps I did actually have paedophile tendencies.
So we now have just not a sexual predator er, we've got a bi-sexual predator perhaps with paedophile tendencies as well and all sorts of fantastic rumours were latched onto erm that I would hold pupils hands while reading poetry, again erm obviously with sinister sexual motives. And then to complete the em character assassination it was alledged that I was fascinated by death, in fact obsessed with death. Well what were the grounds for that? Simply that I happened to have shown on occasion a documentary about the liberation of Auschwitz which just happens to be the er one of the finest films to come out of the second world war and is arguably oh, one of the greatest documentaries ever made.
So... this is the person your listening too at the moment this dark macabre sinister villain.. and er there were all sorts of other things, for example, I was almost certainly prone too violent and uncontrollable outbursts of temper.
Now it's also interesting to compare the epithets that were used to describe me on the one hand and Jo on the other.
Jo was always presented as the landscape architect, erm as if to draw attention to her respectable credentials and to underline the fact that her life had been cut tragically short, er where as the Caricature of me was of a peeping tom, becawse I apparently spied on tenants and a loner simply becawse I happened to live on my own.
Now to be fair, the papers didn't entirely ignore the fact that quite a lot of people actually said some rather nice things about me, but these tended to be played down and they certainly weren't given very much prominence in the articles.And.. I'm just going to quote briefly a couple of paragraphs from an article that er.. the professor of journalism at Kingston University wrote about the the coverage my arrest. It appeared about 8 months after I'd been arrested. He said...
This hostile evidence was founded almost entirely on un-named witness's with some of the most contentious quotations, reproduced in several papers. A careful reader who would only rely on quotes of people identified by name would probably seen a very different picture. A former tenant, a friend, a former headmaster , a neighbour, described in various papers though usually towards the end of articles, a man that was a dedictaed teacher, a responsible landlord, an active member of his community. Several expressed amazement at his arrest, or downright disbelief at the idea of him killing anyone.
Put these together with some readily available facts and it would be possible to flip the picture entirely, this man had taught for 34 years, without a blemish on his record, he was involved in neighbour hood watch, the liberal democratic party, and a number of conservation campaigns, he had a large circle of friends, owned a handful of properties, and was studying for a degree in French. As one neighbour put it, he was a pillar of society, but editors didn't give much prominence to that interpretation.
Instead the papers were so engrossed in their witch hunt that they were prepared even to ignore the warnings of the then Attorney General, you may remember that er a couple of them , the Sun and The Daily Mirror were found guilty of contempt and fined. Now what I have been describing are just a few of the more serious allegations, which erm, resulted in my taking libel action, but on every conceivable level the reporting was extraordinarily lazy, and casually inaccurate.
Erm, and I want to suggest that it um, it reveals whats happened to a great deal of mainstream journalism, in thats its er, much closer to fiction,than to fact, it's certainly got nothing to do with truth seeking, and far more to do with story telling. It's a kind of infotainment, in which stories, which pretend to be the news, er, sensationalize as a form of commercial exploitation... And the , er ,er characters in these stories, they are treated simply as pawns, erm or targets, they are not individuals with feelings.
Now I am sure some of you will have heard of Richard Peppiatt used to be a tabloid reporter now has a second career as an expose of that industry and some of you may have seen his wonderfully er satirical and irreverent film, 'One rouge Reporter'.. Well commenting again on the er, reporting of my arrest, but also that of Rebecca Leighton, who you may remember was arrested in 2011 because she was suspected of contaminating saline solution at Steppin Hill Hospital in Greater Manchester, erm he wrote.
Ask them what it is like to be the targets of a media who's commitment is not the truth but entertainment, they've witnessed from the inside the staggering speed with which the manufactured image over takes the real, the crude reduction of their lives into grotesque caricatures, the point of reference used by journalists writing about them was not the real, instead it was the calculating killers, creepy oddballs of the movie screens that was simply superimposed on the names and images of a retired school master and a young nurse to create blockbuster story lines. Just as their readers are treated not as citizens to be respected, but consumers to be manipulated and the moral and ethical standards one applies to real world behaviour can be suspended when adopting the role of the story teller, who's main imperative is to entertain.
Fact is it's a very good example of the well known quotation of attributed to Greg Musique the news editor under both Rebekka Brookes and Andy Colson at the News of The World. "That is what we do" he said. "We go out and destroy other peoples lives. Now I mentioned um briefly Brian Cathcarts article in the Financial Times, er it appeared 8 months after I'd been arrested and during the proceeding months I'd been protected from quite a lot of the details , that had appeared in the papers, by, in the papers by friends that I was staying with. But when I read that article it was extraordinarily powerful, because it, distilled very very, erm, precisely , erm, and um in a remarkably vivid way, just how monsterous what had appeared in the papers was and thee impact was as great as it was because here was an image erm, which was intending to reflect me back at myself, but it was an image so hideously twisted and distorted, rather like the image of Dorian Grey, that the impact almost physical force, it was like er, a physical assault in fact it was probably worse than that because of the invasion of privacy, that was involved and the contempt and venom was more like a rape, it was being like.... er it was like being the the impersonal victim of a journalistic populist lust to humiliate and demonise anybody who didn't conform to a erm.. conventional sterotype.
And I am going to erm.. end by er giving you just one more quotation, this time it's er.. by Kevin Marsh the former editor of the Today program.
To put it bluntly he says, the business model of the tabloid press has become so dependent on trashing the reputations of ordinary people as well as celebrities, politicians and people in public life, now that it's nothing more than a machine to convert , harrassment, intrusion, misery, sneering and mockery into cash.
Papers sell on the depth of their inhumanity,columnists are judged by the frequency and inventiveness of the offence they cause.
Thank you very much
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swK-y-5B8XY
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Part 2...
I came across that clip on Youtube by accident, and it hasn't had many views.... But that is not the point... I still do not understand why a man who claims he is a private person is dragging his behind across any venue in the land that will care to listen to what he has to say... And the venue which is described in the Youtube video is The Redgrave Theatre in Bristol, around the corner from Canygne Road...
Now I do not know whether I should put any importance upon this venue, but I was surprised to realise that CJ was/is the manager of The Redgrave Theatre in Bristol... (was he a key holder)?? The reason for me that The Theatre is mentioned is important is because i had before pointed out that there' was a Police Officer outside canygne Road at the time of this event that had a remarkable resemblance to Tim Roth( the actor)... Now i am wondering if it in fact was Tim Roth...
The talk that CJ is giving has me in two minds... Do I view it as him attempting to let the real killer know he has information and is part of some collaboration of keeping this in the public eye.. Or look at it as a man who's own self interests he keeps promoting??
Who is the audience... Are they just made up of locals?? Whom is he telling his tale of tabloid journalism too??
He may have complained that he was described as weird and odd, but his appearance at this venue, is rather weird and odd... i mean in the sense of the content of what he states..
Now this video could have been edited or it could be the complete speech he made. But some of the language he uses I find most disturbing, to compare what happened in the media as a kind of RAPE, is wholly inappropriate, It under values victims of such atrocities..
He skims on what the tabloids in themselves state and how this impacted upon his life and jumps to a glowing report from another journalist whom talks of his accomplishments...
Is he really comparing himself to Joanna Yeates and how the media dealt with her story?? Is he really saying that they showed her in a favourable light and not me... Can he not comprehend, that Joanna Yeates is the victim of a murder and no matter what said victim did is not going to be portrayed in an unfavourable light, which would almost suggest that it was something a victim deserved...
8 months, he states this twice, that 8 months after his arrest this article was published... Now I thought it was in October 2011 that the Financial Times first reported this statement, but I have found an article dated 31st August 2011...
From a website called indexoncensorship.org
Courts and controversy
31st August 2011
The UK press may show more restraint in reporting of high-profile cases if contempt laws are vigorously enforced, says Brian Cathcart
The next time there is a sensational murder — something on the scale of the Ipswich or Soham cases — you may notice something different about the media coverage. Reporters may show restraint of a kind that is not familiar. In fact, they might actually obey the law.
The Contempt of Court Act of 1981 prohibits all but the most straightforward reporting in a crime case from the moment “proceedings are active”, in other words once someone is arrested. The idea is to ensure that coverage does not interfere with the course of justice, for instance by prejudicing the eventual jury. But for years, when a big, competitive story came along, many editors and reporters in national media simply ignored the Act and continued to publish often grotesque allegations about a suspect after arrest and even sometimes after they were charged. Think Colin Stagg, Barry George, Karen Matthews and others — and Stagg and George were later shown to be innocent.
That may be about to change thanks to the actions of the attorney-general, Dominic Grieve. Not normally a man to cut the figure of a hero — a lean, bookish type, he was last seen filibustering awkwardly in the Commons when the government was under pressure over its links with the Murdochs — Grieve has done something genuinely brave. He has prosecuted the Daily Mirror and the Sun for contempt of court in the Chris Jefferies case, and he has won.
The consequences could be significant. Not only might future reporting of crime be more restrained, but we could even see fewer miscarriages of justice. I reported the first trial of Barry George for the murder of Jill Dando in 2002 and I am convinced that his wrongful conviction was partly due to the influence on the jury of the grossly prejudicial press reporting about him after his arrest. George spent seven years in jail before the conviction was overturned.
Chris Jefferies, you may remember, is the retired teacher in Bristol who was monstered by the tabloids before and after his arrest in January in connection with the Joanna Yeates murder, and who turned out to be totally innocent. (Another man confessed to the killing.) On the morning of 28 July, in what is becoming a familiar ritual in our courts, eight newspapers serially confessed to libelling Jefferies and agreed to pay him substantial damages.
On the afternoon of the same day, however, something much less familiar happened: the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, and two other judges found the Mirror and the Sun guilty of contempt of court. They upheld Grieve’s argument that, by publishing “exceptionally adverse and hostile” articles about Jefferies while he was in custody, the papers had breached section 2 (2) of the Act, which makes unlawful any publication about an individual who is under arrest “which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced”.
In a way, what is surprising here is not that a contempt prosecution happened and succeeded, but that it was necessary at all. The law is reasonably clear, after all, and is very well known to journalists. The problem has been that Grieve’s predecessors, most recently Baroness Scotland and Lord Goldsmith, failed to show the press that they would uphold it. The rarity of prosecutions, despite apparently flagrant breaches in high-profile cases, led editors to behave as though the Act was a dead letter and they could do what they liked.
Grieve therefore deserves credit for taking on the tabloids where his predecessors would not, and it is worth noting that he did so before the revelation that Milly Dowler’s phone had been hacked, and thus before these papers lost a lot of their bullying power. He didn’t kick them when they were down, in other words; he kicked them when they were still up.
Grieve has to share the credit, however, with the judges, who were placed in a tight corner by this case and who found an ingenious way out. For as long as the press has flouted the contempt law, judges have been finding excuses to try the victims anyway. When a trial begins and the defence claims it can’t be fair because their client has already been brutally convicted in the press, judges have developed a list of arguments to justifying carrying on regardless. Here is what they say. Jury members don’t remember the adverse reporting by the time the trial comes around (the “fade factor”), they know to concentrate on what is said in court (the “focus factor”) and they heed the instructions of judges to ignore extraneous matters. These arguments are entirely unsupported by evidence but they have had the merit, from the judges’ point of view, that important trials don’t have to be abandoned because of the excesses of the tabloids.
However, in the brief trial of the Sun and the Mirror, the judges found these arguments turned back on them. In effect the papers said: “If, when trials begin, you judges always insist that hostile reporting at the time of arrest doesn’t make a difference, then you can’t turn around now and say the opposite. It follows that whatever we wrote about Chris Jefferies at the time of his arrest, no matter how hostile, can’t now be described as prejudicial or even potentially prejudicial.”
It was a tricky problem for the judges and they simply side-stepped it, finding the Mirror and the Sun guilty on other, rather creative grounds. The Act speaks of publication “which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced”. The judges avoided saying that in the Jefferies case potential proceedings might have been prejudiced; instead they concluded that they could have been impeded.
What this means is that they decided Jefferies had been painted in such an appalling light by these papers that if he had been charged he would have found it more difficult to construct a defence. Witnesses in his support, for example, might have decided not to come forward, either because they feared association with this supposedly monstrous person or because they believed his conviction was a foregone conclusion.
Both papers were undoubtedly surprised by this ingenious judgement — and the attorney-general probably was too. The point about “impedence” had not been prominent in the case he put forward in court — it was fourth on a list of five arguments and was presented rather tersely. Indeed he felt the need to reassure the judges it was not just a “makeweight” in his case.
The Mirror was fined £50,000 for contempt and the Sun £18,000. They were refused permission to appeal, though according to Jefferies’s solicitor, Louis Charalambous, they are considering petitioning the Supreme Court. On the whole it seems unlikely that a considered finding by the Lord Chief Justice and two other judges will be overturned.
Where does this leave us? Contempt law is back on the editors’ radar at a time when, with Lord Leveson’s inquiry beginning its investigation of press standards, those editors must already be minding their Ps and Qs. It might be argued that the fines were small — papers pay much more in libel damages and generally go on to libel again — but Grieve has put down an important marker and is free to use the impedance argument again if he wishes. If papers don’t heed this warning, moreover, he has it in his power to crank things up, notably by citing not only the newspaper but also the editor in person in a future case. That might concentrate minds.
We will have to wait and see, but there is a strong chance that in future sensational criminal cases we will see a return to what used to happen, generally, 20 years ago and more. So long as no one is in custody, papers will remain free to report what they choose (consistent with the libel laws), but from the moment proceedings are active, in other words normally from the moment someone is arrested, they must show restraint. And the same law applies to online reporting, bloggers and tweeters.
It is, without doubt, a constraint on free expression, and an important one. But it is surely better than locking up innocent people because, in effect, journalists don’t like the look of them.
Brian Cathcart teaches journalism at Kingston University London and is a founder of Hacked Off. He tweets at @BrianCathcart
I had no idea that such an article existed at this time, it certainly would not have reached most people, and it wasn't until October 2011 that the FT published said article.. But... I found this article via a blog which on the 4th September 2011 at:
https://inforrm.org/2011/09/04/opinion-courts-and-controversy-consequences-of-the-jeffries-contempt-case-brian-cathcart/
Another publication stating how CJ was vilified before a trial is to take place.. And the FT publishing whilst a trial is taking place.... Brian Cathcart is the founder of hacked off, a group that CJ is now involved with.
But... How were 3 publications allowed to be published just before and during a trial by a man whom must have been aware how this could prejudice said trial?? And why would he do such a thing??
I had thought that CJ was getting mixed up with the months, but he obviously hadn't and must have been following everything to do with himself and this case right up until and during said trial...
The 2 anonymous women had come forward who very conveniently no longer lived in Bristol.. who'd apparently suffered form of sexual harrassment and were prepared to insist that CJ was guilty of that harrassment, where did they go to?? That is quite a statement to make (imo), I hadn't realised that 2 women had made such claims against CJ...
The insistence that this was a sexually motivated murder "Erm and, then it seemed quite possible in the end this did indeed turn out to be absolutely true that there was a sexual motive for the a murder".
What??? How did he work that one out??? He is trying to get us to believe that he believes that the tabloids are full of untrue stories and he wants this to be banned, yet he has used information from tabloids to bolster his statement that this was a sexual motive for this murder, when none of the talk of watching porn etc, was introduced at trial...
Now you see why I think he is weird.... he can't have his cake an eat it.... No sexual motive was really ever established at trial and I am sure that CJ knows the difference between a kiss and a full on sexual assault...
He's an educated man apparently who surely can tell the difference between the two... An educated man whom should only take what has been stated at trial as true and not what tabloids tell us after said trial, which accusations were inadmissible at said trial, therefore accepting sensational journalism is ok, depending on whom it is levelled at!!!
When he says to be fair some papers said some rather nice things about me and then later says : it was like er, a physical assault in fact it was probably worse than that because of the invasion of privacy, that was involved and the contempt and venom was more like a rape, it was being like.... er it was like being the the impersonal victim of a journalistic populist lust to humiliate and demonise anybody who didn't conform to a erm.. conventional sterotype. Is he talking about the contempt he believe the papers showed to him?? Why contempt, who is he??
I wonder if this is a case of someone whom appears to care more about his self image than the tragic Murder of Joanna Yeates... Cares more what people think about him and wants desperately to set this record straight.. And there is nothing wrong with setting a record straight, but what I find wrong is the constant self promotion of what happened in 2010/2011 by a man who says he is a private person, yet insists on letting us know 5 years after the initial events from his arrest, that he was vilified by the media..
He is the centre of this case, whether he likes it or not, he keeps putting himself there.... Yet he still doesn't tell us whom he saw at the gate... He still doesn't quell the questions some of us have.. He still hasn't mentioned Dr Vincent Tabak..
So yes I find this man odd... weird strange whatever you want to call it... making money and doing appearances off the back of a Murder of a young woman whom died in his property...
He appears to have forgotten all about Joanna Yeates and the loss of her life, and is more interested, to see who he can court for his own purpose...
Which without the media cat calling, he brings people to make up their own minds about his intentions..
Am I being unfair?? I don't think so, but you can all make your own minds up!!
http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2011/08/courts-and-controversy/
Edit... You may think I am picking on CJ, but I am not, he is the only person whom is speaking after the event...The only person whom has had a Netflix drama made.. So naturally I am drawn to what he has to state....
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Does Brian Cathcart know CJ??? I say this because I first believed that the only time he had interjected himself into this case and CJ was in August 2011 as CJ had stated.... But i find different now I have just looked....
Index on Censorship
Verified account
@IndexCensorship
Follow Follow @IndexCensorship
More
The Yeates case, Chris Jefferries and contempt of court: Process, prejudice and the press, by @BrianCathcart http://bit.ly/hqVOtx
2:54 PM - 3 Jan 2011
Which leads to this article...
Due process, prejudice and the press
03 Jan 2011
England’s contempt of court laws have long been toothless, but the Internet and the smartphone have made it clear they are not fit for purpose, as demonstrated in the current “monstering” of murder suspect Chris Jefferies, says Brian Cathcart
It is an old problem, and an old argument: when a crime makes front-page headlines in modern Britain, the monstering of suspects and potential suspects in the tabloids is a matter of routine. Chris Jefferies in Bristol is only the latest — after the likes of Colin Stagg, Barry George, Karen Matthews, Robert Murat, the McCanns and Steve Wright — to be hysterically presented as a likely perpetrator in the press long before legal process had run its course.
Sometimes, as in the case of Jefferies, the attorney general publicly draws editors’ attention to the Contempt of Court Act of 1981, but it never makes any difference. They know and he knows that that law, supposedly intended to protect juries from improper influence, contains a loophole big enough to render it meaningless.
To convict a paper of contempt in such a case the Crown would have to prove there had been a “substantial” risk of “serious” prejudice. This, successive attorneys general have decided, is both unmeasurable and unprovable, which means it is also unenforceable. It follows that reporting of suspects around the time of arrest is unfettered.
Several defences are normally offered for this miserable state of affairs. One is that jurors don’t tend to remember what they have read in the press at the time of arrest or charging. Another is that juries heed the instructions they receive from judges to put such matters out of their minds. And a third is that there is no hard evidence juries are influenced by press coverage.
The feebleness of all this is demonstrated by a simple question: if you were a defence barrister going into a trial, would you be more confident if your client’s name had never appeared in the press, or if he had received the full-on sick-weirdo-loner treatment accorded to, say, Barry George? I followed the George case from beginning to end, and for what it is worth there is no doubt in my mind that prejudicial press reporting was one of the reasons he was wrongly convicted of the murder of Jill Dando.
One reason nothing has been done about this is that the status quo, ugly as it is, favours prosecutors and with them the state and the police. Imagine it was the other way around, and that pre-trial reporting in some way tended to make convictions in high-profile cases harder to achieve, rather than easier: how long do you think the 1981 Act would remain as it is?
But this is, as I mentioned, an old argument, and events are conspiring to make it an out-of-date one. Nothing said on either side of the contempt debate has much meaning when jurors have it in their power to research defendants and cases online from their phones at court or from their laptops and PCs at home in the evenings.
This means that they can access not only press reporting but blogs, tweets, Facebook pages and all sorts of data, public and sometimes otherwise. A defendant’s criminal record, or his opinions, or the opinions of others about him, may be available. The same applies to information about victims, and about witnesses, including expert witnesses.
Thanks to the internet, in fact, the whole idea of inadmissible evidence will be hopelessly compromised because, whatever is out there, jurors will be able to read it, just as they will be able to Google all that prejudicial press coverage from the time of arrest.
On this basis anyone convicted of a crime once (or even charged) will be more likely to be convicted a second time, whatever the evidence. Even prosecutors and attorneys general know that: it’s why previous convictions are not normally disclosed in court today. So, more innocent people will be convicted and more guilty people will go unpunished.
If you are a judge or an attorney general you would now point out that jurors are warned in the strongest terms not to research cases online, and indeed that they are prosecuted if caught doing so. But this is no more enforceable than the present contempt law: it is simply not possible to deny jurors access to the internet for the duration of a trial, and once they are online no force on Earth will prevent them, or at least many of them, from indulging their curiosity about the cases they are trying.
Again, the test is a simple question: if you were a defendant, would you trust the jury to obey the judge’s instruction not to Google your name? Of course you wouldn’t. How many of us would trust ourselves not to do it?
This problem is so big and so scary — it calls into question jury trial itself — that we may rest assured nothing will be done about it until the present system is utterly and publicly discredited. And in the meantime, when the tabloids pick a sensational case, they will continue to abuse suspects or potential suspects to their hearts’ content.
Brian Cathcart is professor of journalism at Kingston University.
Follow him on Twitter: @briancathcart
Eh... Why the blog write up?? He is telling that Sometimes, as in the case of Jefferies, the attorney general publicly draws editors’ attention to the Contempt of Court Act of 1981, but it never makes any difference. They know and he knows that that law, supposedly intended to protect juries from improper influence, contains a loophole big enough to render it meaningless.
To convict a paper of contempt in such a case the Crown would have to prove there had been a “substantial” risk of “serious” prejudice. This, successive attorneys general have decided, is both unmeasurable and unprovable, which means it is also unenforceable. It follows that reporting of suspects around the time of arrest is unfettered. Meaning how do you prove contempt, yet apparently this issue went to court....
Why is Brian Cathcart mentioning CJ.. Why has this come to his attention, at what can only be described as a brief period of time after said publications.. CJ was released on the 1st January 2011 and within 2 days , we have a blog talking contempt.... We have Brian Cathcart, immediately coming to CJ's defence, when he realistically hasn't got the full picture as to what CJ's history may or may not be..... CJ is on bail at this point and for him to even be talking of CJ in any light, is in itself ignoring The Attorney General's advice to journalists...
CJ was on bail until March 2011 and making any comparisions to CJ in any light appears to be irresponsible at this juncture..
So why is Brian Cathcart drawing us to the attention of CJ?? Is it because they are friends?? I don't know... But there seems to have been a lot of emphasise placed upon CJ and CJ's innocence and vilification long before a trial has been done and dusted..
Which to my mind seems back to front... Shouldn't it have been
* Trial First
* Conviction and sentence of defendant
* Take media to court
* I have proof from said trial that it wasn't me and you monstered me in the papers..
But it was...
* Media taken to court
* Stated wholly Innocent on 29th July 2011 because Dr Vincent Tabak was guilty
* Trial next
* Dr Vincent Tabak sentenced and convicted of said crime..
Why was Brian Cathcart involving himself with this case before a jury had made it's decision on the 28th October 2011... Why had Brian Cathcart who is supposed to understand not to say anything that may prejudice a trial whilst said trial is taking place and before said trial takes place, telling the world his opinions of what happened to CJ???
It appears wholly unprofessional (imo) and knowing as he has already stated that he is most unlikely to be arrested or taken to court for contempt, he happily has done just that... Told a story that may or may not have influenced a juries opinion of a defendant whom is on trial... A defendent that apparently had tried to implicate his landlord CJ, in the disappearance and murder of Joanna Yeates....
A Defendant who's honesty would have been under the juries gaze... But when they have the ability to find out about CJ at anytime during this trial, they cannot help but use the reports they have read as supporting evidence of Dr Vincent Tabak's guilt and lies he apparently told....
So Prejudical... I would say yes... I would say that is grounds to question said trial... But that is me....!!
https://twitter.com/IndexCensorship/status/21942514177024000
http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2011/01/joanna-yeates-chris-jefferies-murder-contempt/
-
Many examples... and there are more... of prejudicing a trial and future trial of Dr Vincent Tabak... Yet apparently it was OK to do so.... !!!!
Brian Cathcart
@BrianCathcart
Follow Follow @BrianCathcart
More
The Sun and Daily Mirror go on trial tomorrow for contempt of court in their coverage of the Joanna Yeates murder.
Brian Cathcart
@BrianCathcart
Follow Follow @BrianCathcart
More
Attorney general should warn press NOW over further contempts in the Yeates case and not leave it until it's too late.
11:13 AM - 20 Jan 2011
Mark Williams-Thomas
Verified account
@mwilliamsthomas
Following Following @mwilliamsthomas
More
“@BrianCathcart: I've interviewed Chris Jefferies, the Bristol ex-teacher bulk-libelled in the Jo Yeates case. Quite a story. FT Sat mag
6:12 PM - 7 Oct 2011
Julie Tomlin
@JulieTomlin
Follow Follow @JulieTomlin
More
MT @SamiraAhmedUK: Essential read - .@BrianCathcart on trial by media of Joanna Yeates' landlord Christopher Jefferies http://on.ft.com/qht1bS
10:22 AM - 8 Oct 2011
Tony Tassell
Verified account
@TonyTassell
Follow Follow @TonyTassell
More
err the link for the Christopher Jefferies piece by @briancathcart was http://on.ft.com/pXaWhS
12:17 PM - 10 Oct 2011
Brian Cathcart
@BrianCathcart
Follow Follow @BrianCathcart
More
The ordeal of Christopher Jefferies. Exclusive, in-depth interview with the Bristol man vilified in the press. http://tinyurl.com/6leeywv
5:55 PM - 7 Oct 2011
Kingston Journalism
@Kingstonjourno
Follow Follow @Kingstonjourno
More
Kingston professor @BrianCathcart: After the Jefferies contempt case is change on the way for crime reporting? http://tinyurl.com/3f5rkcy
10:39 AM - 1 Sep 2011
https://twitter.com/BrianCathcart/status/87999994187087872
https://twitter.com/BrianCathcart/status/28047346575085569
https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/122358677175939073
https://twitter.com/JulieTomlin/status/122602847811551232
https://twitter.com/TonyTassell/status/123356432597925889
https://twitter.com/BrianCathcart/status/122354459723563008
https://twitter.com/Kingstonjourno/status/109198566349742081
-
D Giannoulopoulos
@DimitriosGian
Follow Follow @DimitriosGian
More
Extraordinary night! Chairing panel @RegentStCinema w/ inspiring Ch Jefferies, electric @BrianCathcart & beloved film maker Peter Morgan.
1:58 PM - 1 Jun 2017
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBPK1UHXYAEQ-gF.jpg)
HoneymoonGondol
@HoneymoonGondol
Follow Follow @HoneymoonGondol
More
RT D Giannoulopoulos: Christopher introducing "The Lost Honour of Christopher Jefferies" @RegentStCinema @Knowin... https://twitter.com/dimitriosatBLS/status/869962575043325954#labnol …
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBK9B_YU0AIwkOx.jpg)
When does this self promotion stop... When does he sit back and think, I have said enough, after all this is really about The Murder of Joanna Yeates, a woman who was Murdered and her life was cut short....
Or is it a case that CJ is trying to keep this case in the public eye???
I'll let you make your own minds up!
https://twitter.com/DimitriosGian/status/870263202180988930
https://twitter.com/HoneymoonGondol/status/869965524289060864
-
Nine, you will probably never understand what CJ is doing because you have never walked in his shoes. He is not making money out of a tragic murder, he is making money out of what happened to himself, and why not? You have come rather close a few times to pointing your finger at this man for allegedly killing Joanna Yeats. If I were you I would be hoping he never reads what you have had to say about him. You could find yourself in court for slander! Everyone is a suspect apart from the person who admitted the crime. Please get a grip on reality and stop pointing your finger at innocent people!
-
8@??)( very well said justsaying
-
This is getting very creepy now.
Ive just watched Victor Nealon telling his story then I read this! shocking!
-
Chris Jefferies, you may remember, is the retired teacher in Bristol who was monstered by the tabloids before and after his arrest in January in connection with the Joanna Yeates murder, and who turned out to be totally innocent. (Another man confessed to the killing.) On the morning of 28 July, in what is becoming a familiar ritual in our courts, eight newspapers serially confessed to libelling Jefferies and agreed to pay him substantial damages.
On the afternoon of the same day, however, something much less familiar happened: the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, and two other judges found the Mirror and the Sun guilty of contempt of court. They upheld Grieve’s argument that, by publishing “exceptionally adverse and hostile” articles about Jefferies while he was in custody, the papers had breached section 2 (2) of the Act, which makes unlawful any publication about an individual who is under arrest “which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced”.
What is most spectacular about the date of this publication, it was before a hearing in September 2011 in which Dr Vincent Tabak apparently signed a statement affectively admitting what took place, yet they contents of what took place, where not divulged until the trial in October 2011..
How could anyone be sure that Dr Vincent Tabak would not retract any plea he had apparently made in May 2011, no evidence pointed to Dr Vincent Tabak killing Joanna yeates... Other than Dr Vincent tabaks story on the stand....
So....... why is Brian Cathcart stating that : (Another man confessed to the killing.) ????
What does he mean??
Dr Vincent Tabak made a plea....
When and where did he confess??
And how does Brian Cathcart know when this publication is posted on the 31st August 2011, that Dr Vincent Tabak apparently confessed??
The only apparent confession that Dr Vincent Tabak is supposed to have made was to a man assuming the role of Chaplain, being Brotherton at Long Lartin in February 2011, which did not come to anyones attention until the trial in October 2011... A confession one could hardly agree it was....
But Brian Cathcart a man whom should know the difference between a confession and a Plea, should not be telling everyone before a trial that Dr Vincent Tabak confessed to this murder, planting in the minds of the jury and supporting the idea that what Brotherton had to say at trial about said confession, must be true!!!
Prejudicial..... If that reporting isn't irresponsible and prejudicial... I don't know what is!!
It make me wonder what sources Brian Cathcart has.............
-
Nine, you will probably never understand what CJ is doing because you have never walked in his shoes. He is not making money out of a tragic murder, he is making money out of what happened to himself, and why not? You have come rather close a few times to pointing your finger at this man for allegedly killing Joanna Yeats. If I were you I would be hoping he never reads what you have had to say about him. You could find yourself in court for slander! Everyone is a suspect apart from the person who admitted the crime. Please get a grip on reality and stop pointing your finger at innocent people!
I am not pointing the finger at CJ... I am NOT understanding why a man is courting the media 6/7 years after an event, in which he purports that he is a very private individual..
I am commenting on what he himself stated on said video...
I am trying to understand why he feels the need to keep telling his story... and yes press intrusion, is a massive problem...
If what I have posted is slanderous, please get a moderator to remove it... I'll apologise now...
Nine
-
I personally think everything you have suggested in relation to innocent people should be taken down - including CJ, Greg Reardon and the victims parents.
When do you tell yourself enough is enough Nine? When do you realise this is about the tragic killing of a young woman? When do you stop advocating for her killer? You could ask yourself the same questions you ask in relation to CJ who has done nothing but promote how badly he was treated!
-
You ask about others not being able to comprehend. I think your posts are disgusting
You have no right to decide how someone wrongly accused of an horrendous crime claims to feel. His feelings were real to HIM
Unlike Tabak and all this nonsense about his innocence, the words he has yet say himself!
-
This is getting very creepy now.
Ive just watched Victor Nealon telling his story then I read this! shocking!
What do you find "creepy" about Victor Nealon? And do you have a link to the story you read?
-
Not Victor Nealons case. Must be how I wrote it. His story is heartbreaking
I was referring to Nines posts
-
What do you find "creepy" about Victor Nealon? And do you have a link to the story you read?
I wasnt reading Stephanie. The story was on Judge Rinder this afternoon. I have watched it before but doesnt make any better viewing the second time around 8)><(
-
I personally think everything you have suggested in relation to innocent people should be taken down - including CJ, Greg Reardon and the victims parents.
When do you tell yourself enough is enough Nine? When do you realise this is about the tragic killing of a young woman? When do you stop advocating for her killer? You could ask yourself the same questions you ask in relation to CJ who has done nothing but promote how badly he was treated!
Ok ... JustSaying..... If I have offended so many people, I apologise, the simplest way in which to resolve this is to remove everything I have posted... Everyone can then be happy with the outcome of this case...
And therefore I will then forever, be able to keep my opinions, to myself, without offending anyone else, without anyone else ever having to question anything about this case....
-
Everyone is already happy with the outcome of this case. He has been convicted and he is in prison where he deserves to be. The case is closed and will not ever be reopened because the right man has been caught. Discrediting innocent people just to try and prove Tabak is innocent is wholly unfair!
-
I find it really strange NINE that you only show compassion to a man who admitted killing someone? it doesnt extend to anyone else
-
Everyone is already happy with the outcome of this case. He has been convicted and he is in prison where he deserves to be. The case is closed and will not ever be reopened because the right man has been caught. Discrediting innocent people just to try and prove Tabak is innocent is wholly unfair!
Well remove my posts..... simples!!
-
I find it really strange NINE that you only show compassion to a man who admitted killing someone? it doesnt extend to anyone else
My opinion is no longer needed...
-
When do you tell yourself enough is enough Nine? When do you realise this is about the tragic killing of a young woman? When do you stop advocating for her killer?
For those of us with opposing views in other cases, this could be asked of the people who advocate for their killers? Just saying...
-
Well remove my posts..... simples!!
I would if I could, believe me!
-
For those of us with opposing views in other cases, this could be asked of the people who advocate for their killers? Just saying...
Well it is a tad different considering the person I speak of in this thread ADMITTED the crime and was convicted on STRONG evidence. The victim did not stop you campaigning for Simon did she? Hypocrisy again Stephanie!
-
Everyone is already happy with the outcome of this case. He has been convicted and he is in prison where he deserves to be. The case is closed and will not ever be reopened because the right man has been caught. Discrediting innocent people just to try and prove Tabak is innocent is wholly unfair!
I think it would be interesting to learn what sparked Nine's interest in this case in the first place? What planted the seed of doubt in order to raise so many questions?
Where did it all begin?
-
For those of us with opposing views in other cases, this could be asked of the people who advocate for their killers? Just saying...
Well it is a tad different considering the person I speak of in this thread ADMITTED the crime and was convicted on STRONG evidence. The victim did not stop you campaigning for Simon did she? Hypocrisy again Stephanie!
I'm not claiming the moral high ground I'm pointing out the contradictions in your postings
-
I'm not claiming the moral high ground I'm pointing out the contradictions in your posting
And I am pointing out the contradictions in yours! This case is different from Luke Mitchells - which has been pointed out before! Tabak admitted his crime, yet a person on here likes to point the finger at innocent people, that is where the line should be drawn!
-
And I am pointing out the contradictions in yours! This case is different from Luke Mitchells - which has been pointed out before! Tabak admitted his crime, yet a person on here likes to point the finger at innocent people, that is where the line should be drawn!
What makes you think I'm referring to Luke Mitchell's case?
Barry George was alleged to have admitted to murdering Jill Dando?
-
What makes you think I'm referring to Luke Mitchell's case?
Barry George was alleged to have admitted to murdering Jill Dando?
Because the post was directed at me, and the only person I have spoken up about, that you know of, is Luke Mitchell.
-
Because the post was directed at me, and the only person I have spoken up about, that you know of, is Luke Mitchell.
Simon Hall confessed to murder over 12 years after he'd committed the crime. No doubt you are familiar with the public comments made by those who chose to question the validity of the confession? What makes them different to Nine?
Could Nines doubts of this case intensified following the Hall confession and all that followed?
-
Simon Hall confessed to murder over 12 years after he'd committed the crime. No doubt you are familiar with the public comments made by those who chose to question the validity of the confession? What makes them different to Nine?
Could Nines doubts of this case intensified following the Hall confession and all that followed?
I think only Nine can answer that question. There is DNA evidence in this case linking Tabak to the body of Joanna Yeates, as well as other confessions of dumping evidence in bins and internet searches. It is up to Nine if she wants to support a murdering paedophile. She should not be pointing the finger at innocent people whilst doing so.
-
Because the post was directed at me, and the only person I have spoken up about, that you know of, is Luke Mitchell.
What about those who campaign for Jeremy Bamber for example?
-
What about those who campaign for Jeremy Bamber for example?
What about them?
The post was directed at me Stephanie, not people who campaign for Jeremy Bamber or Barry George!
-
Simon Hall confessed to murder over 12 years after he'd committed the crime. No doubt you are familiar with the public comments made by those who chose to question the validity of the confession? What makes them different to Nine?
Could Nines doubts of this case intensified following the Hall confession and all that followed?
Let us not forget either, yes it took Simon 12 years to admit his guilt. Tabak admitted it whilst in prison prior to the trial... It is not like he himself is screaming innocence now is it?
-
I think only Nine can answer that question.
I've asked Nine numerous questions including where their interest in this case originally stemmed from but my questions have gone unanswered?
-
I've asked Nine numerous questions including where their interest in this case originally stemmed from but my questions have gone unanswered?
Well I am sorry but I cannot answer for her.
-
Let us not forget either, yes it took Simon 12 years to admit his guilt. Tabak admitted it whilst in prison prior to the trial... It is not like he himself is screaming innocence now is it?
We do not have evidence to prove he hadn't admitted his guilt to someone prior to his arrest but he could well have done?.
The campaign of innocence could have started from an ill conceived idea of keeping up appearances?
-
We do not have evidence to prove he hadn't admitted his guilt to someone prior to his arrest but he could well have done.
He could very well have done. It was not public knowledge though was it, what with there being no evidence of it ever happening. My point is that Tabak is not claiming innocence, hence no appeal attempt or his family speaking out.
-
He could very well have done. It was not public knowledge though was it, what with there being no evidence of it ever happening. My point is that Tabak is not claiming innocence, hence no appeal attempt or his family speaking out.
I think it would be helpful if we could attempt to find out from Nine where the lines appear to have become blurred with regards her belief of this case being a miscarriage of justice?
Where did it all begin?
And how did it grow to what she says is her belief now? What factors were at play?
-
I think it would be helpful if we could attempt to find out from Nine where the lines appear to have become blurred with regards her belief of this case being a miscarriage of justice?
Where did it all begin?
Stephanie have you read this entire thread? If not I would suggest you do. It has been claimed that Tabak and Joanna were secret agents. The police and jury were actors. A body double was used for Tabak's confession. He was drugged. He is not a real person. I could go on... How can anyone take any of this seriously?
-
I have read through today's posts, and I cannot see that anyone is" pointing the finger "at CJ. to be honest. However, posts regarding media interviews should be in the appropriate part of the thread : we have one dealing with media matters.
Please could we keep the discussion civil, and refrain from rudeness/verbal abuse/personal remarks about other posters, etc etc. otherwise I will be deleting the offending posts. Thanks!
-
I have read through today's posts, and I cannot see that anyone is" pointing the finger "at CJ. to be honest. However, posts regarding media interviews should be in the appropriate part of the thread : we have one dealing with media matters.
Please could we keep the discussion civil, and refrain from rudeness/verbal abuse/personal remarks about other posters, etc etc. otherwise I will be deleting the offending posts. Thanks!
You cannot see CJ being discredited but you see "rudeness, verbal abuse" etc etc? What has CJ got to do with Tabak anyway, hasn't he been eliminated from police enquiries? You may have missed Nine's point, but I certainly did not.
-
After Dr Vincent Tabak was arrested, there were many questions people had be speculating about hoping for the answers to come out at trial... I being one of them..
One of the major issues I had with the trial and what also started me to really question Dr Vincent Tabak guilt was the distain the defence Counsel had for their own client.. It concerned me greatly..
How can they influence a jury as to the guilt of their own client rather than show mitigating circumstances as to why it was a Manslaughter plea Or Object at the many discrepencies that the prosecutions case posed.
There are many examples of the lack of Defending the Defence council did (IMO) below are some of the comments...
1: his conduct after Yeates died when he hid the body was “frankly disgusting” and had caused untold anguish and agony to her family.
2: “I’m not going to ask you to like Vincent Tabak. There’s probably nothing to like.”
3: And Miss Morson seems to agree, having failed to make a single appearance at court.
4: He had told “lie after lie to the police.
5: “did everything he could to cover his tracks”.
6: He added that he would not try to justify Tabak’s actions after her death, saying his client was “living a lie” by attending dinner parties and attempting to carry on his life as normal.
7: “I’m not going to ask you to have any sympathy for him. He deserves none.
8: “I’m not going to ask you to excuse his conduct. There can be no excuse.
9: “If I was to set out to win a popularity contest I would lose.
10: He told the court: “Of course, afterwards his behaviour is utterly disgraceful. It’s not going to be justified by me
With comments like these who needs enemies???? (IMO)
1810
How would you defend someone who had admitted to murder?
-
Another question.....
If they had Greg Reardon on the stand as a witness, why didn't they have Mr and Mrs Yeates on the stand,... they witnessed the same as Greg... They arrived at the flat being void of their daughter...
I say this because her father found her earring I think underneath the clothes on the floor.. (wish I could find the article... or maybe I've heard him say it on video...)
So, why was just Greg a witness?????????
If your daughter had been murdered would you want to take the stand? What state do you think her parents were in?
-
I was thinking about the sentencing of Dr Vincent Tabak and how quickly the Judge passed sentence, there was NO medical reports made as mitigating circumstances.. No leniency for a plea of guilty.. I don't remember any victim impact statements..
How did the Judge come to his decision based on what??? Surely Dr Vincent Tabaks behaviour whilst in custody was without fault..
Why didn't the judge defer sentencing whilst all the reports came in????
Where were the background reports???
https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/verdicts-and-sentencing
How do you know there were no medical reports?
,Mr Justice Field said Tabak, who was flanked by six security guards in the dock, was guilty of an evil and wicked act and is a "very dangerous" individual
Yeates's parents were not in court to hear the verdict but her boyfriend Greg Reardon stared at Tabak, visibly shaken and close to tears as he was led from the dock. In a statement from her parents read out by police outside court, they said: "It is a regret that capital punishment is not an option."
During his trial the prosecution claimed that Tabak, 33, was motivated by sex when he attacked Yeates at her home on 17 December last year.
It suggested he may have spied on the landscape architect and claimed that an important feature of the case was that when her body was found on Christmas morning, her top had been pulled above her bra and part of one breast was exposed. His DNA was found on Yeates's chest.
The jury did not hear during the trial that when police delved into Tabak's computers after his arrest they discovered an interest in hardcore pornography, some of which featured strangulation and bondage.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/28/vincent-tabak-guilty-joanna-yeates-murder
-
In all fairness, it looks like the QC did the best he could with the bad job he was given.
“This is the Defence Counsel, Mr William |Clegg, QC’s opening speech:
“If Jo Yeates had stayed for just one more drink she would be alive today. If Vincent Tabak had
gone to Asda as he had planned that same time, he would not in the dock today. … She turned on the oven to bake. She phoned several male friends and told how she was bored. She texted Samuel Ashcroft: “Where are you this fine eve?” His reply was “Home- sorry”. She then texted Peter: “Where are you?” Peter replied “On my way to a wedding. Where are you?” She replied: “At home- on my todd”! She texted a third male friend. She has said she was bored and she was looking for company. It was the Christmas period and many people were at parties. In the next flat was Vincent Tabak. They never really knew each other, save for a nod. Vincent Tabak was also alone- and bored. He decided to go to Asda – not for anything special but to fill in time . He left his flat; was walking towards his car and went past her kitchen window. The kitchen blind was broken and so stayed up all the time, as Greg Reardon had confirmed. She beckoned to him to come in.
Joanna invited Vincent in, as all the evidence indicated.
She had opened the door and invited him in. He took off his coat. He hung it on her coat rack.
She offered him a drink and he declined as he was driving. She said her boyfriend was away and she was alone and he said that his girlfriend was away and he was alone. Vincent Tabak misread her friendliness toward him and made a move towards her as if he was about to kiss him on her lips.
He put one hand in the middle of her back as if he was about to kiss her, and she screamed fiercely.
He put his hand over her mouth and said sorry and when he moved his hand away she screamed
again. He put his hand to her mouth and throat and she went limp. She was dead. He had never touched her before other than to shake hands as he went into her flat. That one minute was all it took and she was dead. Nothing was timed. He thinks that maybe he was in the flat for 10 minutes before she screamed. The incident when he put her hand on his throat was far less than a minute.
Defence expert Dr Carey will give evidence on Friday 21 December 2010 on this matter.
Prosecution pathologist expert witness, Dr Delaney, said on 18 October that it may well have been
10 seconds. Those arriving at the party at Number 53 said they heard screams. It is for the jury to decide whether a scream from inside Flat 1 could be heard from outside 53 Canynge Road. The jury will have to decide whether anybody could have heard
But one thing is that three witnesses heard screams spread out over some ten minutes. This cannot
be. The couple arriving outside number 53, a short time after they were filmed on CCTV at number 83. But the weather conditions were icy. How long did it take them to get there?
Warren Sweet said he did not arrive at Number 53’s party until 8.50pm on Friday 17 December
2010. When he arrived at No. 53, Warren Sweet said he heard a scream. That cannot be the same scream that the couple heard. The reaction of all four people who heard screams was initially put down to students out celebrating as term had finished that day. You may think that the whole of those screams is totally unconnected. You just couldn’t hear anybody from that distance….
This does mean that one really hasn’t got a real clue as to when Tabak went into Joanna’s flat except
that it was between the time he went to Asda and the time he texted his girlfriend, say, between 9.00
pm and 11.00 pm. Were you to conclude that the couple heard Joanna’s screams and not the scream that Mr Sweet heard; if the Laymans and Sweet ‘s evidence were to be dismissed, it would tie in with the scientific evidence. One thing is certain. Joanna Yeates was killed between 21.00 and 21.30 pm on Friday 17 December 2010. It was not something he planned. It was, in the words of Dr Delaney, expert prosecution pathologist witness, that death had occurred in less than half a minute; less than 20 seconds, less than 10 seconds even.
A very important piece of evidence is that what Tabak wrote in his statement is nearly the same and
corroborated the undisputed pathologist expert witnesses. But his conduct afterwards was frankly disgusting. He took her body and disposed of it. He caused anguish to her family. His defence will not be heard to excuse this behaviour. He was obviously concerned with the incident, trying to track everything. It was only a matter of time before the police came to arrest him. Again he told lie after lie and you will hear no excuse from me about that. It shows a very calculating person trying to wriggle out of her death but it does not help in thinking of what happened at the flat….
He went to his flat and left Joanna’s flat door on the latch. He returned. He turned off the oven that she had turned on. He took the Tesco pizza that was in the kitchen. He carried the body from her flat to his flat. He then put her body in the bag that he used to cover his bike. He then went to get his car, placed the body in the boot of his car, went to Asda, a trip he formerly planned, and drove aimlessly around whilst deciding what to do. He tried to put the body over the wall. It was too heavy and so he left it by the roadside. When he got back home, he put the pizza, the cycle cover and the sock into a corporate dustbin.
And then, despite the awful secret that he was carrying, he tried to carry on as before: going to
parties, living with his girlfriend, etc, instead of going to the police. There will be no excuse from me for that. He will be called to give evidence on Thursday 20 October 2011. He is not being tried for his behaviour after Joanna died. He is not being tried for dumping the body. What he is being tried for is whether he killed Joanna Yeates, intending to kill or cause really serious harm to her, or whether, he panicked and did it without thinking of the consequences. Most of what the prosecution has stated does not go this fact: it goes to what happened afterwards.” (sic)
-
He sounds like a sadistic psychopath
“Vincent Tabak was a cunning, dishonest and manipulative man who knew exactly what he was doing when he killed Joanna Yeates. Today he has been convicted by a jury in Bristol of her murder last year, despite claiming he meant her no harm.
“He was cunning and dishonest towards his girlfriend with whom he maintained a “normal” relationship - even going so far as to text her shortly after Joanna was dead to say he was bored.
“He manipulated the police by virtue of his own in-depth research on the Internet to keep one step ahead of the investigation before his arrest, looking up extradition and medical details of decomposition.
“He made very selective admissions surrounding the circumstances of Joanna’s death which sought to cast her in an unfavourable light and he kept this up even when he was giving evidence to the jury. Tabak thought his cleverness and deceit would prevent him being convicted of a brutal murder. He was wrong.
“Joanna went missing on 17 December 2010 after meeting friends for drinks. For several days the police mounted a missing person enquiry but with the discovery of her body on Christmas Day it became a murder investigation. The police team undertook a painstaking enquiry into this murder and Vincent Tabak became the focus of their attention following the finding of his DNA on Joanna’s body
“Late in December 2010 the police asked for assistance and guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service. That assistance has come from the South West Complex Casework Unit based here in Bristol. I reviewed the evidence, advised that Vincent Tabak should be charged with Joanna’s murder and began preparing the case for trial.
“In May 2011, Tabak admitted the manslaughter of Joanna, but that was only part of the story. The Crown’s case is and always has been that it was a deliberate act on his part and that is why we refused to accept his plea to manslaughter and he has faced trial for murder over the past four weeks.
“Joanna’s family has been here in Bristol during the trial and have listened to much of the evidence. Our thoughts are with them today as Tabak begins a life sentence for killing their daughter.” http://blog.cps.gov.uk/2011/10/conviction-and-sentencing-of-vincent-tabak-for-the-murder-of-joanna-yeates.html
-
You cannot see CJ being discredited but you see "rudeness, verbal abuse" etc etc? What has CJ got to do with Tabak anyway, hasn't he been eliminated from police enquiries? You may have missed Nine's point, but I certainly did not.
What has CJ got to do with Tabak? Well, he had been his landlord for over a year so probably knew him. And, no, I am not suggesting he was anything other than innocent!! Nor is anyone else. From what I have read, CJ took an interest in his tenants, and I would certainly have thought he would have heard if someone was screaming in the flats, or outside, or would have noticed someone behaving suspiciously, particularly if it was VT, whom he knew.
-
What has CJ got to do with Tabak? Well, he had been his landlord for over a year so probably knew him. And, no, I am not suggesting he was anything other than innocent!! Nor is anyone else. From what I have read, CJ took an interest in his tenants, and I would certainly have thought he would have heard if someone was screaming in the flats, or outside, or would have noticed someone behaving suspiciously, particularly if it was VT, whom he knew.
Those people who came into contact with Vincent Tabak, including CJ, would have been groomed by him. This is what con men like Tabak do.
CJ was a victim in more than one way.
-
What has CJ got to do with Tabak? Well, he had been his landlord for over a year so probably knew him. And, no, I am not suggesting he was anything other than innocent!! Nor is anyone else. From what I have read, CJ took an interest in his tenants, and I would certainly have thought he would have heard if someone was screaming in the flats, or outside, or would have noticed someone behaving suspiciously, particularly if it was VT, whom he knew.
I think you need to go back and read this thread, there have certainly been enough hints at him being guilty... What CJ did regarding the way he was treated by the police and the press has absolutely nothing to do with Tabak. Nor is it any of Nine's business. Nine's post had nothing to do with what CJ may or may not have heard, it was clearly discrediting his actions! I am just wondering how any of you would react had you all been treated in the same way as he was!
-
I have had to remove several posts because they are off topic, argumentative and verbally abusive.
Please could we have civilised discussion on this thread. Thanks.
-
I have read through today's posts, and I cannot see that anyone is" pointing the finger "at CJ. to be honest. However, posts regarding media interviews should be in the appropriate part of the thread : we have one dealing with media matters.
Please could we keep the discussion civil, and refrain from rudeness/verbal abuse/personal remarks about other posters, etc etc. otherwise I will be deleting the offending posts. Thanks!
I agree to that part where you ask for it to be kept civil but on the rest I have to disagree mrswah. The finger was clearly pointed and CJ got more of an attack that Nine ever directed towards the wonderful Tabak
-
If your daughter had been murdered would you want to take the stand? What state do you think her parents were in?
Only the feelings of Tabak seem to count on this thread it seems
-
What has CJ got to do with Tabak? Well, he had been his landlord for over a year so probably knew him. And, no, I am not suggesting he was anything other than innocent!! Nor is anyone else. From what I have read, CJ took an interest in his tenants, and I would certainly have thought he would have heard if someone was screaming in the flats, or outside, or would have noticed someone behaving suspiciously, particularly if it was VT, whom he knew.
How the posts regarding CJ appeared, they didnt lean towards him only being a landlord. He has nothing to do with the murder but lots of attention and bad comments are still being directed his way.
How he chooses to deal with this experience he has been through, is down to him and him alone. Nine or anyone else on this forum cannot second guess who he could would or should feel. That is for CJ to decide.
As no one has been through the experience, How the heck can we presume to think how he would behave or judge him regardless.
His life was turned upside down in the worse way!
-
How the posts regarding CJ appeared, they didnt lean towards him only being a landlord. He has nothing to do with the murder but lots of attention and bad comments are still being directed his way.
This is exactly how people end up being wrongly convicted/accused in the first place. The man has clearly been put through enough.
-
This is exactly how people end up being wrongly convicted/accused in the first place. The man has clearly been put through enough.
Well said. Look at cases like Sam Hallam and how hearing the name Sam played it part in him being wrongly convicted.
I guess talking about CJ even now just deflects from the guilty Tabak or answering any further questions inc simple ones like how did the interest in the case start
It is very strange to say the least to just pick up a random case where no claim to MOJ is being made.
Every pointer towards his guilt including the stuff Tabak said himself is just brushed away
-
I agree to that part where you ask for it to be kept civil but on the rest I have to disagree mrswah. The finger was clearly pointed and CJ got more of an attack that Nine ever directed towards the wonderful Tabak
IN REALITY :
Vincent Tabak is locked up where he belongs!
CJ appears to have overcome an awful lot and has moved on with his life.
Nine has doubts and has presented her opinions on this forum
-
I think you need to go back and read this thread, there have certainly been enough hints at him being guilty... What CJ did regarding the way he was treated by the police and the press has absolutely nothing to do with Tabak. Nor is it any of Nine's business. Nine's post had nothing to do with what CJ may or may not have heard, it was clearly discrediting his actions! I am just wondering how any of you would react had you all been treated in the same way as he was!
IN REALITY how will Nines post affect CJ? Please explain.
-
Stephanie I have nothing to say to you, nor do you have anything to say that I want to hear. Go and find your next victim, which I am sure you will!
-
The argument wasnt really about Tabak just in defence of CJ
Tabak is clearly where he should be and seems to agree himself.
Dont think other posters should be attacked for not liking the comments aimed at CJ. Afterall we are debating Tabaks guilt for some crazy reason not the workings of CJs mind and attitude!
-
IN REALITY how will Nines post affect CJ? Please explain.
They are pointless and based on a very misguided belief that Tabak is innocent. They make uncomfortable reading too.
Luckily he didnt have to spend many wasted years in prison for the crime but we dont need a character assassination either.
-
How the posts regarding CJ appeared, they didnt lean towards him only being a landlord. He has nothing to do with the murder but lots of attention and bad comments are still being directed his way.!
Everyone has an opinion.. It's what happens when people don't know the full facts and others put disingenuous information into the public domain. It's difficult to see the wood through the trees.
You should read up about smear campaigns and the impact they have on people.
I have walked in CJ's shoes to a degree. I knew nothing about personality disordered individuals back then.
-
Posts like that dont make for comfortable reading especially while a murderer is being championed. Never will sit right because it isnt!
-
The argument wasnt really about Tabak just in defence of CJ
Tabak is clearly where he should be and seems to agree himself.
Dont think other posters should be attacked for not liking the comments aimed at CJ. Afterall we are debating Tabaks guilt for some crazy reason not the workings of CJs mind and attitude!
I agree and hope Nine is okay!
-
They are pointless and based on a very misguided belief that Tabak is innocent. They make uncomfortable reading too.
Luckily he didnt have to spend many wasted years in prison for the crime but we dont need a character assassination either.
But WHERE did Nines misguided belief stem from?
-
who knows...she hasnt provided us with an answer to that or many other questions.
-
Posts like that dont make for comfortable reading especially while a murderer is being championed. Never will sit right because it isnt!
I was brainwashed for years so whilst I don't disagree with you (I cringe at some of my posts made about Simon Hall on the blue forum following his confession and death) I think it would be helpful if we can understand how Nine came to have such strongly held beliefs.
It took me a long time to recognise I was another of Simon Halls victims and with hindsight he still had control over my thoughts even after his suicide. It's difficult for people to get their heads round if they haven't lived it themselves.
-
who knows...she hasnt provided us with an answer to that or many other questions.
IN REALITY she doesn't need to answer anything but let's hope she's okay!
-
Stephanie I have nothing to say to you, nor do you have anything to say that I want to hear. Go and find your next victim, which I am sure you will!
Who was "my victim?"
Simon Hall? You're deluded! *&^^&
-
Stephanie I have nothing to say to you, nor do you have anything to say that I want to hear.
It isn't the first time you've claimed this! Why don't you want to hear the truth? What bothers you about my posts?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=66.msg494849#msg494849
-
The argument wasnt really about Tabak just in defence of CJ
Tabak is clearly where he should be and seems to agree himself.
Dont think other posters should be attacked for not liking the comments aimed at CJ. Afterall we are debating Tabaks guilt for some crazy reason not the workings of CJs mind and attitude!
I've come to learn, there are people who are intrigued with psychopaths.
There are also people who have no comprehension of what a psychopath is.
I didn't have a full understanding of personality disordered individuals until Simon Hall confessed. I got involved in debates about the subject and was quite vocal about my thoughts on various individuals but it took me a while to recognise the flaws in my thought processes.
-
Stephanie, please what are you going on about? Your victims, and you have many, are the people you continuously attack! You said earlier today that I had falsely accused you of a number of things when that is not the case. You are a liar.
And to put yourself in CJ's shoes is just laughable. When were you wrongly accused of such an horrendous crime? When was your face plastered all over newspapers up and down the country? Given, what Simon did to you was vile and cruel, it is far removed from what happened to CJ. And if you were anywhere near his shoes you would not have to be asking things like "how does Nine's post affect CJ"
Now stop making this about you, it is not about you and Simon. Just move on!
-
With all due respect I will refuse to answer your questions from now on, do not take any offence to this, you've refused to answer a lot of mine too.
Stephanie I have nothing to say to you
You are a liar.
@)(++(*
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=66.msg494849#msg494849
-
@)(++(*
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=66.msg494849#msg494849
I fail to see where I have lied, or where I have falsely accused you. You keep making yourself out to be a victim, you must like it.
-
Stephanie, why do you not just go and make a thread about yourself instead of making this one about you and Simon? You clearly like bringing yourself into the situation.
I did say I had nothing to say to you, but I have every right to defend myself when you keep regurgetating your drivel!
-
People who commit crimes present in many different ways...there isnt a text book one size fits all. The word that runs through this thread over and over is placid. Placid? is that some kind of excuse? defence? or just a word used to back up strangers to Tabak and their view on his case?
-
People who commit crimes present in many different ways...there isnt a text book one size fits all. The word that runs through this thread over and over is placid. Placid? is that some kind of excuse? defence? or just a word used to back up strangers to Tabak and their view on his case?
It wouldn't be a word I would associate with someone who has committed such horrendous crimes. I actually cringe every time I see the word on this thread.
-
i feel exactly the same. People can have many faces or others can just see what they want to see. Having worked with these kind of offenders, placid can quite possibly make a murderer!
-
i feel exactly the same. People can have many faces or others can just see what they want to see. Having worked with these kind of offenders, placid can quite possibly make a murderer!
Yes I agree. I work with offenders also, many of them like people to believe they are something they are not. I have worked with adult offenders and now work with young offenders. I have sat in on many a trial, that is why I believe Tabaks conviction is sound. I do not see the mistakes in this case which are alleged on this thread. It does not mean I am not aware that people are sometimes wrongly convicted. However - in my experienc,e people who confess and then give their version of events on the stand, tend to be guilty.
-
Yes I agree. I work with offenders also, many of them like people to believe they are something they are not. I have worked with adult offenders and now work with young offenders. I have sat in on many a trial, that is why I believe Tabaks conviction is sound. I do not see the mistakes in this case which are alleged on this thread. It does not mean I am not aware that people are sometimes wrongly convicted. However - in my experienc,e people who confess and then give their version of events on the stand, tend to be guilty.
Sounds very interesting. Would like to compare notes, not on this thread obviously 8(0(*
-
Sounds very interesting. Would like to compare notes, not on this thread obviously 8(0(*
Any time. I have sent you my email.
-
Thanks. You can help me with my book!
-
Thanks. You can help me with my book!
Oh, are you writing a book? Would love to help in any way I can!
-
Yes about the Justice System and all the people I have met along the way. Might dedicate a chapter to the Tabak investigations 8)-)))
-
Yes about the Justice System and all the people I have met along the way.
Sounds very interesting!
Might dedicate a chapter to the Tabak investigations 8)-)))
Would that be under fact or fiction @)(++(*
-
@)(++(*
-
If you are ever looking for a proof reader I would definitely be up for the job?
-
Not sure how we will do it but yes I will definitely accept the offer!
-
Not sure how we will do it but yes I will definitely accept the offer!
8((()*/
I am sure we can work something out!
-
They are pointless and based on a very misguided belief that Tabak is innocent. They make uncomfortable reading too.
Luckily he didnt have to spend many wasted years in prison for the crime but we dont need a character assassination either.
Jixy, All I am doing is trying to understand what happened and whether anything new comes forth from what anyone may say today...
I haven't been able to understand why The Sun was in contempt of court, how and what they may have written could prejudice a trial....
There have been many of the publications from the time that have been removed, the facebook forum was also removed and I couldn't understand why...
There has to be something that has been with held for it to be able to go to court and what I read and what was stated at The Leveson about the media vilification, I am at a loss as to why the fuss was made, as that doesn't appear significant enough...
You all know that I have used reports from the media and twitter from the time, plus video's from interviews anyone has given and not forgetting the Leveson....
I look at archives of what the papers wrote and If I find something say from twitter or a forum, I try to find the article that their information has come from... Because as i keep saying... And some have pointed out I have had weird and wonderful ideas....
I have tried to understand, with what appears to me to be smoke and mirrors to confuse and distract everyone the reason for this....
I keep trying to go back to the beginning... Go back through the old facebook forum, and what was so concerning about it..... Because I do not know....
In the Leveson... and I have quoted from it many times, Colin Port says that CJ saw people at the gate, where as In the Leveson CJ says he heard people at the gate....
Now there must be a written statement somewhere that confirms this.... And no-one at The Leveson appears to have picked this up.... Or it's been brushed under the carpet...
So I can use the Leveson, to bolster my argument one way or another, I can have an opinion on a person by their actions, I can question, what was written 7 nearly 8 years ago.... But it's whether I believe what the papers state or whether I believe what the information on a forum states is accurate...
I will give you an example: This is from The facebook forum...
Gym.... 3 posts. Created at 03:19 on 04 January
Dyna Victoria
Workout probeExclusive by GARY O'SHEA
COPS have quizzed staff at a gym where Jo Yeates suspect Chris Jefferies trained to further rule him out of their inquiry.
They wanted to assess his strength and fitness after friends of the former teacher expressed doubts over whether the 65-year-old was strong enough to overcome Jo or lift her body.
Jefferies quit his membership of the Spirit House gym in Filton, Bristol, a few weeks ago
I hadn't thought of the implications this post would have had at the time, and I cannot find any supporting media stories, but it must have come from somewhere.... I do not know for a fact if Gary O'Shea had written said article about the gym or not, but if he had that would be explosive in itself, that would be something which had someone gone to court on said charges, would have been prejudicial I believe... Because it contradicts the evidence given at The Leveson that on the night in question CJ was at the gym....
Therefore one could then conclude , that the reason the Police flew out to Holland to ask about a car changing position, now has a different complexion upon it. An urgency one might say.... But the Police in my mind could still have waited fro Dr Vincent Tabak to return to England
But I cannot find the source from where the poster on the forum had got their information, so i cannot support said posters claims.... This is why I alway quote and link as much information as possible to support my arguments.... Makes my posts long , but one can see where I have obtained the information i refer to in my posts..... Therefore my opinion is based on what I have sourced through the different publications and video etc... I cannot say that what the poster posted was of importance and that was the reason the discussion was closed down.... Because there could have been other pieces of information in the journal about Joanna yeates, but some of the posts have been deleted, so i cannot say which piece of information would have been of significance, and why the forum discussion was taken down.....
So if i am not to have an opinion on these matter that is fair enough, but what I find is that everyone has an opinion based upon the information they may read in the newspapers.. The Newspapers are apparently supposed to inform the public of these events in the world...
So i would agree in part that some of my information may be incorrect , if the media or poster had been leading people astray... But I should be able to rely on The Leveson and any interviews anyone had given to camera... And therefore question what i have seen on said video's where people have brought to my attention, information i was not aware of at the time of trial...
Take The Yeates for instance.... David states that when he arrived at Joanna yeates flat that she had organised the clothes washing...
(54) * She's taken the opportunity to tidy things up... For starters she had organised the washing, you know Clothes
washing and erm... washing up the stuff in the kitchen, things were nice and tidy..
This information doesn't come to trial... These words are from David Yeates own lips... I can use the information confidently, because there is video evidence to support this claims from David Yeates..
This is the only time that Joanna Yeates was doing something different other than what had been stated at trial....
Dr Vincent Tabak doesn't mention the clothes washing, at trial.... Greg Reardon doesn't mention the clothes washing at trial... The images of a flat that is clean and tidy when the jury visit, contradicts what David Yeates has told us since the trial...
I was asked why I wanted The Yeates on the stand, I wasn't trying to be unfeeling, I understand that it would be a traumatic experience for them... But with the interviews they have given since and the information they have divulged, you can hopefully understand my reasoning for this....
If there had been a struggle in the kitchen or around that flat, then maybe the clothes piles were in disarray, Knowing about the washing even being there was a surprise to me... It was an important piece of information, Information a jury should have been made aware of (imo).. The only noticeable items that are mentioned in Dr Vincent Tabak's tale on the stand, is... The oven , The TV and the coat stand....
Now one may think they removed the TV for finger prints, the oven was built in so could maybe that was why they didn't remove that, even though they could have... And the coat stand is in the hall.... And that being in the hall in the images surprises me because if Dr Vincent Tabak had put his coat on it, I would have expected it to have been removed for forensic testing like everything else... But thats my opinion...
So I come back to David Yeates statement about the washing pile and question why Dr Vincent Tabak didn't mention said washing?? It is about the only piece of what one may call evidence that was never mentioned in the papers as far as I am aware....
So the post by the facebook forum user may be inaccurate, there is no supporting evidence , that i can find for this... So I am not saying that CJ told an untruth... Because it could simply be gossip on a forum for all I know...
But I do still question the new information about the clothes washing.... This in itself is explosive (imo) because it paints a different picture, the jury cannot have been informed of the full facts, I believe... unless they saw other images than the ones we know about...
Think about it... Clothes... piles.... kitchen..... Fight possibly took place in kitchen... So where is the blood on these clothes?? Has the scene been staged?? I don't know... I am not saying it was staged just questioning the possibility...
I may put two and two together and make five... One needs to then ask why the clothes washing was never mentioned at trial?? Never mind she had put the oven on to bake.... She obviously going from what David Yeates states was about to do the washing.... If she herself had organised said clothes washing....
And is this what David and Theresa Yeates means by what was left behind?? Was it the pile of washing that made then believe their daughter had been abducted.... It's a possibility...
Thinking about the washing in closer detail, Do people still put their clothes in piles to wash?? They did when I was a child when they used a twin tub... Piles of washing on the floor, sorted ready to be washed, and choosing in which order...
But with an automatic washer, I am presuming, one may put the clothes in a pile, put a wash on and return the rest of clothes into basket, whilst the wash happens,... One doesn't physically have to be involved in the was in the same way as when using a twin tub....
So was it usual for Joanna Yeates to put her clothes washing into piles, because she was doing her clothes washing, or did she just pull out the darks for instance and wash them first... Or was she not that careful and she shoved anything into the wash at the same time....
It's detail... detail that would explain how Joanna Yeates behaved when it came to routine tasks.... The other possibility, was that a wash had been done... She had actually got a wash on.... Now if someone was staging the scene, the combination of clothes that may have been in the washing machine, could tell someone a great deal...
Because if she was the type of person that seperated her washing and did darks and lights on different washes, then we find inside the machine a combination of whites darks and delicate fabrics, then this would indicate that someone had staged the flat.... And if the washing had been seperated into darks and lights and Joanna Yeates just shoved a wash on without consideration, that too would indicate that the flat had been staged...
So the importance of the statement that David Yeates gives on video is huge... (imo) It could indicate that someone spent a great deal of time inside said flat making the scene look like Joanna yeates was doing normal activities on said evening, but not knowing her habits they could have left the clue, by trying to make it look like she had been preparing to wash her clothes....
I keep being asked why I got involved with this case.. And I have said... I was on the original facebook forum and it wasn't a group as we know today... I followed the case and was surprised by the lack of evidence that came to trial, I was surprised by the witness's I had expected to be at trial and weren't and I was amazed by the defence attitude to their own client.... These reason had me questioning whether the story that was told on the stand was true and accurate... Because from what I remembered, and flashes of information, it didn't ring true...
So I looked for myself what information I could find about this case and cross referenced what had been said in the media and what had been said on video... And found even more discrepancies and more questions about the case....
I wondered and still wonder why thing don't appear to add up... And David Yeates statement on video is a point in question.... He reveals new information after the trial, that we were never made aware of.... Information the Police and the killer would know, that something that you expect to be revealed at trial, putting to bed doubts someone may have, because it was information that only a few would have been privy too...
I have explained many times I am not pointing fingers... I do not know who killed Joanna Yeates... I can surmise based on the information that was in the media, but as I have stated before, if the real killer was never mentioned in the media then no-one knows anything about them....
What I have written has only ever been my opinion based on the information in the media and video that I have cross referenced.....and I have made that clear, I cannot state as fact that someone staged the flat with piles of washing, but I can state as fact that there was piles of washing, because I have video evidence to prove that David Yeates did in fact make that statement... I can come up with different scenarios as to why the washing is there or why it was never mentioned at trial, or was it the CLUE that the Police had that only them and the killer would know....
This is where my mind goes walkabouts, We have a Missing Sock.... We have Joanna yeates wearing the other Sock, but did Joanna Yeates wear 2 pairs of socks??? It was cold and most people in cold weather wear 2 pairs of socks... I think i am safe in saying that.....
But why the Missing Sock is important has to be more than it being a trophy that someone doesn't keep as a trophy and then puts it in a bin....
Lets go back a minute..... we have the Old man at the gate with a sock in his hand popping it into an evidence bag..... We know it is not the Missing Sock, but it has to be significant.... And this is where a theory can lie or come from....
If I go back to David Yeates and the pile of washing.... Was a wash put on???? A most important question.... Because it is feasible, if I believe a wash was put on, that if Joanna Yeates had two socks on each foot, and the thinner or different sock that was underneath the large grey sock was on the floor of the flat, did that other sock get put in the washing machine and the cycle for the washing machine was started.... Proving that someone made a huge mistake by trying to stage the flat, Seeing as Joanna Yeates was wearing the other sock underneath her big grey sock...
And as I write this then "Cycle" means something else.... Cycle doesn't mean bike it means washing CYCLE... Which would be only information that the Police and the killer would know....(imo)
So is what was left 'behind' her other 'sock' which possibily would have been underneath her grey sock and this other sock ended up in the washing machine, or washing pile, clearly indicating the staging of the flat ..... Killers make mistakes, they do indeed panic,I would imagine... So again I will say is The Washing Machine of Great Significance?? Did someone stage the flat, was something that Joanna Yeates was wearing when she was at the Ram Pub in the washing machine or pile of washing that David Yeates speaks of...
Because in any case there has to be something only the killer knew.... And I believe the theory i have put forward is a possibility..
One last thing on the washing... If it wasn't a sock that was either in the pile of clothes or washing machine, was it in fact Joanna Yeates plain top??
Dr Delaney talks of Joanna Yeates being found in a Flower Patterned top, suggesting that she possibily had been redressed..... She clearly has a plain top on in the Ram Pub.... It had been reported that Greg had looked through her clothes to see what she was wearing... Now if I take that statement, is Greg telling us he found the plain top she wore in the Ram either in The Washing or in the clothes pile?? But if said top was in the washing then blood should have been upon it or stains etc... Or whilst fighting for her life did someone pull over her head the plain top and it was removed from her person?? meaning no stains were upon it and it ended up in the wash pile or washing machine.... Is that the significance of her top being pulled up over her head??
Either way... The Washing has great significance (imo) And if the Jury were not made aware of this fact, and Dr Vincent Tabak was not questioned about The Washing and Greg didn't mention this washing on the stand, we have to ask why this information was kept from the jury??
Is it also possible that the Ikea duvet that Dr Kelly Sheridan has remarked on was in the washing machine or washing pile, and that is why the duvet is significant... Especially if the bed had only recently had clean linen put on it before Greg went away...
David Yeates tells us about this vital piece of evidence.... We just need to know what it's significance is.... And I can only put forward ideas as to why it is significant.....
You can pick holes in my theories, you can scoff at my suggestions.... But The Washing Pile that David Yeates speaks of on video, cannot be ignored.. It was something he witnessed, it was something he had seen and taken note of and it is something i believe that really need looking at more closely....(imo)
And statements such as this that have been made after trial only add to my many questions I have about this case..
https://yeates-archive.livejournal.com/5204.html
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8239.msg456649#msg456649
-
Nine lots of stories online have been removed due to data protection. Not just in Tabaks case! Years have rolled on and stories do disappear.
Your post is very long and I need more coffee before I tackle the rest.
Maybe have a look with his guilt in your mind rather than conspiracy theories and see where it takes you
-
Dominic Grieve, the attorney general, launched the contempt action against the newspapers in May, arguing that reports about Jefferies were "so exceptional, so memorable" that it presented a "risk of serious prejudice" to any potential future trial of Yeates's killer.
Enough said!
-
Nine lots of stories online have been removed due to data protection. Not just in Tabaks case! Years have rolled on and stories do disappear.
Your post is very long and I need more coffee before I tackle the rest.
Maybe have a look with his guilt in your mind rather than conspiracy theories and see where it takes you
Dominic Grieve, the attorney general, launched the contempt action against the newspapers in May, arguing that reports about Jefferies were "so exceptional, so memorable" that it presented a "risk of serious prejudice" to any potential future trial of Yeates's killer.
Enough said!
Ok... But a trial has now taken place, a person has been convicted, so what I post about what was reported in the media at the time should not be prejudice now, seeing as no other trial will take place and no-one cares about what happened to Dr Vincent tabak...
The only thing I will add was a publication by either The Mirror or The Sun, it may well have been another publication, this publication is no longer available to view.... But I believe it may have been front page news.... Or headlines and it said:
DNA found on Jo's Lip
You see not many will remember this publication and whether or not what said publication stated was acurtae and true... But I do find it strange that Dr Vincent Tabak apparently tried to KISS Joanna Yeates... And this story would only be of relevance, if the DNA on Joanna yeates lip had been mentioned at trial.... But for us mere mortals that remember the DNA and Lip story, it only added to the suspicion that the story that was told on the stand , was just that a story, and was established and concocted through whatever had been reported in the media at the time....
And as I say nothing knew came to trial apart from a Flower Patterned Top, that we basically had not heard before....
* The Keys
* The Coat
* The Missing Sock
* The Pizza
* The CCTV Footage of Joanna yeates shopping
* The Cider
* The Rucksack
* The glasses
* The baking
* Plans or Not for that weekend
* Greg's Car being started
* CJ and Peter Stanley helping start said car...
* The information that Joanna Yeates was alone that evening
* That screams were heard
* That Joanna yeates was found on Christmas Day
* That Joanna Yeates was found on Longwood Lane
* That Joanna Yeates was Missing from 17th December 2010
* That DNA was found on Joanna Yeates person
* That Joanna yeates had been strangled
* That there was NO forced entry
* That there was no significant injuries
* That no sexual assault had taken place, but a sexual motive could not be ruled out.....
All of these bits of information are what we hear at trial also... We hear how the pieces of information that had been printed in the press, could be told in a tale and give an explanation to how and why Joanna Yeates was killed....
Now if people have forgotten about the DNA on the lip story, that is understandable... yet that is explained again by the story of Dr Vincent Tabak, by suggesting he went to KISS Joanna Yeates....
But going back to my post this morning... It would have been far more significant, If Dr Vincent Tabak mentioned that there were piles of washing on the floor, the washing that David Yeates has told us about....
If I had heard something different at trial that I didn't already really know, about Joanna Yeates, seeing as all this information was already in the public domain... i might have said... Oh yes of course it was he....
But there's nothing new.... Nothing we hadn't already been informed about.... And that is why it is significant, when someone makes statements on video, that makes one question what really happened....
I'm sorry if I have offended , upset people, or people just don't like my posts... I should desist from posting, unless something new comes forth....
But any trial any evidence that is at trial that connects said killer to victim, should be something that only the Killer and The Police know and would help conclusively prove that Dr Vincent Tabak was said killer.....
But the only evidence stated on the stand by Dr Vincent Tabak was already basically in the public domain, we didn't really hear anything new....
Edit..... This is the only info I can find on the subject at the mo.....
DNA on JY's lips
Police were initially reporting that DNA was found on JY's lips as well as thigh, breast etc.
This all sounds very intimate.
Do you think it could be the DNA of the killer, but the killer was someone who still loved her, and was saying "sorry my darling" as he dumped the body?
Very sad and tragic if so.
https://www.bowlandcentral.com/forum/showthread.php?t=91060
Double Edit..
When talking confessions, a confession is only as good as the information that is not known.... Anyone could confess to a crime if the information is already to hand in the media... It doesn't make that person the person who committed said crime just on their say so.... They need to add to something that wasn't already known to anyone other than the killer and the victim...
Which explains to me why Dr Vincent Tabak's story on the stand was just that.... A story anyone could have concocted based on the available information in the media, internet based or not.... (imo)
-
Good to see you posting again Nine! 8((()*/
-
Nine lots of stories online have been removed due to data protection.
Sounds like you are speaking from experience
-
Nine lots of stories online have been removed due to data protection. Not just in Tabaks case! Years have rolled on and stories do disappear.
That's not actually true though is it? Stories don't just "disappear!"
-
Dominic Grieve, the attorney general, launched the contempt action against the newspapers in May, arguing that reports about Jefferies were "so exceptional, so memorable" that it presented a "risk of serious prejudice" to any potential future trial of Yeates's killer.
Enough said!
Why doesn't that happen in all trials then Jixy?
-
Nine lots of stories online have been removed due to data protection. Not just in Tabaks case! Years have rolled on and stories do disappear.
Your post is very long and I need more coffee before I tackle the rest.
Maybe have a look with his guilt in your mind rather than conspiracy theories and see where it takes you
You should see the conspiracy theories on the McCann board and all the sniping that takes place
-
Sounds like you are speaking from experience
Not my own personal experience thankfully no
-
Will leave the experts to battle this one out. Think ive read enough
-
Ok... But a trial has now taken place, a person has been convicted, so what I post about what was reported in the media at the time should not be prejudice now, seeing as no other trial will take place and no-one cares about what happened to Dr Vincent tabak...
The only thing I will add was a publication by either The Mirror or The Sun, it may well have been another publication, this publication is no longer available to view.... But I believe it may have been front page news.... Or headlines and it said:
DNA found on Jo's Lip
You see not many will remember this publication and whether or not what said publication stated was acurtae and true... But I do find it strange that Dr Vincent Tabak apparently tried to KISS Joanna Yeates... And this story would only be of relevance, if the DNA on Joanna yeates lip had been mentioned at trial.... But for us mere mortals that remember the DNA and Lip story, it only added to the suspicion that the story that was told on the stand , was just that a story, and was established and concocted through whatever had been reported in the media at the time....
And as I say nothing knew came to trial apart from a Flower Patterned Top, that we basically had not heard before....
* The Keys
* The Coat
* The Missing Sock
* The Pizza
* The CCTV Footage of Joanna yeates shopping
* The Cider
* The Rucksack
* The glasses
* The baking
* Plans or Not for that weekend
* Greg's Car being started
* CJ and Peter Stanley helping start said car...
* The information that Joanna Yeates was alone that evening
* That screams were heard
* That Joanna yeates was found on Christmas Day
* That Joanna Yeates was found on Longwood Lane
* That Joanna Yeates was Missing from 17th December 2010
* That DNA was found on Joanna Yeates person
* That Joanna yeates had been strangled
* That there was NO forced entry
* That there was no significant injuries
* That no sexual assault had taken place, but a sexual motive could not be ruled out.....
All of these bits of information are what we hear at trial also... We hear how the pieces of information that had been printed in the press, could be told in a tale and give an explanation to how and why Joanna Yeates was killed....
Now if people have forgotten about the DNA on the lip story, that is understandable... yet that is explained again by the story of Dr Vincent Tabak, by suggesting he went to KISS Joanna Yeates....
But going back to my post this morning... It would have been far more significant, If Dr Vincent Tabak mentioned that there were piles of washing on the floor, the washing that David Yeates has told us about....
If I had heard something different at trial that I didn't already really know, about Joanna Yeates, seeing as all this information was already in the public domain... i might have said... Oh yes of course it was he....
But there's nothing new.... Nothing we hadn't already been informed about.... And that is why it is significant, when someone makes statements on video, that makes one question what really happened....
I'm sorry if I have offended , upset people, or people just don't like my posts... I should desist from posting, unless something new comes forth....
But any trial any evidence that is at trial that connects said killer to victim, should be something that only the Killer and The Police know and would help conclusively prove that Dr Vincent Tabak was said killer.....
But the only evidence stated on the stand by Dr Vincent Tabak was already basically in the public domain, we didn't really hear anything new....
Edit..... This is the only info I can find on the subject at the mo.....
https://www.bowlandcentral.com/forum/showthread.php?t=91060
Double Edit..
When talking confessions, a confession is only as good as the information that is not known.... Anyone could confess to a crime if the information is already to hand in the media... It doesn't make that person the person who committed said crime just on their say so.... They need to add to something that wasn't already known to anyone other than the killer and the victim...
Which explains to me why Dr Vincent Tabak's story on the stand was just that.... A story anyone could have concocted based on the available information in the media, internet based or not.... (imo)
I had hoped there would have been an inquiry in the Simon Hall case or that someone somewhere would have been interested in presenting the facts, similar to what you are doing in this case Nine. But people aren't interested for varying reasons. It's a shame because I recognise the same mistakes being made over and over in other cases.
-
There are so many variables to consider. As you appear to know Nine.
-
Dominic Grieve, the attorney general, launched the contempt action against the newspapers in May, arguing that reports about Jefferies were "so exceptional, so memorable" that it presented a "risk of serious prejudice" to any potential future trial of Yeates's killer.
You should read up on Mark Williams Thomas and Jonathon Kings case. As well as people like Jim Davidson, Jimmy Tarbuck, Cliff Richard, Paul Gambaccin etc
And look at the role Mark Williams Thomas played in the Jimmy Saville fiasco as well as the role of the media (and people like Max Clifford!)
Operation Yewtree, Operation Ravine, Operation Arundal etc
I'm guessing contempt doesn't factor after someone dies?
What predudice factored in Jonathon Kings trial, for example?
-
You should read up on Mark Williams Thomas and Jonathon Kings case. As well as people like Jim Davidson, Jimmy Tarbuck, Cliff Richard, Paul Gambaccin etc
And look at the role Mark Williams Thomas played in the Jimmy Saville fiasco as well as the role of the media
Operation Yewtree, Operation Ravine, Operation Arundal etc
I'm guessing contempt doesn't factor after someone dies?
I don't know what to make of Mark Williams Thomas to be honest, there are conflicting view points of this person.... But one thing you mention that I have always found odd, is how can claims be made about a dead man without supporting evidence??
I do not know the whole facts relating to Jimmy Saville... I know it was in the media after he died, But found it weird in a sense ,it is easy to say anything about a dead man whether it's true or not, he is not able to face his accusers in court, obviously being as dead as a door nail....
There could be evidence to support the claims made about Jimmy Saville, But I have not seen any and do not know what the facts are in the case that came through the media after his death....
But Jimmy Saville isn't a case I have taken much notice of to be honest, purely because dead men don't talk and can't answer questions... I can rely on the gossip that has gone around the media about him and chose from that whether I believe that he was guilty of what was stated or not....
But I stick with the case that has bothered me from the beginning, the case that for some reason doesn't leave me, which I cannot fully explain why?? It's just there in my head.. sitting there and questions suddenly pop into my head about it from time to time, or more regularly as my posts will demonstrate....
-
Please dont you dare say there was no evidence for the Jimmy Saville cases. People did report him at the time and it was covered up
Others may have joined in since his death and who knows how valid their claims are
Jimmy had plenty of questions that he could and should have answered well before he died, just a sickening shame he wasnt made to!
-
Please dont you dare say there was no evidence for the Jimmy Saville cases. People did report him at the time and it was covered up
Others may have joined in since his death and who knows how valid their claims are
Jimmy had plenty of questions that he could and should have answered well before he died, just a sickening shame he wasnt made to!
You could be correct Jixy.... I am just not commenting on the Jimmy Saville case because I do not know enough about what has or has not been stated.... There as I have stated could be evidence to support such claims made against him, but it's difficult to confirm or contradict these claims, if the accused is dead... That is all I am saying....
So lets stick to topic of Dr Vincent Tabak and The Murder of Joanna Yeates and not bring Jimmy Saville here, when there is no connection ....
unless you know different...
-
I don't know what to make of Mark Williams Thomas to be honest, there are conflicting view points of this person.... But one thing you mention that I have always found odd, is how can claims be made about a dead man without supporting evidence??
"the man is an unmitigated liar who is the business of promoting sensational child abuse hysteria for money.
He lies through his teeth. He was never 'involved' with the McCann case although he claimed to be in interviews until the McCann people told him to back off. I'm sure he would have loved to have got his mitts on the money.
Shrinks would have a field day with blokes like this with their pre-occupation with children.
http://www.kingofhits.co.uk/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=65&func=view&catid=2&id=88196
IMO he's another who's not to be trusted. A self serving opportunist. I'd like to know what he scores on hares psychopathy checklist?
-
I'll say what I want thank you very much!
You are coming across as controlling Jixy. Please try and refrain from aggressive posts!
If i want to post that Saville had real victims its because he DID. No control needed.
He was a Paedo just like Tabak.
End of chat
-
Wow! I wish we had known about the laundry at the beginning! It has undoubtedly changed my view of the whole case. How dare they not feature it in the trial - it certainly could have helped the jury with the issues of murder or manslaughter! How dare Gregg not mention it at a time when he was bereft about his girlfriend! Case closed now, Tabak must be innocent! @)(++(*
-
And I'm sure Jixy and justsaying do not fool Nine either! 8((()*/
-
"
IMO he's another who's not to be trusted. A self serving opportunist. I'd like to know what he scores on hares psychopathy checklist?
for ease of moderating it had already gone wrong and off topic by this point...
See you in the naughty corner Stephanie, You lead the way in taking things off topic then attack
What is the worse that can happen?
I could say what "Hares" being mentioned springs to mind with me.... @)(++(*
"Hares" psychopathy checklist... Now I haven't heard of that check list but what springs to my mind when you mention that, is the talk that has been on twitter about "Hares" having myxomatosis... Now a disease jumping a species should be huge news.... But I now wonder if it is someone just making such comments and are really underhandedly taking about "The Hares" check list you mention....
But that is how my brain works on occasion, I see something and make a connection sometimes... But I really would need evidence to prove this point to be honest... So it is just a random thought that has popped through my head now that you have mentioned "Hares"..
And if i thought about it I was wondering why scientist have not been called upon to state how grave the consequencies of a disease jumping a species could be.... That is all....
-
I am sure Nine won't be fooled by you either Stephanie... She may want to look over some of your past posts where you have said her thinking is distorted etc... Changed your mind again? I am sure you have a different personality for every day of the week. I wonder how you would score on that checklist you mentioned?
-
People do not hold you in contempt merely because you campaigned for someone whom you believed to be innocent. People treat you the way you treat others and you do not like it! Still up on that high-horse!
-
You may be correct there JustSaying and you have a right to your opinion... But do I just take the comment you have made as an answer, or do I try and understand what you mean by such a comment.... What is it based on.... `is it based purely on a comment I made ,several comments I made, or my belief that I believe that Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent.... The variables that are available to the statement you have just made could be many...
Nine, I think what I said in my comment is self-explanatory. I have been straight forward with you and my thoughts on this case. Your new friend on the other hand is with you one day and against you the next, now she is back with you. It is amusing to see which head she has on each new day! Do not worry yourself, she will be against you again soon enough, when it suits her.
-
Manipulators and the double bind tactic 8((()*/ see though 8@??)(
This is another reason I believe I have been frustrated and confused.... There has been plenty of double bind tactics been used on the forum and in the media... And for someone like me, it take even longer, to process said information, because I do not know with which statement within a post or article for instance, that I should take note of.....
-
This is another reason I believe I have been frustrated and confused.... There has been plenty of double bind tactics been used on the forum and in the media... And for someone like me, it take even longer, to process said information, because I do not know with which statement within a post or article for instance, that I should take note of.....
Good point/observations Nine and yes not surprising. I've been there myself but that's a story for another time maybe.
But of course in REALITY there's no way of knowing who is behind the forum posts and media articles nor of their actual factual motives and agendas? History shows us that not everyone is who they say they are.
For example, I know for a fact the amount of members here (past and present) outweighs the actual factual amount of real people that exist.
I haven't always posted here under my own name. There was once a time when I thought "the real killers" were watching this forum.
Of course the real killer was watching this forum via me. *&^^&
It was an extremely confusing time back then and it wasn't just Simon Hall who was manipulating me!
-
Do not worry yourself Nine. Dr Stephanie PhD will help you.
Well is that sarcasm on your part, Or is it a statement built on fact?? You see when someone states something I am not sure of I will search the internet to find out what something may mean....
Which for the point you have just made I am not going to do.... It isn't important to me at the mo... It may visit me again, but who can say..
So according to that point you telling me not to worry makes me then wonder if there maybe is something I have missed that maybe I should be worried about....
Or do I take it in the way I first thought and you are telling me not to worry because you are being sarcastic about Stephanie and see it as a joke??
I sometimes over analysis everything.... Not all the time, just when something that has been stated hasn't quite sat correctly with me and I question it.....
-
Good point/observations Nine and yes not surprising. I've been there myself but that's a story for another time maybe.
But of course in REALITY there's no way of knowing who is behind the forum posts and media articles nor of their actual factual motives and agendas? History shows us that not everyone is who they say they are.
For example, I know for a fact the amount of members here (past and present) outweighs the actual factual amount of real people that exist.
Well I have wondered that before, but then am told that members cannot have more than one username.... So do I believe you when you state that as fact, do I believe what I have questioned myself or do I believe what the forum states.....
See how simple things become complexed....
I have no idea, who is who on here.... And if the people are whom they claim to be ,i have to take on some type of trust, that the claims people state are in fact true about themselves....
But I could then right a whole topic on whether or not someones statements are to be trusted based on whether or not you trust said person.... And what is the trust you have placed in said person based on.....
So I'll stick to the topic, and carry on from there.... 8)--))
-
I sometimes over analysis everything.....
Is this not what all good scientist do?
-
8)><( i sense posts being deleted. Is that why you take it all off topic?
Why delete posts?
Isn't this an open honest forum? Why the need to censor?
-
Seems to me the mention of the name CJ makes some people nervous? Anyone else notice that?
-
Why delete posts?
Isn't this an open honest forum? Why the need to censor?
I would far rather not have to delete them, Stephanie, but I have to abide by the forum rules, as do all moderators.
-
OMG... your making my head hurt... I can't keep up.... Too much conflicting information at the same time, I cannot process it all so quickly...
I could see how Dr Vincent Tabak might have struggled with the questioning by the Police, if he couldn't take in such information thrown at him and process said information... But as there is no evaluation on Dr Vincent Tabak, I cannot state as fact that it should be a consideration....
The simplest answer therefore would be No Comment....
Nine the "Dr Vincent Tabak" as you like to call him was a very clever man who had legal representation whilst being questioned by the police. You even said yourself that he had REFUSED to answer questions put to him, I doubt he was confused... Cunning on the other hand, well...
-
Its funny on here...the posts can go way off topic and people get attacked but its only when the said people defend themselves do the posts get deleted. Yes nice open forum
-
I was about to amend my post , but it stated that the board doesn't exist... I went back and now i am replying and have attached an image of the forum stating that the board doesn't exist...
Someones been left loose with the remote....
Now my response on what was meant by Well.. seems to have disappeared.... And I am sure I quoted myself, but now I am confused, because its telling me i am amending my post, so I have now got to question myself....
Now I am modifying it.... i lost where we were at and was flustered for a moment....
-
Makes debating all a waste of time Nine. We get derailed then have to defend ourselves to find it all gone. Round and round we go every time and yet it is all left to continue
-
Seems to me the mention of the name CJ makes some people nervous? Anyone else notice that?
You may get a little kick out of innocent people being discredited, but I certainly do not. Nothing about nerves, it is wrong to keep bringing his name up. Don't you think he has been put through enough? Not that his name was even mentioned today!
-
I was about to amend my post , but it stated that the board doesn't exist... I went back and now i am replying and have attached an image of the forum stating that the board doesn't exist...
Someones been left loose with the remote....
Yes that happens too.
Crazy Making huh.
I had this to also contend with when I wrongly believed Simon Hall was innocent.
No wonder things are so confusing?!
-
Makes debating all a waste of time Nine. We get derailed then have to defend ourselves to find it all gone. Round and round we go every time and yet it is all left to continue
Therefore answering my question of why do I bother..... ^*&&
-
You may get a little kick out of innocent people being discredited, but I certainly do not. Nothing about nerves, it is wrong to keep bringing his name up. Don't you think he has been put through enough? Not that his name was even mentioned today!
And yet more crazy making
And back in the REAL WORLD......
-
Yes back to the real world Dr Stephanie, somewhere where you don't seem to have been for a long time!
To moderate or not to moderate that is the question @)(++(*
-
Oh it will most certainly get removed... Don't you find it strange that all was well in this thread until you came along to cause havoc?
-
To moderate or not to moderate that is the question @)(++(*
Probably still deleting all your off topic attacks Stephanie give her time
-
Makes debating all a waste of time Nine. We get derailed then have to defend ourselves to find it all gone. Round and round we go every time and yet it is all left to continue
Again I am now wondering what this forum is about, is it a study?? Is it an experiment?? I had wondered whether or not that maybe someone is writing a book, but not on Miscarriages of Justice, But... on how social media cannot be trusted as fact as it is easy to edit what has been stated at anytime... Therefore It gave me the conclusion that i am an experiment and I am proof that when someone uses social media for their arguments, that information cannot be relied upon because it can be altered on different occasions....
8()-000( 8()-000( 8()-000(
-
Again I am now wondering what this forum is about, is it a study?? Is it an experiment?? I had wondered whether or not that maybe someone is writing a book, but not on Miscarriages of Justice, But... on how social media cannot be trusted as fact as it is easy to edit what has been stated at anytime... Therefore It gave me the conclusion that i am an experiment and I am proof that when someone uses social media for their arguments, that information cannot be relied upon because it can be altered on different occasions....
8()-000( 8()-000( 8()-000(
Social media should never ever be treated as fact Nine.
-
If talking firmly but way off topic granted about Saville is bullying then let me be a bully. He was a repulsive man and yes before you ask, I know that for a fact!
-
Social media should never ever be treated as fact Nine.
i agree....
-
Moving on slightly its now 5pm and Tabak is still guilty and never tried to convince anyone otherwise. Makes all this a bit pointless really doesnt it?
-
I think you missed a few posts Mrswah, particularly the ones where people are being falsely accused of being bullies. If that is not personal I do not know what is!
-
very selective moderating especially considering how it all got derailed in the first place mrswah
-
I think you missed a few posts Mrswah, particularly the ones where people are being falsely accused of being bullies. If that is not personal I do not know what is!
I am certainly not being "personal", as you put it, just working my way through pages of inappropriate posts while having other things to do too!
I am sure my decisions are checked by more senior moderators, so you will be treated fairly!
Would all be far easier for everyone if certain posters could refrain from using the forum to squabble with other posters and to insult them.
-
Why are you critising a moderator?
I dont need to answer to you. If mrswah has any issues with me or my posts I am sure she will say so. Secret Mod Stephanie? or just want to be?
-
I am certainly not being "personal", as you put it, just working my way through pages of inappropriate posts while having other things to do too!
I am sure my decisions are checked by more senior moderators, so you will be treated fairly!
Would all be far easier for everyone if certain posters could refrain from using the forum to squabble with other posters and to insult them.
You are certainly cherry-picking what gets removed. I know you support Tabak, but that is no reason to leave posts which allege people are bullying. If we were bullying why did you not removed the bullying posts, out of curiosity?
-
I have a right to request those posts be removed. It is not nice accusing people of being a bully when those accusations are totally unfounded.
-
Moving on slightly its now 5pm and Tabak is still guilty and never tried to convince anyone otherwise. Makes all this a bit pointless really doesnt it?
Exactly and that is why I come to the conclusion of why do I continue.... We go round in circle... i have no real insight as to what this site actually is about... And then feel like I should walk away.... Because I do not know what I am defending... As I have said it could be the invisible man... The entire case as I have also stated could be based entirely from social media....
So maybe I have wasted 2 years... Oh well thats my problem....
-
Ask yourself Nine how it got to this. As with every post it ends up with attacks and off topic
-
I dont need to answer to you. If mrswah has any issues with me or my posts I am sure she will say so. Secret Mod Stephanie? or just want to be?
IN REALITY is mrswah real?
Are you real?
Is justsaying real?
How do any of us know any of you actually factually exist?
You could all be John for all we know?!
-
Paranoid Dr Stephanie?
-
Paranoid Dr Stephanie?
Those days are gone
Am basing my theory on past experiences
-
its not going well then i see
-
Is Tabak even real, I mean he could be John also @)(++(*
-
its not going well then i see
Not going well for who!?
-
Or.... Do I decide that they back and forth chat from today, is to distract from a post I made earlier that may have something of relevance??
And anyone... unless they are really interested in what has been said , won't bother reading said posts when it just looks like all that happens is bickering, missing what is hidden in between thousand and thousands of posts or threads..
See there is always something to consider....
-
Or.... Do I decide that they back and forth chat from today, is to distract from a post I made earlier that may have something of relevance??
And anyone... unless they are really interested in what has been said , won't bother reading said posts when it just looks like all that happens is bickering, missing what is hidden in between thousand and thousands of posts or threads..
See there is always something to consider....
Nine I am not sure who or what lead you to think that . The thread always runs as smoothly as it can when people have opposing views.
When someone comes along to whip it up a bit it isnt to stop you posting
To be fair, You have posted for a couple of years now and arent any further on, no new clues or arguments that could help Tabak.
You keep posting. No one is trying to stop you. Any disruption im sure isnt personal to you!
-
Nine I am not sure who or what lead you to think that . The thread always runs as smoothly as it can when people have opposing views.
When someone comes along to whip it up a bit it isnt to stop you posting
To be fair, You have posted for a couple of years now and arent any further on, no new clues or arguments that could help Tabak.
You keep posting. No one is trying to stop you. Any disruption im sure isnt personal to you!
I agree----it isn't personal to you at all, but disappointing nevertheless, as this thread usually runs very "smoothly", even when people disagree with each other.
-
Please dont you dare say there was no evidence for the Jimmy Saville cases. People did report him at the time and it was covered up
Others may have joined in since his death and who knows how valid their claims are
Jimmy had plenty of questions that he could and should have answered well before he died, just a sickening shame he wasnt made to!
If i want to post that Saville had real victims its because he DID. No control needed.
He was a Paedo just like Tabak.
End of chat
Maybe you'd start a new thread on "Saville" and break it all down for us and present the "facts" to which you refer?
Though there is a thread here if you'd like to add your words of wisdom to it? http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=563.0 and here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=691.0
December 2012
""It would be a good thing for this Yewtree business to be shut down, imo.
You’re right that the JS witch hunt was not only ‘foolish’ but dangerous and
damaging, beginning with unsubstantiated accusations from a woman at Duncroft,
which remain unsubstantiated, as do all the others, apparently. Mark WT
coerced these women to come up with these stories for his own benefit, imo,
with the collusion of Meirion Jones, who has a grudge against his aunt. Not a
ONE of them complained to the staff, and the same would be true of those who
claim they were abused elsewhere. There is no legal basis for ANY of this.
https://annaraccoon.com/2012/11/30/fanning-the-flames-in-the-ethical-vacuum/
-
Maybe we should just stick to the thread or not comment? or even better try posting nicely. I didnt bring him into it. I think you will find you did!
-
I agree----it isn't personal to you at all, but disappointing nevertheless, as this thread usually runs very "smoothly", even when people disagree with each other.
Mrswah, they need their fun, I try to ignore them, they are obviously bored, bless them... They spend a lot of time contradicting themselves, but if it fun they want , I'll leave them to it... I would prefer if they had something constructive to add, but one cannot always get that... I am confident that my posts are made from observation of what has been written and what has been spoken about this issues surrounding the case..
They may find fault when i quote, from other peoples, tweets, facebook posts or from newspaper articles, but they cannot fault my observations of people on video, when the words are spoken from these own peoples mouths...
CJ... I case in point... my observations of the talk he gave are from my own opinion... And knowing what I know about the case, i obviously will be looking for what i may consider are anomalies....
We are not in the height and public hysteria stage, when everything is raw, and no-one is taking any real notice of what someone might say, as to either (A) Offend.. or (B) question....
It's gone well past that point, and in the cold light of nearly 8 years later, and the detachment many will now feel, it is far easier, to look at this case in a different light... Far easier to try and observe what someone says publicaly, at this stage of the game...
The reason I refer to CJ or The Yeates ,is purely because they are the only people I have video of from the time... I have a little from DCI Phil Jones, the man whom on video stated that Dr Vincent Tabak was a Placid Individual, it was he whom had called him this first, it was he whom talked of Dr Vincent Tabak in this light after Dr Vincent Tabak was incarcerated, and therefore, doesn't that strike you as odd, that DCI Phil Jones ,whom was almost in tears at the press conference and talked of Dr Vincent Tabak, in words that could be described as contempt for him and not supporting him in anyway... Would later talk about him as a Placid Man... And in the words of DC Karen Thomas "Alarms Bells started ringing"...
Because this case is so strange, because no-one speaks of it and because no-one can find out anything about it, I when I started writing on here decided I would look at it as if i was defending Dr Vincent Tabak, I decided i would look at the information that was available to me from around the net, and dissect said information...
If I find anomalies in this case, just on the video's alone, It makes me question even more what the defence did or didn't do... Why it is so important that Dr Vincent Tabak and anyone who has an opposing opinion on what took place, either doesn't say or is ridiculed...
I really am doing it the hard way... No-one has been able to speak to Dr Vincent Tabak as far as I am aware... Just look at the thread that mrswah did on "Prison Location Services".. it will tell you all you need to know.... Put that together with the people whom have been trying to uncover/discover anything about this case for the past 7 years, and it will surely tell you that no-one wants anyone to speak or talk to Dr Vincent Tabak.... which if he is the monster they keep saying he is ,shouldn't really be a problem... ordinarily they would just make out that the person happy to talk to a prisoner of that calibre, must have a screw loose...
But ... They don't even get that far..... I would put it in terms of of child, for instance... you keep telling a child to stop picking said spot, but the child continues.... And with this case, the more they seem to want to stop people questioning, the more people will eventually pop out of the woodwork, and pick a spot until theres a bloody great hole....
By denying something to anyone, only brings more curiosity , by denying and not allowing questioning of anything, only brings more questions...
I said, I came back to this case, because it was always popping into my head... It bothered me... the outcome was not as clear cut as they wanted me to believe.... But I only new of the facebook discussion group that would talk of this case.... And when I came across this site, I was being troubled again by my thought of the case, and that prompted me to go in search of more answers, if anyone had them... Now you know how I landed here...
We all knew the basics of the case, and we all knew the outcome... But it was what was in between that seemed missing... Now no disrespect to Mr and Mrs Yeates, but it did surprise me that they didn't even attend court on the last day.... How and why was that?? They can not have possibily known the outcome, the jury were in deliberations, they jury could have not come to a decision.... But for a reason unbeknown to me, they had not attended what turned out to be the last day of court... And there reasoning gets told by "Russ" the FLO that they had only attended the trial to find out the reasons for this, they knew he was guilty, and didn't need to see the juries outcome... On the surface it sounds plausible enough, but, not wanting to be disrespectful, I want to understand how they would even suspect that the jury would definitely come back with a guilty verdict?? And whether or not the Judge would send the jury home for the weekend.... It's odd to me... But that is my opinion...
So the little oddities that stuck out for me whilst looking at what happened in this case, caused me to look at it more closely.... And CJ... He is the only person who keep this case alive (imo)... By trotting about various venues, giving speeches to various groups....
Now as I have stated... I do not know how to interpret CJ's constant appearances... I do not know why he doesn't openly tell us what he witnessed at the gate, and what he witnessed that weekend, some 7/8 years later....
If he truly believes that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates, what has he got to loose,?? The Case isn't gonna be reopened anytime soon... It would put to bed questions that linger.... So I make my own interpretation of what he has to say, I make my own decisions based on what I hear coming forth from his lips and I question again, what he knows and why he doesn't say.....
For instance, on the video I posted with his talk at The Redgrave Theatre, I questioned why he appeared, to compare his vilification in the media, to that of the media's representation of Joanna Yeates.... An odd choice.... Why would you compare yourself to the victim?? It's almost like he is trying to discredit Joanna Yeates... It's almost like he knows something about Joanna Yeates , that in some eyes would appear unsavoury....
So do I look at this video and say... He know far more of Joanna Yeates history, than any of us do, and wants to divulge this info, or he is self interested??
The line is so thin.... The comments makes my ears prick up... And it's not about pointing fingers, it's about observing what words have been used, and how anyone with an notion of this case, would recognise what some might consider significant words....
CJ used the term... "Christmas day of all days"..... Now depending on your viewpoint you could look at that statement in many a light...
You could look at it as what a terrible day to be found.... If she were to be found any day other than that would have been better... Or, did he have more information than we know.... Is CJ.. keeping this case alive by talking of it....
So fore instance back to that term..... If someone considered that CJ, was implicated in said case.. that term, would and could be seen as quite damning..... Because, As I have stated, I believe they had found Joanna Yeates before Christmas Day and the media circus that followed on Christmas day made the discovery of Joanna Yeates even more memorable..... And as CJ, is a religious man, Christmas Day, would therefore always be blighted by the finding of Joanna Yeates body and therefore would always be etched in someones memory.....
But... I have to go back to, why does CJ.. keep giving these talks.... If he is not allowed to divulge what he knows and the case disappears out of sight and out of mind, what better way to keep it in the public domain, than by going around the country telling your story of how you were arrested and the treatment of the press....
By enabling you to maybe... drop hints about said case..... so the term... "Christmas Day of All days"... may actually be aimed at someone else.... It may be important to someone else, and CJ is letting that someone know... By cleverly letting it slide into his speeches....
When he does said comparisons of Joanna Yeates and himself.. Is he talking about someone else... ?? I don't know.... But this case is odd... This case has been kept quiet... This case is off the agenda, and that should make anyone question it because of those reasons....
So is CJ advocating for Dr Vincent Tabak in a way in which he can, by keeping the public aware of the case so many years later.... Is CJ, doing his bit for this case?? Is CJ trying in his own little way to let us know without spilling the beans that there are things to consider....
Just like the Yeates did in their video... They dropped in a piece of information that no-one was aware of, they told us, and most took no notice... They told us of a vital piece of evidence that surely should have raised questions, that when they arrived at Joanna Yeates Flat The Clothes Washing were in piles.... I believe that this piece of evidence is significant... I believe that this piece of evidence throws up lots of possiblities... I believe that this piece of evidence brings many many more questions forward, and I wonder why we have not had or seen any evidence of these piles of washing at the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak.....
I would not point the finger at CJ... I can't ... I have nothing to support said idea.... But It doesn't stop me questioning his reasons for going around the country making speeches.... Is it self Interest, or is he just trying the best he can to keep people informed of this case, to get people to maybe look at this case online, to get people to see it doesn't add up... And get people to start asking their own questions.....
One can only give CJ a round of applause, if he has had his hands tied about the content of his second witness statement, If he has been silenced into making real references to the case... if he can only keep the case alive by going on to various locations and giving various speeches around the land, then applauded it should be...
Because there isn't anyone else connected to this case keeping it alive as far as I can see.... There isn't anyone else keeping this case in the public eye that would have some sway..... There isn't anyone else whom dares some might say, mention the case in any light.... Done and Dusted... Hidden away in the annals of history... A relavently short history, but history all the same....
The media do not ask CJ direct questions, they themselves appeared to have been silenced, So no direct questions in relation to the time back in 2010 other than CJ's treatment at the time, ever is mentioned.... No-one even mentioning about helping Greg Reardon for instance....
Now that question would be a good considerate question to put to anyone.... Based on how one might feel.... I say this because, a person one might say they felt that
* if only they hadn't assisted the boyfriend to get on his Journey then Joanna Yeates would be alive today,
* If he hadn't gone and asked Peter Stanley to help with this car getting started.. Then Joanna Yeates would be alive
today....
* If he hadn't been such a considerate neighbour helping a tenant get to see his nieces on the most awful of
weathers, Joanna Yeates would be alive today.....
* If Peter Stanley had been out for the evening Joanna yeates would be alive today....
* If CJ had decided to go Christmas Shopping instead of being at home... Joanna Yeates would be alive today.....
You see, some posters have said I do not know how CJ feels, and they are quite correct.. I do not, and It concerns me that no-one seems to care how CJ feels... It concerns me that no-one asks him if he feels guilty for being such a good neighbour.... They don't seem to care for him whatsoever... That he may forever wish that if he just hadn't helped Joanna Yeates boyfriend start said car... That Joanna Yeates would be alive today... Because Greg Reardon would never have made that journey to Sheffield and he would have been at home with his girlfriend that weekend, and the terrible tragedy we know would never have taken place.....
It must be such a burden for him... It must play on his mind..... And therefore the term On "Christmas day of All Days" takes on a whole new meaning.... For a religious man trying to move forward and keep the public aware of this case... The "pain and guilt" must be enormous.... Because he will never forget Joanna Yeates, the killer sort to that... the discovery of her body on Christmas day sort to that..... Like many of us when we look back in hindside, we wish that things were done slightly differently... We wish if we had only done that and not done that the outcome would be so much better.....
So, are the media unfeeling for CJ... have they not stopped to think he may be racked with guilt simply by a kind gesture on his part by helping a fellow resident of Canygne Road a little bit of assistance on the 17th December 2010, could have implications for the rest of his life....
Have the media no decency to stop for one moment and ask CJ.. If he is OK... Because they do not know that every time he goes to bed, his act of kindness is playing on his mind... They do not know that he may wish he never helped Greg that evening... Because if he hadn't done that tiny act of kindness... Joanna Yeates would be alive today.... And I believe it plays on his mind daily...
So yes... His talks may be therapy... They may be helping Dr Vincent Tabak keep this case in the public eye.... So other poster can stop saying I my pointing the finger when they have no idea, what is racing through my mind at any one time.....
I have avoided bring up this responsibility that CJ may fell... because I was trying to be decent... But as was said on a post... What would I know what it is like being in CJ's shoes.... And quite honestly I don't....
That why I thought about it, and thought OMG, ... yes.... something that no-one has ever seemed to consider CJ's feelings in not only how he was treated, but in his feeling responsible somehow for Joanna Yeates demise....
And not one person has thought about the guilt he may carry, being a man of god.... That if it was for him helping Greg, then life would be simple... Joanna Yeates would be a name we had never heard of and her murder would not have happened.... So I apologise.... The burden he must carry is great.... and The Media, should ask him how he feels.... And consider what he has been through these many many years..... And once that has come to pass.... He may feel confident in telling us a little more of what he knows......
And all I can add to that is... Just think next time , on the anniversary of Joanna Yeates being Missing and on the anniversary of when Joanna Yeates death... have compassion for not only the family , but CJ, himself.... CJ a man whom must have always carried the guilt of if only.... If only he hadn't assisted Greg Reardon on that fatefull day, Joanna Yeates would be alive today....
So yes... I can only applaud CJ... A man after all these years is trying to keep this case in the public eye, through his own pain and guilt, Is selflessly trying to keep the public aware of what happened on the fateful night which we are told is the 17th December 2010.... And "Christmas Day of all days," maybe we should look at that as CJ's day, not forgetting The Family of course... CJ's day when he wished that his tenant would be found safe and well... A day that will be forever etched in his memory, that... If he hadn't helped Greg Reardon that Joanna Yeates would be alive today...
So yes... maybe I should have been more considerate and put myself in CJ's shoes.... And maybe more people should do the same.... And if at Christmas you think of what a terrible tragedy happened, send CJ a card to tell him you are thinking of him too on this "Day of All Days."...
Because I myself wouldn't want to be in his shoe... I would feel racked with guilt for my act of kindness, had turned out to be a fateful decision...
Edit.... maybe we should have a topic, where we send messages of support to CJ ,Greg and The Yeates.... Where we can let CJ know we are thinking not only of the Yeates and Greg on this Day of All Days, but that we are thinking of him too.... And try to stop him carry that burden of guilt from his act of kindness.... Were if he follows this thread and topic, he can see that people are always thinking of him too..... Just a thought!!
-
What makes you think that Tabak WANTS to speak to any of you who have tried to contact him? There are cases of higher profile than his who manage to protest their innocence. What utter rubbish!
-
I really am doing it the hard way... No-one has been able to speak to Dr Vincent Tabak as far as I am aware... Just look at the thread that mrswah did on "Prison Location Services".. it will tell you all you need to know.... Put that together with the people whom have been trying to uncover/discover anything about this case for the past 7 years, and it will surely tell you that no-one wants anyone to speak or talk to Dr Vincent Tabak.... which if he is the monster they keep saying he is ,shouldn't really be a problem... ordinarily they would just make out that the person happy to talk to a prisoner of that calibre, must have a screw loose...
Is it not just as likely that the Murderer Vincent Tabak is so ashamed of his actions that he rejects entering into correspondence with strangers. I know Mrswah and I were both rejected from writing to him but we don't KNOW that he rejects everyone. Maybe he is in constant correspondence with some people.
So the little oddities that stuck out for me whilst looking at what happened in this case, caused me to look at it more closely.... And CJ... He is the only person who keep this case alive (imo)... By trotting about various venues, giving speeches to various groups....
Now as I have stated... I do not know how to interpret CJ's constant appearances... I do not know why he doesn't openly tell us what he witnessed at the gate, and what he witnessed that weekend, some 7/8 years later....
If he truly believes that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates, what has he got to loose,?? The Case isn't gonna be reopened anytime soon... It would put to bed questions that linger.... So I make my own interpretation of what he has to say, I make my own decisions based on what I hear coming forth from his lips and I question again, what he knows and why he doesn't say.....
Christopher Jefferies' "constant appearances" are related to the behaviour of the press as part of his involvement with everything to do Levenson and the changing how reporting works. He's not talking about the case because the case has been solved, the man responsible put away and has nothing to do with how atrociously he himself was treated by the papers.
-
Now no disrespect to Mr and Mrs Yeates, but it did surprise me that they didn't even attend court on the last day.... How and why was that?? They can not have possibily known the outcome, the jury were in deliberations, they jury could have not come to a decision.... But for a reason unbeknown to me, they had not attended what turned out to be the last day of court...
Read the case of Rachel Moran - her mother could not enter the courtroom on the last day of trial either because she could not contemplate the thought of a not guilty verdict being reached. It really is not fair to question the actions of her parents, who are victims in this tragic event also. It should not matter to anyone whether they could face certain aspects of the trial or not!
-
Nine i am confused. Why would you know why they didnt attend? They were going through the worst time of their lives and how they dealt with it was personal to them. There really isnt a rule book on what to do when your Daughter has been murdered
They would have been supported at home away from the press attention. Who knows what we would do in that situation, lets hope we never have to find out
-
You see, some posters have said I do not know how CJ feels, and they are quite correct.. I do not, and It concerns me that no-one seems to care how CJ feels... It concerns me that no-one asks him if he feels guilty for being such a good neighbour.... They don't seem to care for him whatsoever... That he may forever wish that if he just hadn't helped Joanna Yeates boyfriend start said car... That Joanna Yeates would be alive today... Because Greg Reardon would never have made that journey to Sheffield and he would have been at home with his girlfriend that weekend, and the terrible tragedy we know would never have taken place.....
So it is CJ's fault that Joanna was murdered? Because he helped her boyfriend start the car? Not Tabaks fault for taking her life? Your post is clearly pointing fingers, yet again! You are making several false accusations against him. Not least, suggesting he knows something "unsavoury" about the victim! Then you wonder why people take offence to your posts... Even if it was not Tabak who killed Joanna (not that I am suggesting for one minute it is not him) it would be the murderer's fault she is dead, no-one else's!
-
Who wants to stop questioning? why would anyone be doing that so long after his trial. Denying what? He has a chance to speak up at his trial based on his admission of guilt
No one has been denied anything. If he wasnt guilty, he had opportunity after opportunity to address it and he didnt. Not then or NOW
-
Tabak isnt famous and there is no need to keep him or his case in the public eye. None whatsoever. He is a convicted murderer who admitted what he did caused a young woman's death
I am finding you reference of the guilt CJ should be feeling etc quite disturbing. He should be feeling guilt we should send cards? but Tabak doesnt need to be feeling anything?
Guilt shame disgust maybe?
-
I find the post really offensive against Joanna, her parents and an innocent man. I get that Nine is trying to defend Tabak and that is her choice - but a little bit of tact would not go amiss. Just awful!
-
So it is CJ's fault that Joanna was murdered? Because he helped her boyfriend start the car? Not Tabaks fault for taking her life? Your post is clearly pointing fingers, yet again! You are making several false accusations against him. Not least, suggesting he knows something "unsavoury" about the victim! Then you wonder why people take offence to your posts... Even if it was not Tabak who killed Joanna (not that I am suggesting for one minute it is not him) it would be the murderer's fault she is dead, no-one else's!
No I am not pointing fingers... I was trying to take on board CJ's feelings....... and in no way point fingers, I was trying to imagine how someone may feel responsible for their small act of kindness.... and in no way was suggesting that it was CJ's fault....
Where as you on the other hand are the person saying it was CJ's fault that Joanna Yeates is dead, by mis-interpreting my intentions , of what I thought was being gracious, to genuinely think how CJ may feel after such a traumatic event.... I was trying to say, that like so many people do, that he should not shoulder the blame for this as he only helped Greg....
I was trying to say, stop feeling the guilt... Christmas may be a significant and bad time of year.... But one can only feel responsible for so long.... I was literally trying to put myself in CJ"s shoes as someone had asked....
So do not mis-interpret my meaning..... Do not put your own slant on what you believe I believe.... Because I clearly was trying to understand what it would be like to be in CJ's shoes,,, and had anyone ever been considerate enough to even consider that this may play on his mind.....
I was hoping for people to start to reasure CJ that it wasn't his fault... I was hoping that people may show a little compassion for him at Christmas and send him cards.... Maybe with something alone the lines of..... : Thinking of you at this most distressing time of year.... :... I don't know what to put inside..... i do not do Christmas cards....
But a considerate message that they haven't forgotten him..... I thought I was being kind.... But again obviously NOT....
you unfortunately always mis-interpret my intensions, and I cannot help that..... I know what I see, i know I see a man trying to move forward... A man that behind closed door, must be suffering.... Just because he is not related to The Family or Greg, doesn't mean he shouldn't be upset by the events of that time.... And when everyone is thinking about , Joanna yeates family and greg, I thought they could spare a thought or a prayer, for those other unfortunate people that are connected to this case through no fault of their own.....
And maybe whilst your popping a card through CJ's door , spare a thought for Peter Stanley..... who know what he may think of all this....!!!! Maybe be kind and send Peter Stanley a card too... Just a thought....
And if I am not allowed to be charitable, without someone twisting my meaning..... then what is the world coming too.....
-
It's almost like he knows something about Joanna Yeates , that in some eyes would appear unsavoury....
How is the above not pointing fingers? If you were trying to say those things, why not just say them in the context you have just said them? How do you know he even feels guilt? He may not because he has not got anything to feel guilty about!
You question the parents actions, you questions CJ's action - everyone's actions, apart from the one person who admitted to this horrendous crime. You have no tact!
-
How is the above not pointing fingers? If you were trying to say those things, why not just say them in the context you have just said them? How do you know he even feels guilt? He may not because he has not got anything to feel guilty about!
You question the parents actions, you questions CJ's action - everyone's actions, apart from the one person who admitted to this horrendous crime. You have no tact!
I really don't understand how you can possibly suggest that Nine is "pointing fingers" at anyone. Nine has pointed this out quite clearly, IMO
-
I really don't understand how you can possibly suggest that Nine is "pointing fingers" at anyone. Nine has pointed this out quite clearly, IMO
It's almost like he knows something about Joanna Yeates , that in some eyes would appear unsavoury....
So you do not see that as pointing fingers? I am not surprised you do not considering you support Tabak yourself, you're hardly impartial!
-
So you do not see that as pointing fingers? I am not surprised you do not considering you support Tabak yourself, you're hardly impartial!
I wouldn't say that I "support" Tabak. Since I don't know him from Adam, that would be pushing things a little too far!
I have always borne in mind that he could be guilty, but on the other hand, I have never felt comfortable with the case, and hence me beginning this thread and asking questions to challenge the way it went.
As for CJ, for what it's worth, I consider him to be a very brave man.
-
I wouldn't say that I "support" Tabak. Since I don't know him from Adam, that would be pushing things a little too far!
I have always borne in mind that he could be guilty, but on the other hand, I have never felt comfortable with the case, and hence me beginning this thread and asking questions to challenge the way it went.
As for CJ, for what it's worth, I consider him to be a very brave man.
Perhaps Nine should stick to questioning the evidence and stop bringing CJ and the victims parents into it? Does it really matter that CJ speaks out about what happened to him? He is very much in his right to do that. Does it really matter that the victims devastated parents did not stick around for the verdict or that they thought Tabak was guilty? I do find it offensive and an insult to the people whose actions Nine is questioning. Saying there were "unsavoury" things about the victim etc, it is very offensive. None of these things prove anything one way or another, it is finger pointing for no good reason.
-
I find the post really offensive against Joanna, her parents and an innocent man. I get that Nine is trying to defend Tabak and that is her choice - but a little bit of tact would not go amiss. Just awful!
OMG... I get nowhere.... You ask me to consider others feelings, I try, but you are not satisfied in the way I try to express what I mean.....
I tried really hard today... To stop looking at something as literal and you scoff at my efforts..... I can be blunt and I don't mean to be ... I have tried on may occasions to get you to understand how I look at things.... That when I see a gap, I question what should be in that gap..... I need it filling in..... I need a complete picture.... Well at least a complete picture from someone.... Anyone ..... Not a few answers on a statement that is read out in court , that I do not know whether it is the full statement and in what context I should interpret said statement....
I try my very best to be compassionate and you ridicule... That is not fair..... I cannot help how the words I write get interpreted by you or anyone else...... I am not in your head.... You are not in my head..... And I am sure you are relieved of that possibility.... So if you..... Mis-interpret my intentions, I can only apologise... I thought I had made myself clear.....
This is the difficulty with the written word.... It can be construed in many many forms, until it is unrecognisable as as the persons intentions or aims.....
I am not at fault if you cannot see what I see and what I am saying.... I again thought I was being kind..... CJ was vilified.... everyone knows.... I thought I would try and remember my christian background that I have left far behind, and remember the teachings of the bible.... I was trying to put someone elses feelings first.... But that has obviously backfired and is not helping.....
Do I write before every post I make.... "I am Not Pointing Fingers Here".... just incase someone may mis-interpret what point I intended to get across......
I'll go back to my usual style of writing, and prey you find what I write a little clearer.... And if I am not being compassionate enough, then , accept my apologise now.... I was trying to be Christian, falling back on what I had been taught as a girl..... And if you think I was pointing fingers at CJ, then If that had bee the case I would have been quoting from the Ten Commandments..... And Though Shall Not Kill.... and that would have been at the top of the list.... Seeing as CJ is a religious man and that surely would have a far greater importance than me trying to as you say .... Point The Finger.... OMG... To suggest that is what I am trying to do is so Un-Christian of you...... There could have been other uses I could have had of the Ten Commandments, If I wanted to point the finger.....
Ten Commandments List
(1): Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.
(2): Thou shalt make no idols.
(3): Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
(4): Keep the Sabbath day holy.
(5): Honour your father and your mother.
(6): Thou Shalt not kill.
(7): Thou shall not commit adultery.
(8): Thou shall not steal.
(9): Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbour.
(10):Thou shalt not covet.
Anyone of those commandments I could have used to press CJ's buttons if I was pointing the finger.... And even now I could say he refused to testify because of his religious beliefs, and did not want to bear false witness... But i wasn't saying that I wasn't using the commandments.... I was simply trying to be a charitable person, remembering
how i had been taught as a young girl and give someone a little bit of grace......
But as usual, you mis-interpret me... You try to turn things around, you try to make them sound differently than what I meant.... I am not backwards at coming forwards... I am blunt unfortunately... I take many things literally....I call a spade a spade....
So do not now use this post to say I am trying to use the Ten Commandments against CJ... Just to justify the fact you cannot understand my meaning.....
The use of the TEN COMMANDMENTS is purely to show how if I was to point the finger I would use them and interpret them in many many many ways to make someone feel the guilt and to recognise what they have done in a way that would be of significance to them.....
But I am not... I am not going to do that.... But you always put me on the back-foot... Making me feel I need to explain myself time and time again..... Missing what I mean... and not understanding I was trying to be compassionate...
Oh My Lord... See you made me say it.... you made me say something that would have had me get a clip around the ear lug as a child.... Then I now think who am I upsetting now, when using words that may be misunderstood... when using phrases that can offend anyone.... You'll make me over think everything again... worrying that i may have unintentionally written something that someone has misunderstood... That I have offended someone in my literal way I think and sometimes speak....
I can't apologise for who I am.... But as you all know I take most things literally, maybe you will extend me the benefit of the doubt when you read my posts... maybe you will understand why I keep questioning the same things over and over again in different lights.... Because I cannot sort out something that doesn't make sense to me... I have to go over and over it again.... I have to understand why the evidence doesn't support the story told on the stand....
And whilst your suggestions of me looking at something in a different way may be beneficial, it is only beneficial, if I can comprehend something in said light that makes it palatable to anyone else.......
So I would appreciate in future , if you could give a little consideration to someone who doesn't see the world through your eyes, and may have a different perspective on how the world works.... and try a little bit harder to see my posts in the light they were intended!!
Thank you Nine....
-
Okay Nine, let's put this a different way. What has the fact that Joanna's devastated parent's did not stick around for the verdict got to do with Tabak being guilty or innocent?
Why should CJ not speak out about his miscarriage of justice and what has that got to do with Tabak being guilty or innocent?
Why would you say CJ knows something "unsavoury" about the victim without have a shred of evidence to support such a claim?
Why do you not stick to questioning the evidence instead of questioning other people's actions if you are not trying to prove they had something to do with a massive cover/set up?
Why are you always very suggestive in your posts if you are not pointing the finger at anyone, or trying to discredit their character/s?
It is not my interpretation of your posts, it is the way you word them, without any tact. Perhaps you could try and not bring innocent people into the equation for no other apparent reason than to point a finger towards their seemingly innocent actions?
Just saying...
-
nine that is a very long list of to dos you expect justsaying to follow
Can I just point something out while we are over using the interpret or mis-interpret
You have done that with this whole case. You have decided to interpret Tabaks confession, admission of taking a life the whole trial and everyone involved in your own way
That has lead you to wrongly believe he is innocent
Maybe read your very long post back and instead of directing it all at justsaying take it all on board yourself
Really seems like someone else has taken over your account tonight or returned *%87
-
You have no tact!
I know I have no tact... I try to be tactful... That is what I have been trying to tell you all along... I am like a bull in a china shop... My lack of education is not helping here either..... that is also why my style of posting is what it is... Questioning... If i do it in question type form, I hopefully will reach more people I hopefully will get people to understand what I mean and what I am saying.....
Do I call myself as thick as Pig Shit.... would that help you a little.... would that satisfy your opinion of me....
My posts I keep saying are to highlight the anomalies that I see with this case, and if my presentation is not satisfactory, I again can only apologise..... My Lord.... there I go again.... I write whats in my head.... You can see that... Leonora has picked me up on that before.... I try to make my point by using quotes, so maybe people will understand where I am coming from.....
I try to hope more people will question the case..... I cannot point fingers at anyone, when i do not know who killed Joanna yeates, when i do not know if the papers ever mentioned the person who killed Joanna Yeates other than the people we know that have had had their names in the media at this time.....
You see why it would be stupid of me to suggest and point the finger when I cannot possibly know who did it.... But if I believe that Dr Vincent Tabak is innocent, that then leaves the door open for it to be someone else.... And without knowing all the evidence I cannot point or suggest another person for this crime....
That is why when The yeates do or say anything I look at what it is they are doing or saying.... Thats why I have drawn peoples attention to "The Washing Pile" David Yeates saw that we were not aware of before or at trial....
So if my ham-fisted way of writing is offensive I apologise... But look at some of the content and maybe question why for instance "The Pile of Washing" could be significant to this case.... instead of trying to undermine my efforts because you say I have no tact... Something that I am aware of.... Thank you...
You can mis-interpret me as many times as you like... But you will never take away that The Yeates saw a "Pile of Washing" that had been sorted , in Joanna Yeates flat... Because it wasn't me who magic-ed this up out of thin air... It wasn't my mind that mis-interpreted what they saw.... And If I believe that the washing was significant, then that is a fair opinion to have....
You see...
* Wet Washing
* Dry Washing
* Dirty Washing
3 possibilities from a simple observation as to seeing a pile of Washing... 3 possibilities that bring more questions forward.... 3 Possibilities that could have an impact on this case... And from those 3 possibilities, many a scenario could then be given as to the significance of this Washing, that David Yeates spoke about on video.......
So yes I may be blunt... I may be tactless.... But I am not blind and I am not stupid.... One simple comment made by David Yeates brings up a whole host of possibilities and further scenarios in this case.... (imo) And the significance of this washing pile may not have dawned on The Yeates, maybe they were not aware of how important their observation was.... (imo)
-
It wasn't your opinion about the washing I was referring to Nine... Even though that seems, to me, totally irrelevant to the issues of whether Tabak was guilty of murder or manslaughter...
You seem to think it should have been an issue at trial... You fail to take into consideration that it would have absolutely no relevance to the issues raised, that being murder or manslaughter... Unless the washing was a silent witness to the crime, perhaps they should have put that on the stand instead of Tabak?
-
Just to humour you...
How did David Yeates know how long the washing had been sitting there for? He hadn't been in her flat prior to her being killed - so how does he know when she did her washing? He could be just assuming what happened, a bit like you do in all of your posts...
-
So you do not see that as pointing fingers? I am not surprised you do not considering you support Tabak yourself, you're hardly impartial!
Yes... that is the point... I wasn't exactly trying to be impartial...
* I was trying to question why a man has gone to trial apparently guilty only to be found more guiltier....
* I am trying to understand , where the evidence lead to it being Dr Vincent Tabak....
* I am trying to understand why thing do not add up...
* I am trying to understand why witness's were not called...
* I am trying to understand why no-one stood in support of Dr Vincent Tabak...
* I am trying to understand why the CCTV of Canygne Road for Friday 17th December 2010 was not shown to the
jury
* I am trying to understand why CJ's second witness statement is such a secret
* I am trying to understand where the time stamp went to...
* I am trying to understand why Colin Port state that The HopHouse Pub, was the last CCTV images of Joanna
yeates
* I am trying to understand by which method Joanna Yeates arrived home seeing the Hophouse pub is the last
sighting
* I am trying to understand, why evidence bags were taken from Peter Stanleys house
* I am trying to understand, why Tanaj morson was not in court
* I am trying to understand why The Defence helped (imo) bury their client
* I am trying to understand, why the media stay silent
* I am trying to understand why no-one speaks of this case
* i am trying to understand, the motive for this attack
* I am trying to understand , how one person can carry a dead body so many times....
* I am trying to understand why Dr Vincent Tabak would take the body around to his house....
* I am trying to understand why he didn't just leave her in situ and close the door...
* I am trying to understand why no body fluids were found in Joanna Yeates Flat
* I am trying to understand why no body fluids were found in Dr Vincent Tabaks Flat
* I am trying to understand why a flat doesn't look frozen in time....
* I am trying to understand how tiles came be painted, in a flat frozen in time,
* I am trying to understand why you need so many fire engines to recover a person from a grass verge...
* I am trying to understand, why Dr Vincent Tabak appeared at The Old Bailey
* I am trying to understand, why the head of the complex case unit saw a simple murder through to the bitter end..
* I am trying to understand, why this case gets mentioned in odd legal papers
* I am trying to understand, the significance of this case
* I am trying to understand, why builders remove a door that could have potential evidence on it
* I am trying to understand why the same builders are not wearing protective clothing
* I am trying to understand why the intercom panel was removed
* I am trying to understand, why Dr Vincent Tabak flat was put up for rent, before trial
* I am trying to understand, why the jury then were even taken to Dr Vincent Tabaks flat
* I am trying to understand why the parents want people to know that there was a "Piles or Piles of Washing" when
they entered the flat/...
* I am trying to understand wh y they removed Joanna yeate sChristmas Tree from a flat frozen in time
* I am trying to understand why Dr Delaney states Joanna yeates had a flower patterned top on, but in the Ram her
top is clearly Plain.....
* I am trying to understand , why the story on the stand matches the information that was already in the media...
* I am trying to understand, why Dr Vincent Tabak wasn't cautioned when they believed he was a suspect in
December yet interviewed him as a witness...
* I am trying to understand, why a Missing persons case was being treated as a Murder inquiry from the beginning..
* I am trying to understand why the change of command got broken when DCI Phil Jones took over the inquiry..
* I am trying to understand why we were made aware of every detail of this case, before Joanna yeates had been
found...
* I am trying to understand why witness statements were just read out....
* I am trying to understand why there was not hoards of screaming public baying for blood outside the court at trial.
* I am trying to understand why Dr Vincent Tabak didn't apply for bail..
* I am trying to understand , why Dr Vincent Tabak changed representation..
* I am trying to understand, why no-one saw a body on Longwood Lane for over 8 days
* I am trying to understand, why Dr Kelly Sheridan didn't take the stand with her fibre analysis of the Ikea bedding
* I am trying to understand why it takes only 48 hrs to turn around all the forensics in this case
* i am trying to understand how they had the suspects clothes to test in this 48 hour window...
* I am trying to understand, why the computer data wasn't challenged, when said computer could have been used
by more than one person
* I am trying to understand how searches were made on Dr Vincent Tabak's laptop at 1:46am and 1:47am on
Saturday the 18th December 2010, when Dr Vincent Tabak was busy picking up his girlfriend
* I am trying to understand what is so important about Joanna yeates
* I am trying to understand, what is so important about Dr Vincent Tabak
* I am trying to understand, why no witness can put Dr Vincent Tabak either on Canygne Road or anywhere else
that evening
* I am trying to understand why the ASDA time stamps are Missing
* I am trying to understand, why there is no CCTV of the Megane travelling to longwood lane or Asda
* I am trying to understand, how a CCTV image of an unidentified car on Park Street, is supposed to be Dr Vincent
Tabak's car
* I am trying to understand why the CCTV footage of Dr Vincent Tabak' Police interviews were not shown to the
jury, even if they were no comment interviews...
* I am trying to understand why CJ's name is mentioned in court, yet he doesn't appear
* I am trying to understand in July 2011 it was stated that Dr Vincent Tabak was guilty because of a plea... A plea
he could have changed at any time before he reached trial....
* I am trying to understand, why everyone wants this case to just go away
* I am trying to understand, why the Lehmans were so upset at trial
* I am trying to understand why the media were allowed to tweet this case
* I am trying to understand, why the Tabak's say nothing of this case
* I am trying to understand, hiw Crimewatch had footage of Dr Vincent Tabak's car outside Canygne Road main
entrance
* I am trying to understand , why a man resembling Dr Vincent Tabak, is telling the driver where to park this car,
when that car has a designated parking space..
* I am trying to understand how Geoffrey Hardyman statement about Joanna Yeates cat, can be seen as a
statement for the defence
* I am trying to understand why Geoffrey Hardymans statement was ever used in court seeing as he witnessed
nothing having had a cold and gone to bed....
* I am trying to understand why BDP announced that Joanna Yeates had been found on the 24th December 2010 on
there website
* I am trying to understand , why Jess Siggers was wanting to look for Joanna yeates the weekend before she went
missing
* I am trying to understand why the facebook page was removed
* I am trying to understand why the original facebook page was actually a forum and not a group
* I am trying to understand why The Missing group didn't set up as a forum
* I am trying to understand why people on the Missing Group had similar names to those of us on said facebook
forum
* I am trying to understand, why a complete stranger would be a more likely suspect than someone who, new her
* I am trying to understand where the sobbing girl disappeared too
* I am trying to understand why Joanna yeates would open the door to a complete stranger....
* I am trying to understand why Dr Vincent Tabak would shit on his own door step
* I am trying to understand why that day of all days Dr Vincent tabak decided to act on his apparent urges
* I am trying to understand , why no other woman were at trial, accussing Dr Vincent Tabak of similar acts
* I am trying to understand, why there are many holes that could have a legal challenge are left wide open
* I am trying to understand how the Dutch authorities cooperated, with the CPS to allow questioning on their soil of
one of there citizens
* I am trying to understand the urgency of the Holland interview
* I am trying to understand , why Dr Vincent Tabak didn't dump his laptop in a body of water in Holland
* I am trying to understand, why this conviction has never sat properly with me...
And if as mrswah said it is possible he could be guilty... Guilty of what exactly.... And shouldn't there be evidence to support this guilt.... Shouldn't there not be any reason not to question this case in so many ways....
If Dr Vincent Tabak is guilty, Guilty how and Why... The anomalies shouldn't be so vast.... The questions shouldn't be so many.... And civilians shouldn't be giving testimony to what they did in a Police capacity as an Officer who had been given various titles along the way to why he tried to stop a body from thawing....
Because the reason he had to try to stop a body from thawing brings me to a conclusion of he was trying to save some type of evidence... For all we know it could have been a finger print, it could have been a boot impression, it could have been anything... But that statement has not been cleared up, just like many things in this case....
Which can only bring me to a conclusion that there is more to this case than meets the eye... More to Dr Vincent Tabak than a story told on a stand.... More to why Joanna Yeates was murder....
And if questioning the guilt or innocence of Dr Vincent Tabak is too much for some.... maybe some should question the implications of the possibility that he is innocent.... Because that obviously means a killer is walking about free to this day... A killer who may get the same urge to kill again... A killer who knows he/she has managed to get away with this crime.... A killer who may feel more confident in future....
And when another person looses a son or daughter to this killer, maybe then people might think , we should have questioned that case more.... We should have gone with our thoughts on the case, we should have gone with our questions on the case.....
We should have demanded solid evidence to support Dr Vincent Tabak's tale on the stand..... And if he was protecting someone ... who and why?? By protecting someone doesn't make him guilty of murder.... It may make him something else in peoples eyes, but not of the deliberate act of ending someone life by his hand....
So yes, one could say i am being bias.... i am being bias because I do not understand why the evidence doesn't stack up.... And it has never stacked up....
And I question why they were so desperate to put and keep Dr Vincent Tabak behind bars from the day of his arrest... Without anyone being concerned for his rights... without the Dutch Authorities questioning why one of their citizens were being treated in this way....
-
Just to humour you...
How did David Yeates know how long the washing had been sitting there for? He hadn't been in her flat prior to her being killed - so how does he know when she did her washing? He could be just assuming what happened, a bit like you do in all of your posts...
David Yeates could not have known how long the Washing was there for, as you say unless he had been into the flat prior.... But we are not talking of when David Yeates was in the Flat,.... We have and I have assumed it was when they went to Bristol after the phone call from Greg Reardon......
You now are questioning The Yeates, you now are questioning when and on what day David Yeates saw said washing..... You are now bringing into question another possibility about said washing.... I do not know when David yeates saw said washing.... Did the Police ask him when he saw said washing???
It is not something I contemplated... Did David Yeates mention said washing to the Police at all??? I do not know...
Now said "WASHING" Is significant no matter how you look at it..... said WASHING is important to this case..... It is always something that seems insignificant and innocent that turns a case around... Something that no-one thought of the implication of something could actually mean.....
So yes.... said "WASHING" is of massive significance which ever way you want to look at it..... said "WASHING" maybe the key to unravelling this case....
Said "WASHING" could be the clue that has been ignored....
Was said WASHING Dirty... Was said Washing folded in neat piles... Was said WASHING Ready for the drying....
Said WASHING could have stunk to high heaven.... Said WASHING, could be neat and tidy... Said WASHING, could have evidence of Dr Vincent Tabak upon it.. Said WASHING, could have an item of the Killer amongst it...
Said WASHING, might have belonged to someone else... Joanna yeates might have been WASHING someone elses clothes... Said WASHING, could have been dropped of by the people at the gate..
Said WASHING, could contain any item of clothing Joanna yeates had worn that day...
To say that I do not know when David Yeates saw said WASHING, is true... I don't... I don't know why said WASHING hasn't been mentioned before, at trial by Dr Vincent Tabak or by Greg...
If said WASHING has only been sitting there for a day... Who left said WASHING THERE?? Who had access to leave said WASHING THERE?? Dr Vincent Tabak has closed the door behind himself apparently on Friday 17th December 2010 and had not re-entered, if there was a possibility of this surely Tanja Morson would have needed to take the stand... To explain, how Dr Vincent Tabak kept disappearing that weekend....
But it is the appearance of said WASHING we need to understand..... And whether or not Said WASHING was clean or Dirty.... Or wet or Dry....
We have conflicting statements that I do not know if what to make of them..... We have Piles of said WASHING, that David Yeates decribes in his interview a detail that is significant.....
We have Greg apparently searching through piles of clothes and finding an earring in said PILE of clothes and in underneath the duvet....
Is the PILE of clothes that Greg found said earring in the WASHING pile that David Yeates speaks of... Or is it a different PILE of clothes....
I do remember David Yeates saying before that he found an earring and when it came to trial, It was Greg that found both earrings... Which throw me a little....
So is the pile of WASHING, where Joanna Yeates earring was discovered?? Where there more than one PILE of Clothes??
Is the PILE of clothes.... clean... dirty... wet... folded or what?? Why didn't Greg describe the clothes he had searched through.... He had tidied up... pottered about with ever increasing levels of stress... So why not mention said WASHING... Was it in the way?? Did it add to the pungent smell the cat had left???
Said WASHING is significant... And I mean significant.... Said WASHING conjures up all sorts of problems... and questions... Said WASHING and where said washing was, has questions attached to it no matter what you think of this case....
Why was Said WASHING not mentioned at trial??
Mr Reardon said that he found a pair of his girlfriend's earrings in the bedroom.
One was in the bed and the other earring was on the floor under some clothes.
Mr Reardon said that he only found one of the fasteners and that usually when she removed her earrings she left them on the bedside table.
Now looking at what Greg describes at trial.... he doesn't mention WASHING!!!
He doesn't describe the clothes on the floor as WASHING... He doesn't indicate that these clothes were in a neat pile... Or that the clothes on the floor were indeed a PILE of clothes....
So to me that indicates what David Yeates observed was a pile of WASHING, that must have been near a WASHING Machine... No WASHING machine in the bedroom we can see in the video tour of Joanna Yeates flat... No need to remove a WASHING Machine from said flat... Dr Vincent Tabak hasn't notice said WASHING Machine in said bedroom either...
So is David Yeates description of a Pile of WASHING incorrect.... I do not think so.... Are we really gonna start questioning David Yeates about when he saw said WASHING Pile??
He had never been to the flat before he and Mrs Yeates arrived after Greg's phone call, so he cannot have mistaken it for a different time... A significant piece of information that you observed when you entered your daughters flat... A significant piece of evidence that will not leave your mind...
A significant clue, that adds only to the many many questions in this case..... So where did this said WASHING disappear too?? How much of said WASHING was there?? Where Greg's clothes amongst said WASHING?? Who touched said WASHING??
Lets not forget Joanna Yeates is only a Missing Person at this point.... But The Yeates believe differently.... The Yeates believe that their daughter has been abducted.... They must have searched through said WASHING, even if Greg had already looked... The y must have wanted to see if there was any clue any indication in said WASHINg as to the whereabout of their daughter....
So why is it only know the questions of said WASHING are coming to the fore... Why is it only Now that said WASHING could be significant.... Why have we not heard before of said WASHING in any capacity....
What is so significant about said WASHING, that it takes until I have looked at documentaries to spot this comment and the significance of this comment about said WASHING... Why has said WASHING not been mentioned before...
They say that Dr Vincent Tabak wore gloves.... Well did one one his gloves end up in the pile of said WASHING??
Had someone else enter the flat and looked through said WASHING?? not knowing the significance of there entry to said flat..
No-one needs to point fingers... about said WASHING pile... But everyone needs to take into account the significance that said WASHING Pile should have in this case.... No matter from what angle you want to look at it....
No matter whether or not you believe a conspiracy had taken place... No matter whether you think Dr Vincent Tabak is guilty or not....
You should question the evidence of said WASHING Pile, that clearly David Yeates had witnessed it being at Joanna Yeates home and consider, why it's relevance has been ignored....
An independent witness, whom only wants his daughter returning to him, out of the blue gives us information that was not part of anyone elses witness testimony... and on video, so much so, that he appears to have slipped when he told us this... he has divulged something no one else knew at trial... no-one else in the country who had been following every twist and turn of this case.... No-one at trial told us of this information... Not a Policeman/woman.... not Dr Vincent Tabak, and not even Greg Reardon....
A piece of evidence that everyone should consider as being a vital piece of evidence...(imo).. Because it shapes our minds to how the crime scene may have really looked like... It changes our opinion as to whether or not Joanna Yeates was actually getting on with mundane chores such as WASHING... Or if shapes our minds in to questioning if the killer staged the Flat to make it look like Joanna Yeates was about to WASH her and Gregs clothes...
And then baking seems a little less important as no-one can prove that Joanna yeates did in fact turn on the oven to bake... We only have the story of Dr Vincent Tabak, that he turned OFF said oven.. .... Because that was an assumption, that was a task she was apparently doing.... But evidentially, we have David Yeates being able to tell us that he witnessed a pile of WASHING in his daughters flat when he entered it...
We have David Yeates on video revealing for the first time that there was something different that we didn't already know....
So being me and being as blunt as I am, I would question why the evidence that David Yeates witnessed was not talked about on the stand by himself or anyone else... I would question why he didn't take the stand to tell us about said WASHING.... I understand it must be painful, to talk when one has lost a child....
But the jury should have been made aware of this fact... The jury should have had a fuller picture of what the flat looked like when it was entered by various people... The jury should have been furnished with the truth...
By not having The Yeates take the stand in Dr Vincent Tabak's trial, we do not know of there observations.... we do not really know what made them question and believe that their daughter had been abducted... we do not know what made Mrs Yeates bang on car boots.... We do not know why Greg's phone call made them believe that something terrible had happened to their daughter....
And we do not know why a comment of a pile of WASHING might be really significant..... I am not trying to be unfeeling about The Yeates or the difficulties they may have had and still have to deal with to this day....
I am trying to understand why.... what I see as a significant piece of evidence was never brought to the juries attention.... I am trying to understand how GREG didn't also see this PILE of WASHING... I am trying to understand whether or not Dr Vincent Tabak noticed this pile of WASHING or even knew of it's existence....
Because as far as I am concerned, it is the only tangible piece of evidence that has come to light that we were not informed of before or during trial... The only tangible piece of evidence that brings even more questions to its existence....
A piece of evidence that should bring questions... whether or not you want to question David yeates about it... whether or not you want to know how long this piece of evidence was there for....
It clearly is evidence that is real... It clearly is evidence that was witnessed.... What really needs to be established... Is what it's significance really is..... (imo)
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/boyfriends-panic-over-missing-joanna-yeates-2371910.html
-
I think what is more significant, did the police officers who attended the call from Greg see said WASHING in a pile... Did any Officers, see the said WASHING at all...
We have the video evidence from David Yeates that he witnessed said WASHING when he arrived at Joanna Yeates Flat...(or before if we misconstrue another posters comment)
Did said WASHING get put away before the Police arrived... Did someone tidy up said WASHING, before the Police arrived...
Did the POLICE Know of said WASHINGS existence??
Did The Yeates realise the importance of said WASHING at all....
SAID WASHING IS IMPORTANT... and maybe The Police have only just come to realise, that it has and should of had significance....
SAID WASHING, could be the crux of this case.... Said WASHING has many implications....
Said WASHING was witnessed.....
So yes i may repeat myself.... I repeat many things.....
SAID WASHING IS A SIGNIFICANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE, if you want to try and understand this case... If you want to question anything about this case.....
SAID WASHING IS THE EUREKA MOMENT OF SAID CASE.... ( amongst other things, and secondary witness statements)
So try and look at this case in an unbiased fashion.... and ask yourself why A vital piece of SAID WASHING was never mentioned at trial in any capacity.... Ask yourselves why a potential vital piece of evidence has been over looked...
Ask yourselves why it could be significant.... Ask yourselves why the jury were not informed of this piece of evidence either...
Ask yourselves why the Police Officer who was on the scene first didn't question the evidence that is the said WASHING....
Did no -one to this day KNOW that Said WASHING existed??
It is evidence that should be questioned... no matter what side of the fence you sit on..... (imo)
-
What makes you think that Tabak WANTS to speak to any of you who have tried to contact him? There are cases of higher profile than his who manage to protest their innocent. What utter rubbish!
JustSaying.. we can argue that point till where blue in the face.... Dr Vincent Tabak may for whatever reason...May not be able to say he is innocent... He may not want to draw attention to himself so he has the chance of keeping his head down, doing his time and maybe will be transferred to a different category prison, in the hopes he will get released....
He may wish that I didn't speak... I don't know... He may be glad I have taken this interest.... But he is not telling me anything....
If without his hand... I can highlight what I see as anomalies in this case, I may be able to draw peoples attention to it... I may be assisting in my odd way....
If with only what is available on the internet, I can find things that brings into question what happened before trial and during trial, then this case cannot be as cut and dry as they wish us to believe it is......
Dr Vincent Tabak has never corresponded with me..... as I say he may wish I kept quiet... He may have accepted his punishment because it is the easiest way to go... And ruffling feathers would only make his prison life even harder.....
But if it wasn't for people whom question cases that they believe people may be innocent in then there wouldn't be any need for Innocence type project... Dr Vincent Tabak has no control... His only control is his own life situation as it is at present... he can only control how he may or may not be seen by the prison authorities.... And by keeping his head down, or behaving... however one wants to look at it.... His chances of getting out of prison become greater...
You know yourself JustSaying.... that for instance if a prisoner accepts his/her guilt at a parole hearing for instance, they have a greater chance of being released on parole.... If they keep insisting they did not commit said crime and that they are Innocent.... The parole board will look upon this as the prisoner not accepting their responsibiity for which they have been incarcerated for.... And parole will be denied....!!
So for me.... why would anyone dare say they are INNOCENT.... It only seems to backfire.... It only makes a prisoners life even more unbearable....
So no-one can say that Dr Vincent Tabak has waged a campaign to fight for his freedom, because he says he is innocent of the charges and Murder of Joanna Yeates.... No-one can say he has had any contact with anyone from the outside world, to fight his case.... No-one could ever accuse him of being a difficult prisoner....
Because he has had no say in what I have done,.... He has had no say in what my opinions are..... He has had no say that his case is kept in the public eye.... because no-one has been able to even contact him....
People can say I am wrong.... People can say I am deluded.... People can say anything they want about me in that respect... but if my delusions as some may say, help bring about an investigation into this "Strange Case" then that can only been seen as good.... If my delusions, can help a man whom has accepted his fate , that he will be serving a sentence no matter what and keeping quite is the best way forward..... Then me highlighting said case should not be a problem....
It should not case any waves..... I keep saying.... I cannot see how Dr Vincent Tabak is guilty.... The evidence doesn't support his claim on the stand..... If The Yeates are divulging information intentionally or not that brings into question many other possibilities about the 1st Scene of Crime, then this information needs looking at more closely.... This information may clearly point the finger at someone else entirely.....
So this info didn't arrive at trial..... All the more reason to question it's importance, now we know what apparently happened to Joanna Yeates....
All the more reason to re-question anyone who witnessed anything at the time..... knowing CJ witnessed people at the gate is highly significant.... Because he either saw Dr Vincent Tabak at the small gate that evening, or he witnessed someone entirely different at the gate that evening, at around 9:00pm... a time when the "SCREAMS" should have been heard.....
Making the people at the gate at the very least witness's or at worst suspects.....
So these people are of importance... There identities should be made known.... They themselves should have been at the trial, to help us understand whether or not they heard screams at the time they left via the small gate.... They are in fact the closes witness's to what happened and at what time....
Clegg should have had statements from these witness's which would support the timeline of Dr Vincent Tabak or discredit the screams heard at different times.... But these people are unknown to us.... These people are hidden away between the pages of CJ's second witness statement.... These people were apparently not important enough to be considers either witness's or suspects....
These people who came from what direction to be leaving or entering said small gate at a time of great importance, should be on everyones mind...
* Did they in fact walk passed Joanna Yeates door...
* Had they knocked on Joanna Yeates door...
* Had they come from the main building and walked diagonally across the grass. to the little gate....
* Did they hear any noise coming from Joanna Yeates flat....
* Did they see if any lights were on inside or outside Joanna Yeates flat....
* Did they in fact see Dr Vincent Tabak that evening....
* Did they not bump into him...
* Did they see him either in the light or the shadows around that building ....
So whether or not one may see them as possible suspects, if they are not they are WITNESS"S witness's that could give us a clearer indication of what they may and may not have witnessed at that critical time, so their identity is important... what they may have witnessed is important, which beggars the question why didn't they take the stand at trial??
Or was it The Lehmans who were the people at the gate?? is that why Zoe Lehman is so distraught when she leaves the court at Bristol....
Because they are the only people whom where around that area at that time that we are aware of.... They are the only people whom could tell us what they saw... They could tell us whether they saw CJ arrive and if they made themselves known to him.... They could tell us why they believed CJ couldn't tell us whom he saw at the gate... maybe they too witnessed these people???
Important information need clarifying.... Important information tells us what we need to know... It eliminates people from an Inquiry.. it puts to bed suspicions people may have.... To keep said information secret is ridiculous (imo).. Said information should only bolster the Prosecutions Case....
Did Joanna Yeates know that a party was happening across the road? Was she invited to said party.... Did the Lehmans call on her that evening?? Did she leave the small gate with them??? Did she return home later??
There are many questions we do not know the answer too... But maybe Zoe Lehman was caught up with the emotion of the day.... But to be looking so upset leaving Bristol crown Court on the day of trial her and her husband attended, has me questioning why... If Zoe Lehman didn't know Joanna Yeates in any shape or form, or if Zoe Lehman had seen someone at the gate that evening, but hasn't been able to make any statement on that either...
What would make her so upset?? Months and months have past.... Being a little said yes... But visibly upset is something different all together....
The parents .. boyfriend... brother... work colleague, do not show any signs of being upset as they attend a trial, trying to keep their emotions in check... But a stranger, who knows little to zero of Joanna Yeates, is brought almost to tears, as she leaves said court building... Brought almost to tears not knowing if the screams she heard were in anyway connected to the time that Joanna Yeates was Murdered...
So that is why I question what Zoe Lehman knew and what Zoe Lehman could have witnessed.... If direct questions were not asked at trial... then the answers would not be known.... Leaving forever the identity of the people at the gate a secret.....
Or is it possible..... That it was indeed the Lehmans at the small gate whom CJ saw.... And if so why the secrecy... Did as I have suggested , The Lehmans come into contact with Dr Vincent Tabak??
Did the Lehman not see CJ... maybe his timing were mistaken, he was mistaken as to where or not he heard someone at the gate or saw someone at the gate, so the timing he has, he could also be mistaken in.... I don't know...
But Zoe Lehman must be a sensitive soul... a person who takes to heart very deeply what she may have witnessed, at a trial that was the trial of high prominence....
She may herself have doubts about what she heard or saw... And today question what she too thinks of this case.... Because as far as I remember, Zoe Lehman and Florian Lehman, were only every asked what they heard.... They were never asked if they witnessed seeing anyone, so there answers would have only been in conjunction of what was heard... Where in actual fact what they saw was of far greater importance.....
So depending on the timings.... Depending on what time you believe that they heard the screams , depends on what time something happened and whether they did indeed witness more....
The only thing we know that puts Joanna Yeates in her home around 9:00 ish, is the CCTV from Tesco... A CCTV without the original time stamp upon it.. A CCTV that we cannot accurately trust as to it's timings....
The Receipt of which I see no evidence of it being produced at trial, which would clearly indicate the time of purchase of said Pizza... would once and for all prove when Joanna Yeates was in Tesco's... It would give us a more accurate timeline....
But I get confused as to where about the Lehmans were.... On the path outside 44, Canygne Road or on the path at 53, Canygne Road.... Because at that distance... what could they actually hear?? I mean, this attack took place inside 44, Canygne Road.... Surely they wouldn't hear said screams....
From a media report of the time......
A woman attending a party near Joanna Yeates's flat described to a jury today hearing two screams and a thud on the night she died.Zoe Lehman and her husband Florian were attending the bash of their friends Peter and Rosie Brown at No 53 Canynge Road - diagonally opposite Miss Yeates's flat at No 44.Mrs Lehman described to the jury how she walked into Canynge Road and saw a security light illuminating No 44.She and her husband had opened the gate to No 53 and as they walked down the footpath to the front door, they heard screams."As I got to the gate I heard quite a loud scream," she told jurors at Bristol Crown Court."I thought it came from behind me. It was coming from across the road at the house by the playing field."
Two screams and a thud?? What is more important in that sentence... The screams are difficult to say whether or not they came from 44, Canygne Road and whether or not they heard said screams..... But a THUD!!
What was close enough that they could hear a THUD!! A noise that should have had ears pricked, a noise that is suggesting something being carried or maybe dropped outside... A noise that you wouldn't maybe notice or describe as furniture moving if you are half way up a path on the opposite side of the road attending said party....
Zoe Lehman said she also heard screams and a thud. "I heard a loud scream and turned around to have a look. The first one was loud, then there was a gap of about two seconds, then the second one was slightly less loud – a bit stifled. Then afterwards there was what sounded like furniture falling over, a thud."
A THUD should change everything, it suggest more was happening outside 44, Canygne Road on said night in question... It suggests that something had been dropped.... To hear not only a scream but a THUD and to be so concerned as to turn and look to see what the noise was and what area said noise came from, surely she would have witnessed anyone whom was about that area at that time...
She would have seen from the road side anyone acting suspiciously and maybe she too would have seen people leaving via the small gate of 44, Canygne Road.....
She had to believe that the THUD combined with the scream was significant..... significant enough that it stopped her in her tracks.... did she not walk a little further to check?? Did she not look out of the window of the property where she was attending said party to see if she could have abetter view of 44, Canygne Road or the fields close by... Did she not see whether the outside light was on.... Did she see any tenants coming or going from 44, Canygne Road or anyone at all....
If the only questions posed at trial are of what someone heard, why didn't more question get posed as to what they may or may not have SEEN??
It's a simple question that either of them should have been asked.... Did you see anyone that evening when you arrived at 53, Canygne Road.... did you see the defendant.... A simple NO, would squash any concerns anyone may have about who witnessed what....
But I do not believe that they were even questioned about what they may or may not have seen... I do not believe they were questioned at trial of whom they may have witnessed on Canygne Road....
So am I satisfied with their statement at trial?? "No" is the simple answer to that... Because they could have been the people at the gate for all we know... They could have witnessed someone around 44, Canygne Road at said time, and to react to a thud that was loud enough to be heard across the road to concern Zoe Lehman enough that she turned around to see what it was.... Suggests that it is of significance....
Now I am sure she would not be able to heard a THUD of a person falling on the floor after being attacked in their own home.... I am more than sure of that... If the THUD was so loud then the tenants of 44, Canygne Road should have been alerted to the noise.... But they hear nothing.... So where did the screams and THUD come from??
It must have been close enough for Zoe Lehman to hear... Or did Zoe Leham witness a lot more than we know.... And that is possibly the reason for her distress when leaving Bristol Crown Court....
The description that said THUD sounded like furniture,would only add to the how was Joanna Yeates transported out of the house??? Was it in a piece of furniture??
The THUD is more important... The Screams could be put down to party goers, But a THUD that sounds like furniture being dropped, should bring into question how it could be possible to remove Joanna Yeates from her home without anyone noticing.... Removing her from her home without anyone really taking any notice, or questioning anyone doing such an act.....
It is far more feasible that two or 3 people at a gate could be moving furniture out of said gate, and didn't bring into question why.... It could be far more feasible that it took 2/3 people to move a dead weight from a premises without attracting too much attention, and doing it in plain sight.....
It is far more likely that more than one individual helped move Joanna Yeates body than Dr Vincent Tabak on his own without leaving any evidence of this in his or her flat..... With the task of moving a dead body being a rather difficult one..... Leaving most killers with the option of leaving said body in situ, or dismembering said body to make transportation easier.....
But neither was the case.... Neither option applied to what happened to Joanna Yeates..
I'm trying to imagine what type of furniture could have been used?? A wardrobe,?? A chest of draws?? A Fridge ??
Is the image of the fridge sat in the front room of Joanna Yeates significant... Is this fridge a clue as to how someone transported Joanna Yeates... It's odd that the fridge is just sat there anyway... Why isn't there a fridge in the kitchen??
So is the THUD that Zoe Lehman heard another significant piece of evidence, Do we need to question this THUD in more detail?? Because most of the DETAIL appears to be MISSING from this case....
It then brings me back to why the mentioning of the Ikea delivery guys was also important....Was the point more to do with letting someone know, there were witness's to said piece of furniture being moved from Joanna Yeates flat??
Where the Ikea guys, used to let someone know, they had an idea of how Joanna Yeates body had been transported
not that the Ikea guys had anything to do with this, but the mere mention of a different way in which a body could be transported, is now seen... That anyone with a van or large car, could transport a piece of furniture from the home that was Joanna yeates, A home she had not lived in for too long, a flat she was busy trying to make into her own home....
Does CJ's second witness statement contain any evidence of the possibility of someone moving furniture... is that what he heard at the gate, Is that why he noticed people talking in hushed tones....
https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/9305302.GVs_of_Jo_Yeates_parents_leaving_Bristol_Crown_Court_and_gvs_of_witnesses_Zoe_and_Florian_Lehman_/
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/13/tabak-friends-police-joanna-yeates
-
@)(++(*
-
@)(++(*
Whats tickled you this morning Jixy??? You had your coffee yet??
-
Your posts and yes ive been at work a while and had plenty of coffee.
I am actually writing a report on MAPPA Offenders and their interaction with NPS and the differences between services within CRCs
Maybe I am doing it all wrong and everyone who pleaded guilty is actually innocent but just wanted an easy time in Prison. Silly me, might need to rewrite it all
Oh Innocent Projects etc need a starting point. usually by a claim of innocence by the Prisoner! So prisoners who are innocent (or even guilty but lying) can and do protest their conviction and work hard to see justice done.
You are bending the pieces to make your Tabak puzzle fit, its not reality
-
Your posts and yes ive been at work a while and had plenty of coffee.
I am actually writing a report on MAPPA Offenders and their interaction with NPS and the differences between services within CRCs
Maybe I am doing it all wrong and everyone who pleaded guilty is actually innocent but just wanted an easy time in Prison. Silly me, might need to rewrite it all
Oh Innocent Projects etc need a starting point. usually by a claim of innocence by the Prisoner! So prisoners who are innocent (or even guilty but lying) can and do protest their conviction and work hard to see justice done.
You are bending the pieces to make your Tabak puzzle fit, its not reality
Why do my posts amuse ??
It is not bending the pieces, but asking questions, that should have been asked..... that is all.....
Your sarcasm is noted ?{)(**
-
Oh before I get back to real life, just so you know. I was working with a female offender yesterday who murdered someone. Never committed any crimes before or since. Clearly stated no mental health issues, no drink or drug issues or abuse. She murdered him simple! So even placid (urgh) people like Tabak can kill
As for why did she let him into to flat? How do you know she did? Maybe he just barged his way in and forgot himself? Just a minute, I know because we are believing that he was invited in but not the fact he admitted killing her? selective?
-
Oh before I get back to real life, just so you know. I was working with a female offender yesterday who murdered someone. Never committed any crimes before or since. Clearly stated no mental health issues, no drink or drug issues or abuse. She murdered him simple! So even placid (urgh) people like Tabak can kill
As for why did she let him into to flat? How do you know she did? Maybe he just barged his way in and forgot himself? Just a minute, I know because we are believing that he was invited in but not the fact he admitted killing her? selective?
If we believe the story on the stand, then we believe he was invited in... If we do NOT believe the story on the stand, then why accept it... Why if the evidence doesn't support a story on the stand are the justice system accepting it??
Just on someones say so???
-
let you into a secret Nine ssshhh dont tell anyone but you know when someone pleads guilty to a crime, the process is different to someone pleading not guilty
-
let you into a secret Nine ssshhh dont tell anyone but you know when someone pleads guilty to a crime, the process is different to someone pleading not guilty
Well explain said process to me please.... Explain why they would just accept a guilty plea if someone couldn't have committed said crime in said time, because the timeline doesn't add up....
Explain to me why the people at the gate were not seen as important.... Explain to me why anyone could say they were guilty of a crime and be believed without evidence to support said claim.....
Thank you
-
Someone mentioned Peter Sutcliffe to me and him pleading guilty....
Now the difference between him and Dr Vincent Tabak, is that Peter Sutcliffe had been stopped by the Police on the night of his arrest, Peter Sutcliffe had a prostitute with him in his car when he was stopped...
Peter Sutcliffe wanted to go to relieve himself, leaving the lady and Officers at the car, they took Peter Sutcliffe in for questioning, they wanted to search his person, they discovered his unusual under garments... The Officer went back to where they had arrested Peter Sutcliffe and retrieved a screw-driver.... Peter Sutcliffe confessed to the murders he committed.....
The obvious difference between the two is probable cause.... There was probable cause to stop and question Peter Sutcliffe on the night in question, with a serial killer on the loose there was probable cause to search... There was probable cause to return to the scene of said car stoppage, and look at why Peter Sutcliffe wanted to leave the area of the car.....
There was no probable cause to arrest Dr Vincent Tabak, that we have been told, there was NO, confession at the Police station that we have been made aware of or that was introduced as evidence at trial....
Dr Vincent Tabak was not trawling Bristol looking for someone to kill on the day he was arrested./... Dr Vincent Tabak had given no indication he knew his next door neighbour...
What was the probable cause that made the Police arrest Dr Vincent Tabak in the first Place???
-
So you do not see that as pointing fingers? I am not surprised you do not considering you support Tabak yourself, you're hardly impartial!
I've always found Mrswah and Nine to be respectful so I don't think either of them wishes Chris Jeffries or the Yeates anymore pain than they have already experienced. Nine will take the tiniest possible piece of information and look at it in weird and wonderful ways that make no sense to me but I've never found her to be mean or nasty.
And to be honest considering CJ has been accused by the entire nation and managed to keep his head up and fight for his rights and reputation, I suspect that one person on a forum speculating is hardly going to make him lose any sleep.
Anyway, chances that he (or anyone actually connected to the case) actually read this thread are quite minimal I would have thought.
People need to chill out on this thread a bit. We are not enemies.
-
I've always found Mrswah and Nine to be respectful so I don't think either of them wishes Chris Jeffries or the Yeates anymore pain than they have already experienced. Nine will take the tiniest possible piece of information and look at it in weird and wonderful ways that make no sense to me but I've never found her to be mean or nasty.
And to be honest considering CJ has been accused by the entire nation and managed to keep his head up and fight for his rights and reputation, I suspect that one person on a forum speculating is hardly going to make him lose any sleep.
Anyway, chances that he (or anyone actually connected to the case) actually read this thread are quite minimal I would have thought.
People need to chill out on this thread a bit. We are not enemies.
Thank you Baz for that clarification ?{)(**
-
I've always found Mrswah and Nine to be respectful so I don't think either of them wishes Chris Jeffries or the Yeates anymore pain than they have already experienced. Nine will take the tiniest possible piece of information and look at it in weird and wonderful ways that make no sense to me but I've never found her to be mean or nasty.
And to be honest considering CJ has been accused by the entire nation and managed to keep his head up and fight for his rights and reputation, I suspect that one person on a forum speculating is hardly going to make him lose any sleep.
Anyway, chances that he (or anyone actually connected to the case) actually read this thread are quite minimal I would have thought.
People need to chill out on this thread a bit. We are not enemies.
I think if CJ did a search of his own name (and certain keywords) he would come across this forum without any problem at all. I find the comments made against the victim and her parents disrespectful. Nine suggested that CJ knows something "unsavoury" about the victim - this is very disrespectful and without any evidence to back up such a claim. She questions why the victims parents did not make it all the way through the trial - why is this relevant? I do hope her parents never come across this thread - it would be very upsetting for them to read.
And with all due respect Baz, the fact they may not come across this thread is not a reason why fingers should be pointed at their innocent actions. It is in bad taste.
PS Baz - Could you imagine what would have been said if we speculated like this on the LM thread?
-
Just for the record Nine, most of your questions have been answered - you choose not to accept the answers or the evidence. Why that is, I do not know.
I was not questioning the Yeates' - I was showing you that David Yeates could be assuming that she did her washing. I have never known of a murderer to take time to do a bit of laundry in between throttling the life out of someone.
-
Just for the record Nine, most of your questions have been answered - you choose not to accept the answers or the evidence. Why that is, I do not know.
I was not questioning the Yeates' - I was showing you that David Yeates could be assuming that she did her washing. I have never known of a murderer to take time to do a bit of laundry in between throttling the life out of someone.
Just for the record JustSaying, what do you mean??
(A): Most of the questions I have posed on this forum have been answered by other forum users??
(B): Most of the questions I pose have been asked by someone else?? eg: The Police
(C): If said questions were posed by The Police, why wasn't the WASHING PILE Mentioned at trial, for starters.... I
could ask many more questions, but i will leave you with that one...
I will direct you back to the comment on the washing by David Yeates..... From a video on Daily Motion
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8239.90
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2kpoos
(54) * She's taken the opportunity to tidy things up... For starters she had organised the washing, you know Clothes
washing and erm... washing up the stuff in the kitchen, things were nice and tidy..
OMG... Just clicked on my link from Daily Motion I had put up and The page doesn't exist anymore!!!
But I have numbered what was said on the video, and the Yeates talking at the time....
So... David Yeates stated that she had organised the Clothes Washing!! He had to visually see the clothes to even make a comment on such an important detail..........
As for a murderer to do a bit of WASHING whilst throttling the life out of someone, your correct... I haven't heard of such a thing, or nothing springs to mind...
But SAID Murderer could have stage SAID Scene for whatever reason after SAID Murder had taken place.....
edit.... Why would David Yeates assume anything?? Why would David Yeates make that comment on a program after the incarceration of Dr Vincent Tabak... Now that makes no sense....
He would be being accurate as to what he witnessed when he entered his daughter Flat....
-
I've always found Mrswah and Nine to be respectful so I don't think either of them wishes Chris Jeffries or the Yeates anymore pain than they have already experienced. Nine will take the tiniest possible piece of information and look at it in weird and wonderful ways that make no sense to me but I've never found her to be mean or nasty.
And to be honest considering CJ has been accused by the entire nation and managed to keep his head up and fight for his rights and reputation, I suspect that one person on a forum speculating is hardly going to make him lose any sleep.
Anyway, chances that he (or anyone actually connected to the case) actually read this thread are quite minimal I would have thought.
People need to chill out on this thread a bit. We are not enemies.
Indeed, we are not enemies. Thank you Baz. Much appreciated.
-
Firstly it was I, not Jixy who left that comment.
I have already answered your question about the laundry - it was irrelevant! Totally irrelevant to the issues at trial. I answered that question yesterday.
Most of your questions have been answered, given by other forum users. But these forum users have had the privy of sitting in on trials.
For example, you ask why footage of police interviews were not played during the trial... Why would they be? They are not played in other peoples trials.
You ask why he was not given bail... Why would he? There are plenty of people who do not get bail whilst waiting to be tried for murder - why should he get special treatment? He did after all try and blame someone else for the murder and tried to cover up his tracks!
You ask why he became a suspect - the police answered that question for you. But you keep asking over and over when the answers are in front of you!
You ask why the last said sighing of the victim was Hophouse pub - when you know this must have been an honest mistake because there was CCTV footage of her buying a pizza...
You ask why this was treated as a murder investigation straight away - when it has been explained to you that it was not and the fact it was given an operation codename does not prove that it was!
You keep questiong the time stamps from the asda CCTV - failing to take into consideration that the CCTV must have been time stamped for them to know the exact time he was in there... You fail to consider the footage you have seen may have been cropped etc...
You have asked why builders removed the door - it has been explained that it will have been forensically tested in situ...
It is up to you if you want to accept these answers, but they seem pretty common sense in reality.
-
Indeed, we are not enemies. Thank you Baz. Much appreciated.
No we are not enemies - but just because Baz is not offended by what has been suggested does not mean other people will not be.
-
Firstly it was I, not Jixy who left that comment.
I had amended my error before you posted.... So accept my apologises ?{)(**
-
No we are not enemies - but just because Baz is not offended by what has been suggested does not mean other people will not be.
OMG.... Someone.. somewhere... will always be offended no matter what the subject or it's content may be....
Offended that I have tried to understand why this case makes No Sense... Offended that I dare question the narrative of this case.... Offended that I look at thing in a different way.... Offended that my posts are so long.... Offended that I am not effing and jeffing ..... Offended that i would like to know who really killed Joanna Yeates...
Apologies to those I may have Offended... regards Nine
-
I had amended my error before you posted.... So accept my apologises ?{)(**
It was not a criticism Nine, just an observation - no need to apologise!
-
I think if CJ did a search of his own name (and certain keywords) he would come across this forum without any problem at all. I find the comments made against the victim and her parents disrespectful. Nine suggested that CJ knows something "unsavoury" about the victim - this is very disrespectful and without any evidence to back up such a claim. She questions why the victims parents did not make it all the way through the trial - why is this relevant? I do hope her parents never come across this thread - it would be very upsetting for them to read.
And with all due respect Baz, the fact they may not come across this thread is not a reason why fingers should be pointed at their innocent actions. It is in bad taste.
PS Baz - Could you imagine what would have been said if we speculated like this on the LM thread?
Anyone connected to this case could find this forum and NOT just CJ....
So good I say.... Maybe it may make them think a little clearer as to the events of the weekend of 17th December to 19th December 2010...
And just maybe there is a witness out there who never came forward with the information that might be significant...
A witness who always thought that the case was strange.....
No-one knows who reads forums.... It's public.... anyone can be a guest....
So why are you directing your question to me about CJ.... ???
-
It was not a criticism Nine, just an observation - no need to apologise!
Thank you..... And my writings are my observations too...... ?{)(**
-
OMG.... Someone.. somewhere... will always be offended no matter what the subject or it's content may be....
Offended that I have tried to understand why this case makes No Sense... Offended that I dare question the narrative of this case.... Offended that I look at thing in a different way.... Offended that my posts are so long.... Offended that I am not effing and jeffing ..... Offended that i would like to know who really killed Joanna Yeates...
Apologies to those I may have Offended... regards Nine
Nine, no-one is offended that you question the evidence - but what you say about the victims parents and some things you say about CJ are really offensive - maybe you do not try to be offensive and for that reason maybe you should stop questioning their actions regarding why they did not stick around for the full trial or why CJ chooses to speak out about his miscarriage of justice?
You maybe trying to prove Tabak is innocent, and of course people disagree with that, but these things I have mentioned above have no relevance to the issue of Tabak being guilty or innocent... If this was your daughter then you may have done the exact same thing. I pointed out yesterday that the same thing was done in Rachel Moran's case - perhaps you should read the book written by her mother?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Murder-Rachel-W-M-Moran/dp/1843583607/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1539693147&sr=1-4&keywords=rachel+moran
-
Thank you..... And my writings are my observations too...... ?{)(**
Speculation more like, but again we will agree to disagree...
-
Anyone connected to this case could find this forum and NOT just CJ....
My point exactly - her parents could find this forum. How awful for them if they did.
-
Ok... Lets try being simple, and explain to me why there are so many contradictions:
(1): Colin Port: At The Leveson Colin Port stated that CJ SAW people at the gate
CJ: On the other hand tells the Leveson, he heard people at the gate....
( There must be a written statement that conclusively proves who is telling an untruth....)
(2): Greg Reardon: Tells the court, that it was he who found the earring Belonging to Joanna Yeates
David yeates: Said he found an earring under a pile of clothes (i Believe)
( Adding to his later statement about the washing pile)
(3): At trial: we are told a Police Officer and Greg went around to Dr Vincent Tabak home to ask if they had noticed
anything
Mrs Yeates: States that they went around to Dr Vincent Tabak's house to ask if they new anything
(4): It was reported: That the first time The Yeates set eyes on Dr Vincent Tabak was in court
David and Theresa Yeates: have stated they met Dr Vincent Tabak on the grass at the front of the house, they
even describe that the couple walked across diagonally... They both agree that the man took a step back, they
identify Tanja Morson with this man
(5): The Police: State it was they who found the Receipt from Tesco's
Theresa Yeates: say's it was she who found The Tesco's receipt
(6): Colin Port: say the last known CCTV image of Joanna Yeates is at The Hophouse Pub
DS Mark Saunder: Reveals there is CCTV of Canygne Road on Friday 17th December 2010, showing cars and
people Milling around...
( Bringing me to the conclusion she didn't walk home, or didn't even reach home... )
(7): Greg: tells us of looking through clothes at trial, he does not describe said clothes as WASHING
David Yeates tells us he saw a pile of WASHING
(8): Dr Vincent Tabak: States that he and Joanna Yeates saw each other through kitchen window..
Nobody: Confirms which light may have been on inside or outside the house,
( If kitchen light is on and outside light is off, there is no-way Joanna Yeates saw Dr Vincent Tabak)
(9): The Leymans: Hear Scream on the night of the 17th December 2010
Kingdon: States he heard someone cry "Help me".. mid morning of the 18th December 2010
(10): A blurry image of a car driving on Park Street on the 18th December 2010, is supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabak
driving
No CCTV: Of Dr Vincent Tabak leaving Canygne Road in the Megane that they say he drove and used.... No
CCTV from DS Marks Saunders CCTV footage, proving when Dr Vincent Tabak left or arrived at Canygne Road ,
whether in car, on foot or riding bike..... No CCTV footage of any of Dr Vincent Tabak's journeys anywhere.
(11): Chris Yeates: puts on the family website, helpfindJo, that he was in a state of despair on the 19th December
2010
Greg Reardon: Doesn't contact the Police about his concerns until 12:45am on Monday the 20th December
2010
(12): BDP: put on their website that Joanna Yeates body has been found.. The date of the article is the 24th
December 2010
Joanna Yeates: Was not officially found until the 25th December 2010
(13): Two bottles: of Cider were purchased one was open
Greg: Drank from stale open bottle of cider...
( We do not know if Greg finished drinking said bottle of cider, Did he spit it out ,or continue drinking it?? Was the fact that the Cider was flat another concern to Greg as to where Joanna Yeates could be??)
(14): The first: persons to contact Rebecca Scott were The Police
Greg: stated he had rung around her friends
( Are we to conclude from that statement that Rebecca Scott and Joanna Yeates were no longer friends?? Or Greg
didn't ring Rebecca Scott?)
I could keep going with this but, I have chores to do...... 8)--))
-
David Yeates could not have known how long the Washing was there for, as you say unless he had been into the flat prior.... But we are not talking of when David Yeates was in the Flat,.... We have and I have assumed it was when they went to Bristol after the phone call from Greg Reardon......
You now are questioning The Yeates, you now are questioning when and on what day David Yeates saw said washing..... You are now bringing into question another possibility about said washing.... I do not know when David yeates saw said washing.... Did the Police ask him when he saw said washing???
It is not something I contemplated... Did David Yeates mention said washing to the Police at all??? I do not know...
Now said "WASHING" Is significant no matter how you look at it..... said WASHING is important to this case..... It is always something that seems insignificant and innocent that turns a case around... Something that no-one thought of the implication of something could actually mean.....
So yes.... said "WASHING" is of massive significance which ever way you want to look at it..... said "WASHING" maybe the key to unravelling this case....
Said "WASHING" could be the clue that has been ignored....
Was said WASHING Dirty... Was said Washing folded in neat piles... Was said WASHING Ready for the drying....
Said WASHING could have stunk to high heaven.... Said WASHING, could be neat and tidy... Said WASHING, could have evidence of Dr Vincent Tabak upon it.. Said WASHING, could have an item of the Killer amongst it...
Said WASHING, might have belonged to someone else... Joanna yeates might have been WASHING someone elses clothes... Said WASHING, could have been dropped of by the people at the gate..
Said WASHING, could contain any item of clothing Joanna yeates had worn that day...
To say that I do not know when David Yeates saw said WASHING, is true... I don't... I don't know why said WASHING hasn't been mentioned before, at trial by Dr Vincent Tabak or by Greg...
If said WASHING has only been sitting there for a day... Who left said WASHING THERE?? Who had access to leave said WASHING THERE?? Dr Vincent Tabak has closed the door behind himself apparently on Friday 17th December 2010 and had not re-entered, if there was a possibility of this surely Tanja Morson would have needed to take the stand... To explain, how Dr Vincent Tabak kept disappearing that weekend....
But it is the appearance of said WASHING we need to understand..... And whether or not Said WASHING was clean or Dirty.... Or wet or Dry....
We have conflicting statements that I do not know if what to make of them..... We have Piles of said WASHING, that David Yeates decribes in his interview a detail that is significant.....
We have Greg apparently searching through piles of clothes and finding an earring in said PILE of clothes and in underneath the duvet....
Is the PILE of clothes that Greg found said earring in the WASHING pile that David Yeates speaks of... Or is it a different PILE of clothes....
I do remember David Yeates saying before that he found an earring and when it came to trial, It was Greg that found both earrings... Which throw me a little....
So is the pile of WASHING, where Joanna Yeates earring was discovered?? Where there more than one PILE of Clothes??
Is the PILE of clothes.... clean... dirty... wet... folded or what?? Why didn't Greg describe the clothes he had searched through.... He had tidied up... pottered about with ever increasing levels of stress... So why not mention said WASHING... Was it in the way?? Did it add to the pungent smell the cat had left???
Said WASHING is significant... And I mean significant.... Said WASHING conjures up all sorts of problems... and questions... Said WASHING and where said washing was, has questions attached to it no matter what you think of this case....
Why was Said WASHING not mentioned at trial??
Now looking at what Greg describes at trial.... he doesn't mention WASHING!!!
He doesn't describe the clothes on the floor as WASHING... He doesn't indicate that these clothes were in a neat pile... Or that the clothes on the floor were indeed a PILE of clothes....
So to me that indicates what David Yeates observed was a pile of WASHING, that must have been near a WASHING Machine... No WASHING machine in the bedroom we can see in the video tour of Joanna Yeates flat... No need to remove a WASHING Machine from said flat... Dr Vincent Tabak hasn't notice said WASHING Machine in said bedroom either...
So is David Yeates description of a Pile of WASHING incorrect.... I do not think so.... Are we really gonna start questioning David Yeates about when he saw said WASHING Pile??
He had never been to the flat before he and Mrs Yeates arrived after Greg's phone call, so he cannot have mistaken it for a different time... A significant piece of information that you observed when you entered your daughters flat... A significant piece of evidence that will not leave your mind...
A significant clue, that adds only to the many many questions in this case..... So where did this said WASHING disappear too?? How much of said WASHING was there?? Where Greg's clothes amongst said WASHING?? Who touched said WASHING??
Lets not forget Joanna Yeates is only a Missing Person at this point.... But The Yeates believe differently.... The Yeates believe that their daughter has been abducted.... They must have searched through said WASHING, even if Greg had already looked... The y must have wanted to see if there was any clue any indication in said WASHINg as to the whereabout of their daughter....
So why is it only know the questions of said WASHING are coming to the fore... Why is it only Now that said WASHING could be significant.... Why have we not heard before of said WASHING in any capacity....
What is so significant about said WASHING, that it takes until I have looked at documentaries to spot this comment and the significance of this comment about said WASHING... Why has said WASHING not been mentioned before...
They say that Dr Vincent Tabak wore gloves.... Well did one one his gloves end up in the pile of said WASHING??
Had someone else enter the flat and looked through said WASHING?? not knowing the significance of there entry to said flat..
No-one needs to point fingers... about said WASHING pile... But everyone needs to take into account the significance that said WASHING Pile should have in this case.... No matter from what angle you want to look at it....
No matter whether or not you believe a conspiracy had taken place... No matter whether you think Dr Vincent Tabak is guilty or not....
You should question the evidence of said WASHING Pile, that clearly David Yeates had witnessed it being at Joanna Yeates home and consider, why it's relevance has been ignored....
An independent witness, whom only wants his daughter returning to him, out of the blue gives us information that was not part of anyone elses witness testimony... and on video, so much so, that he appears to have slipped when he told us this... he has divulged something no one else knew at trial... no-one else in the country who had been following every twist and turn of this case.... No-one at trial told us of this information... Not a Policeman/woman.... not Dr Vincent Tabak, and not even Greg Reardon....
A piece of evidence that everyone should consider as being a vital piece of evidence...(imo).. Because it shapes our minds to how the crime scene may have really looked like... It changes our opinion as to whether or not Joanna Yeates was actually getting on with mundane chores such as WASHING... Or if shapes our minds in to questioning if the killer staged the Flat to make it look like Joanna Yeates was about to WASH her and Gregs clothes...
And then baking seems a little less important as no-one can prove that Joanna yeates did in fact turn on the oven to bake... We only have the story of Dr Vincent Tabak, that he turned OFF said oven.. .... Because that was an assumption, that was a task she was apparently doing.... But evidentially, we have David Yeates being able to tell us that he witnessed a pile of WASHING in his daughters flat when he entered it...
We have David Yeates on video revealing for the first time that there was something different that we didn't already know....
So being me and being as blunt as I am, I would question why the evidence that David Yeates witnessed was not talked about on the stand by himself or anyone else... I would question why he didn't take the stand to tell us about said WASHING.... I understand it must be painful, to talk when one has lost a child....
But the jury should have been made aware of this fact... The jury should have had a fuller picture of what the flat looked like when it was entered by various people... The jury should have been furnished with the truth...
By not having The Yeates take the stand in Dr Vincent Tabak's trial, we do not know of there observations.... we do not really know what made them question and believe that their daughter had been abducted... we do not know what made Mrs Yeates bang on car boots.... We do not know why Greg's phone call made them believe that something terrible had happened to their daughter....
And we do not know why a comment of a pile of WASHING might be really significant..... I am not trying to be unfeeling about The Yeates or the difficulties they may have had and still have to deal with to this day....
I am trying to understand why.... what I see as a significant piece of evidence was never brought to the juries attention.... I am trying to understand how GREG didn't also see this PILE of WASHING... I am trying to understand whether or not Dr Vincent Tabak noticed this pile of WASHING or even knew of it's existence....
Because as far as I am concerned, it is the only tangible piece of evidence that has come to light that we were not informed of before or during trial... The only tangible piece of evidence that brings even more questions to its existence....
A piece of evidence that should bring questions... whether or not you want to question David yeates about it... whether or not you want to know how long this piece of evidence was there for....
It clearly is evidence that is real... It clearly is evidence that was witnessed.... What really needs to be established... Is what it's significance really is..... (imo)
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/boyfriends-panic-over-missing-joanna-yeates-2371910.html
What do YOU think the significance of the washing was Nine?
-
Ok... Lets try being simple, and explain to me why there are so many contradictions:
(1): Colin Port: At The Leveson Colin Port stated that CJ SAW people at the gate
CJ: On the other hand tells the Leveson, he heard people at the gate....
( There must be a written statement that conclusively proves who is telling an untruth....)
(2): Greg Reardon: Tells the court, that it was he who found the earring Belonging to Joanna Yeates
David yeates: Said he found an earring under a pile of clothes (i Believe)
( Adding to his later statement about the washing pile)
(3): At trial: we are told a Police Officer and Greg went around to Dr Vincent Tabak home to ask if they had noticed
anything
Mrs Yeates: States that they went around to Dr Vincent Tabak's house to ask if they new anything
(4): It was reported: That the first time The Yeates set eyes on Dr Vincent Tabak was in court
David and Theresa Yeates: have stated they met Dr Vincent Tabak on the grass at the front of the house, they
even describe that the couple walked across diagonally... They both agree that the man took a step back, they
identify Tanja Morson with this man
(5): The Police: State it was they who found the Receipt from Tesco's
Theresa Yeates: say's it was she who found The Tesco's receipt
(6): Colin Port: say the last known CCTV image of Joanna Yeates is at The Hophouse Pub
DS Mark Saunder: Reveals there is CCTV of Canygne Road on Friday 17th December 2010, showing cars and
people Milling around...
( Bringing me to the conclusion she didn't walk home, or didn't even reach home... )
(7): Greg: tells us of looking through clothes at trial, he does not describe said clothes as WASHING
David Yeates tells us he saw a pile of WASHING
(8): Dr Vincent Tabak: States that he and Joanna Yeates saw each other through kitchen window..
Nobody: Confirms which light may have been on inside or outside the house,
( If kitchen light is on and outside light is off, there is no-way Joanna Yeates saw Dr Vincent Tabak)
(9): The Leymans: Hear Scream on the night of the 17th December 2010
Kingdon: States he heard someone cry "Help me".. mid morning of the 18th December 2010
(10): A blurry image of a car driving on Park Street on the 18th December 2010, is supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabak
driving
No CCTV: Of Dr Vincent Tabak leaving Canygne Road in the Megane that they say he drove and used.... No
CCTV from DS Marks Saunders CCTV footage, proving when Dr Vincent Tabak left or arrived at Canygne Road ,
whether in car, on foot or riding bike..... No CCTV footage of any of Dr Vincent Tabak's journeys anywhere.
(11): Chris Yeates: puts on the family website, helpfindJo, that he was in a state of despair on the 19th December
2010
Greg Reardon: Doesn't contact the Police about his concerns until 12:45am on Monday the 20th December
2010
(12): BDP: put on their website that Joanna Yeates body has been found.. The date of the article is the 24th
December 2010
Joanna Yeates: Was not officially found until the 25th December 2010
(13): Two bottles: of Cider were purchased one was open
Greg: Drank from stale open bottle of cider...
( We do not know if Greg finished drinking said bottle of cider, Did he spit it out ,or continue drinking it?? Was the fact that the Cider was flat another concern to Greg as to where Joanna Yeates could be??)
(14): The first: persons to contact Rebecca Scott were The Police
Greg: stated he had rung around her friends
( Are we to conclude from that statement that Rebecca Scott and Joanna Yeates were no longer friends?? Or Greg
didn't ring Rebecca Scott?)
I could keep going with this but, I have chores to do...... 8)--))
Where can I find the evidence for this? And what is the relevance of whether he drank it or spat it out? Can you explain?
-
Ok... Lets try being simple, and explain to me why there are so many contradictions:
(1): Colin Port: At The Leveson Colin Port stated that CJ SAW people at the gate
CJ: On the other hand tells the Leveson, he heard people at the gate....
( There must be a written statement that conclusively proves who is telling an untruth....)
(2): Greg Reardon: Tells the court, that it was he who found the earring Belonging to Joanna Yeates
David yeates: Said he found an earring under a pile of clothes (i Believe)
( Adding to his later statement about the washing pile)
(3): At trial: we are told a Police Officer and Greg went around to Dr Vincent Tabak home to ask if they had noticed
anything
Mrs Yeates: States that they went around to Dr Vincent Tabak's house to ask if they new anything
(4): It was reported: That the first time The Yeates set eyes on Dr Vincent Tabak was in court
David and Theresa Yeates: have stated they met Dr Vincent Tabak on the grass at the front of the house, they
even describe that the couple walked across diagonally... They both agree that the man took a step back, they
identify Tanja Morson with this man
(5): The Police: State it was they who found the Receipt from Tesco's
Theresa Yeates: say's it was she who found The Tesco's receipt
(6): Colin Port: say the last known CCTV image of Joanna Yeates is at The Hophouse Pub
DS Mark Saunder: Reveals there is CCTV of Canygne Road on Friday 17th December 2010, showing cars and
people Milling around...
( Bringing me to the conclusion she didn't walk home, or didn't even reach home... )
(7): Greg: tells us of looking through clothes at trial, he does not describe said clothes as WASHING
David Yeates tells us he saw a pile of WASHING
(8): Dr Vincent Tabak: States that he and Joanna Yeates saw each other through kitchen window..
Nobody: Confirms which light may have been on inside or outside the house,
( If kitchen light is on and outside light is off, there is no-way Joanna Yeates saw Dr Vincent Tabak)
(9): The Leymans: Hear Scream on the night of the 17th December 2010
Kingdon: States he heard someone cry "Help me".. mid morning of the 18th December 2010
(10): A blurry image of a car driving on Park Street on the 18th December 2010, is supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabak
driving
No CCTV: Of Dr Vincent Tabak leaving Canygne Road in the Megane that they say he drove and used.... No
CCTV from DS Marks Saunders CCTV footage, proving when Dr Vincent Tabak left or arrived at Canygne Road ,
whether in car, on foot or riding bike..... No CCTV footage of any of Dr Vincent Tabak's journeys anywhere.
(11): Chris Yeates: puts on the family website, helpfindJo, that he was in a state of despair on the 19th December
2010
Greg Reardon: Doesn't contact the Police about his concerns until 12:45am on Monday the 20th December
2010
(12): BDP: put on their website that Joanna Yeates body has been found.. The date of the article is the 24th
December 2010
Joanna Yeates: Was not officially found until the 25th December 2010
(13): Two bottles: of Cider were purchased one was open
Greg: Drank from stale open bottle of cider...
( We do not know if Greg finished drinking said bottle of cider, Did he spit it out ,or continue drinking it?? Was the fact that the Cider was flat another concern to Greg as to where Joanna Yeates could be??)
(14): The first: persons to contact Rebecca Scott were The Police
Greg: stated he had rung around her friends
( Are we to conclude from that statement that Rebecca Scott and Joanna Yeates were no longer friends?? Or Greg
didn't ring Rebecca Scott?)
I could keep going with this but, I have chores to do...... 8)--))
Again, what's the relevance, can you explain?
-
Ok... Lets try being simple, and explain to me why there are so many contradictions:
(1): Colin Port: At The Leveson Colin Port stated that CJ SAW people at the gate
CJ: On the other hand tells the Leveson, he heard people at the gate....
( There must be a written statement that conclusively proves who is telling an untruth....)
(2): Greg Reardon: Tells the court, that it was he who found the earring Belonging to Joanna Yeates
David yeates: Said he found an earring under a pile of clothes (i Believe)
( Adding to his later statement about the washing pile)
(3): At trial: we are told a Police Officer and Greg went around to Dr Vincent Tabak home to ask if they had noticed
anything
Mrs Yeates: States that they went around to Dr Vincent Tabak's house to ask if they new anything
(4): It was reported: That the first time The Yeates set eyes on Dr Vincent Tabak was in court
David and Theresa Yeates: have stated they met Dr Vincent Tabak on the grass at the front of the house, they
even describe that the couple walked across diagonally... They both agree that the man took a step back, they
identify Tanja Morson with this man
(5): The Police: State it was they who found the Receipt from Tesco's
Theresa Yeates: say's it was she who found The Tesco's receipt
(6): Colin Port: say the last known CCTV image of Joanna Yeates is at The Hophouse Pub
DS Mark Saunder: Reveals there is CCTV of Canygne Road on Friday 17th December 2010, showing cars and
people Milling around...
( Bringing me to the conclusion she didn't walk home, or didn't even reach home... )
(7): Greg: tells us of looking through clothes at trial, he does not describe said clothes as WASHING
David Yeates tells us he saw a pile of WASHING
(8): Dr Vincent Tabak: States that he and Joanna Yeates saw each other through kitchen window..
Nobody: Confirms which light may have been on inside or outside the house,
( If kitchen light is on and outside light is off, there is no-way Joanna Yeates saw Dr Vincent Tabak)
(9): The Leymans: Hear Scream on the night of the 17th December 2010
Kingdon: States he heard someone cry "Help me".. mid morning of the 18th December 2010
(10): A blurry image of a car driving on Park Street on the 18th December 2010, is supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabak
driving
No CCTV: Of Dr Vincent Tabak leaving Canygne Road in the Megane that they say he drove and used.... No
CCTV from DS Marks Saunders CCTV footage, proving when Dr Vincent Tabak left or arrived at Canygne Road ,
whether in car, on foot or riding bike..... No CCTV footage of any of Dr Vincent Tabak's journeys anywhere.
(11): Chris Yeates: puts on the family website, helpfindJo, that he was in a state of despair on the 19th December
2010
Greg Reardon: Doesn't contact the Police about his concerns until 12:45am on Monday the 20th December
2010
(12): BDP: put on their website that Joanna Yeates body has been found.. The date of the article is the 24th
December 2010
Joanna Yeates: Was not officially found until the 25th December 2010
(13): Two bottles: of Cider were purchased one was open
Greg: Drank from stale open bottle of cider...
( We do not know if Greg finished drinking said bottle of cider, Did he spit it out ,or continue drinking it?? Was the fact that the Cider was flat another concern to Greg as to where Joanna Yeates could be??)
(14): The first: persons to contact Rebecca Scott were The Police
Greg: stated he had rung around her friends
( Are we to conclude from that statement that Rebecca Scott and Joanna Yeates were no longer friends?? Or Greg
didn't ring Rebecca Scott?)
I could keep going with this but, I have chores to do...... 8)--))
Do you mean he should have been asked during trial what light was or wasn't on?
Or are you concluding there are no witnesses to what he said?
-
"When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger"
https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/
"How motivated skepticism strengthens incorrect beliefs"
https://boingboing.net/2017/02/02/how-motivated-skepticism-stren.html
-
(1): Colin Port: At The Leveson Colin Port stated that CJ SAW people at the gate
CJ: On the other hand tells the Leveson, he heard people at the gate....
I would believe CJ – he is the one who heard it. Give consideration for people making mistakes, they are after all, only human.
(2): Greg Reardon: Tells the court, that it was he who found the earring Belonging to Joanna Yeates
David yeates: Said he found an earring under a pile of clothes (i Believe)
Is it relevant who found the earring? What does it prove no matter who found it. You are reading news reports, they could have simply gotten the names mixed up...
(3): At trial: we are told a Police Officer and Greg went around to Dr Vincent Tabak home to ask if they had noticed anything Mrs Yeates: States that they went around to Dr Vincent Tabak's house to ask if they new anything
Could it not be the case that both parties did this?
(4): It was reported: That the first time The Yeates set eyes on Dr Vincent Tabak was in court David and Theresa Yeates: have stated they met Dr Vincent Tabak on the grass at the front of the house, they
even describe that the couple walked across diagonally... They both agree that the man took a step back, they identify Tanja Morson with this man
Yes it was REPORTED – which does not mean it was a truth – sensationalism Nine, it sells.
(5): The Police: State it was they who found the Receipt from Tesco's Theresa Yeates: say's it was she who found The Tesco's receipt
Does it matter who found the receipt? The fact is she was pictured on CCTV buying the pizza or whatever anyway-the receipt would have led them to Tesco...
(6): Colin Port: say the last known CCTV image of Joanna Yeates is at The Hophouse Pub DS Mark Saunder: Reveals there is CCTV of Canygne Road on Friday 17th December 2010, showing cars and
people Milling around...
The last footage of Joanna could not have been at the Hophouse pub considering they have footage of her in Tesco – A priest gave a statement saying he spoke to her near her home...
(7): Greg: tells us of looking through clothes at trial, he does not describe said clothes as WASHING
David Yeates tells us he saw a pile of WASHING
Who cares if he did not describe the clothes as “washing” it could be what he meant... He will have been upset Nine, undoubtedly.
(8): Dr Vincent Tabak: States that he and Joanna Yeates saw each other through kitchen window..
Nobody: Confirms which light may have been on inside or outside the house,
( If kitchen light is on and outside light is off, there is no-way Joanna Yeates saw Dr Vincent Tabak)
I agree – I think Tabak is lying about this!
(9): The Leymans: Hear Scream on the night of the 17th December 2010 Kingdon: States he heard someone cry "Help me".. mid morning of the 18th December 2010
Does not mean it was the same person they heard, no evidence of it being so either... Could have been people messing around...
(10): A blurry image of a car driving on Park Street on the 18th December 2010, is supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabak driving No CCTV: Of Dr Vincent Tabak leaving Canygne Road in the Megane that they say he drove and used.... No CCTV from DS Marks Saunders CCTV footage, proving when Dr Vincent Tabak left or arrived at Canygne Road , whether in car, on foot or riding bike..... No CCTV footage of any of Dr Vincent Tabak's journeys anywhere.
How do you know this? Just because it has not been made available online does not mean it does not exist. You were not at the trial, you do not know what was raised.
(11): Chris Yeates: puts on the family website, helpfindJo, that he was in a state of despair on the 19th December 2010 Greg Reardon: Doesn't contact the Police about his concerns until 12:45am on Monday the 20th December 2010
Maybe he was in a state of despair – parents tend to overreact do they not? Gregg may not have been as concerned as her father at that stage... People act differently...
(12): BDP: put on their website that Joanna Yeates body has been found.. The date of the article is the 24th December 2010 Joanna Yeates: Was not officially found until the 25th December 2010
Do you have a link of this? I've looked and cannot find it...
(13): Two bottles: of Cider were purchased one was open Greg: Drank from stale open bottle of cider...
Yes she bought two, opened one and did not get to finish it... What is your point on this?
(14): The first: persons to contact Rebecca Scott were The Police Greg: stated he had rung around her friends
Perhaps he rang around the friends whom he thought she could have been with... He may have just rang a few of them but not every single one of them... Perhaps the news reports are wrong... who knows?
I do not see anything sinister in any of this or anything that would lead me to believe Tabak must be innocent. I have said before you are getting your information from news reports, you should therefore allow room for some major inconsistencies - because they are news reports, not evidence...
-
I would believe CJ – he is the one who heard it. Give consideration for people making mistakes, they are after all, only human.
There is a written statement that the Police have from CJ.... That all illusive second witness statement... Said statement should have accurate information as to whether it was CJ saw/ or CJ heard...
Is it relevant who found the earring? What does it prove no matter who found it. You are reading news reports, they could have simply gotten the names mixed up...
Yes it is important for a trial that the correct witness gives the correct testimony.... David and Theresa Yeates do not take the stand.... But its they on video who mention who found said earring....
Could it not be the case that both parties did this?
It indeed could be true... But therefore, what The yeates thought of Dr Vincent Tabak being evasive, would give a jury a fuller picture, They could also confirm if the man in the dock was the man they saw at the door with Tanja Morson
Yes it was REPORTED – which does not mean it was a truth – sensationalism Nine, it sells.
Indeed it does..... But unless The Yeates explain to us who they saw on the grass they talk of at canygne Road, we do not know for sure if the man in the dock is the man who was with Tanja Morson on the grass...
Does it matter who found the receipt? The fact is she was pictured on CCTV buying the pizza or whatever anyway-the receipt would have led them to Tesco...
Yes it does..... Where there finger prints on said receipt?? Why would either the Yeates or Police lie about said receipt,... If said receipt is mentioned at trial, and the wrong person is saying they found it, the picture and ideas a jury may have might change... "Please put correct witness on said stand"!!
The last footage of Joanna could not have been at the Hophouse pub considering they have footage of her in Tesco – A priest gave a statement saying he spoke to her near her home...
Why Not?? Did she go back out, turn around, at what time is the Hophouse footage of Joanna Yeates last seen on??
Maybe she was given a lift close to her home.... The preist did not know Joanna yeates so could not positively identify the woman he spoke to on that evening as Joanna yeates....
Who cares if he did not describe the clothes as “washing” it could be what he meant... He will have been upset Nine, undoubtedly.
Unset yes.... But details are important and significant no matter how small they appear to be... They can change the reflection of a Crime Scene... They may change a Juries mind... A jury may ask where all the blood was said washing... They may draw their own conclusion from Washing in neat piles, when a violent assault was supposed to have taken place...
I agree – I think Tabak is lying about this!
I think he was lying about this too... I cannot see why he would gain access to a home of a woman not happy to be on her own... She had a spy hole in which to view who was outside her door... She could have talked through the intercom
Does not mean it was the same person they heard, no evidence of it being so either... Could have been people messing around...
The screams in deed may not be connected to Joanna yeates murder... when their is no definative prove of the time of death and on which day Joanna Yeates died... Dr Vincent Tabak lies as you have pointed out... So at what time and what day did Joanna Yeates meet her fate???
How do you know this? Just because it has not been made available online does not mean it does not exist. You were not at the trial, you do not know what was raised.
No I was not at trial true... But even if they pretend it is Dr Vincent tabak car, he is not on his way to ASDA to the dispose of Joanna yeates body.... The CCTV image is from the 18th December 2010... The Crime and disposal of Joanna yeates was on the 17th December 2010
Maybe he was in a state of despair – parents tend to overreact do they not? Gregg may not have been as concerned as her father at that stage... People act differently...
It was her brother Chris who was in in state of despair... When was he informed that Joanna yeates seeing as it was around 12:00 midnight that Greg phoned them...... How could he know the day before??
Do you have a link of this? I've looked and cannot find it...
From page:
JO YEATES
24/12/2010
Our thoughts are with the family and friends and colleagues of Jo Yeates, landscape architect in our Bristol studio, whose disappearance and tragic death over the Christmas period remain a mystery.
STATEMENT FROM KEITH PAVEY, HEAD OF BDP’S BRISTOL STUDIO
"We are struggling to come to terms with the tragic and untimely death of our colleague Jo Yeates. She was a very popular member of staff and a talented and committed professional with a rewarding career in front of her. She will be sorely missed and our heartfelt thoughts go out to her parents, Teresa and David, and to her long-term partner Greg, who is an architect with BDP, also in Bristol. We are currently considering the most appropriate way of remembering Jo and will issue a further statement in due course."
http://www.bdp.com/en/latest/news/2010/Jo-Yeates/
Yes she bought two, opened one and did not get to finish it... What is your point on this?
How stale was said Cider?? Why didn't said cider bottle get forensically tested, Could there be a mixture of the Killers DNA in said Cider bottle, besides Greg Reardon and Joanna yeates??
Perhaps he rang around the friends whom he thought she could have been with... He may have just rang a few of them but not every single one of them... Perhaps the news reports are wrong... who knows?
Greg had Joanna Yeates phone.... Greg could have checked who she had been in contact with... I know Greg had said phone, because when Rebecca Scott looked at the message from the Police, she immediately rang Jo's phone and Greg answered....
I do not see anything sinister in any of this or anything that would lead me to believe Tabak must be innocent. I have said before you are getting your information from news reports, you should therefore allow room for some major inconsistencies - because they are news reports, not evidence...
Inconsistences yes... But some of my information is from The Leveson Inquiry and video evidence of said people speaking.....
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Another bug bare I have, was that we went straight to sentencing.... I thought sentencing reports were gathered first and a date would be set for sentencing?? The fact that no medical assessment appears to have been done and used in mitigation, has me wondering if there could have been anything in Dr Vincent Tabak's history that may have reflected a reason for him to behave as they are telling us, completely out of character...
Vincent Tabak, like the rest of us, is protected by human rights laws.
There's no doubt he would have had assessments and medical reports completed. He may even have been diagnosed with a personality disorder of some description?
Both the prosecution and defence teams would have been aware of said reports and of there findings. Which incidentally may well be why his barrister defended him the way he did during trial.
-
As I say Nine, it is up to you if you accept the totally innocent explanations or not - nothing you have brought up proves anything one way or another...
For the record, I think the date on the DPB website was a mistake - they do happen...
-
Not all cases are adjourned for pre-sentence reports...
Just saying...
-
There is a written statement that the Police have from CJ.... That all illusive second witness statement... Said statement should have accurate information as to whether it was CJ saw/ or CJ heard...
I'll rephrase that.... There should be a written 2nd witness statement that CJ supplied to the Police, If not a recorded phone call from CJ to the Police....
Ah Ha..... is that why we haven't seen CJ's second witness statement.... Is it just a recording of a phone conversation that CJ rang about to add to his original statement??
Now that is a good possibility....
His second witness statement could just be a recording... i'd have to look again...
Joanna Yeates’ murder and my arrest
6. As I have said, Ms Yeates went missing on Friday 17
December 2010. She was reported to the Police as
missing on Sunday 19 December 2010.
Here CJ tells The Leveson Inquiry that Joanna yeates was reported Missing to The Police on Sunday 19th December 2010..
Meaning before 12:00 midnight.... Meaning someone reported said crime possibily before The yeates had been informed... But it cannot have been Greg as he called the Police at 12:45am on Monday 20th december 2010
Unless Greg called The Police twice.... Where is the phone recording of the message the police recieved on the 19th December 2010??
I voluntarily agreed to assist the Police by
providing them with two statements.
CJ does not expand in which form either of these statements were given....
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122175126/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Christopher-Jefferies.pdf
-
No I do not agree with that... He could have said the 19th in error as she was reported missing within the hour after midnight... again Nine you need to stop taking things so literally, people make mistakes...
-
I will never fully recover from the events of last year. The incalculable effect of what was written about me by these highly influential tabloid newspapers is something from which it will be difficult ever to escape
So much for him being able to move on - unsurprising when people still questions his actions...
-
No I do not agree with that... He could have said the 19th in error as she was reported missing within the hour after midnight... again Nine you need to stop taking things so literally, people make mistakes...
Who are you referring too??
CJ or Chris Yeates ??
CJ has signed a sworn statement for an Inquiry... would be lie??
-
Not all cases are adjourned for pre-sentence reports...
Just saying...
If you wish to confuse Nine further, that's your perogative.
As you've pointed out to me on numerous occasions, we are discussing Tabaks case - not "all cases"
He was on remand which would have given those assessing him an opportunity to compile reports before his trial and sentencing.
-
Who are you referring too??
CJ or Chris Yeates ??
CJ has signed a sworn statement for an Inquiry... would be lie??
An outright lie and an honest mistake are two entirely different things - we know he was mistaken because she was not reported missing until a little after midnight on the 20th... Do you really need these things explaining to you?
-
I will never fully recover from the events of last year. The incalculable effect of what was written about me by these highly influential tabloid newspapers is something from which it will be difficult ever to escape
So much for him being able to move on - unsurprising when people still questions his actions...
If that is reference to CJ... Then you will understand why I question him putting himself out there to all and sundry.... Thats all I said..... And not sitting back and not bringing attention to himself.... Constanly re-telling his story time and time again!
-
An outright lie and an honest mistake are two entirely different things - we know he was mistaken because she was not reported missing until a little after midnight on the 20th... Do you really need these things explaining to you?
?
-
An outright lie and an honest mistake are two entirely different things - we know he was mistaken because she was not reported missing until a little after midnight on the 20th... Do you really need these things explaining to you?
Are you saying that CJ outright lied on his witness statement to The Leveson that he signed??
-
I realise I misquoted, I won't bother correcting it...
I am not trying to confuse Nine at all, she was confused as to why it went straight to sentencing without any PRE-SENTENCE reports - some court cases are adjourned for those reports after conviction some are not... It must be you who is confused...
I have decided to correct the other post - seeing as though it leading people to think that I am calling CJ a liar... Not the case!
-
Who are you referring too??
CJ or Chris Yeates ??
CJ has signed a sworn statement for an Inquiry... would be lie??
Simple human error maybe?
-
Are you saying that CJ outright lied on his witness statement to The Leveson that he signed??
Absolutely not! It was you who suggested he lied!
Who are you referring too??
CJ or Chris Yeates ??
CJ has signed a sworn statement for an Inquiry... would be lie??
-
Simple human error maybe?
Then shouldn't there have been a notation to correct said error on said witness statement to The Leveson??
-
I am not trying to confuse Nine at all, she was confused as to why it went straight to sentencing without any PRE-SENTENCE reports - some court cases are adjourned for those reports after conviction some are not... It must be you who is confused...
So why did the judge go straight to sentencing?
-
Absolutely not! It was you who suggested he lied!
I was saying someone told an untruth... I did't say who it was!!
Edit.... Both have sworn to the dates that the Police were informed of Joanna Yeates being reported Missing... One on the 19th December 2010 and one on the 20th December 2010
So which one is telling an untruth??
-
So why did the judge go straight to sentencing?
I do not know.... I do not have experience of courts
-
If that is reference to CJ... Then you will understand why I question him putting himself out there to all and sundry.... Thats all I said..... And not sitting back and not bringing attention to himself.... Constanly re-telling his story time and time again!
Do you think he should never have been seen or heard from ever again?
-
So why did the judge go straight to sentencing?
You tell me? All I am pointing out is that it is not unheard of!
-
I was saying someone told an untruth... I did't say who it was!!
CJ has signed a sworn statement for an Inquiry... would be lie??
Not exactly true Nine, you were implying CJ lied, when it truth it could have been an honest mistake!
-
You tell me? All I am pointing out is that it is not unheard of!
Prisoners on Remand are visited by the Probation Services and reports can go from there
-
Prisoners on Remand are visited by the Probation Services and reports can go from there
I was pointing out that not a cases are adjourned for pre-sentence reports, many are sentenced on the day of the verdict... Not unheard of as you know Jixy. But yet again a certain someone is blowing things out of proportion. I will leave her to it, she seems to be the expert.
-
Nine you've expressed your concerns with regards the prison chaplain and Tabaks confession to him.
All prison staff, including prison chaplains, have a duty of care (cough) towards prisoners - including of course those on remand.
All prisoners are assessed (or at least should be) as to their risk towards themselves and other inmates upon arrival to prison.
Tabaks confession to the chaplain would have changed his risk. The chaplain was therefore duty bound to report this to other prison staff.
-
At the mention of the Chaplain, it is often pointed out he wasnt a real one etc. A volunteer Chaplain within a Prison is still that.
Any disclosure would be recorded.
Tabak in fact was given a great deal of care and support during this time. He was closely monitored but that is referred to as an attempt to break him Damned if you do...
-
I was pointing out that not a cases are adjourned for pre-sentence reports, many are sentenced on the day of the verdict... Not unheard of as you know Jixy. But yet again a certain someone is blowing things out of proportion. I will leave her to it, she seems to be the expert.
More projection *&^^&
If you wish to confuse Nine further, that's your perogative.
As you've pointed out to me on numerous occasions, we are discussing Tabaks case - not "all cases"
He was on remand which would have given those assessing him an opportunity to compile reports before his trial and sentencing.
-
Prisoners on Remand are visited by the Probation Services and reports can go from there
They are also visited by psychologists, doctors, nursing staff etc
The court may well have ordered a psychologist to compile a report whilst Tabak was on remand
-
At the mention of the Chaplain, it is often pointed out he wasnt a real one etc. A volunteer Chaplain within a Prison is still that.
Any disclosure would be recorded.
Tabak in fact was given a great deal of care and support during this time. He was closely monitored but that is referred to as an attempt to break him Damned if you do...
And how do you know that as fact???? Media reports??
-
Do you think he should never have been seen or heard from ever again?
I will say I was surprised to see so much about him after the trial had finished.... I thought he like his life private....
* He was in The Murder at Christmas Documentary
* He was in The Countdown to Murder Documentary
* He was interviewed immediately after Dr Vincent Tabak was convicted (posted on youtube 28th October 2011)
* He had an updated interview with the media in 2013 (posted on youtube on 16th September 2013)
* He was at The Redgrave Theatre (uploaded to youtube June 11th 2015)
* A whole TV drama was made shown December 2014 "The Lost Honour of CJ"
* He gave an ITV exclusive on 29th November 2012
* He chose to be a core participant in The Leveson Inquiry (November 2011)
* He is interviewed on TV about his apology from the Police ( September 2013)
* At Regent Street Theatre promoting said drama in May 2017
So that makes...
* 2011
* 2012
* 2013
* 2014
* 2015
* 2016
* 2017
Every year since Joanna Yeates death CJ has promoted his position in one way or another.... And in a very public way....
For someone not liking or wanting public attention, it's an odd way to go about thing...
Every time he appears it will remind the Yeates that their daughter was MURDERED....!!!
And you talk about me..... @)(++(*
Edit.... There are more , but I can't be bothered to list them....
Not forgetting we can still see "The Lost Honour of CJ" on NetFlix today... making 2018 another year to add... In fact as long as that drama about his "lost honour" is available, who will ever forget him!!! And he didn't want or need attention drawing to himself???
-
I will say I was surprised to see so much about him after the trial had finished.... I thought he like his life private....
* He was in The Murder at Christmas Documentary
* He was in The Countdown to Murder Documentary
* He was interviewed immediately after Dr Vincent Tabak was convicted (posted on youtube 28th October 2011)
* He had an updated interview with the media in 2013 (posted on youtube on 16th September 2013)
* He was at The Redgrave Theatre (uploaded to youtube June 11th 2015)
* A whole TV drama was made shown December 2014 "The Lost Honour of CJ"
* He gave an ITV exclusive on 29th November 2012
* He chose to be a core participant in The Leveson Inquiry (November 2011)
* He is interviewed on TV about his apology from the Police ( September 2013)
* At Regent Street Theatre promoting said drama in May 2017
So that makes...
* 2011
* 2012
* 2013
* 2014
* 2015
* 2016
* 2017
Every year since Joanna Yeates death CJ has promoted his position in one way or another.... And in a very public way....
For someone not liking or wanting public attention, it's an odd way to go about thing...
Every time he appears it will remind the Yeates that their daughter was MURDERED....!!!
And you talk about me..... @)(++(*
Edit.... There are more , but I can't be bothered to list them....
People change
Some don't
-
And how do you know that as fact???? Media reports??
Know what as fact? You made a huge deal about the monitoring and how it happens. All to break him but if you have changed your mind on that?
-
People change
In what capacity???
-
More projection *&^^&
There is a huge difference between "projecting" and telling the truth. Perhaps you should go away and learn it!
And, if I am projecting SO WHAT? You questioned me on something you are clearly wrong on... again!
-
In what capacity???
What do you mean? Can you expand
-
I will say I was surprised to see so much about him after the trial had finished.... I thought he like his life private....
* He was in The Murder at Christmas Documentary
* He was in The Countdown to Murder Documentary
* He was interviewed immediately after Dr Vincent Tabak was convicted (posted on youtube 28th October 2011)
* He had an updated interview with the media in 2013 (posted on youtube on 16th September 2013)
* He was at The Redgrave Theatre (uploaded to youtube June 11th 2015)
* A whole TV drama was made shown December 2014 "The Lost Honour of CJ"
* He gave an ITV exclusive on 29th November 2012
* He chose to be a core participant in The Leveson Inquiry (November 2011)
* He is interviewed on TV about his apology from the Police ( September 2013)
* At Regent Street Theatre promoting said drama in May 2017
So that makes...
* 2011
* 2012
* 2013
* 2014
* 2015
* 2016
* 2017
Every year since Joanna Yeates death CJ has promoted his position in one way or another.... And in a very public way....
For someone not liking or wanting public attention, it's an odd way to go about thing...
Every time he appears it will remind the Yeates that their daughter was MURDERED....!!!
And you talk about me..... @)(++(*
Edit.... There are more , but I can't be bothered to list them....
Not forgetting we can still see "The Lost Honour of CJ" on NetFlix today... making 2018 another year to add... In fact as long as that drama about his "lost honour" is available, who will ever forget him!!! And he didn't want or need attention drawing to himself???
Am sure he still enjoys a private life. One where his right to privacy isn't invaded like it was before.
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/civil-rights/human-rights/what-rights-are-protected-under-the-human-rights-act/your-right-to-respect-for-private-and-family-life/
-
I will say I was surprised to see so much about him after the trial had finished.... I thought he like his life private....
* He was in The Murder at Christmas Documentary
* He was in The Countdown to Murder Documentary
* He was interviewed immediately after Dr Vincent Tabak was convicted (posted on youtube 28th October 2011)
* He had an updated interview with the media in 2013 (posted on youtube on 16th September 2013)
* He was at The Redgrave Theatre (uploaded to youtube June 11th 2015)
* A whole TV drama was made shown December 2014 "The Lost Honour of CJ"
* He gave an ITV exclusive on 29th November 2012
* He chose to be a core participant in The Leveson Inquiry (November 2011)
* He is interviewed on TV about his apology from the Police ( September 2013)
* At Regent Street Theatre promoting said drama in May 2017
So that makes...
* 2011
* 2012
* 2013
* 2014
* 2015
* 2016
* 2017
Every year since Joanna Yeates death CJ has promoted his position in one way or another.... And in a very public way....
For someone not liking or wanting public attention, it's an odd way to go about thing...
Every time he appears it will remind the Yeates that their daughter was MURDERED....!!!
And you talk about me..... @)(++(*
Edit.... There are more , but I can't be bothered to list them....
Not forgetting we can still see "The Lost Honour of CJ" on NetFlix today... making 2018 another year to add... In fact as long as that drama about his "lost honour" is available, who will ever forget him!!! And he didn't want or need attention drawing to himself???
So what! He can speak out about HIS miscarriage of justice if he wants to - probably trying to put right so many wrongs against him! He probably was a quiet man until his life was turned upside down! I question your motives on why you fight for someone you have never met and who is neither protesting his own innocence - now that is "weird"!
P.S I do not see CJ claiming her parents were part of some sick cover-up!
-
So what! He can speak out about HIS miscarriage of justice if he wants to - probably trying to put right so many wrongs against him! He probably was a quiet man until his life was turned upside down! I question your motives on why you fight for someone you have never met and who is neither protesting his own innocence - now that is "weird"!
So I am weird.... And?
I am allowed as an individual to express my concerns about any case and any subject... I have no ulterior motives, I do not benefit in any way... I open myself up to ridicule.... (where's the benefit??)
As I have always stated I just like fair.... And I have never seen this case as fair.... That is it....
-
P.S I do not see CJ claiming her parents were part of some sick cover-up!
???
-
And how do you know that as fact???? Media reports??
i will ask again seeing as you questioned my post *%87
-
i will ask again seeing as you questioned my post *%87
Ask which particular question again??
-
My post disappeared....
-
The post were I responded about being weird....
-
And how do you know that as fact???? Media reports??
*%87
-
*%87
My response... (&^&
-
So I am weird.... And?
I am allowed as an individual to express my concerns about any case and any subject... I have no ulterior motives, I do not benefit in any way... I open myself up to ridicule.... (where's the benefit??)
As I have always stated I just like fair.... And I have never seen this case as fair.... That is it....
Not really fair when you keep questioning CJ's actions - it was him who suffered a miscarriage of justice, not you and certainly not Tabak. If he wants to shout about that, why shouldn't he? What have you got against him doing so? You only seem to want fairness when it comes to the murdering paedophile Tabak. No fairness for CJ, no fairness for her poor parents, no fairness for her, just wild accusations for them...
-
You were quick enough to ask for media links?
-
ah i guess you remembered your very long posts about his treatment while the bad people made sure he didnt harm himself so the best way to deal with it is to move swiftly on and play games with another poster?
-
I will say I was surprised to see so much about him after the trial had finished.... I thought he like his life private....
* He was in The Murder at Christmas Documentary
* He was in The Countdown to Murder Documentary
* He was interviewed immediately after Dr Vincent Tabak was convicted (posted on youtube 28th October 2011)
* He had an updated interview with the media in 2013 (posted on youtube on 16th September 2013)
* He was at The Redgrave Theatre (uploaded to youtube June 11th 2015)
* A whole TV drama was made shown December 2014 "The Lost Honour of CJ"
* He gave an ITV exclusive on 29th November 2012
* He chose to be a core participant in The Leveson Inquiry (November 2011)
* He is interviewed on TV about his apology from the Police ( September 2013)
* At Regent Street Theatre promoting said drama in May 2017
So that makes...
* 2011
* 2012
* 2013
* 2014
* 2015
* 2016
* 2017
Every year since Joanna Yeates death CJ has promoted his position in one way or another.... And in a very public way....
For someone not liking or wanting public attention, it's an odd way to go about thing...
Every time he appears it will remind the Yeates that their daughter was MURDERED....!!!
And you talk about me..... @)(++(*
Edit.... There are more , but I can't be bothered to list them....
Not forgetting we can still see "The Lost Honour of CJ" on NetFlix today... making 2018 another year to add... In fact as long as that drama about his "lost honour" is available, who will ever forget him!!! And he didn't want or need attention drawing to himself???
The fact she is no longer alive most probably reminds them of her fate. Am sure there will have been and may still be many things that trigger reminders of all their daughter, and themselves, went through.
-
I cannot understand why you do not want CJ to speak up about his miscarriage of justice but you would welcome it if Tabak spoke up about what you say is a miscarriage of justice... Double standards?
-
I cannot understand why you do not want CJ to speak up about his miscarriage of justice but you would welcome it if Tabak spoke up about what you say is a miscarriage of justice... Double standards?
I want CJ to speak up about what is held in his 2 witness statements, that he speaks of at The Leveson....
But that is me....
-
The fact she is no longer alive most probably reminds them of her fate. Am sure there will have been and may still be many things that trigger reminders of all their daughter, and themselves, went through.
Oh course that is true.... But seeing an image of the landlord everywhere they look will only add to their despair, will remind them daily, yearly of this tragedy.... They have their own triggers to remind themselves, they probably do not want to see CJ talk about said events ... Year in and Year out.... (imo)
-
()678% still waiting...
-
I want CJ to speak up about what is held in his 2 witness statements, that he speaks of at The Leveson....
But that is me....
And why does he have to answer to you? You want him to speak up, you want him to go away and bury his head... You need to make your mind up... Whatever was said in those statements, I doubt it would have been anything in favour of your lovely, placid Tabak.
Seeing as though we are allowed to speculate - I think crying girl was another one of Tabak's victims, who did not want to go through the trauma of a trial but knew very much what he was capable of!
-
Oh course that is true.... But seeing an image of the landlord everywhere they look will only add to their despair, will remind them daily, yearly of this tragedy.... They have their own triggers to remind themselves, they probably do not want to see CJ talk about said events ... Year in and Year out.... (imo)
How do you know? They could support him considering he is wholly innocent - I doubt they will ever forget what happened to their daughter, it will be with them every second of every day.
-
You speak for a lot of people on here Nine - people you have never met.
-
You speak for a lot of people on here Nine - people you have never met.
Still hasnt answered me though despite it being her asking the questions. sums up this whole thread really @)(++(*
-
Still hasnt answered me though despite it being her asking the questions. sums up this whole thread really @)(++(*
Perhaps ask her what the victims parents will think of it and she may answer in that context.
-
Oh course that is true.... But seeing an image of the landlord everywhere they look will only add to their despair, will remind them daily, yearly of this tragedy.... They have their own triggers to remind themselves, they probably do not want to see CJ talk about said events ... Year in and Year out.... (imo)
How will they see an image of the landlord everywhere they look?
They will no doubt hear or read about murders often. I suspect that will be more of a trigger to them?
IMO the mention of murder (and Vincent Tabak) will be more of a trigger than the name of CJ.
-
Nine ()678% you asked me about media links when we were discussing Tabak the Chaplain and possible self harm. Now you have gone quiet. What is it that you were so keen to find out?
-
IMO the mention of murder (and Vincent Tabak) will be more of a trigger than the name of CJ.
We agree on one thing at least!
-
Nine ()678% you asked me about media links when we were discussing Tabak the Chaplain and possible self harm. Now you have gone quiet. What is it that you were so keen to find out?
()678%
That was what I meant.... I already realised you could only show me media link's about what had been said in regards Dr Vincent Tabak and any mental health issue or examination...
I nearly believed you had access to something concrete....
So where do we differ??
And don't say it just because I am weird.... We have already established that one.... @)(++(*
-
So, do we believe CJ did see/hear anyone near Joanna's flat, as he told the police?
I believe he did---why would he lie, and draw attention to himself? In any case, he told several of his neighbours what he had heard/seen. I can also believe that he did not know whom he had heard/seen.
IMO, had he heard/seen VT, he would have recognised him. He had been his landlord for quite a while, and VT was strikingly tall, and had a foreign accent. Common sense tells me that he would have recognised him.
As far as I know, this sighting was not really investigated-----they arrested CJ instead!
So, what are your views on this? And, yes, I do think it is relevant to whether or not VT is guilty, if Joanna was with two other people that night.
-
IMO Tabak got a low sentence especially when compared with this case;
"A "sadistic" paedophile who was jailed for 32 years has had his sentence reduced.
Matthew Falder, a 29-year-old Cambridge graduate and geophysics researcher, was jailed in February after sharing abuse tips and images on the dark web. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-45875275
-
So, do we believe CJ did see/hear anyone near Joanna's flat, as he told the police?
I believe he did---why would he lie, and draw attention to himself? In any case, he told several of his neighbours what he had heard/seen. I can also believe that he did not know whom he had heard/seen.
IMO, had he heard/seen VT, he would have recognised him. He had been his landlord for quite a while, and VT was strikingly tall, and had a foreign accent. Common sense tells me that he would have recognised him.
As far as I know, this sighting was not really investigated-----they arrested CJ instead!
So, what are your views on this? And, yes, I do think it is relevant to whether or not VT is guilty, if Joanna was with two other people that night.
Yes I believe him - why wouldn't I? These people at the gate, is there any evidence they were there for Joanna? People pass my gate all the time, sometimes stop outside - doesn't mean they have anything to do with me. So no, I do not think it is relevant to Tabak's innocence at all - the man pleaded guilty to killing her. He had plenty of opportunity during his trial to say if he had been coerced/bullied/forced into saying it. He gave a very coherent version of events.
Tell me Mrswah, why do you think his confession is false? Why do you think he would give very good details of him being in her flat? (even if he did not mention the laundry) He did mention the coat stand. Why do people think his confession is strange anyway - people confess to crimes all the time. He even said himself that the reason he confessed was because he knew they had DNA evidence - this is strong evidence of his guilt, whether you want to accept that or not - he accepted it, strangely enough. And it has been pointed out time and time again on this forum that he was a highly educated man, not someone who was easily led or could be bullied into a confession... I honestly think crying girl was another one of his victims.
Also Mrswah - why do you think his family remain silent if this is such a miscarriage of justice? There are cases which are higher profile than this one but they still manage to speak out - any family would speak out if they thought a grave injustice had happened to their loved one. Even Tabak himself could speak out, despite what Nine thinks - people do it from our prison's all the time.
-
Yes I believe him - why wouldn't I? These people at the gate, is there any evidence they were there for Joanna? People pass my gate all the time, sometimes stop outside - doesn't mean they have anything to do with me. So no, I do not think it is relevant to Tabak's innocence at all - the man pleaded guilty to killing her. He had plenty of opportunity during his trial to say if he had been coerced/bullied/forced into saying it. He gave a very coherent version of events.
Tell me Mrswah, why do you think his confession is false? Why do you think he would give very good details of him being in her flat? (even if he did not mention the laundry) He did mention the coat stand. Why do people think his confession is strange anyway - people confess to crimes all the time. He even said himself that the reason he confessed was because he knew they had DNA evidence - this is strong evidence of his guilt, whether you want to accept that or not - he accepted it, strangely enough. And it has been pointed out time and time again on this forum that he was a highly educated man, not someone who was easily led or could be bullied into a confession... I honestly think crying girl was another one of his victims.
Also Mrswah - why do you think his family remain silent if this is such a miscarriage of justice? There are cases which are higher profile than this one but they still manage to speak out - any family would speak out if they thought a grave injustice had happened to their loved one. Even Tabak himself could speak out, despite what Nine thinks - people do it from our prison's all the time.
Firstly, did he confess? He apparently told the chaplain that he was going to plead guilty/change his plea to guilty, but that isn't quite the same as saying he killed Joanna (although I know that is what the papers reported). So, once he pleads guilty, he then has to write a statement saying exactly what happened, so he accepts what his lawyer tells him to write, and then , very reluctantly, signs it in September, just before his trial is going to begin. He doesn't know what happened, because he wasn't there, hence all the questions he wasn't able to answer in court. He has never been in trouble with the police or the courts before, is completely thrown by having been arrested and charged, and has either become mentally ill since being on remand, or has given up, so goes along with everything, doesn't speak out because he doesn't think anyone will listen or believe him.
Ok, pure speculation, but thought out speculation, and I can just imagine something like this happening to somebody. Yes, I might be wrong, and he could be as guilty as sin------------but you did ask!!
-
And, yes, he might be a highly intelligent man, in his field, but who says that a highly intelligent man can't be completely worn down by police questioning and being in prison? Even CJ , another highly intelligent man, is on record saying how badly his three days in police custody affected him.
-
As for the DNA, I would have expected there to be more, had VT killed Joanna and inflicted 43 injuries on her, and, as I have said previously, I would have expected DNA to have been found in both is flat and Joanna's, if the story he gave in court is to be believed. If we can't believe what he said in court, why should we believe his so called "confession"?
-
CJ did say that he thought the people he heard/saw were coming from the direction of Joanna's flat. ( The main entrance to 44 Canynge Road is on the opposite side).
-
Sorry Mrswah I do not agree with you, changing his plea to guilty is confessing to killing her (what else could it be) - albeit he tried to play down his culpability. You are almost alleging that he was forced to sign a confession. How do you know he signed "reluctantly"? You are alleging that his own defence team coached him. Do you know the procedure of such statements being taken? Yes they are written out by a lawyer, but it certainly is not the lawyers words.
He took the stand in court - of his own free will. He spoke out about events - of his own free will. He know's what happened alright - he just gave a version of events which he hoped would help him get away with murder. Tell me why his QC would even risk putting him on the stand if they were colluding against him? Wouldn't they have advised against it? It does not matter whether he has been in trouble with the police before - You are expecting me to believe that a highly intelligent, well educated man, was brow-beaten into a confession, yet said nothing about this on the stand? I see children coping on remand very well - I see them coping in police interview very well, and yes some of these have been accused of murder.
There was DNA evidence, internet searches and a confession not only of him killing Joanna, but that he dumped evidence - he accepted a lot of the evidence against him. Why is this being ignored? I have seen people convicted on a lot less!
They are not allowed to question people in prison about their crime whilst they are on remand - he made the confession of his own free will. CJ was worn down during his time in the police station - but I did not see a confession come from him. It maybe "thought out speculation" but that is all it is, speculation, not based on any fact at all... So all these people colluded just to convict an innocent man, an ordinary member of the public and for what? So they could let a killer, another member of the public walk free? Too far-fetched. Tell me again why his family don't fight for him? Or why he doesn't fight for himself?
-
CJ did say that he thought the people he heard/saw were coming from the direction of Joanna's flat. ( The main entrance to 44 Canynge Road is on the opposite side).
Thinking and knowing are two very different things...
He seen them standing at the gate... He seen the coming from the flat... Which is it? The evidence keeps changing.
-
Sorry Mrswah I do not agree with you, changing his plea to guilty is confessing to killing her (what else could it be) - albeit he tried to play down his culpability. You are almost alleging that he was forced to sign a confession. How do you know he signed "reluctantly"? You are alleging that his own defence team coached him. Do you know the procedure of such statements being taken? Yes they are written out by a lawyer, but it certainly is not the lawyers words.
He took the stand in court - of his own free will. He spoke out about events - of his own free will. He know's what happened alright - he just gave a version of events which he hoped would help him get away with murder. Tell me why his QC would even risk putting him on the stand if they were colluding against him? Wouldn't they have advised against it? It does not matter whether he has been in trouble with the police before - You are expecting me to believe that a highly intelligent, well educated man, was brow-beaten into a confession, yet said nothing about this on the stand? I see children coping on remand very well - I see them coping in police interview very well, and yes some of these have been accused of murder.
There was DNA evidence, internet searches and a confession not only of him killing Joanna, but that he dumped evidence - he accepted a lot of the evidence against him. Why is this being ignored? I have seen people convicted on a lot less!
They are not allowed to question people in prison about their crime whilst they are on remand - he made the confession of his own free will. CJ was worn down during his time in the police station - but I did not see a confession come from him. It maybe "thought out speculation" but that is all it is, speculation, not based on any fact at all... So all these people colluded just to convict an innocent man, an ordinary member of the public and for what? So they could let a killer, another member of the public walk free? Too far-fetched. Tell me again why his family don't fight for him? Or why he doesn't fight for himself?
No, I didn't say he was "browbeaten into a confession", but I believe he might have got to the stage where he couldn't see a way out. I am suspicious about the enhanced statement because he didn't sign it until the last minute. I didn't say anyone "colluded" to convict an innocent man-----no, I'm not pointing any fingers!!!
No, of course I didn't expect you to agree with me, I was just answering your post. I'm well used to people not agreeing with me, particularly on this subject. I also accept that you might be right and I might be wrong, or that the truth is somewhere in between. Who knows? I don't believe any of us do.
-
No, I didn't say he was "browbeaten into a confession", but I believe he might have got to the stage where he couldn't see a way out. I am suspicious about the enhanced statement because he didn't sign it until the last minute. I didn't say anyone "colluded" to convict an innocent man-----no, I'm not pointing any fingers!!!
No, of course I didn't expect you to agree with me, I was just answering your post. I'm well used to people not agreeing with me, particularly on this subject. I also accept that you might be right and I might be wrong, or that the truth is somewhere in between. Who knows? I don't believe any of us do.
I did not say you were pointing fingers. "He got to a stage where he could not see a way out" - so he was allegedy brow-beaten? Not physically beaten, but bullied, worn down. You suggested he reluctantly signed a confession after his lawyers told him what to say. How is this not collusion? It is at the very least an allegation of coaching. He had one of the best QC's available and it has even been suggested he was against Tabak, not by you of course. But it has been suggested...
-
I did not say you were pointing fingers. "He got to a stage where he could not see a way out" - so he was allegedy brow-beaten? Not physically beaten, but bullied, worn down. You suggested he reluctantly signed a confession after his lawyers told him what to say. How is this not collusion? It is at the very least an allegation of coaching. He had one of the best QC's available and it has even been suggested he was against Tabak, not by you of course. But it has been suggested...
Yes, it has been suggested ------by several people, if you look all over the internet !!
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8239.90#lastPost
Countdown to Murder..........
I've been thinking about said program.... And it's odd.... It's like it was made??
I can't put my finger on it.... But it is not right.....
The story line,.... And i mean story line... This program should have been made after Dr Vincent Tabak was incarcerated , after 28th October 2011..
DCI Phil Jones states at 8:10pm Joanna Yeates left the Ram, she continues to walk home .. then at 8:25pm, she rings her best friend... 6 minutes later CCTV she's on the Tesco CCTV...
But she should still be on the phone?? Ok, 6 mins later is 8:31pm... we only see from the CCTv that she is in Tesco's at 8:36pm.... CCTV finishing at 8:37:30pm.. Meaning she spent 6 minutes buying a Pizza...
They have a witness walking his dog close to his flat in Canygne Road when he saw Joanna walk home...
So we again have DCI Phil Jones stating that at about half past eight twenty to nine that evening, he spoke to very breifly a woman who matched Joanna's description....
Now.... Clearly there evidence coming from DCI Phil Jones mouth that The priest who saw a woman, cannot have seen Joanna Yeates, as she was still in Tesco's...
So why was said priest a witness?? What every he had spoken about to this woman, is irrelevant, because it cannot have been Joanna Yeates.... Or could it??
I have to look at this differently.... I can use the interviews from the people we know as a guide, and then dissect the program seperately...
The narrator tells us one thing.... We know a different story and it's interspersed with interviews of certain people who are involved....
We have to take as fact for now, the information these people tell us... The program should be accurate... It apparently was made after Dr Vincent Tabak was in prison, but it has details in it that were NOT at trial....
The program tells us the method on which Dr Vincent Tabak gained access to Joanna Yeates flat... I'm sure this method had been speculated about before.... The program explains how Joanna Yeates even come to be wearing said grey ski- socks.... Now it cannot possibly know... It shouldn't know, but there we go, she arrives home puts the pizza on the side in the kitchen, goes to her bedroom kicks of her shoes and puts on the socks...
The narrator goes on to tell us that at 8:40pm there was a knock on the door... We get a story of how "Bernard " the cat had a tendency to walk into other tenants flats, Dr Vincent Tabak's included..... He then goes around to Joanna Yeates flat and knocks on her door with Bernard in his arms and Joanna yeates opens door and takes Bernard from him... He enters flat....
Now major problem... That simply didn't happen.... We have people saying that Dr Vincent Tabak lied on the stand, we have people saying he must have forced his way in, and the only way he would have a reason to get Joanna Yeates to open said door, would possibly be if he had Bernard her cat...
I find this ridiculous... How can a program that was apparently made AFTER a trial that has the evidence of said trial there for all to see... a trial that was tweeted... A trial that was in the media.... Have events happening that "Just didn't happen"!!!
Was this a story made before?? was it made coming up to trial?? when was it made???
Speculation on the internet was rife at the time, the idea that Dr Vincent Tabak used Bernard to gain entry I'm sure had been mentioned... But how can the program be so wrong?? We have had Crimewatch and that hasn't shown entry that way... we have had other programs that hasn't shown entry that way... So why on earth would this program, out of the blue make up details that were not part of a trial??
Enter stage left DCI Phil Jones, talking about The Lehmans....
As they were walking into Canygne Road, they were stood outside the flat,erm, the lady noticed the sercurity light was on , which would have been outside Joanna 's flat
Image with light on shows main entrance...
DCI Phil Jones
They heard was what they believe to be was a scream
Now the other day, I said I was confused as to what position Zoe Lehman was in and where she was stood... Reports from trial clearly indicate that Zoe Lehman was already on the path of 53, Canygne Road.. yet this program contradicts that... They are on the path outside 44,Canygne Road and closer to the main entrance according to the depiction than Joanna Yeates small gate...
DCI Phil Jones:
We know that they were specific about the time because they were stood outside there friends address and sent a test message to open the door to let them in... and that was around about 20 to 9..
I have noticed one thing... times are not accurate, and after a trail , they should be.. especially if you are the SOI leading this investigation, you should know what time is what.....
Around 20 to 9?? eh... We know that Joanna Yeates cannot be in two places at one time... Se is either leaving Tesco's or she is already home.... so which one is it??... Apparently Zoe Lehman has a sent a text message which would give us a clear time of when this scream was heard... No need to guess an approximation... There is solid evidence on her phone that she sent a message to the person who's party she was attending that evening....
The program is odd... It's like it was made before the event..... Because we have information that is contradicting... we shouldn't , either that or someone is trying to tell us something else, something about the case being about something else altogether.... DCI Phil Jones should know the ladies name, he should be able to say Zoe Lehman....
Joanna Yeates is depicted wearing a pink flower patterned top... I only ever found one reference to said top... And that was Dr Delaneys description of it in the media.... no-one else states anything about this pink flower patterned top....
So Joanna Yeates is in the Ram Pub... in a plain top..... she goes to shops walks home and is killed in no time by Dr Vincent Tabak apparently... yet we have 2 references to this flower patterned pink top.... 2 references...
I can think of 3 options here....
(1): Joanna yeates changed her clothes when she arrived home.....
(2): Joanna Yeates was re-dressed
(3): This piece of fiction was made prior....
If we go with (1): we have a problem, the same answer would apply with (2): also.... In the program, Joanna yeates is shown at the pub at lunch time with Greg, i'll take it being Greg for now... wearing said Pink Flower patterned Pink Top...
We now from the Ram CCTV footage she had a plain top on..... But when the program depicts Joanna Yeates in The Ram she is wearing said Pink Flower Patterned Top....
Now my heads now on a journey..... We have details that are clearly incorrect, we have details that the program makers should not have had a problem with, we have details that make my head spin.....
Ok... If I take for read that Joanna yeates was murdered.... then what do I make of this program.... ?? When was this program was made.... We have vague recollections from key people in this program, we have recollections of events that never came to trial, said remark by David Yeates about said WASHING... We have The Lehmans closer than they stated at trial... but they are vaguely on the path.... But that shouldn't be good enough..
What Dr Vincent Tabak said at trial..... Yes I'm sure it was a pack of lies on the stand.... Was Clegg doing something we weren't aware of..??
Who is this case really about.... Who knew Dr Vincent Tabak... ??
Was he part of a cover up, rather than a Murder?? I don't know ... or was he totally being stitched up???
You laugh when I bring different idea to the table... But words I hear coming out of the mouths of key people in this case, have "Alarm Bells" going......
I have noticed how vague everyone is.... Take The Yeates for a moment... i try not to say anything because i do not want to be seen as being disrespectful, but..... I have to go where the information takes me and question said information..... There interviews on Crimewatch for instance, they do not mention Dr Vincent Tabak by name.... Or Tanja Morson by name...... One could put the fact that the mere mention of Dr Vincent Tabak's name was too much for them to say, But not Tanja,.... she was nothing to do with this crime ,....
So it leaves me with the idea, that a program was made.... A story was told, and if we use the words He and she, everyone will know who we mean.... If we give rough estimates of a timeline no-one will notice.....
But I do.... I notice, extra pieces of information we were not made aware of at the time... I notice that the timeline keeps changing..... The programs should be more accurate... they trial has happened, they have DCI Phil Jones there.... There should be no guessing......
The program depicts a fight in the hallway moving into the bedroom, where Dr Vincent Tabak apparently kills Joanna Yeates....
Now.... whether or not anyone believes the story told on the stand by Dr Vincent Tabak, in this instance, it doesn't really matter.... What was stated at trial should be the official version of events, therefore this complete fairy tale a program is depicting has come from where??
Yes it could explain away how the earring ended up in the duvet, but why not go with the story on the stand??
DCI Phil Jones: 23:06 of the video
Joanna had 30 to 40 injuries, minor injuries... On her body ... erm the cause of death was strangulation, but the pathologist couldn't rule out that a soft ligature hadn't been used. But also what was significant was, there was had been a slight discharge of blood from her nose, the likely cause of that was the asphixial process, that became relevant later on in the investigation..
So we have DCI Phil jones who not only attends trial, whether he is put on the stand or not is aware of the evidence presented, he as I have stated is the SOI of this investigation... He would have made himself informed of all of the material, that attains to this crime, he would know how many injuries and whether or not they were violent in nature....
Do you see what I mean... everyone is vague about said detail.... of all people DCI Phil Jones should know how many injuries Joanna yeates had... especially as this is apparently been made after said trail....
30 to 40 injuries.... Well we are told it was 43 significant injuries.... How can this man have it so wrong????
We remember at the Police Conference when he told us that there were no significant injuries.... And her also he states that... But at trial in October 2011 we have 43 significant injuries....
Every insists that CJ is totally Innocent, and I am not saying any different..... But... the question is why?? If this is made up complete nonsense , then that would prove that the rime of Murder didn't even happen... So therefore he cannot be guilty... And his life been turned upside down by an imaginary crime, is an outrage...
Did this Crime first and foremost take place???? If yes is the answer then the content of a program shouldn't be so off.... Who colluded with who???? There is collusion going on, but who are the people colluding???
Because of the vagueness of some of the statements by key people in this program, it makes me believe it was made before Dr vincent Tabak was even at trial.... How much of it was made before is anyones guess... But then you have a problem of how the hell a jury came to a guilty decision.... ?? How could a program prempt that...
Well you have a basic story line and edit the narrator over said story line and it is said narrator who has filled in the gaps it is the narrator whom tells us the name Dr Vincent Tabak, although she only uses the name tabak....
The narrator says that Tabak drove to Asda from his flat.... then we have...
DCI Phil Jones:
He was on CCTV in that supermarket at 10:30pm that Friday evening and whilst he was at the supermarket, he sent another text message, stating again that he was bored, I'm at the supermarket buying a packet of.. "Crisis".. Missing you loads Vxxx
DCI Phil Jones doesn't mention Dr Vincent Tabaks name... he refers to him as he.... He could be anyone V could stand for anything
It's not definitive... Not clear... DCI Phil Jones has made rough estimates to many things....
Did the text state "buying a packet of "Crisis".... media reports state the message differently
Tabak sends a text message to Miss Morson in which he says: “How are you, I am at the Asda buying crisis (sic). Was bored cannot wait to pick you up.”
The word packet is missing..... Ok.. we know that media reports can be inaccurate, But the tweets were supposed to report exactly what had been said at trial..
Rupert Evelyn
@rupertevelyn
Following Following @rupertevelyn
More
Tabak sent text to Tanja "how are you. I'm at Asda buying some crisis" possible spelling mistake in text
12:39 PM - 10 Oct 2011
So we have a program with vague and incorrect details, that was supposed to have been made after a trial.... But which parts were made after a trial???
What is this program trying to tell us?? What is going on?? There are details in said program,that are not mentioned at trial, an attack that did not happen that way... You may think it did, but realistically we can only use what version of the events the defendant told us about, whether or not we believe differently, and a program with key people in it should know these events...
I do not know what this program is trying to tell us..... Was it made before trial?? And if so why??? And if that is the case, why hasn't anyone said anything..... If DCI Phil jones cannot get times accurate, doesn't that suggest it may have been made before said trial.... Or did DCI Phil Jones deliberately gives us incorrect information and if so why??
There is a lot of information that doesn't add up that was divulged after a trial.... A man has been sentenced and a woman murdered , and those vital details are either deliberately divulged or were said before the trial....
Making the story on the stand by Dr Vincent Tabak, evidence... evidence of some type of collusion happening, ... who made this program??
I then get some posters questioning why I question this case , whether I am sure it is real or not.... But the program casts doubt on the validity of the tale we know... It holds information that were speculations made by various posters on various forums of the time.... And it shouldn't ...
Bernard:... From The Telegraph at the time of trial..
Mr Lickley also suggested that rather than being invited into Miss Yeates’s flat, Tabak had used her pet cat, Bernard, as a pretext to get her to open her door.
It is a suggestion by the prosecution.... Not what the defendant told us.... So what should we make of that?? That Lickley was aware of the contents of the program?? and something else was taking place at that trial??
What information was Missing from the trial that we do not know about??
Have we been allowed to believe that this case is real?? I am still confused... I believe i will always be confused, when nothing adds up.... And when programs with key people in it are miles off from the timings we were informed of at time of trial......
So who was/is Joanna Yeates?? What is this case really about?? Her being found on December 25th 2010 is also important when we realise that the plaque on the cross in the grave yard has a date of the 25th December 2010, the date of Joanna Yeates death... So what came first, a piece of written fiction that turned out to be a real crime?? Or a crime that is a piece of fiction?
I am still at a loss!!
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8847912/Vincent-Tabak-found-guilty-of-Joanna-Yeates-murder-how-it-happened.html
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/123362124243288064
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8841298/Vincent-Tabak-strangled-Joanna-Yeates-to-gain-sexual-gratification.html
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8239.90#lastPost
Countdown to Murder..........
I've been thinking about said program.... And it's odd.... It's like it was made??
I can't put my finger on it.... But it is not right.....
The story line,.... And i mean story line... This program should have been made after Dr Vincent Tabak was incarcerated , after 28th October 2011..
DCI Phil Jones states at 8:10pm Joanna Yeates left the Ram, she continues to walk home .. then at 8:25pm, she rings her best friend... 6 minutes later CCTV she's on the Tesco CCTV...
But she should still be on the phone?? Ok, 6 mins later is 8:31pm... we only see from the CCTv that she is in Tesco's at 8:36pm.... CCTV finishing at 8:37:30pm.. Meaning she spent 6 minutes buying a Pizza...
They have a witness walking his dog close to his flat in Canygne Road when he saw Joanna walk home...
So we again have DCI Phil Jones stating that at about half past eight twenty to nine that evening, he spoke to very breifly a woman who matched Joanna's description....
Now.... Clearly there evidence coming from DCI Phil Jones mouth that The priest who saw a woman, cannot have seen Joanna Yeates, as she was still in Tesco's...
So why was said priest a witness?? What every he had spoken about to this woman, is irrelevant, because it cannot have been Joanna Yeates.... Or could it??
I have to look at this differently.... I can use the interviews from the people we know as a guide, and then dissect the program seperately...
The narrator tells us one thing.... We know a different story and it's interspersed with interviews of certain people who are involved....
We have to take as fact for now, the information these people tell us... The program should be accurate... It apparently was made after Dr Vincent Tabak was in prison, but it has details in it that were NOT at trial....
The program tells us the method on which Dr Vincent Tabak gained access to Joanna Yeates flat... I'm sure this method had been speculated about before.... The program explains how Joanna Yeates even come to be wearing said grey ski- socks.... Now it cannot possibly know... It shouldn't know, but there we go, she arrives home puts the pizza on the side in the kitchen, goes to her bedroom kicks of her shoes and puts on the socks...
The narrator goes on to tell us that at 8:40pm there was a knock on the door... We get a story of how "Bernard " the cat had a tendency to walk into other tenants flats, Dr Vincent Tabak's included..... He then goes around to Joanna Yeates flat and knocks on her door with Bernard in his arms and Joanna yeates opens door and takes Bernard from him... He enters flat....
Now major problem... That simply didn't happen.... We have people saying that Dr Vincent Tabak lied on the stand, we have people saying he must have forced his way in, and the only way he would have a reason to get Joanna Yeates to open said door, would possibly be if he had Bernard her cat...
I find this ridiculous... How can a program that was apparently made AFTER a trial that has the evidence of said trial there for all to see... a trial that was tweeted... A trial that was in the media.... Have events happening that "Just didn't happen"!!!
Was this a story made before?? was it made coming up to trial?? when was it made???
Speculation on the internet was rife at the time, the idea that Dr Vincent Tabak used Bernard to gain entry I'm sure had been mentioned... But how can the program be so wrong?? We have had Crimewatch and that hasn't shown entry that way... we have had other programs that hasn't shown entry that way... So why on earth would this program, out of the blue make up details that were not part of a trial??
Enter stage left DCI Phil Jones, talking about The Lehmans....
Image with light on shows main entrance...
DCI Phil Jones
Now the other day, I said I was confused as to what position Zoe Lehman was in and where she was stood... Reports from trial clearly indicate that Zoe Lehman was already on the path of 53, Canygne Road.. yet this program contradicts that... They are on the path outside 44,Canygne Road and closer to the main entrance according to the depiction than Joanna Yeates small gate...
DCI Phil Jones:
I have noticed one thing... times are not accurate, and after a trail , they should be.. especially if you are the SOI leading this investigation, you should know what time is what.....
Around 20 to 9?? eh... We know that Joanna Yeates cannot be in two places at one time... Se is either leaving Tesco's or she is already home.... so which one is it??... Apparently Zoe Lehman has a sent a text message which would give us a clear time of when this scream was heard... No need to guess an approximation... There is solid evidence on her phone that she sent a message to the person who's party she was attending that evening....
The program is odd... It's like it was made before the event..... Because we have information that is contradicting... we shouldn't , either that or someone is trying to tell us something else, something about the case being about something else altogether.... DCI Phil Jones should know the ladies name, he should be able to say Zoe Lehman....
Joanna Yeates is depicted wearing a pink flower patterned top... I only ever found one reference to said top... And that was Dr Delaneys description of it in the media.... no-one else states anything about this pink flower patterned top....
So Joanna Yeates is in the Ram Pub... in a plain top..... she goes to shops walks home and is killed in no time by Dr Vincent Tabak apparently... yet we have 2 references to this flower patterned pink top.... 2 references...
I can think of 3 options here....
(1): Joanna yeates changed her clothes when she arrived home.....
(2): Joanna Yeates was re-dressed
(3): This piece of fiction was made prior....
If we go with (1): we have a problem, the same answer would apply with (2): also.... In the program, Joanna yeates is shown at the pub at lunch time with Greg, i'll take it being Greg for now... wearing said Pink Flower patterned Pink Top...
We now from the Ram CCTV footage she had a plain top on..... But when the program depicts Joanna Yeates in The Ram she is wearing said Pink Flower Patterned Top....
Now my heads now on a journey..... We have details that are clearly incorrect, we have details that the program makers should not have had a problem with, we have details that make my head spin.....
Ok... If I take for read that Joanna yeates was murdered.... then what do I make of this program.... ?? When was this program was made.... We have vague recollections from key people in this program, we have recollections of events that never came to trial, said remark by David Yeates about said WASHING... We have The Lehmans closer than they stated at trial... but they are vaguely on the path.... But that shouldn't be good enough..
What Dr Vincent Tabak said at trial..... Yes I'm sure it was a pack of lies on the stand.... Was Clegg doing something we weren't aware of..??
Who is this case really about.... Who knew Dr Vincent Tabak... ??
Was he part of a cover up, rather than a Murder?? I don't know ... or was he totally being stitched up???
You laugh when I bring different idea to the table... But words I hear coming out of the mouths of key people in this case, have "Alarm Bells" going......
I have noticed how vague everyone is.... Take The Yeates for a moment... i try not to say anything because i do not want to be seen as being disrespectful, but..... I have to go where the information takes me and question said information..... There interviews on Crimewatch for instance, they do not mention Dr Vincent Tabak by name.... Or Tanja Morson by name...... One could put the fact that the mere mention of Dr Vincent Tabak's name was too much for them to say, But not Tanja,.... she was nothing to do with this crime ,....
So it leaves me with the idea, that a program was made.... A story was told, and if we use the words He and she, everyone will know who we mean.... If we give rough estimates of a timeline no-one will notice.....
But I do.... I notice, extra pieces of information we were not made aware of at the time... I notice that the timeline keeps changing..... The programs should be more accurate... they trial has happened, they have DCI Phil Jones there.... There should be no guessing......
The program depicts a fight in the hallway moving into the bedroom, where Dr Vincent Tabak apparently kills Joanna Yeates....
Now.... whether or not anyone believes the story told on the stand by Dr Vincent Tabak, in this instance, it doesn't really matter.... What was stated at trial should be the official version of events, therefore this complete fairy tale a program is depicting has come from where??
Yes it could explain away how the earring ended up in the duvet, but why not go with the story on the stand??
DCI Phil Jones: 23:06 of the video
So we have DCI Phil jones who not only attends trial, whether he is put on the stand or not is aware of the evidence presented, he as I have stated is the SOI of this investigation... He would have made himself informed of all of the material, that attains to this crime, he would know how many injuries and whether or not they were violent in nature....
Do you see what I mean... everyone is vague about said detail.... of all people DCI Phil Jones should know how many injuries Joanna yeates had... especially as this is apparently been made after said trail....
30 to 40 injuries.... Well we are told it was 43 significant injuries.... How can this man have it so wrong????
We remember at the Police Conference when he told us that there were no significant injuries.... And her also he states that... But at trial in October 2011 we have 43 significant injuries....
Every insists that CJ is totally Innocent, and I am not saying any different..... But... the question is why?? If this is made up complete nonsense , then that would prove that the rime of Murder didn't even happen... So therefore he cannot be guilty... And his life been turned upside down by an imaginary crime, is an outrage...
Did this Crime first and foremost take place???? If yes is the answer then the content of a program shouldn't be so off.... Who colluded with who???? There is collusion going on, but who are the people colluding???
Because of the vagueness of some of the statements by key people in this program, it makes me believe it was made before Dr vincent Tabak was even at trial.... How much of it was made before is anyones guess... But then you have a problem of how the hell a jury came to a guilty decision.... ?? How could a program prempt that...
Well you have a basic story line and edit the narrator over said story line and it is said narrator who has filled in the gaps it is the narrator whom tells us the name Dr Vincent Tabak, although she only uses the name tabak....
The narrator says that Tabak drove to Asda from his flat.... then we have...
DCI Phil Jones:
DCI Phil Jones doesn't mention Dr Vincent Tabaks name... he refers to him as he.... He could be anyone V could stand for anything
It's not definitive... Not clear... DCI Phil Jones has made rough estimates to many things....
Did the text state "buying a packet of "Crisis".... media reports state the message differently
The word packet is missing..... Ok.. we know that media reports can be inaccurate, But the tweets were supposed to report exactly what had been said at trial..
So we have a program with vague and incorrect details, that was supposed to have been made after a trial.... But which parts were made after a trial???
What is this program trying to tell us?? What is going on?? There are details in said program,that are not mentioned at trial, an attack that did not happen that way... You may think it did, but realistically we can only use what version of the events the defendant told us about, whether or not we believe differently, and a program with key people in it should know these events...
I do not know what this program is trying to tell us..... Was it made before trial?? And if so why??? And if that is the case, why hasn't anyone said anything..... If DCI Phil jones cannot get times accurate, doesn't that suggest it may have been made before said trial.... Or did DCI Phil Jones deliberately gives us incorrect information and if so why??
There is a lot of information that doesn't add up that was divulged after a trial.... A man has been sentenced and a woman murdered , and those vital details are either deliberately divulged or were said before the trial....
Making the story on the stand by Dr Vincent Tabak, evidence... evidence of some type of collusion happening, ... who made this program??
I then get some posters questioning why I question this case , whether I am sure it is real or not.... But the program casts doubt on the validity of the tale we know... It holds information that were speculations made by various posters on various forums of the time.... And it shouldn't ...
Bernard:... From The Telegraph at the time of trial..
It is a suggestion by the prosecution.... Not what the defendant told us.... So what should we make of that?? That Lickley was aware of the contents of the program?? and something else was taking place at that trial??
What information was Missing from the trial that we do not know about??
Have we been allowed to believe that this case is real?? I am still confused... I believe i will always be confused, when nothing adds up.... And when programs with key people in it are miles off from the timings we were informed of at time of trial......
So who was/is Joanna Yeates?? What is this case really about?? Her being found on December 25th 2010 is also important when we realise that the plaque on the cross in the grave yard has a date of the 25th December 2010, the date of Joanna Yeates death... So what came first, a piece of written fiction that turned out to be a real crime?? Or a crime that is a piece of fiction?
I am still at a loss!!
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8847912/Vincent-Tabak-found-guilty-of-Joanna-Yeates-murder-how-it-happened.html
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/123362124243288064
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8841298/Vincent-Tabak-strangled-Joanna-Yeates-to-gain-sexual-gratification.html
If, as you've suggested several times, this case may not be real, why do you do what you do?
-
If, as you've suggested several times, this case may not be real, why do you do what you do?
I do not know... Is the simple answer to that....
But if it isn't real, what have we been tricked into believing?? And why a trial at the expense of tax payers?? And all the media footage of said trial??
It's a conundrum that is for sure... It won't leave me and i cannot answer why, must be the type of person i am... It just sits in my head, and I try to decipher what it all means....
And if it isn't real, did Dr Vincent Tabak go to prison?? Or did he go to prison for a crime that was totally made up... You see, i can't quite put my finger on it..... But... It's niggling me.....
-
I do not know... Is the simple answer to that....
But if it isn't real, what have we been tricked into believing?? And why a trial at the expense of tax payers?? And all the media footage of said trial??
It's a conundrum that is for sure... It won't leave me and i cannot answer why, must be the type of person i am... It just sits in my head, and I try to decipher what it all means....
And if it isn't real, did Dr Vincent Tabak go to prison?? Or did he go to prison for a crime that was totally made up... You see, i can't quite put my finger on it..... But... It's niggling me.....
You may find this article of interest? http://www.niemanlab.org/2018/05/people-who-are-delusional-dogmatic-or-religious-fundamentalists-are-more-likely-to-believe-fake-news/
-
Going back to the program and why I believe that CJ should have been at the trial was because he says this on the program:
At 27:41 0f the program CJ says: finishing at 28:12 of video
As I was on my way out to the gym, quite by chance ,erm.. I met Vincent Tabak... and we had a very brief conversation, erm... and he seemed to be in quite an elated mood, and was saying what a beautiful evening it was, there was this light dusting of snow, erm... thats all that the conversation, consisted of..
So... I have CJ seeing 2/3 people at the gate, we have CJ talking on video stating he actually had spoken to Dr Vincent Tabak that evening, and we have CJ missing from said trial.... why??
So from the conversation we can assume a couple of things based on what we know.....
CJ is leaving for the gym.... So CJ must have left for the gym around 7:00 pm as we know from reports that Dr Vincent Tabak arrived home around 7:00 7:15pm that evening... Based on text messages he sent Tanja telling her he had arrived home...
CJ arrives back from the gym at 9:00pm, he believes the day is Friday 17th December, he tells us in his Leveson Inquiry statement....
There is a light dusting of snow, we see no snow fall on the CCTV of Joanna Yeates walking up Park Street, so what day is CJ referring too??
The interview on the program with CJ, is after Dr Vincent Tabak has dispose of her body, So is CJ talking about Friday 17th December 2010 or Saturday 18th December 2010 when we knew it had been snowing??
DCI Phil Jones: 28:30 of video...
We knew from surrounding CCTV ,at local sports clubs, that it started to snow at around 2:30am on the Saturday morning and it was heavy snowfall then up and till around 8:00 O'clock....
Two people we know are key people in this case... DCI Phil Jones the SOI of the Investigation, telling us at what time the snow started to fall and CJ, telling us that there was a light dusting of snow...
Is 8:00 O'clock am or pm?? that fact is important... If it is pm, then that makes the day that CJ saw Dr Vincnt tabak Saturday 18th December 2010 and that also being the day he went to the gym, unless he went to the gym every day possibily
Making the fact that CJ is missing from trial even more important... Tanja too... she would be able to verify when Dr Vincent Tabak left the flat to view the light dusting of snow..
Before Dr Vincent Tabak's arrest, everything was pointing to the 18th December 2010 being the important date, but once we had Dr Vincent Tabak arrested and said trial take place... Friday 17th December then became the date of the crime....
Going back to DCI Phil Jones statement... It didn't start to snow until 2:30am on Saturday 18th December 2010, in fact lets be clear here, no-one actually states the date... They say a day, but not the date.... weird!!
So if we have no snow anywhere until 2:30am on Saturday 18th December 2010, then how did no-one see a body lying on a grass verge on Longwood Lane when the Lane was being frequented by people attending functions etc, on the Friday 17th December 2010 night!!
There is a body dumped in plain sight and not one person sees this body, it has to be lying there for approximately 3 hours before the snow even starts, it has to be lying in plain sight, for everyone to see, a bright pink flower patterned top would be clearly visible, a body of a person too, yet not one person who has gone up or down this busy lane has seen a woman, who could be in difficulty lying on a grass verge in full view....
That is a massive issue... I cannot believe that Joanna Yeates had lain on a grass verge completely exposed for at least 3 hours and not one person noticed a body on said grass verge....
At trial we should have witness's... we should have had CJ there..(imo), he can put Dr Vincent Tabak on Canygne Road at a particular time, which is vital when establishing a timeline... A vital witness , the only witness that we know of, who has seen Dr Vincent Tabak on Canygne Road.... And if we are to go with CJ's Leveson Inquiry, we must believe it was Friday, and it would also have to be Friday, if we go with the tale told on the stand, by Dr Vincent Tabak, himself.....
So a known witness, who is telling us after the event that he actually spoke to Dr Vincent Tabak that evening.... A crucial witness (imo)...
We know from his Leveson statement CJ arrived back at 9:00pm ish.... So CJ is at the gym for 2 hours ish..... The times that CJ lets us believe are correct are they?? They are important...
If CJ is arriving home earlier than he knows, then the people at the gate could have been arriving at Joanna yeates flat rather than leaving, she could have had been expecting people to visit her.... It is feasible...
Zoe Lehman doesn't say she sees CJ, she hears a scream, CJ hears nothing of the sort and we have a timeline we are confused by....
So what time does CJ see Dr Vincent Tabak?? And whereabouts exactly did he see him... ?? And more importantly what day did he see Dr Vincent Tabak??
Quite by chance?? Why would that be the case?? If Dr Vincent Tabak had a work routine and arrived home at roughly the same time on an evening, then the time would always be the same, If CJ had a routine of going to the Gym on a night at a certain time every night, the probability of bumping into each other, cuts the chances of this event happening dramatically,
So do we call it chance?? I don't know...
CJ has twice given information that in central to this case.... The information that he spoke to Dr Vincent Tabak, was that in the second witness statement?? Or in the first?? We don't know, but it literally could have been either....
But CJ, has clearly stated he has spoken with Dr Vincent Tabak, and there is NO mistake about that....
CJ.... Is therefore a witness... even if you want to tell me the people he may have seen or heard at the gate were irrelevant, because of what Dr Vincent Tabak stated on the stand...
CJ witnessed more than most, he can put the defendant on Canygne Road at a particular time and it should be on a particular day... That has to be the 17th December 2010... if we are to believe the trial....
If Greg's a witness... CJ is the ultimate witness, a person who knows and has seen the defendant, has described defendants mood, and the weather conditions of that time....
So yes he should have been at trial, there is no doubt in my mind, and I do not understand why the prosecution or the defence did not call CJ to the stand, a live witness who can give an accurate timeline of events, a live witness who can give us information about the defendant that no-one else knows, a live witness that can put Dr Vincent Tabak on Canygne Road!!!
A live witness who has committed himself to video, explaining the events of that time..... That live witnness being CJ..
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I find this ridiculous... How can a program that was apparently made AFTER a trial that has the evidence of said trial there for all to see... a trial that was tweeted... A trial that was in the media.... Have events happening that "Just didn't happen"!!!
How do you know what really happened Nine, were you there? It is obvious the police do not believe Tabak's version of events. (that Joanna waved him in) It is obvious the jury believed the Crown's version of events over Tabak's (that he wasn't invited) - hence the guilty verdict.
For what it is worth I think the scenario with the cat is most likely what happened.
Also, how do you know what was raised at the trial? You were not there!
-
Yes, it has been suggested ------by several people, if you look all over the internet !!
I have looked on the internet Mrswah - he comes highly recommended. The only people who have a problem with him are disgruntled Tabak fan-club.
-
Going back to the program and why I believe that CJ should have been at the trial was because he says this on the program:
At 27:41 0f the program CJ says: finishing at 28:12 of video
So... I have CJ seeing 2/3 people at the gate, we have CJ talking on video stating he actually had spoken to Dr Vincent Tabak that evening, and we have CJ missing from said trial.... why??
So from the conversation we can assume a couple of things based on what we know.....
CJ is leaving for the gym.... So CJ must have left for the gym around 7:00 pm as we know from reports that Dr Vincent Tabak arrived home around 7:00 7:15pm that evening... Based on text messages he sent Tanja telling her he had arrived home...
CJ arrives back from the gym at 9:00pm, he believes the day is Friday 17th December, he tells us in his Leveson Inquiry statement....
There is a light dusting of snow, we see no snow fall on the CCTV of Joanna Yeates walking up Park Street, so what day is CJ referring too??
The interview on the program with CJ, is after Dr Vincent Tabak has dispose of her body, So is CJ talking about Friday 17th December 2010 or Saturday 18th December 2010 when we knew it had been snowing??
DCI Phil Jones: 28:30 of video...
Two people we know are key people in this case... DCI Phil Jones the SOI of the Investigation, telling us at what time the snow started to fall and CJ, telling us that there was a light dusting of snow...
Is 8:00 O'clock am or pm?? that fact is important... If it is pm, then that makes the day that CJ saw Dr Vincnt tabak Saturday 18th December 2010 and that also being the day he went to the gym, unless he went to the gym every day possibily
Making the fact that CJ is missing from trial even more important... Tanja too... she would be able to verify when Dr Vincent Tabak left the flat to view the light dusting of snow..
Before Dr Vincent Tabak's arrest, everything was pointing to the 18th December 2010 being the important date, but once we had Dr Vincent Tabak arrested and said trial take place... Friday 17th December then became the date of the crime....
Going back to DCI Phil Jones statement... It didn't start to snow until 2:30am on Saturday 18th December 2010, in fact lets be clear here, no-one actually states the date... They say a day, but not the date.... weird!!
So if we have no snow anywhere until 2:30am on Saturday 18th December 2010, then how did no-one see a body lying on a grass verge on Longwood Lane when the Lane was being frequented by people attending functions etc, on the Friday 17th December 2010 night!!
There is a body dumped in plain sight and not one person sees this body, it has to be lying there for approximately 3 hours before the snow even starts, it has to be lying in plain sight, for everyone to see, a bright pink flower patterned top would be clearly visible, a body of a person too, yet not one person who has gone up or down this busy lane has seen a woman, who could be in difficulty lying on a grass verge in full view....
That is a massive issue... I cannot believe that Joanna Yeates had lain on a grass verge completely exposed for at least 3 hours and not one person noticed a body on said grass verge....
At trial we should have witness's... we should have had CJ there..(imo), he can put Dr Vincent Tabak on Canygne Road at a particular time, which is vital when establishing a timeline... A vital witness , the only witness that we know of, who has seen Dr Vincent Tabak on Canygne Road.... And if we are to go with CJ's Leveson Inquiry, we must believe it was Friday, and it would also have to be Friday, if we go with the tale told on the stand, by Dr Vincent Tabak, himself.....
So a known witness, who is telling us after the event that he actually spoke to Dr Vincent Tabak that evening.... A crucial witness (imo)...
We know from his Leveson statement CJ arrived back at 9:00pm ish.... So CJ is at the gym for 2 hours ish..... The times that CJ lets us believe are correct are they?? They are important...
If CJ is arriving home earlier than he knows, then the people at the gate could have been arriving at Joanna yeates flat rather than leaving, she could have had been expecting people to visit her.... It is feasible...
Zoe Lehman doesn't say she sees CJ, she hears a scream, CJ hears nothing of the sort and we have a timeline we are confused by....
So what time does CJ see Dr Vincent Tabak?? And whereabouts exactly did he see him... ?? And more importantly what day did he see Dr Vincent Tabak??
Quite by chance?? Why would that be the case?? If Dr Vincent Tabak had a work routine and arrived home at roughly the same time on an evening, then the time would always be the same, If CJ had a routine of going to the Gym on a night at a certain time every night, the probability of bumping into each other, cuts the chances of this event happening dramatically,
So do we call it chance?? I don't know...
CJ has twice given information that in central to this case.... The information that he spoke to Dr Vincent Tabak, was that in the second witness statement?? Or in the first?? We don't know, but it literally could have been either....
But CJ, has clearly stated he has spoken with Dr Vincent Tabak, and there is NO mistake about that....
CJ.... Is therefore a witness... even if you want to tell me the people he may have seen or heard at the gate were irrelevant, because of what Dr Vincent Tabak stated on the stand...
CJ witnessed more than most, he can put the defendant on Canygne Road at a particular time and it should be on a particular day... That has to be the 17th December 2010... if we are to believe the trial....
If Greg's a witness... CJ is the ultimate witness, a person who knows and has seen the defendant, has described defendants mood, and the weather conditions of that time....
So yes he should have been at trial, there is no doubt in my mind, and I do not understand why the prosecution or the defence did not call CJ to the stand, a live witness who can give an accurate timeline of events, a live witness who can give us information about the defendant that no-one else knows, a live witness that can put Dr Vincent Tabak on Canygne Road!!!
A live witness who has committed himself to video, explaining the events of that time..... That live witnness being CJ..
The trial was to decide Manslaughter or Murder. You talk about what would take place at a full trial
-
How do you know what really happened Nine, were you there? It is obvious the police do not believe Tabak's version of events. (that Joanna waved him in) It is obvious the jury believed the Crown's version of events over Tabak's (that he wasn't invited) - hence the guilty verdict.
For what it is worth I think the scenario with the cat is most likely what happened.
Also, how do you know what was raised at the trial? You were not there!
Version being the key word. The version that would hopefully get him the shortest sentence!
-
Can I just ask if Tabak was a busy little bee minding his own business that night and all that he claimed to be true is a lie, how did he manage to search about her murder before she was reported missing?
-
Going back to the program and why I believe that CJ should have been at the trial was because he says this on the program:
At 27:41 0f the program CJ says: finishing at 28:12 of video
So... I have CJ seeing 2/3 people at the gate, we have CJ talking on video stating he actually had spoken to Dr Vincent Tabak that evening, and we have CJ missing from said trial.... why??
So from the conversation we can assume a couple of things based on what we know.....
CJ is leaving for the gym.... So CJ must have left for the gym around 7:00 pm as we know from reports that Dr Vincent Tabak arrived home around 7:00 7:15pm that evening... Based on text messages he sent Tanja telling her he had arrived home...
CJ arrives back from the gym at 9:00pm, he believes the day is Friday 17th December, he tells us in his Leveson Inquiry statement....
There is a light dusting of snow, we see no snow fall on the CCTV of Joanna Yeates walking up Park Street, so what day is CJ referring too??
The interview on the program with CJ, is after Dr Vincent Tabak has dispose of her body, So is CJ talking about Friday 17th December 2010 or Saturday 18th December 2010 when we knew it had been snowing??
DCI Phil Jones: 28:30 of video...
Two people we know are key people in this case... DCI Phil Jones the SOI of the Investigation, telling us at what time the snow started to fall and CJ, telling us that there was a light dusting of snow...
Is 8:00 O'clock am or pm?? that fact is important... If it is pm, then that makes the day that CJ saw Dr Vincnt tabak Saturday 18th December 2010 and that also being the day he went to the gym, unless he went to the gym every day possibily
Making the fact that CJ is missing from trial even more important... Tanja too... she would be able to verify when Dr Vincent Tabak left the flat to view the light dusting of snow..
Before Dr Vincent Tabak's arrest, everything was pointing to the 18th December 2010 being the important date, but once we had Dr Vincent Tabak arrested and said trial take place... Friday 17th December then became the date of the crime....
Going back to DCI Phil Jones statement... It didn't start to snow until 2:30am on Saturday 18th December 2010, in fact lets be clear here, no-one actually states the date... They say a day, but not the date.... weird!!
So if we have no snow anywhere until 2:30am on Saturday 18th December 2010, then how did no-one see a body lying on a grass verge on Longwood Lane when the Lane was being frequented by people attending functions etc, on the Friday 17th December 2010 night!!
There is a body dumped in plain sight and not one person sees this body, it has to be lying there for approximately 3 hours before the snow even starts, it has to be lying in plain sight, for everyone to see, a bright pink flower patterned top would be clearly visible, a body of a person too, yet not one person who has gone up or down this busy lane has seen a woman, who could be in difficulty lying on a grass verge in full view....
That is a massive issue... I cannot believe that Joanna Yeates had lain on a grass verge completely exposed for at least 3 hours and not one person noticed a body on said grass verge....
At trial we should have witness's... we should have had CJ there..(imo), he can put Dr Vincent Tabak on Canygne Road at a particular time, which is vital when establishing a timeline... A vital witness , the only witness that we know of, who has seen Dr Vincent Tabak on Canygne Road.... And if we are to go with CJ's Leveson Inquiry, we must believe it was Friday, and it would also have to be Friday, if we go with the tale told on the stand, by Dr Vincent Tabak, himself.....
So a known witness, who is telling us after the event that he actually spoke to Dr Vincent Tabak that evening.... A crucial witness (imo)...
We know from his Leveson statement CJ arrived back at 9:00pm ish.... So CJ is at the gym for 2 hours ish..... The times that CJ lets us believe are correct are they?? They are important...
If CJ is arriving home earlier than he knows, then the people at the gate could have been arriving at Joanna yeates flat rather than leaving, she could have had been expecting people to visit her.... It is feasible...
Zoe Lehman doesn't say she sees CJ, she hears a scream, CJ hears nothing of the sort and we have a timeline we are confused by....
So what time does CJ see Dr Vincent Tabak?? And whereabouts exactly did he see him... ?? And more importantly what day did he see Dr Vincent Tabak??
Quite by chance?? Why would that be the case?? If Dr Vincent Tabak had a work routine and arrived home at roughly the same time on an evening, then the time would always be the same, If CJ had a routine of going to the Gym on a night at a certain time every night, the probability of bumping into each other, cuts the chances of this event happening dramatically,
So do we call it chance?? I don't know...
CJ has twice given information that in central to this case.... The information that he spoke to Dr Vincent Tabak, was that in the second witness statement?? Or in the first?? We don't know, but it literally could have been either....
But CJ, has clearly stated he has spoken with Dr Vincent Tabak, and there is NO mistake about that....
CJ.... Is therefore a witness... even if you want to tell me the people he may have seen or heard at the gate were irrelevant, because of what Dr Vincent Tabak stated on the stand...
CJ witnessed more than most, he can put the defendant on Canygne Road at a particular time and it should be on a particular day... That has to be the 17th December 2010... if we are to believe the trial....
If Greg's a witness... CJ is the ultimate witness, a person who knows and has seen the defendant, has described defendants mood, and the weather conditions of that time....
So yes he should have been at trial, there is no doubt in my mind, and I do not understand why the prosecution or the defence did not call CJ to the stand, a live witness who can give an accurate timeline of events, a live witness who can give us information about the defendant that no-one else knows, a live witness that can put Dr Vincent Tabak on Canygne Road!!!
A live witness who has committed himself to video, explaining the events of that time..... That live witnness being CJ..
Was that a Freudian slip Nine?
-
DNA evidence
Fibre evidence
Internet Searches
Confession
Victims blood in his boot
The body was covered - not exposed...
https://stories.swns.com/news/jo-yeates-strangled-by-cold-and-calculated-vincent-tabak-21328/
Please tell me how again how is he innocent?
-
Going back to the program and why I believe that CJ should have been at the trial was because he says this on the program:
At 27:41 0f the program CJ says: finishing at 28:12 of video
So... I have CJ seeing 2/3 people at the gate, we have CJ talking on video stating he actually had spoken to Dr Vincent Tabak that evening, and we have CJ missing from said trial.... why??
So from the conversation we can assume a couple of things based on what we know.....
CJ is leaving for the gym.... So CJ must have left for the gym around 7:00 pm as we know from reports that Dr Vincent Tabak arrived home around 7:00 7:15pm that evening... Based on text messages he sent Tanja telling her he had arrived home...
CJ arrives back from the gym at 9:00pm, he believes the day is Friday 17th December, he tells us in his Leveson Inquiry statement....
There is a light dusting of snow, we see no snow fall on the CCTV of Joanna Yeates walking up Park Street, so what day is CJ referring too??
The interview on the program with CJ, is after Dr Vincent Tabak has dispose of her body, So is CJ talking about Friday 17th December 2010 or Saturday 18th December 2010 when we knew it had been snowing??
DCI Phil Jones: 28:30 of video...
Two people we know are key people in this case... DCI Phil Jones the SOI of the Investigation, telling us at what time the snow started to fall and CJ, telling us that there was a light dusting of snow...
Is 8:00 O'clock am or pm?? that fact is important... If it is pm, then that makes the day that CJ saw Dr Vincnt tabak Saturday 18th December 2010 and that also being the day he went to the gym, unless he went to the gym every day possibily
Making the fact that CJ is missing from trial even more important... Tanja too... she would be able to verify when Dr Vincent Tabak left the flat to view the light dusting of snow..
Before Dr Vincent Tabak's arrest, everything was pointing to the 18th December 2010 being the important date, but once we had Dr Vincent Tabak arrested and said trial take place... Friday 17th December then became the date of the crime....
Going back to DCI Phil Jones statement... It didn't start to snow until 2:30am on Saturday 18th December 2010, in fact lets be clear here, no-one actually states the date... They say a day, but not the date.... weird!!
So if we have no snow anywhere until 2:30am on Saturday 18th December 2010, then how did no-one see a body lying on a grass verge on Longwood Lane when the Lane was being frequented by people attending functions etc, on the Friday 17th December 2010 night!!
There is a body dumped in plain sight and not one person sees this body, it has to be lying there for approximately 3 hours before the snow even starts, it has to be lying in plain sight, for everyone to see, a bright pink flower patterned top would be clearly visible, a body of a person too, yet not one person who has gone up or down this busy lane has seen a woman, who could be in difficulty lying on a grass verge in full view....
That is a massive issue... I cannot believe that Joanna Yeates had lain on a grass verge completely exposed for at least 3 hours and not one person noticed a body on said grass verge....
At trial we should have witness's... we should have had CJ there..(imo), he can put Dr Vincent Tabak on Canygne Road at a particular time, which is vital when establishing a timeline... A vital witness , the only witness that we know of, who has seen Dr Vincent Tabak on Canygne Road.... And if we are to go with CJ's Leveson Inquiry, we must believe it was Friday, and it would also have to be Friday, if we go with the tale told on the stand, by Dr Vincent Tabak, himself.....
So a known witness, who is telling us after the event that he actually spoke to Dr Vincent Tabak that evening.... A crucial witness (imo)...
We know from his Leveson statement CJ arrived back at 9:00pm ish.... So CJ is at the gym for 2 hours ish..... The times that CJ lets us believe are correct are they?? They are important...
If CJ is arriving home earlier than he knows, then the people at the gate could have been arriving at Joanna yeates flat rather than leaving, she could have had been expecting people to visit her.... It is feasible...
Zoe Lehman doesn't say she sees CJ, she hears a scream, CJ hears nothing of the sort and we have a timeline we are confused by....
So what time does CJ see Dr Vincent Tabak?? And whereabouts exactly did he see him... ?? And more importantly what day did he see Dr Vincent Tabak??
Quite by chance?? Why would that be the case?? If Dr Vincent Tabak had a work routine and arrived home at roughly the same time on an evening, then the time would always be the same, If CJ had a routine of going to the Gym on a night at a certain time every night, the probability of bumping into each other, cuts the chances of this event happening dramatically,
So do we call it chance?? I don't know...
CJ has twice given information that in central to this case.... The information that he spoke to Dr Vincent Tabak, was that in the second witness statement?? Or in the first?? We don't know, but it literally could have been either....
But CJ, has clearly stated he has spoken with Dr Vincent Tabak, and there is NO mistake about that....
CJ.... Is therefore a witness... even if you want to tell me the people he may have seen or heard at the gate were irrelevant, because of what Dr Vincent Tabak stated on the stand...
CJ witnessed more than most, he can put the defendant on Canygne Road at a particular time and it should be on a particular day... That has to be the 17th December 2010... if we are to believe the trial....
If Greg's a witness... CJ is the ultimate witness, a person who knows and has seen the defendant, has described defendants mood, and the weather conditions of that time....
So yes he should have been at trial, there is no doubt in my mind, and I do not understand why the prosecution or the defence did not call CJ to the stand, a live witness who can give an accurate timeline of events, a live witness who can give us information about the defendant that no-one else knows, a live witness that can put Dr Vincent Tabak on Canygne Road!!!
A live witness who has committed himself to video, explaining the events of that time..... That live witnness being CJ..
Didn't Tabak say he'd covered her body in leaves!
-
DNA evidence
Fibre evidence
Internet Searches
Confession
Victims blood in his boot
The body was covered - not exposed...
https://stories.swns.com/news/jo-yeates-strangled-by-cold-and-calculated-vincent-tabak-21328/
Please tell me how again how is he innocent?
8((()*/
-
In other words Nine the reason certain witnesses weren't required was because Tabak's trial was to establish his intent. He'd already admitted to killing JY.
-
8@??)(
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg496375#msg496375
That post, that post that CJ is telling us important information, is massive....
Even if we want to argue the day, even if we want to say that Dr Vincent Tabak lied on the stand and the event was Saturday 18th December 2010......
CJ may be mistaken on the day also, But.... What you cannot take away from CJ's statement is he had a conversation with Dr Vincent Tabak.... The time of this conversation is vital.... And for more than one reason...
I for arguments sake assumed that it had to be when Dr Vincent Tabak arrived home from work, making CJ being at the gym a 2 hour experience.... But that isn't likely....
At trail I believe that Dr Vincent Tabak went outside to take pictures of the snow.... dirty snow apparently and didn't end up taking pictures....
He had left his flat to see if he could take pictures of the snow, the court heard, but did not do so because the snow "was dirty".
So we have CJ, confirming that there is snow on the ground...
We have Dr Vincent Tabak talking of dirty snow.... and we have a time of around 8:00 o'clock when snowfall stopped....
So maybe CJ, left for the gym nearer 8:00pm rather than 7:00pm..... And that is crucial...
We know from the Leveson he returned around 9:00pm, so Did CJ see Dr Vincent Tabak when Dr Vincent Tabak either returned or set of to take images of the snow??
CJ doesn't tell us in which direction Dr Vincent Tabak is going... arriving or leaving... important pieces of information....
The reason I am being a stickler about said times is I believe they are vital..... The would give us a more accurate time line, but there's something I hadn't thought of before......
What was Dr Vincent Tabak wearing???
CJ, is witness to the clothing that Dr Vincent Tabak was wearing that evening.... He can see his trousers,shoes, coat, and maybe the shirt underneath.... Did Dr Vincent Tabak have his coat on.... Did Dr Vincent Tabak have his coat opened.... Did he wear gloves or a hat.... what was Dr Vincent Tabak's attire like that evening when CJ had a conversation with him???
These are most important details.... Because if we are to believe that a violent struggle happened and Joanna yeates received 43 injuries in this fight for her life, then what Dr Vincent Tabak was wearing, is crucial,...
By the time we see any images of Dr Vincent Tabak on the 17th December 2010 at Asda supermarket in Bedminster, we can clealy see what colour trousers, he is wearing, we can see his shoes, we can see his black coat and we can see his red shirt.....
Now..... This is after said attack on Joanna Yeates..... CJ's vital witness testimony was needed at trial.... he could tell us what Dr Vincent Tabak had worn that evening, we could then see for ourselves whether or not Dr Vincent Tabak had changed his clothing before he went to Asda, getting rid of any evidence on said clothing.... A live witness who could tell us what he said to Dr Vincent Tabak and what Dr Vincent Tabak said to him.... A live witness who should be able to describe what items of clothing he saw the defendant wearing that evening....
But he is not a witness at trial apparently.... He has not divulged whether or not Dr Vincent Tabak changed his clothes to hide his crime.... There is no evidence on the clothing we can see of Dr Vincent Tabak at ASDA... so where is all this blood?? From this violent attack, he must have got some on himself... he can't avoid gravity....
So why wasn't CJ at trial.... Why wasn't more made of what Dr Vincent Tabak was wearing that evening?? Because Dr Vincent Tabak had apparently spent an hour in his flat before going to ASDA, a time when he could have showered and changed his clothing....
We have a witness whom has not only seen Dr Vincent Tabak on Canygne Road , but has conversed with Dr Vincent Tabak on Canygne Road, a witness ho knows the defendant, a witness, who is the defendants landlord.....
So what can CJ tell us of what he saw, that evening, he may have been vague about what he apparently heard or saw on his return from the gym, but he obviously remembers the conversation he had with Dr Vincent Tabak....
here is something else to ponder, If CJ is vague and unsure about what he heard or saw at the gate and Colin Port tells us CJ had seen people at the gate, and that CJ, must be mistaken, then does that not make questioning when CJ saw Dr Vincent Tabak...
Could that not have been when he RETURNED from the GYM instead of leaving?? He has made genuine errors as has been shown in The Leveson Report, so is CJ mistaken and he saw Dr vincent Tabak on Canygne Road on his return from the gym....
CJ doesn't mention in his Leveson statement that he has seen anyone on Canygne Road, he doesn't mention that he saw Dr Vincent Tabak....
Bringing me to the conclusion that the people that CJ possibly saw at the gate, being Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson,... Joanna Yeates may or may not have been with them... I am not saying she was...
But CJ.. has furnished us with 2 pieces of evidence... He tells us at the Leveson he thinks it was Friday.... But by saying thinks it was he is not committing himself to a said day.....
But using the information from the program and DCI Phil Jones, using the information from trial and using CJ's statements from programs and the Leveson... I think I have a clearer picture...
CJ... must be talking of Saturday 18th December 2010... I realistically cannot see it being any other day.... Evidence we have is the snow..... The snow is dirty... meaning people have trodden about said snow....
CJ clearly indicate that he by chance has come across Dr Vincent Tabak, whom is talking about how beautiful things are with the snow... CJ, is telling us he is going to the gym.... But is he.... If he witness, people at the gate, and these people have been kept secret, there needs to be a reason for these peoples identity to be kept secret....
As I have stated, they should have been witness's if not suspects....
So I conclude the people at the gate are Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson, and that is the reason we do not know of there identity....
Because CJ is saying that at the time they believe Joanna Yeates was Murdered, Dr Vnicent Tabak is on Canygne Road with another witness putting him there.....
The people at the gate.... one of them has to be Dr Vincent Tabak... It's the same event.... CJ doesn't speak of a seperate event...
CJ speaking again at: 28:48 of the video....
Vincent Tabak helped me move the car that morning, erm, becawse, there was snow on the drive, and I need some help, in the car being pushed up.. erm, the slight incline, from the parking area onto the main part of the drive,, so that I could get the car out
bare that in mind... That statement on video of CJ's..
Leveson
l. This was that one evening, which
might have been Friday 17 December 2010, as I was coming back from the gym at
about 9pm, I had parked my car on the road and was just walking through the gates of
the main driveway, when I became aware of what sounded like two or perhaps three
people leaving by the side gate on the other side of the house which I could not see as
there is a hedge hi between and it was dark, I duly telephoned the police and relayed
this.
Ok... So when did CJ move his car onto the drive?? Dr Vincent Tabak stating that CJ's car had changed position doesn't therefore sound too far fetched.......
But lets not point fingers..... Because we need the events to be correct.....
If CJ, tells us he has seen 2/3 people at the gate.... he has spoken to Dr Vincent Tabak, Dr Vincent Tabak is talking about snow, doesn't this add to the likely hood that CJ is talking about the day being Saturday,??.... but that the people he saw, and not only saw but obviously spoke to is Dr Vincent Tabak and who ever accompanied him....
You either have to say that CJ is lying to the Leveson that he parked his car on the road after the gym, and Dr Vincent Tabak witnessed and noticed said car had changed position..... Or, CJ did indeed get his days mixed up and his car of course, was on the drive of the morning of Saturday 18th December 2010 and on the evening of Saturday 18th 2010, is when he parked his car on the road after he had been to the gym, because , he had had difficulty that morning moving his car off the drive.... making complete sense as to why car is on road, and CJ saying he left it there quite true....
You then have to ask what relevance the ASDA video has?? It has NO time stamp upon it but the date of the 17th December 2010 is there for all to see....
* Saturday morning 18th December Dr Vincent Tabak helps CJ move his car from snowy parking space onto main
part of the drive at Canygne Road.....
* When leaving for the gym CJ comes across Dr Vincent Tabak ( this has to be Saturday 18th December 2010)
* When returning from the gym at 9:00pm CJ parks his car on the road.....( obviously, he has already told us the
state of the drive,... so again this has to be Saturday 18th December 2010... he tells us at the Leveson it might
have been Friday, he doesn't say it was Friday!)
* He notices people at the gate, whether he heard or saw depends on what you want to believe, but.. that has to be
Saturday 18th December 2010 also.....only follows)
* He converses with Dr Vincent Tabak as he has demonstrated..... in said program.... That too has to be Saturday
18th December 2010...
* The only problem now is the time... if CJ is not sure of the day..... did he Dr Vincent Tabak when he returned from
the gym, putting Dr Vincent Tabak on Canygne road in the snow at 9:00pm on Saturday 18th December 2010..
taking photo's, meaning it is a extremely great possibility that CJ, saw Dr Vincent Tabak at the small gate, him
then being one of the 2/3 people whom CJ: saw/heard!!!
So who was Dr Vincent Tabak with?? that is the important piece of information..... We have Kingdon telling us he heard a scream/ cry out of someone saying "help me" mid morning on Saturday 18th December 2010, he lived in the houses directly behind Joanna yeates bedroom window....
If we go with what I am proposing, then, Saturday 18th December 2010 has to be the day, there is no two ways about it.... But what of Dr Vincent Tabak...??
Is this where I question his guilt?? is this where I wonder what is true... Is this where I question how he is actually responsible....
If Dr Vincent Tabak on his own killed Joanna Yeates, one would say the story on the stand sort of explains it... But thats not good enough.... Has he been charged under Joint Enterprise??? That has to be the most likely way he was charged, because he has other people with him at a vital time... Meaning he must have had assistance in moving a body that he alone could not carry....
So who else did CJ witness at the gate??
Did Dr Vincent Tabak just assist someone, making him just as guilty and culpable under this law?? Did he knowingly assist??
Or is he completely Innocent of all charges levelled against him, as I have always contended based on what I have know of the case???
If the body is place on Longwood Lane at sometime on Saturday 18th December 2010, then that is a more likely prospect seeing as said snow is already there to cover said body up..... making her less visible... Then the image of Dr Vincent Tabak in his car on park Street on the 18th December 2010 would make sense, as they say he was driving around looking for a place to dispose of a body....
Is Dr Vincent Tabak involved up and to the point of getting rid of said body.... Does he really know who killed Joanna Yeates and has become enbroiled in this saga for some unknown reason.... Or as I have stated all along completely Innocent of this crime....
Who is lying about this case.... Well we know for a fact that Dr Vincent Tabak is lying which ever way you want to look at it.... The reason he is lying is unclear.....
But if CJ, is wholly Innocent as has been stated, and CJ is telling us information that he saw Dr Vincent Tabak on the evening Joanna Yeates ha been killed, do we now believe that Joanna Yeates was either killed on the 17th December 2010 or killed on the 18th December 2010?? With Kingdon's statement to maybe support that someone was having difficulty mid morning n Saturday 18th December 2010??
They have never had an exact time and day of death of Joanna Yeates.... they go from the story on the stand told by Dr Vincent Tabak.....
but if we know take into account CJ's statement... Was Joanna Yeates killed on Saturday 18th December 2010??
It seems more likely, she could even have been removed from her home, on Saturday 18th December 2010 mid morning... making her flat not the scene of Crime... Lets not forget her parents believed she had been abducted.... And it is only Kingdons statement that gives us an indication she may have been abducted....
Therefore, she may have arrived home on Friday 17th December 2010... she may have left her own belongings in the flat,.. but someone else closed the door... someone else, removed her from her flat and it's possible she was alive when she left said flat....
So what is the truth of The Murder of Joanna Yeates ??? And who was really involved with her death???
But one last thing... CJ says: Joanna Yeates’ murder and my arrest
6. As I have said, Ms Yeates went missing on Friday 17
December 2010. She was reported to the Police as
missing on Sunday 19 December 2010.
Now is he telling us that she went Missing on Friday 17th December 2010 as a fact.... or is he just stating what is now apparently known about, when she went Missing because of the trial.... ??
Don't let that date confuse you... Everything that is stated appears to point to the 18th December 2010 being the day that Joanna Yeates was last known to be alive.... CJ on his leveson statement could just be quoting from what is now know... But I cannot say that for sure....
the only way in which we can conclusively prove what day it was , is the CCTV of either CJ going to the Gym ...coming back from the gym, or at the gym... either way there must be footage of this....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-15257562f
-
Its a pity you dont pick Tabak apart like you do CJ . What CJ does or doesnt do is irrelevant to the process
-
In other words Nine the reason certain witnesses weren't required was because Tabak's trial was to establish his intent. He'd already admitted to killing JY.
Lets establish when said event actually happened and have said relevant witness making statements and appearing at trial....
Making Zoe and Florians witness statements irrelevant , if the day Joanna Yeates was disposed of was after Saturday 18th December 2010, after CJ had spoken to Dr Vincent Tabak.....
Making the screams party goers.....
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg496375#msg496375
That post, that post that CJ is telling us important information, is massive....
Even if we want to argue the day, even if we want to say that Dr Vincent Tabak lied on the stand and the event was Saturday 18th December 2010......
CJ may be mistaken on the day also, But.... What you cannot take away from CJ's statement is he had a conversation with Dr Vincent Tabak.... The time of this conversation is vital.... And for more than one reason...
I for arguments sake assumed that it had to be when Dr Vincent Tabak arrived home from work, making CJ being at the gym a 2 hour experience.... But that isn't likely....
At trail I believe that Dr Vincent Tabak went outside to take pictures of the snow.... dirty snow apparently and didn't end up taking pictures....
So we have CJ, confirming that there is snow on the ground...
We have Dr Vincent Tabak talking of dirty snow.... and we have a time of around 8:00 o'clock when snowfall stopped....
So maybe CJ, left for the gym nearer 8:00pm rather than 7:00pm..... And that is crucial...
We know from the Leveson he returned around 9:00pm, so Did CJ see Dr Vincent Tabak when Dr Vincent Tabak either returned or set of to take images of the snow??
CJ doesn't tell us in which direction Dr Vincent Tabak is going... arriving or leaving... important pieces of information....
The reason I am being a stickler about said times is I believe they are vital..... The would give us a more accurate time line, but there's something I hadn't thought of before......
What was Dr Vincent Tabak wearing???
CJ, is witness to the clothing that Dr Vincent Tabak was wearing that evening.... He can see his trousers,shoes, coat, and maybe the shirt underneath.... Did Dr Vincent Tabak have his coat on.... Did Dr Vincent Tabak have his coat opened.... Did he wear gloves or a hat.... what was Dr Vincent Tabak's attire like that evening when CJ had a conversation with him???
These are most important details.... Because if we are to believe that a violent struggle happened and Joanna yeates received 43 injuries in this fight for her life, then what Dr Vincent Tabak was wearing, is crucial,...
By the time we see any images of Dr Vincent Tabak on the 17th December 2010 at Asda supermarket in Bedminster, we can clealy see what colour trousers, he is wearing, we can see his shoes, we can see his black coat and we can see his red shirt.....
Now..... This is after said attack on Joanna Yeates..... CJ's vital witness testimony was needed at trial.... he could tell us what Dr Vincent Tabak had worn that evening, we could then see for ourselves whether or not Dr Vincent Tabak had changed his clothing before he went to Asda, getting rid of any evidence on said clothing.... A live witness who could tell us what he said to Dr Vincent Tabak and what Dr Vincent Tabak said to him.... A live witness who should be able to describe what items of clothing he saw the defendant wearing that evening....
But he is not a witness at trial apparently.... He has not divulged whether or not Dr Vincent Tabak changed his clothes to hide his crime.... There is no evidence on the clothing we can see of Dr Vincent Tabak at ASDA... so where is all this blood?? From this violent attack, he must have got some on himself... he can't avoid gravity....
So why wasn't CJ at trial.... Why wasn't more made of what Dr Vincent Tabak was wearing that evening?? Because Dr Vincent Tabak had apparently spent an hour in his flat before going to ASDA, a time when he could have showered and changed his clothing....
We have a witness whom has not only seen Dr Vincent Tabak on Canygne Road , but has conversed with Dr Vincent Tabak on Canygne Road, a witness ho knows the defendant, a witness, who is the defendants landlord.....
So what can CJ tell us of what he saw, that evening, he may have been vague about what he apparently heard or saw on his return from the gym, but he obviously remembers the conversation he had with Dr Vincent Tabak....
here is something else to ponder, If CJ is vague and unsure about what he heard or saw at the gate and Colin Port tells us CJ had seen people at the gate, and that CJ, must be mistaken, then does that not make questioning when CJ saw Dr Vincent Tabak...
Could that not have been when he RETURNED from the GYM instead of leaving?? He has made genuine errors as has been shown in The Leveson Report, so is CJ mistaken and he saw Dr vincent Tabak on Canygne Road on his return from the gym....
CJ doesn't mention in his Leveson statement that he has seen anyone on Canygne Road, he doesn't mention that he saw Dr Vincent Tabak....
Bringing me to the conclusion that the people that CJ possibly saw at the gate, being Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson,... Joanna Yeates may or may not have been with them... I am not saying she was...
But CJ.. has furnished us with 2 pieces of evidence... He tells us at the Leveson he thinks it was Friday.... But by saying thinks it was he is not committing himself to a said day.....
But using the information from the program and DCI Phil Jones, using the information from trial and using CJ's statements from programs and the Leveson... I think I have a clearer picture...
CJ... must be talking of Saturday 18th December 2010... I realistically cannot see it being any other day.... Evidence we have is the snow..... The snow is dirty... meaning people have trodden about said snow....
CJ clearly indicate that he by chance has come across Dr Vincent Tabak, whom is talking about how beautiful things are with the snow... CJ, is telling us he is going to the gym.... But is he.... If he witness, people at the gate, and these people have been kept secret, there needs to be a reason for these peoples identity to be kept secret....
As I have stated, they should have been witness's if not suspects....
So I conclude the people at the gate are Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson, and that is the reason we do not know of there identity....
Because CJ is saying that at the time they believe Joanna Yeates was Murdered, Dr Vnicent Tabak is on Canygne Road with another witness putting him there.....
The people at the gate.... one of them has to be Dr Vincent Tabak... It's the same event.... CJ doesn't speak of a seperate event...
CJ speaking again at: 28:48 of the video....
bare that in mind... That statement on video of CJ's..
Leveson
Ok... So when did CJ move his car onto the drive?? Dr Vincent Tabak stating that CJ's car had changed position doesn't therefore sound too far fetched.......
But lets not point fingers..... Because we need the events to be correct.....
If CJ, tells us he has seen 2/3 people at the gate.... he has spoken to Dr Vincent Tabak, Dr Vincent Tabak is talking about snow, doesn't this add to the likely hood that CJ is talking about the day being Saturday,??.... but that the people he saw, and not only saw but obviously spoke to is Dr Vincent Tabak and who ever accompanied him....
You either have to say that CJ is lying to the Leveson that he parked his car on the road after the gym, and Dr Vincent Tabak witnessed and noticed said car had changed position..... Or, CJ did indeed get his days mixed up and his car of course, was on the drive of the morning of Saturday 18th December 2010 and on the evening of Saturday 18th 2010, is when he parked his car on the road after he had been to the gym, because , he had had difficulty that morning moving his car off the drive.... making complete sense as to why car is on road, and CJ saying he left it there quite true....
You then have to ask what relevance the ASDA video has?? It has NO time stamp upon it but the date of the 17th December 2010 is there for all to see....
* Saturday morning 18th December Dr Vincent Tabak helps CJ move his car from snowy parking space onto main
part of the drive at Canygne Road.....
* When leaving for the gym CJ comes across Dr Vincent Tabak ( this has to be Saturday 18th December 2010)
* When returning from the gym at 9:00pm CJ parks his car on the road.....( obviously, he has already told us the
state of the drive,... so again this has to be Saturday 18th December 2010... he tells us at the Leveson it might
have been Friday, he doesn't say it was Friday!)
* He notices people at the gate, whether he heard or saw depends on what you want to believe, but.. that has to be
Saturday 18th December 2010 also.....only follows)
* He converses with Dr Vincent Tabak as he has demonstrated..... in said program.... That too has to be Saturday
18th December 2010...
* The only problem now is the time... if CJ is not sure of the day..... did he Dr Vincent Tabak when he returned from
the gym, putting Dr Vincent Tabak on Canygne road in the snow at 9:00pm on Saturday 18th December 2010..
taking photo's, meaning it is a extremely great possibility that CJ, saw Dr Vincent Tabak at the small gate, him
then being one of the 2/3 people whom CJ: saw/heard!!!
So who was Dr Vincent Tabak with?? that is the important piece of information..... We have Kingdon telling us he heard a scream/ cry out of someone saying "help me" mid morning on Saturday 18th December 2010, he lived in the houses directly behind Joanna yeates bedroom window....
If we go with what I am proposing, then, Saturday 18th December 2010 has to be the day, there is no two ways about it.... But what of Dr Vincent Tabak...??
Is this where I question his guilt?? is this where I wonder what is true... Is this where I question how he is actually responsible....
If Dr Vincent Tabak on his own killed Joanna Yeates, one would say the story on the stand sort of explains it... But thats not good enough.... Has he been charged under Joint Enterprise??? That has to be the most likely way he was charged, because he has other people with him at a vital time... Meaning he must have had assistance in moving a body that he alone could not carry....
So who else did CJ witness at the gate??
Did Dr Vincent Tabak just assist someone, making him just as guilty and culpable under this law?? Did he knowingly assist??
Or is he completely Innocent of all charges levelled against him, as I have always contended based on what I have know of the case???
If the body is place on Longwood Lane at sometime on Saturday 18th December 2010, then that is a more likely prospect seeing as said snow is already there to cover said body up..... making her less visible... Then the image of Dr Vincent Tabak in his car on park Street on the 18th December 2010 would make sense, as they say he was driving around looking for a place to dispose of a body....
Is Dr Vincent Tabak involved up and to the point of getting rid of said body.... Does he really know who killed Joanna Yeates and has become enbroiled in this saga for some unknown reason.... Or as I have stated all along completely Innocent of this crime....
Who is lying about this case.... Well we know for a fact that Dr Vincent Tabak is lying which ever way you want to look at it.... The reason he is lying is unclear.....
But if CJ, is wholly Innocent as has been stated, and CJ is telling us information that he saw Dr Vincent Tabak on the evening Joanna Yeates ha been killed, do we now believe that Joanna Yeates was either killed on the 17th December 2010 or killed on the 18th December 2010?? With Kingdon's statement to maybe support that someone was having difficulty mid morning n Saturday 18th December 2010??
They have never had an exact time and day of death of Joanna Yeates.... they go from the story on the stand told by Dr Vincent Tabak.....
but if we know take into account CJ's statement... Was Joanna Yeates killed on Saturday 18th December 2010??
It seems more likely, she could even have been removed from her home, on Saturday 18th December 2010 mid morning... making her flat not the scene of Crime... Lets not forget her parents believed she had been abducted.... And it is only Kingdons statement that gives us an indication she may have been abducted....
Therefore, she may have arrived home on Friday 17th December 2010... she may have left her own belongings in the flat,.. but someone else closed the door... someone else, removed her from her flat and it's possible she was alive when she left said flat....
So what is the truth of The Murder of Joanna Yeates ??? And who was really involved with her death???
But one last thing... CJ says:
Now is he telling us that she went Missing on Friday 17th December 2010 as a fact.... or is he just stating what is now apparently known about, when she went Missing because of the trial.... ??
Don't let that date confuse you... Everything that is stated appears to point to the 18th December 2010 being the day that Joanna Yeates was last known to be alive.... CJ on his leveson statement could just be quoting from what is now know... But I cannot say that for sure....
the only way in which we can conclusively prove what day it was , is the CCTV of either CJ going to the Gym ...coming back from the gym, or at the gym... either way there must be footage of this....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-15257562f
You Nine.
To yourself it would appear?
-
Its a pity you dont pick Tabak apart like you do CJ . What CJ does or doesn't do is irrelevant to the process
I can only use what is available... And I have no interviews of Dr Vincent Tabak, so it is obvious I am going to use the other people in this case....
CJ... he puts Dr Vincent Tabak on Canygne Road... he explains when his car is on his drive.... He explains when his car is parked on the road.... making Dr Vincent Tabak's statement accusing CJ that his car has changed position... "True".......If Friday 17th December 2010 is the day that Joanna Yeates was Murdered... Saturday morning therefore Dr Vincent tabak would have notice the car had changed position, because he had been to ASDA, and then helped CJ move said car on the Saturday 18th December 2010, when CJ tells us himself that is what Dr Vincent Tabak did... and the Police were excited with Dr Vincent Tabak being a witness to this...
Or it is Saturday 18th December 2010 when CJ saw Dr Vincent Tabak and the people at the gate.... He therefore leaves his car on the road because the drive is a difficult proposition....
Take your pick....
-
Maybe it would cut your work load down by a massive amount if you researched the differences in trial for people who plead guilty to not guilty
I have said over and over. Justsaying has given you lots of time explaining and today Stephanie also reminded you
For some reason you are fixated on CJ . Is that a deflection tactic so you dont have to face the other very good points put to you today?
-
I can only use what is available... And I have no interviews of Dr Vincent Tabak, so it is obvious I am going to use the other people in this case......
Didn't you highlight one of his statements here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg496437#msg496437
(Top screenshot of 3)
-
Lets establish when said event actually happened and have said relevant witness making statements and appearing at trial....
It was and he did
You've posted the evidence yourself http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=14897
"Tabak gave several prepared (witness) statements to the police"
Can I just ask if Tabak was a busy little bee minding his own business that night and all that he claimed to be true is a lie, how did he manage to search about her murder before she was reported missing?
?
And do you now agree JY's body was NOT exposed?
-
Maybe it would cut your work load down by a massive amount if you researched the differences in trial for people who plead guilty to not guilty
I have said over and over. Justsaying has given you lots of time explaining and today Stephanie also reminded you
For some reason you are fixated on CJ . Is that a deflection tactic so you don't have to face the other very good points put to you today?
I keep saying I do not know the law and what happens at trials...
But we clearly have information here that casts doubt on whether or not Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates ... And on what possible day that could be....
I'm not trying to use deflection tactics, I am trying to establish a timeline, that make sense, a timeline based on what people have stated in documentaries, and what was stated at The Leveson....
My God.... even you shouldn't be happy that someones in prison just on there sayso, when the evidence doesn't support that being the case......
take the ASDA CCTV... The damning footage that suggest he was having a crisis according to the text message.... CCTV footage from Friday 17th December 2010 whether there is a time stamp or not in this footage.... there is a date...
So telling his girlfriend he is bored, and gone INNOCENTLY shopping that evening without anything untoward taking place now sound more probable.....
He could have Mis typed Crisps... and ended up with Crisis...
If Joanna Yeates isn't killed or deposited on Longwood lane until the 18th December 2010, as the statements suggest... Then the shopping trip is irrelevant.... "Crisis" is irrelevant.... Because he IS Innocently shopping on that day.....
And Joanna Yeates body doesn't get moved to Longwood lane until the 18th December 2010 at the very earliest....
So it does matter to me that CJ is not at trial.... It should matter to everyone.... Because what have you now got of Dr Vincent Tabaks story?? Something that is not true or even possible....
So if the entire story on the stand is a huge LIE... Then just because someone says they did said crime, should have evidence to back said story up as I keep stating.....
What did Clegg actually look at in this case?? It beggars me....
so the idea, that Dr Vincent Tabak has subconciously typed "Crisis" because that is what is on his mind.... And the purchase of Rock salt as Ann Redrop has stated... makes it appear, that these two events are connected to A Murder....
When it couldn't be further from the truth.....
If as I am saying you establish that Saturday the 18th December 2010 is the relevant day.....
I think maybe more to the point should be why are you happy to accept what Dr Vincent Tabak stated on the stand.... why are you happy to accept he killed Joanna Yeates..... Just on his say so??? Without evidence to support this....
Why is Ann Reddrop happy to state in a documentary that Dr Vincent Tabak going shopping to ASDA in Bedminster is "Frankly Weird"...
She is happy to accept Dr Vincent Tabak tale on the stand... a story that is a LIE.... Where we can see the most likely day has to be Saturday 18th December 2010 making the shopping trip nothing to do with anything......
She is happy to support that tale on the stand as evidence , when statements we know do not.....
What the hell is going on here...... !!!
You cannot just go around accepting someone guilty plea to something if the evidence doesn't support it....
She should be experienced enough to know that .... After all she was at that time in 2010/2011 The HEAD OF THE COMPLEX CASE UNIT!!!!!!
-
It was and he did
You've posted the evidence yourself http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=14897
"Tabak gave several prepared (witness) statements to the police"
?
And do you now agree JY's body was NOT exposed?
Do you agree the relevant day has to be Saturday 18th December 2010??
-
Didn't you highlight one of his statements here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg496437#msg496437
(Top screenshot of 3)
I am talking about a statement either on video, or one that has come directly from the trial, where I can see he has signed said statement....
Now i have realised what you are referring too.... My post....
Following his arrest on 20 January, Tabak gave several prepared statements to police.
Image caption
Tabak has admitted manslaughter but denies murder
In one, the court heard, he said: "I did not know Joanna Yeates. I have never spoken to her or Greg Reardon.
"Until her picture was shown prominently in the press, I would not have recognised her."
He went on to explain what he was doing on the night she disappeared.
He had left his flat to see if he could take pictures of the snow, the court heard, but did not do so because the snow "was dirty".
During the opening day of the trial on Monday, the court was told he then went shopping at Asda in the Bedminster area of Bristol, with Miss Yeates's body in the boot of his car.
Ok when i clicked on the link i put up, I get this error message....
But I still have that page opened on my computer and I get this image...
So... in as little as an hour and a half from my post the page has now got an error....
That is fast work by anyones standards...
What the bejesus is going on!!
Never mind Dr Vincent Tabak Statements.... that are reported in the media... I have no copy of them , and i do not have him on video telling me this....
Ok... paddy over.... The statement he gave to the Police belonged to who?? Dr Vincent Tabak?? Who prepared these statements.... why??
So what does it mean them removing that article in as little as an hour and a half??
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-15257562f
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I keep saying I do not know the law and what happens at trials...
What do Internet searches say the differences are of a not guilty and guilty plea to manslaughter?
-
Do you agree the relevant day has to be Saturday 18th December 2010??
I agree in the grand scheme of things it's irrelevant
Do you now agree JY's body was NOT exposed?
-
I keep saying I do not know the law and what happens at trials...
But we clearly have information here that casts doubt on whether or not Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates ... And on what possible day that could be....
I'm not trying to use deflection tactics, I am trying to establish a timeline, that make sense, a timeline based on what people have stated in documentaries, and what was stated at The Leveson....
My God.... even you shouldn't be happy that someones in prison just on there sayso, when the evidence doesn't support that being the case......
take the ASDA CCTV... The damning footage that suggest he was having a crisis according to the text message.... CCTV footage from Friday 17th December 2010 whether there is a time stamp or not in this footage.... there is a date...
So telling his girlfriend he is bored, and gone INNOCENTLY shopping that evening without anything untoward taking place now sound more probable.....
He could have Mis typed Crisps... and ended up with Crisis...
If Joanna Yeates isn't killed or deposited on Longwood lane until the 18th December 2010, as the statements suggest... Then the shopping trip is irrelevant.... "Crisis" is irrelevant.... Because he IS Innocently shopping on that day.....
And Joanna Yeates body doesn't get moved to Longwood lane until the 18th December 2010 at the very earliest....
So it does matter to me that CJ is not at trial.... It should matter to everyone.... Because what have you now got of Dr Vincent Tabaks story?? Something that is not true or even possible....
So if the entire story on the stand is a huge LIE... Then just because someone says they did said crime, should have evidence to back said story up as I keep stating.....
What did Clegg actually look at in this case?? It beggars me....
so the idea, that Dr Vincent Tabak has subconciously typed "Crisis" because that is what is on his mind.... And the purchase of Rock salt as Ann Redrop has stated... makes it appear, that these two events are connected to A Murder....
When it couldn't be further from the truth.....
If as I am saying you establish that Saturday the 18th December 2010 is the relevant day.....
I think maybe more to the point should be why are you happy to accept what Dr Vincent Tabak stated on the stand.... why are you happy to accept he killed Joanna Yeates..... Just on his say so??? Without evidence to support this....
Why is Ann Reddrop happy to state in a documentary that Dr Vincent Tabak going shopping to ASDA in Bedminster is "Frankly Weird"...
She is happy to accept Dr Vincent Tabak tale on the stand... a story that is a LIE.... Where we can see the most likely day has to be Saturday 18th December 2010 making the shopping trip nothing to do with anything......
She is happy to support that tale on the stand as evidence , when statements we know do not.....
What the hell is going on here...... !!!
You cannot just go around accepting someone guilty plea to something if the evidence doesn't support it....
She should be experienced enough to know that .... After all she was at that time in 2010/2011 The HEAD OF THE COMPLEX CASE UNIT!!!!!!
You are
-
Every day people plead guilty to crimes they did and it is accepted. Its not special treatment for Tabak. What exactly do you mean even me? Based just on their say-so. It happens every day across the country. Why can't you accept that
-
I am talking about a statement either on video, or one that has come directly from the trial, where I can see he has signed said statement....
How many signed witness statements are available to view online in this case and who's statements are they?
-
How do you know what really happened Nine, were you there? It is obvious the police do not believe Tabak's version of events. (that Joanna waved him in) It is obvious the jury believed the Crown's version of events over Tabak's (that he wasn't invited) - hence the guilty verdict.
For what it is worth I think the scenario with the cat is most likely what happened.
Also, how do you know what was raised at the trial? You were not there!
Were you there?
How do you know that the scenario with the cat was what happened? Were you there?
-
Neither were you mrswah but you have made many assumptions that are totally against what Tabak has said himself!
-
I have looked on the internet Mrswah - he comes highly recommended. The only people who have a problem with him are disgruntled Tabak fan-club.
There is no Tabak fan club---this is not a football match or a celebrity contest!!
There are just people questioning the status quo.
-
Every day people plead guilty to crimes they did and it is accepted. Its not special treatment for Tabak. What exactly do you mean even me? Based just on their say-so. It happens every day across the country. Why can't you accept that
because it's NOT RIGHT....!!!
-
@)(++(*
-
Neither were you mrswah but you have made many assumptions that are totally against what Tabak has said himself!
Maybe, but do you believe everything Tabak said?
-
How many signed witness statements are available to view online in this case and who's statements are they?
I am referring directly to the contents of CJ's Leveson statement... And video's in documentaries that CJ... The Yeates , DCI Phi Jones and Ann Reddrop have appeared in... Meaning they are telling us this information....!!
-
Were you there?
How do you know that the scenario with the cat was what happened? Were you there?
No I wasn't Mrswah - I did say most likely, not definitely was. Unlike Nine who talks as if she was hanging out of Tabak's back pocket!
-
DNA evidence
Fibre evidence
Internet Searches
Confession
Victims blood in his boot
The body was covered - not exposed...
https://stories.swns.com/news/jo-yeates-strangled-by-cold-and-calculated-vincent-tabak-21328/
Please tell me how again how is he innocent?
With regards "forensics" http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8057.msg448047#msg448047
-
@)(++(*
Ask Stefan Kizco's mother how funny she thought it that her son was imprisoned for pleading guilty to killing Leslie Molseed....
Ask Leslie Molseed Family if they thought it funny an Innocent man has spent all those years in prison, whilst the real killer walked free...
-
I am referring directly to the contents of CJ's Leveson statement... And video's in documentaries that CJ... The Yeates , DCI Phi Jones and Ann Reddrop have appeared in... Meaning they are telling us this information....!!
You are deflecting again
I asked
How many signed witness statements are available to view online in this case and who's statements are they?
After you stated
I am talking about a statement either on video, or one that has come directly from the trial, where I can see he has signed said statement....
You've changed the goalposts
-
No I wasn't Mrswah - I did say most likely, not definitely was. Unlike Nine who talks as if she was hanging out of Tabak's back pocket!
I am small, but how small do you think I really am??? I have been nowhere near Dr Vincent Tabaks pocket....
-
There is no Tabak fan club---this is not a football match or a celebrity contest!!
I do not think it is me you need to say this to, he clearly has a fan-club of people who are blind to the strong evidence which screams guilt! You are right, he is not a celebrity, he is a murdering paedophile. Vile man!
-
My posts are my observations of what is available and what we know.... That is all... And clearly things do not add up... clearly there is discrepancies with the day and dates.....
-
I am small, but how small do you think I really am??? I have been nowhere near Dr Vincent Tabaks pocket....
Not even my little doggie would fit into Tabak's back pocket!
-
Ask Stefan Kizco's mother how funny she thought it that her son was imprisoned for pleading guilty to killing Leslie Molseed....
Ask Leslie Molseed Family if they thought it funny an Innocent man has spent all those years in prison, whilst the real killer walked free...
Tell me Nine - was there DNA evidence against this person? Was there disgusting internet searches? Was the victims blood in the boot of his car? Was his coat fibre's all over the victim? Take the confession away, there is still ample to convict - remember Tabak was charged before he confessed, there was ample evidence to go to trial with or without his confession!
-
Is no-one curious why and how that BBC page was removed so swiftly??
-
I do not think it is me you need to say this to, he clearly has a fan-club of people who are blind to the strong evidence which screams guilt! You are right, he is not a celebrity, he is a murdering paedophile. Vile man!
Not at all sure he is either, but he doesn't have a fan club, that's for sure.
-
&%%6
-
My posts are my observations of what is available and what we know.... That is all... And clearly things do not add up... clearly there is discrepancies with the day and dates.....
Which posts of yours do you think are objective?
-
Not even my little doggie would fit into Tabak's back pocket!
It was a metaphor - a figure of speech... Nine talks like she was with Tabak throughout the whole ordeal - hence hanging out of his back pocket, not literally hanging out of his back pocket @)(++(*
-
Is no-one curious why and how that BBC page was removed so swiftly??
You've lost me?
-
Tell me Nine - was there DNA evidence against this person? Was there disgusting internet searches? Was the victims blood in the boot of his car? Was his coat fibre's all over the victim? Take the confession away, there is still ample to convict - remember Tabak was charged before he confessed, there was ample evidence to go to trial with or without his confession!
That is possible, (but who is the evidence pointing too?? )
Because you then need to take into account Lyndsey Lennen telling us it took 48 hours to turn around the DNA samples, victims and suspects clothing... Then that clearly points to another person, and cannot be Dr vincent tabak.... unless Dr Vincent Tabak is either known by another name or he is an independent person seperate from everyone else who happens to be a Dutch National...
Then it cannot possibly be him... The evidence points too.... !!!
The evidence had to be turned around before CJ's arrest... And the only reason I can state that is because, they released him partly because his DNA didn't match...
-
My posts are my observations of what is available and what we know.... That is all... And clearly things do not add up... clearly there is discrepancies with the day and dates.....
It does add up - DNA Evidence +
Fibre Evidence +
Internet Searches +
Blood in boot +
Confession = Guilty of murder...
Not rocket science really.
-
That is possible, (but who is the evidence pointing too?? )
Because you then need to take into account Lyndsey Lennen telling us it took 48 hours to turn around the DNA samples, victims and suspects clothing... Then that clearly points to another person, and cannot be Dr vincent tabak.... unless Dr Vincent Tabak is either known by another name or he is an independent person seperate from everyone else who happens to be a Dutch National...
Then it cannot possibly be him... The evidence points too.... !!!
The evidence had to be turned around before CJ's arrest... And the only reason I can state that is because, they released him partly because his DNA didn't match...
Nine, forensic scientists and what they can do this day and age are fabulous - don't you think. Does not matter how fast they turned it around - the fact is they did and it was a match for Tabak... Case closed, for them at least.
-
Ask Stefan Kizco's mother how funny she thought it that her son was imprisoned for pleading guilty to killing Leslie Molseed....
Is that possible IN REALITY?
-
Tell me Nine - was there DNA evidence against this person? Was there disgusting internet searches? Was the victims blood in the boot of his car? Was his coat fibre's all over the victim? Take the confession away, there is still ample to convict - remember Tabak was charged before he confessed, there was ample evidence to go to trial with or without his confession!
Only enhanced DNA----you would think that a murderer who had inflicted 43 injuries, would have left a full DNA profile. Enhanced DNA, where the sample was used up in the enhancing process, and the defence could not verify it.
Did the defence verify the internet searches? BTW, you should see mine!! And, I have never murdered anyone, nor have I ever been in any trouble with the police.
Coat fibres could belong to anyone with a similar coat----you know that from Luke's case.
I prefer good, solid evidence----I would believe VT was guilty, had they found his mobile phone or his debit card at the scene of the crime, for instance, or lots of fingerprints on that front door, or his DNA on Joanna's bedding.
-
That is possible, (but who is the evidence pointing too?? )
Because you then need to take into account Lyndsey Lennen telling us it took 48 hours to turn around the DNA samples, victims and suspects clothing... Then that clearly points to another person, and cannot be Dr vincent tabak.... unless Dr Vincent Tabak is either known by another name or he is an independent person seperate from everyone else who happens to be a Dutch National...
Then it cannot possibly be him... The evidence points too.... !!!
The evidence had to be turned around before CJ's arrest... And the only reason I can state that is because, they released him partly because his DNA didn't match...
How on earth do you come to that conclusion - they turned it around in 48 hours so it must belong to someone else? They did not take Tabaks DNA until they travelled to Holland - so although they had the DNA evidence from her body they could not match it to Tabak until they took his DNA. I do not know how you are coming up with these theories!
-
You've lost me?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-15257562f
The link I used at 4:59pm today which was working and had said article there.., stopped working by 6:19pm when I replied to your post
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=14897;image)
The image I screen shot at 15:22:56 2018/10/17 being the date on my computer...!!
-
Is that possible IN REALITY?
Ok... literally NO... Stefan Kizco and his mother are dead..... That why I added Leslie Molseed family....
-
It was a metaphor - a figure of speech... Nine talks like she was with Tabak throughout the whole ordeal - hence hanging out of his back pocket, not literally hanging out of his back pocket @)(++(*
Oh, I do realise that---I was having a laff!!!
Even I do sometimes!
-
It was a metaphor - a figure of speech... Nine talks like she was with Tabak throughout the whole ordeal - hence hanging out of his back pocket, not literally hanging out of his back pocket @)(++(*
You know how i take things literally sometimes....
-
Only enhanced DNA----you would think that a murderer who had inflicted 43 injuries, would have left a full DNA profile. Enhanced DNA, where the sample was used up in the enhancing process, and the defence could not verify it.
Did the defence verify the internet searches? BTW, you should see mine!! And, I have never murdered anyone, nor have I ever been in any trouble with the police.
Coat fibres could belong to anyone with a similar coat----you know that from Luke's case.
I prefer good, solid evidence----I would believe VT was guilty, had they found his mobile phone or his debit card at the scene of the crime, for instance, or lots of fingerprints on that front door, or his DNA on Joanna's bedding.
It was good solid evidence - at least the jury thought so. Tell me Mrswah have you ever searched for a missing person before they have even been reported missing? What about her blood in his car? Either our forensic experts are very poor or Tabak is the unluckiest person in the world - based on your theories that is!
People have been convicted on a lot less! Does that mean they must be innocent also?
-
Only enhanced DNA----you would think that a murderer who had inflicted 43 injuries, would have left a full DNA profile. Enhanced DNA, where the sample was used up in the enhancing process, and the defence could not verify it.
Did the defence verify the internet searches? BTW, you should see mine!! And, I have never murdered anyone, nor have I ever been in any trouble with the police.
Coat fibres could belong to anyone with a similar coat----you know that from Luke's case.
I prefer good, solid evidence----I would believe VT was guilty, had they found his mobile phone or his debit card at the scene of the crime, for instance, or lots of fingerprints on that front door, or his DNA on Joanna's bedding.
couldn't agree more.... But when the SOI doesn't even know how many injuries she sustained after the event, that no being 30 insignificant ones... why should we believe the so called evidence that is part of the event...!
-
For someone who doesn't support Tabak you put up a very good fight for the murdering paedophile!
-
Ok... literally NO... Stefan Kizco and his mother are dead..... That why I added Leslie Molseed family....
Really? https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/local-news/april-garrett-mother-murdered-rochdale-6859366
-
You know how i take things literally sometimes....
So you actually thought that I really meant you were small enough to fit in his back pocket? Oh please!
-
It does add up - DNA Evidence +
Fibre Evidence +
Internet Searches +
Blood in boot +
Confession = Guilty of murder...
Not rocket science really.
@)(++(*
But who's DNA.... who''s fibres.....
-
@)(++(*
But who's DNA.... who''s fibres.....
I think this has been explained by the EXPERTS - Forgive me, I would rather believe them than some justice forum detective who only has news reports to go on... No offence intended.
-
Only enhanced DNA----you would think that a murderer who had inflicted 43 injuries, would have left a full DNA profile. Enhanced DNA, where the sample was used up in the enhancing process, and the defence could not verify it.
Did the defence verify the internet searches? BTW, you should see mine!! And, I have never murdered anyone, nor have I ever been in any trouble with the police.
Coat fibres could belong to anyone with a similar coat----you know that from Luke's case.
I prefer good, solid evidence----I would believe VT was guilty, had they found his mobile phone or his debit card at the scene of the crime, for instance, or lots of fingerprints on that front door, or his DNA on Joanna's bedding.
If they just had the DNA evidence then it could be questionable - all this evidence together make a pretty solid case against a person who, in the end, confessed.
-
So nobody cares, everyones happy with the status quo..... I feel like I waste my time, and for why???
But the more curious question is why you all try to convert me into believing the narrative, pointlessly spending your time conversing with a person that comes across as a crack-pot.....??
Maybe you should find something a bit more constructive to do.. Than try and covert me... It seems a waste of your time also....
You are not changing my mind any time soon... And Dr Vincent Tabak is still in prison where nearly everyone is happy that he is.....
So JustSaying, maybe you should take your own avatars advice...... And:.....
Let it go....... 8)--))
-
So nobody cares, everyones happy with the status quo..... I feel like I waste my time, and for why???
But the more curious question is why you all try to convert me into believing the narrative, pointlessly spending your time conversing with a person that comes across as a crack-pot.....??
Maybe you should find something a bit more constructive to do.. Than try and covert me... It seems a waste of your time also....
You are not changing my mind any time soon... And Dr Vincent Tabak is still in prison where nearly everyone is happy that he is.....
So JustSaying, maybe you should take your own avatars advice...... And:.....
Let it go....... 8)--))
I will when you do Nine - didn't you say even your family have told you to do the same @)(++(*
-
Really? https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/local-news/april-garrett-mother-murdered-rochdale-6859366
How sad.
-
Is there no-one willing to answer my question about HER blood being found in HIS car? Or is this something that cannot be explained with wild theories?
-
I will when you do Nine - didn't you say even your family have told you to do the same @)(++(*
justsaying, you clearly think people like Nine and I are wasting our time, so why do you have to wait until Nine gives it up before you do?
-
Is there no-one willing to answer my question about HER blood being found in HIS car? Or is this something that cannot be explained with wild theories?
Chrysanthamum.....
-
Chrysanthamum.....
Possible being planted....
Possible contamination...
-
So nobody cares, everyones happy with the status quo..... I feel like I waste my time, and for why???
But the more curious question is why you all try to convert me into believing the narrative, pointlessly spending your time conversing with a person that comes across as a crack-pot.....??
Maybe you should find something a bit more constructive to do.. Than try and covert me... It seems a waste of your time also....
You are not changing my mind any time soon... And Dr Vincent Tabak is still in prison where nearly everyone is happy that he is.....
So JustSaying, maybe you should take your own avatars advice...... And:.....
Let it go....... 8)--))
The answers you seek may come if you can get to the bottom of this IMO.
-
justsaying, you clearly think people like Nine and I are wasting our time, so why do you have to wait until Nine gives it up before you do?
Why do you want me to "give it up" because I am asking questions for which there is no answer? Because I am pointing things out that point to his guilt? Because my opinion is based on fact and not theory? When did I tell you that you were wasting your time?
-
Possible being planted....
Possible contamination...
DNA evidence and a minute spot of blood can be explained away seeing as they lived in the same building and use the main entrance.....
But Where someone was on a particular day at a particular time, needs said witness to explain said conversation on which particular day at what particular time....
That is evidence!
-
The answers you seek may come if you can get to the bottom of this IMO.
That is the trouble ... i will never get to the bottom of this!!
-
So nobody cares, everyones happy with the status quo..... I feel like I waste my time, and for why???
But the more curious question is why you all try to convert me into believing the narrative, pointlessly spending your time conversing with a person that comes across as a crack-pot.....??
Maybe you should find something a bit more constructive to do.. Than try and covert me... It seems a waste of your time also....
You are not changing my mind any time soon... And Dr Vincent Tabak is still in prison where nearly everyone is happy that he is.....
So JustSaying, maybe you should take your own avatars advice...... And:.....
Let it go....... 8)--))
Sorry you think you come across as a crack pot, you don't btw
-
Possible being planted....
Possible contamination...
So yet more incredibly bad luck for Tabak. So lets see...
DNA - not a problem because it had to be enhanced, and it must have matched someone else not him...
Fibre - which matched his coat left there by someone else...
Blood - planted there to convict a wholly innocent man/or contamination
Internet Searches - planted or made by someone else
Confession - false because he was brow-beaten
Really is the unluckiest person in the world is the "placid" Mr Tabak- and our forensic teams are nothing but corrupt people, surprised they manage to convict anyone, perhaps all convictions which were based on DNA/Fibre/Internet searches should be looked at again!
Not to mention the disgusting images of children on his computer which he pleaded guilty to - what is the reason for his guilty plea on this charge? What an insult to those poor defenceless children!
-
DNA evidence and a minute spot of blood can be explained away seeing as they lived in the same building and use the main entrance.....
But Where someone was on a particular day at a particular time, needs said witness to explain said conversation on which particular day at what particular time....
That is evidence!
How do you know it was tiny, minute spot? News reports? Funny because I read today there were blood smears in his boot...
-
DNA evidence and a minute spot of blood can be explained away seeing as they lived in the same building and use the main entrance.....
DNA was found on her breast! Not on her top, not on her bra - on her breast!
How do you think it got there Nine? Totally missing her clothes but on her exposed breast?
-
Not at all sure he is either, but he doesn't have a fan club, that's for sure.
Could have fooled me. He has people fighting for him who do not even know him, despite the fact that he has not once claimed that he innocent!
He is the only person I have ever heard of that has some sort of innocence campaign without even asking for it. Where are his family? Why are they not fighting for him? Is the reason they are not fighting for him based on the fact he has admitted it to them too... maybe?
-
DNA was found on her breast! Not on her top, not on her bra - on her breast!
How do you think it got there Nine? Totally missing her clothes but on her exposed breast?
Where on her breast? I have explained how that could be possible without either person coming into contact with one another...
They live in same building... They touch, the game gates, door handles etc, DNA is left behind.... Person touch same items transfer occurs...
Woman adjust themselves just like men do, it Is a possibility it was transferred innocently...
Then for instance if this doubt had been presented by the Defence, the jury would not have seen it a a sexual motive....
-
So nobody cares, everyones happy with the status quo..... I feel like I waste my time, and for why???
But the more curious question is why you all try to convert me into believing the narrative, pointlessly spending your time conversing with a person that comes across as a crack-pot.....??
Maybe you should find something a bit more constructive to do.. Than try and covert me... It seems a waste of your time also....
You are not changing my mind any time soon... And Dr Vincent Tabak is still in prison where nearly everyone is happy that he is.....
So JustSaying, maybe you should take your own avatars advice...... And:.....
Let it go....... 8)--))
How offensve are you. Think we spend our days very constructive actually. Not us who posts in the early hours now is it when even Tabak would be sound asleep
-
DNA evidence and a minute spot of blood can be explained away seeing as they lived in the same building and use the main entrance.....
But Where someone was on a particular day at a particular time, needs said witness to explain said conversation on which particular day at what particular time....
That is evidence!
You need to get a grip. There is no way you can explain the blood away. You keep stressing how they were strangers
-
How do you know it was tiny, minute spot? News reports? Funny because I read today there were blood smears in his boot...
DCI Phil Jones loving to see himself on documentaries... Tell us about said blood spot and it being on the rubber seal.....
Where did you read that??? Who's boot??
-
That is the trouble ... i will never get to the bottom of this!!
And he doesn't want or need you to
-
How offensve are you. Think we spend our days very constructive actually. Not us who posts in the early hours now is it when even Tabak would be sound asleep
I bet he sleeps better than Nine - after all it isn't him stressing about his alleged miscarriage of justice...
-
You need to get a grip. There is no way you can explain the blood away. You keep stressing how they were strangers
Jixy... Thats the point about the blood..... There should have been loads of it.... It should have been everywhere..... It should have been all over Joanna Yeates Flat and Dr Vincent Tabak's flat, and more that a small spot should have been found in the boot......
-
How offensve are you. Think we spend our days very constructive actually. Not us who posts in the early hours now is it when even Tabak would be sound asleep
I can't help my sleep patterns..... @)(++(*
-
And he doesn't want or need you to
Who doesn't want or need me too Jixy??
-
Jixy... Thats the point about the blood..... There should have been loads of it.... It should have been everywhere..... It should have been all over Joanna Yeates Flat and Dr Vincent Tabak's flat, and more that a small spot should have been found in the boot......
Why do you think this? The injuries could have happened after he killed her - she would therefore not bleed out like you think she would as there would be no pulse - have a read up on it. Didn't he say he put her in a bag before putting her in his boot? Her blood may have been smeared off him, not her... When he went back to his flat before moving her body he could have been laying out the bag to put her in - hence no blood in his flat...
-
Jixy... Thats the point about the blood..... There should have been loads of it.... It should have been everywhere..... It should have been all over Joanna Yeates Flat and Dr Vincent Tabak's flat, and more that a small spot should have been found in the boot......
Exactly what I had just come on here to say.
-
Exactly what I had just come on here to say.
Your theories on her bleeding out are wrong. It was said that she broke her nose after he strangled her, through her dropping to the floor. She would not bleed out if she had no pulse, its your pulse that makes the blood pump out. As I have said have a read up on it.
-
Why do you think this? The injuries could have happened after he killed her - she would therefore not bleed out like you think she would as there would be no pulse - have a read up on it. Didn't he say he put her in a bag before putting her in his boot? Her blood may have been smeared off him, not her... When he went back to his flat before moving her body he could have been laying out the bag to put her in - hence no blood in his flat...
Nobody on their own moves a body that easily. There would have been some forensic evidence of some sort in his flat, if not blood, had he moved her in there.
Has it been confirmed that there was a bag(supposed to be a cycle bag) missing?
-
How do you know it was tiny, minute spot? News reports? Funny because I read today there were blood smears in his boot...
Could I have the link, please? I don't disbelieve you, but I have never read this.
-
Nobody on their own moves a body that easily. There would have been some forensic evidence of some sort in his flat, if not blood, had he moved her in there.
Has it been confirmed that there was a bag(supposed to be a cycle bag) missing?
Again your theory is wrong - what about all these people who are in prison for killing and they managed to move the body on their own? People manage to do this, even people who are a lot smaller than Tabak - what makes him so different? Just ridiculous to even suggest.
Erm, yes - by Tabak himself... Oh no I forgot, his confessions were false!
-
Why do you want me to "give it up" because I am asking questions for which there is no answer? Because I am pointing things out that point to his guilt? Because my opinion is based on fact and not theory? When did I tell you that you were wasting your time?
Did I say I wanted you to give it up??????
-
Could I have the link, please? I don't disbelieve you, but I have never read this.
I believe I posted this earlier.
Tabak’s Renault Megane was seized and tiny smears of blood – belonging to Jo – were found in the boot.
https://stories.swns.com/news/jo-yeates-strangled-by-cold-and-calculated-vincent-tabak-21328/
-
You need to get a grip. There is no way you can explain the blood away. You keep stressing how they were strangers
Do you think that, perhaps, they did know each other?
-
Did I say I wanted you to give it up??????
Not directly.
justsaying, you clearly think people like Nine and I are wasting our time, so why do you have to wait until Nine gives it up before you do?
-
Why do you think this? The injuries could have happened after he killed her - she would therefore not bleed out like you think she would as there would be no pulse - have a read up on it. Didn't he say he put her in a bag before putting her in his boot? Her blood may have been smeared off him, not her... When he went back to his flat before moving her body he could have been laying out the bag to put her in - hence no blood in his flat...
Smeared of what on him?? His coat had no signs of blood... CJ could have told us what he wore that evening....
Where did the blood smears down the wall come from?? If the blood hasn't come from Joanna yeates, and there is NOEVIDENCE of blood on Dr Vincent Tabaks clothes
-
Do you think that, perhaps, they did know each other?
Even if they did, what would her blood be doing in his boot?
-
Smeared of what on him?? His coat had no signs of blood... CJ could have told us what he wore that evening....
Where did the blood smears down the wall come from?? If the blood hasn't come from Joanna yeates, and there is NOEVIDENCE of blood on Dr Vincent Tabaks clothes
Erm - his hand perhaps? The most you would get from a wound like that after death is a trickle when he moved her.
Or the bag he put her in?
How do you know there was no blood on him from moving her? He could have washed his coat for all you know!
-
She is still dead..
-
I believe I posted this earlier.
Tabak’s Renault Megane was seized and tiny smears of blood – belonging to Jo – were found in the boot.
https://stories.swns.com/news/jo-yeates-strangled-by-cold-and-calculated-vincent-tabak-21328/
Many thanks.
So, you are believing media reports now?
-
Nobody on their own moves a body that easily. There would have been some forensic evidence of some sort in his flat, if not blood, had he moved her in there.
Has it been confirmed that there was a bag(supposed to be a cycle bag) missing?
Have you tried mrswah. All the things you say can't have happened did and someone did it. Your argument holds no weight whatsoever
-
Do you think that, perhaps, they did know each other?
Well we are relying on Mr Placid to tell the whole truth to save himself aren't we. Yet only selective bits you believe
-
Even if they did, what would her blood be doing in his boot?
if they had known each other, it might seem more feasible to me that he killed her, that's all!
-
Many thanks.
So, you are believing media reports now?
If you see my post to Nine I was asking where she got the info that it was a blood drop... I then asked her if it was from news reports before saying that I had read about smears... I was therefore making the point that there were different versions in the news reports. I never once said I believed them Mrswah...
-
if they had known each other, it might seem more feasible to me that he killed her, that's all!
Why, have you never heard of a case where a person has killed a complete stranger?
-
Well we are replying on Mr Placid to tell the whole truth to save himself aren't we. Yet only selective bits you believe
Don't understand your answer, Jixy. I was asking a straightforward question.
-
Nobody on their own moves a body that easily. There would have been some forensic evidence of some sort in his flat, if not blood, had he moved her in there.
Has it been confirmed that there was a bag(supposed to be a cycle bag) missing?
Only person to confirm it in any way is Dr Vincent Tabak.... But come to think of it it could have been Clegg....
This Case has such Wide Gaps, it's like "Moses parting of the Red Sea".... What happened to all the fish.... They decided to be helpful that day and all moved along in an orderly fashion...!! Those of you with fins move to the left.... Those moluccas move to the right.... you crabs hurry up and decide what day of the week we are on and whether you turn left or right!!
-
Why, have you never heard of a case where a person has killed a complete stranger?
Of course I have, but they usually have had some kind of "form", or have killed more than one------but I concede that you probably know more than I do on this score,
-
Only person to confirm it in any way is Dr Vincent Tabak.... But come to think of it it could have been Clegg....
This Case has such Wide Gaps, it's like "Moses parting of the Red Sea".... What happened to all the fish.... They decided to be helpful that day and all moved along in an orderly fashion...!! Those of you with fins move to the left.... Those moluccas move to the right.... you crabs hurry up and decide what day of the week we are on and whether you turn left or right!!
I see no gaps, having sat in on numerous trials, and studied law - I see a case perfectly presented before a jury.
-
If Tabak had wanted to kill a complete stranger, why on earth choose the girl next door? he would obviously become a suspect at some stage.
-
Ask Stefan Kizco's mother how funny she thought it that her son was imprisoned for pleading guilty to killing Leslie Molseed....
Ask Leslie Molseed Family if they thought it funny an Innocent man has spent all those years in prison, whilst the real killer walked free...
Oh are we now saying that Tabak had the same issues as Stefan? that the very intelligent head hunted man that has been proven?
What a low call
But then you keep telling us all these 'facts' that prove Tabak hasnt killed someone...what are they again?
-
if they had known each other, it might seem more feasible to me that he killed her, that's all!
And we are taking the word of a killer if he did or didnt know her? hmmm
-
Of course I have, but they usually have had some kind of "form", or have killed more than one------but I concede that you probably know more than I do on this score,
I have seen numerous cases where murder was their first offence...
-
I see no gaps, having sat in on numerous trials, and studied law - I see a case perfectly presented before a jury.
It may be perfectly be presented... But is the correct person being tried for Murder..... I am more than positive there are many perfectly presented cases.... But has all the evidence been disclosed!!
-
If Tabak had wanted to kill a complete stranger, why on earth choose the girl next door? he would obviously become a suspect at some stage.
This is probably why he moved the body away from the scene.
-
Only person to confirm it in any way is Dr Vincent Tabak.... But come to think of it it could have been Clegg....
This Case has such Wide Gaps, it's like "Moses parting of the Red Sea".... What happened to all the fish.... They decided to be helpful that day and all moved along in an orderly fashion...!! Those of you with fins move to the left.... Those moluccas move to the right.... you crabs hurry up and decide what day of the week we are on and whether you turn left or right!!
Only in your head! for a man who googled manslaughter/murder he came up with the best he could. You dont like it? tough? deal with it
-
It may be perfectly be presented... But is the correct person being tried for Murder..... I am more than positive there are many perfectly presented cases.... But has all the evidence been disclosed!!
Based on the evidence - yes, I believe it was the correct person who was tried.
-
If Tabak had wanted to kill a complete stranger, why on earth choose the girl next door? he would obviously become a suspect at some stage.
Yes... Why didn't he find a victim whilst he had gone out taking pictures of dirty snow!! Plenty of pretty girls milling about attending parties... going outside a property, to smoke a cigarette on their own.. Or walking on their own between one area or another!
-
Of course I have, but they usually have had some kind of "form", or have killed more than one------but I concede that you probably know more than I do on this score,
No they dont. As i posted earlier I worked with a woman who did that very thing. No minor offences not in care from 12 etc all the key pointers for a life of crime!
-
And we are taking the word of a killer if he did or didnt know her? hmmm
No, I simply asked Justsaying if he thought they might have known each other. There has been talk of them having known each other through work, but this has never been confirmed.
-
Based on the evidence - yes, I believe it was the correct person who was tried.
But you are basing that on a plea and a jigsaw that doesn't fit....
-
Yes... Why didn't he find a victim whilst he had gone out taking pictures of dirty snow!! Plenty of pretty girls milling about attending parties... going outside a property, to smoke a cigarette on their own.. Or walking on their own between one area or another!
if that is the level of your argument you cant have much faith in Mr Placid can you
-
Only in your head! for a man who googled manslaughter/murder he came up with the best he could. You dont like it? tough? deal with it
He also searched the definition of sexual assault - I wonder why he did this. *%87
-
He also searched the definition of sexual assault - I wonder why he did this. *%87
In which context and in what relation to what??
-
if that is the level or your argument you cant have much faith in Mr Placid can you
He was an opportunist - he saw an opportunity and he took it. Moved the body away from the scene hoping it would not come back to him - failed miserably!
-
I have seen numerous cases where murder was their first offence...
of course there have been. They chose to ignore it because it doesnt help Tabak
-
In which context and in what relation to what??
In the context of the definition of sexual assault - pretty weird search on a number of basis' Why would such a placid man be googling the definition of sexual assault, coupled with the difference between murder and manslaughter and body decomposition, right at the time his neighbour had been murdered. More bad luck?
-
But you are basing that on a plea and a jigsaw that doesn't fit....
oh it fits and his silence sealed it all together forever...
-
He also searched the definition of sexual assault - I wonder why he did this. *%87
He didnt ...dont be daft, its all a fix a con a set up. How many things were put in place even by the victim so he could go to court get himself a life sentence and serve it out quietly...they all did good 8@??)(
-
In which context and in what relation to what??
is there a normal and acceptable reason to search that? guess there must be in your world. strange timing eh
-
He was an opportunist - he saw an opportunity and he took it. Moved the body away from the scene hoping it would not come back to him - failed miserably!
Stranger Crime, mainly = Kill victim and leave in situ
Stranger Crime = Walk, victim to scene of crime then kill
Know to victim = killed at home location probably
Known to victim = Move victim away from home , distance oneself from crime and victim.. clean crime scene
Known to Victim = Drag victim
Known to Victim = dismember victim for easier transportation
Know to victim = heavy.. two people at least move body...
-
He didnt ...dont be daft, its all a fix a con a set up. How many things were put in place even by the victim so he could go to court get himself a life sentence and serve it out quietly...they all did good 8@??)(
Whoever the person was who killed Joanna and set up the placid Tabak, did a damn good job @)(++(*
-
In the context of the definition of sexual assault - pretty weird search on a number of basis' Why would such a placid man be googling the definition of sexual assault, coupled with the difference between murder and manslaughter and body decomposition, right at the time his neighbour had been murdered. More bad luck?
Have you seen my searches lately ?? @)(++(*
-
Have you seen my searches lately ?? @)(++(*
We dread to think but knowing what i do nothing would surprise me
-
Maybe the person who killed Joanna Yeates was really angry with her... ?
-
Stranger Crime, mainly = Kill victim and leave in situ
Stranger Crime = Walk, victim to scene of crime then kill
Know to victim = killed at home location probably
Known to victim = Move victim away from home , distance oneself from crime and victim.. clean crime scene
Known to Victim = Drag victim
Known to Victim = dismember victim for easier transportation
Know to victim = heavy.. two people at least move body...
*&^^&
Where do you get this rubbish? There are people in prison right now who managed to move a body perfectly well on their own!
Neighbour crime = move body as far as you can to stop suspicion falling on you!
-
Have you tried mrswah. All the things you say can't have happened did and someone did it. Your argument holds no weight whatsoever
No, Jixy! I can't say I have ever tried to move a dead body-----fortunately for me.
-
*&^^&
Where do you get this rubbish? There are people in prison right now who managed to move a body perfectly well on their own!
Same place that the rubbish told on the stand came from...... Off the top of someone head!!!
-
Same place that the rubbish told on the stand came from...... Off the top of someone head!!!
Well you are wrong Nine, seriously you are very wrong about your theories of murderers...
-
Well you are wrong Nine, seriously you are very wrong about your theories of murderers...
She doesnt even understand a trial you have no chance with murderers
-
Well you are wrong Nine, seriously you are very wrong about your theories of murderers...
Ok... I'm wrong... In your eyes I am wrong... That is ok...... ?{)(**
-
She doesnt even understand a trial you have no chance with murderers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNEawM6vZf4
-
Ok... I'm wrong... In your eyes I am wrong... That is ok...... ?{)(**
You know nothing about the law, how a trial works and when someone says I did it then says sorry is connected to them being GUILTY you just post ramblings posts to convince yourself cos it doesnt convince anyone else
-
i for one dont care! what you say speaks volumes. You know when ppl add random facts for no reason, usually means only one thing. Shall i found you a link?
Link away....
-
You know nothing about the law, how a trial works and when someone says I did it then says sorry is connected to them being GUILTY you just post ramblings posts to convince yourself cos it doesnt convince anyone else
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNEawM6vZf4
-
Link away....
You are explaining yourself just fine. @)(++(*
-
Ok... I'm wrong... In your eyes I am wrong... That is ok...... ?{)(**
Not just in my eyes, in the eyes of every study there has ever been done in relation to murderers.
-
Not just in my eyes, in the eyes of every study there has ever been done in relation to murderers.
Having a working knowledge of the subject i totally agree
-
Not just in my eyes, in the eyes of every study there has ever been done in relation to murderers.
I will accept your superior knowledge...
-
Having a working knowledge of the subject i totally agree
And your superior knowledge also...
-
But my mind on what I believe will not be change as of yet....
-
And your superior knowledge also...
No Nine wrong again. just experience of dealing with things you still dont understand. Like a trial for starters, Ive been to trial, read cases, worked with offenders. Not superior just knowledge of which you are lacking. Maybe thats why you resort to silly comments
-
Rum ti tum ti tum ti tum... rum ti tum ti da da.....
-
No Nine wrong again. just experience of dealing with things you still dont understand. Like a trial for starters, Ive been to trial, read cases, worked with offenders. Not superior just knowledge of which you are lacking. Maybe thats why you resort to silly comments
@)(++(* Pot and Kettle springs to mind...
-
The Defence Will State Their Case... it was Manslaughter not murder. Not that he wasnt guilty because he didnt do it. The jury didnt believe it because it wasnt true. The end
-
@)(++(* Pot and Kettle springs to mind...
And which part of my post is not correct. You dont even know the correct use of there so no hope really is there
-
Shall i dumb it down then you feel more comfortable?
-
And your superior knowledge also...
It is not just my knowledge Nine - you could read up on it if you wanted.
-
Shall i dumb it down then you feel more comfortable?
I don't feel uncomfortable... confused on occasion... But thats different altogether...
-
The Defence Will State Their Case... it was Manslaughter not murder. Not that he wasnt guilty because he didnt do it. The jury didnt believe it because it wasnt true. The end
No... What was stated on the stand was a lie... I agree....
-
No... What was stated on the stand was a lie... I agree....
Yes what actually happened and how much Jo suffered was played down big time to get him a lesser sentence. failed though but nice try
-
Yes what actually happened and how much Jo suffered was played down big time to get him a lesser sentence. failed though but nice try
So what did in actual fact happen to Joanna Yeates... For her to sustain 43 injuries... to fight for her life??? We still haven't solved the issue of body fluids.....
-
But you are basing that on a plea and a jigsaw that doesn't fit....
No Nine, I am basing it on the evidence available - the evidence which also led a jury of his peers to think he was guilty too. The jigsaw may not fit to you, but to me the pieces have been glued.
-
So what did in actual fact happen to Joanna Yeates... For her to sustain 43 injuries... to fight for her life??? We still haven't solved the issue of body fluids.....
She could have only bled from her broken nose - this has been explained about a body not being able to bleed out after death...
It won't have gushed without a pulse...
-
No Nine, I am basing it on the evidence available - the evidence which also led a jury of his peers to think he was guilty too. The jigsaw may not fit to you, but to me the pieces have been glued.
But you are working from two Jigsaws and cutting bits of it so pieces will fit... (imo)
Then gluing them together so they don't fall apart...
-
She could have only bled from her broken nose - this has been explained about a body not being able to bleed out after death...
It won't have gushed without a pulse...
So someone broke her nose after they killed her.... what else happened to her after she was dead??
-
But you are working from two Jigsaws and cutting bits of it so pieces will fit... (imo)
unlike you who has all the wrong pieces to the jigsaw @)(++(*
-
But you are working from two Jigsaws and cutting bits of it so pieces will fit... (imo)
No I am not Nine, I am working from the evidence which was available at trial. I won't bother listing it again. One jigsaw, where ever piece slotted into place. It is you who is working from a totally different puzzle, which is based upon conspiracy theory, not fact.
-
So someone broke her nose after they killed her.... what else happened to her after she was dead??
Excuse me Nine - it was he who said she fell to the floor after he throttled the life out of her...
I can only imagine what else he did to her - he was not very forthcoming with the truth about what he did because he was trying to save his own skin!
-
No I am not Nine, I am working from the evidence which was available at trial. I won't bother listing it again. One jigsaw, where ever piece slotted into place. It is you who is working from a totally different puzzle, which is based upon conspiracy theory, not fact.
But now we know of Evidence that wasn't available at trial... Evidence that can even cast doubt on the day that Joanna Yeates was Murdered or at the very least transported... We have a live witness who saw Dr vincent Tabak on Canygne Road!!!...... CJ..... He tells us on video!!
-
But now we know of Evidence that wasn't available at trial... Evidence that can even cast doubt on the day that Joanna Yeates was Murdered or at the very least transported... We have a live witness who saw Dr vincent Tabak on Canygne Road!!!...... CJ..... He tells us on video!!
It is only evidence in your eyes. I see no other evidence which could have helped the issues of whether he was guilty of murder or manslaughter.
-
It is only evidence in your eyes.
Well it's about time it was evidence in someone elses eyes also....
-
But now we know of Evidence that wasn't available at trial... Evidence that can even cast doubt on the day that Joanna Yeates was Murdered or at the very least transported... We have a live witness who saw Dr vincent Tabak on Canygne Road!!!...... CJ..... He tells us on video!!
How many more times what CJ said or didnt saw or didnt see, it makes NO difference. Tabak killed her confessed explaining some of the story, the parts that he could use to show himself in the best light
-
But now we know of Evidence that wasn't available at trial... Evidence that can even cast doubt on the day that Joanna Yeates was Murdered or at the very least transported... We have a live witness who saw Dr vincent Tabak on Canygne Road!!!...... CJ..... He tells us on video!!
It does not matter what CJ saw him wearing - have you heard of washing machines?
-
How many more times what CJ said or didnt saw or didnt see, it makes NO difference. Tabak killed her confessed explaining some of the story, the parts that he could use to show himself in the best light
It might not matter to you but it matters to me.... A witness as I have explained whom could paint a clearer picture of events days and dates and times...
-
Well it's about time it was evidence in someone elses eyes also....
Why, just because you think it should be *&^^&
-
It might not matter to you but it matters to me.... A witness as I have explained whom could paint a clearer picture of events days and dates and times...
It really does not matter what matters to you in the grand scheme of things... They obviously thought it was not relevant to the issues at trial. Just because you think something should have happened does not mean that is the case - these people are professionals, they've been doing trials for years.
-
Makes no difference whatsoever
-
It does not matter what CJ saw him wearing - have you heard of washing machines?
Yes... David Yeates knows of them also... Pile of WASHING" I believe was in the has all sorted...
But the relevance of CJ seeing .. what clothes Dr Vincent Tabak when he met him on Canygne Road and whether or not Dr Vincent Tabak had different clothes on at ASDA is relevant... If Dr Vincent tabak washed those said clothes, that is surely more evidence of him trying to hide said Crime... A witness that can point the finger at him and he cannot deny it...
-
Going back to Moses.... That Dude was Black... he had hair like Sheeps wool... So why do white people insist on depicting the bible full of images of white people...??
See they are lying to themselves at the very beginning there.... (imo) Speaking as a white person myself ......
I think the description comes from the book of Samuel.... But don't quote me on that !!
Sadly you are doing the same regarding this case Nine
-
Yes... David Yeates knows of them also... Pile of WASHING" I believe was in the has all sorted...
But the relevance of CJ seeing .. what clothes Dr Vincent Tabak when he met him on Canygne Road and whether or not Dr Vincent Tabak had different clothes on at ASDA is relevant... If Dr Vincent tabak washed those said clothes, that is surely more evidence of him trying to hide said Crime... A witness that can point the finger at him and he cannot deny it...
It is not relevant, neither is her pile of washing - he could have had blood on his coat, it was a dark coat!
-
It really does not matter what matters to you in the grand scheme of things... They obviously thought it was not relevant to the issues at trial. Just because you think something should have happened does not mean that is the case - these people are professionals, they've been doing trials for years.
Well maybe they haven't been doing it right for years....
They used Joint Enterprise for years in the wrong capacity also.... Remember Jogee
-
It really does not matter what matters to you in the grand scheme of things... They obviously thought it was not relevant to the issues at trial. Just because you think something should have happened does not mean that is the case - these people are professionals, they've been doing trials for years.
They don't always get it right though. If they did, there would be no such thing as a miscarriage of justice.
-
They don't always get it right though. If they did, there would be no such thing as a miscarriage of justice.
They had evidence and a detailed confession. Not a miscarriage of justice in this case
-
Well maybe they haven't been doing it right for years....
They used Joint Enterprise for years in the wrong capacity also.... Remember Jogee
haha so all joint enterprise cases are wrong now too?
-
Well maybe they haven't been doing it right for years....
They used Joint Enterprise for years in the wrong capacity also.... Remember Jogee
Doing what wrong exactly?
-
They don't always get it right though. If they did, there would be no such thing as a miscarriage of justice.
I absolutely agree with this. However show me a case where someone has confessed then took the stand to give a detailed confession and had their conviction overturned on the basis it was false...
This was not a trial where they were trying to prove he killed her. This was a trial about culpability.
Also my comment has been taken out of context... I was referring to witnesses not being called, they should know what witnesses could help with the issues, that being murder or manslaughter
-
Do you agree the relevant day has to be Saturday 18th December 2010??
If not CJ has explained to us that Dr Vincent Tabak didn't lie or implicate his landlord when he stated that CJ's car had changed position..
From the video:
Vincent Tabak helped me move the car that morning, erm, becawse, there was snow on the drive, and I need some help, in the car being pushed up.. erm, the slight incline, from the parking area onto the main part of the drive,, so that I could get the car out
From The Leveson..
This was that one evening, which
might have been Friday 17 December 2010, as I was coming back from the gym at
about 9pm, I had parked my car on the road and was just walking through the gates of
the main driveway, when I became aware of what sounded like two or perhaps three
people leaving by the side gate on the other side of the house which I could not see as
there is a hedge hi between and it was dark, I duly telephoned the police and relayed
this.
CJ tells us in his own words that on that Dr Vincent Tabak helped him move the car that morning, that morning then being Saturday 18th December 2010
CJ then tell the Leveson that he parked hiis car on the road of Friday 17th December 2010
Proving that Dr Vincent Tabak's observation that CJ's car had changed position was indeed accurate...
Therefore he was not trying to implicate his Landlord... He was telling The Police what he had observed, and CJ has verified this...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg496437#msg496437
-
As far as I know from CJ's witness statement he has not referred to Dr Vincent Tabak , unless as i have suggested, Dr Vincent Tabak was one of 2/3 people at small gate...
Omitting an important detail, from his Leveson statement , as we are aware he did in fact talk to Dr Vincent Tabak that evening....
And thats the problem with this case.... So much evidence has been omitted....!!
Heres a thought......
If CJ has become a core participant at the Leveson by August 2011, how did he know for a fact that he wouldn't be called as a witness, knowing what we do know, that he puts himself on Canygne Road talking to Dr Vincent Tabak on the night in question...
Dr Vincent Tabak could have retracted his plea at anytime.... And the enhanced statements that leonora has spoken about, would not have been signed by that time...
Making CJ a possible witness to A murder trial.... How does that one work??
-
They had evidence and a detailed confession. Not a miscarriage of justice in this case
Why?? When there is evidence that could change the course of this case... When CJ has told us he spoke to Dr Vincent Tabak on what may have been Saturday 18th December 2010... Or Friday 17th December 2010, putting Dr Vincent Tabak on Canygne Road at a particular time and day....
Here's a thought....
I have gone on about this detail that CJ has stated on video about him meeting Dr Vincent tabak on the night in question, where there was a dusting of snow on the ground, and the conversation that CJ had with Dr Vincent Tabak.... I have suggested that 2/3 people may have had Dr Vincent Tabak included amongst them...
We do not know what was contained between the pages of CJ' two witness statements.... Did CJ even tell the Police in either of his two statements that he had seen Dr Vincent Tabak on Canygne Road and had conversed with him that evening?? Or is it only known since he made the program, explaining this to us??
Otherwise I cannot understand why either The Prosecution or The Defence would have not called this important witness..
Therefore how would this piece of evidence be looked at ??
That detail seems to have been omitted from his Leveson Inquiry statement also...
-
how many more times do you need to have it explained to you?????? you are fixated on CJ
-
how many more times do you need to have it explained to you?????? you are fixated on CJ
I'll come back to that...
-
CJ.... Gives Dr Vincent Tabak Good Character Reference
CJ on Video Describing Dr Vincent Tabak: 7:16
He... erm... was a slightly stiff person I think, in manner, but that came over as a kind of rather a formal politeness, he was always extremely polite, gave the impression of being , a very civilised person, erm.. usually went out of his way, to greet you if he saw you..
I thought I would post this seeing as no-one gave Dr Vincent Tabak a Good Character Reference...
CJ, Dr Vincent Tabak's Landlord, whom i would say knew him reasonably well.... He certainly knew him better than Geoff Hardyman, who's defence statement was only any use to "Bernard" The cat, but I am more than positive, "Bernard didn't take the stand....
I have been trying to show where I believe the defence failed their client, Where there is evidence clearly available, from a live witness that is a household name now.... A live witness, who cannot only put himself on Canygne Road on the night in question, but has told us of how he conversed with Dr Vincent Tabak that evening....
A live witness who describes an encounter with Dr Vincent tabak, as he was leaving for the gym that evening, A live witness, who could clarify If Dr Vincent Tabak was one of the 2/3 people at the gate..
A Live witness, who can tell us what attire Dr Vincent Tabak could have been wearing that evening, A live witness that, saw the dusting of snow on the ground....
Now CJ, considering his vilification in the press, must be a brave man.... knowing how bad publicity, can scare away potential witness's has kindly done his bit for Dr Vincent Tabak, not only through adversity, has this man courageously put us straight on some of the events for that evening, he provides us with a 'good Character" reference to boot....
CJ, description of Dr Vincent Tabak, gels with that of DCI Phil Jones, whom described Dr Vincent Tabak as a very Placid Individual to deal with....
CJ, whom has not been bullied or persuaded by the vilification of Dr Vincent Tabak after the trial, feels strong enough about his former tenant, that he has shared with us, his honest opinion, of Dr Vincent Tabak's Character..
Something might I add, that was never allowed, or appeared , to be allowed in court.... CJ... Has put his head above water, and kindly furnished us with many details, and I am sure, if CJ was interviewed, there would be many more details he could tell us if asked....
Dr Vincent Tabak is not only Placid, but very civilised, according to two witness's who's credentials, we can not fail to be impressed by... Firstly DCI Phil Jones, the SOI, of the Investigation into the Murder of Joanna Yeates, again a man whom had every reason to describe Dr Vincent Tabak in an unsavoury light, yet chose, to divulge his thoughts about Dr Vincent Tabak, by describing Dr Vincent Tabak as Placid....
And CJ..... who could forget CJ.... The Landlord who's life has been turned upside down by the events that lead to Joanna Yeates Murder... A Christian and upstanding man, whom has had the public and media behind him, supporting him in every way, since his release from custody, and we have been privy to his torment, we have been allowed to get a glimps of he 3 day ordeal, where he shares with us his treatment at the hands of the media, and his utter shock at being incarcerated, for a crime he did not commit....
Would words like ... Placid.... formal politeness, always extremely polite, civilised person, heard by the jury whilst said trial was taking place, have changed the jury decision?? Would the jury have viewed Dr Vincent Tabak in a different light, if these two witness's were called to give their opinion of Dr Vincent Tabak??
2 men... not mice... whom have standing in the community, who's opinion surely would have resonated with the jury... 2 men whom, hand on heart could have given us a clearer indication as to Dr Vincent Tabak's character....
Yet they did not take the stand... They maybe had no control over that... But they have been telling us for quite awhile, we just hadn't taken any notice....
If there was no medical reason , for Dr Vincent Tabak's apparent behaviour, And no evidence at trial to support Dr Vincent Tabak, being a crazy person, who deliberately strangled Joanna Yeates, no evidence presented proved it was a deliberate act, yet for a stange reason they found him guilty....
Does anyone believe if CJ and DCI Phil Jones had taken the stand that the outcome would have been very different??
Does anyone believe that if these witness were available Dr Vincent Tabak would not have told said tale on the stand..... I wonder, if the evidence of CJ and Dr Vincent Tabak's little conversation on Canygne Road that evening, could cast doubt to the story on the stand, that Dr Vincent Tabak provided us with, coupled with CJ, glowing Character Reference, would the jury in fact have doubted whether it was even possible for Dr Vincent Tabak to commit said Crime??
If we haven't really established the day, then how can the story on the stand be true, and the only reason I believe we haven't established a day, Is because CJ again has provided us with important information....
We were lead to believe that Dr Vincent Tabak had lied about CJ, we were lead to believe when the trip to Holland by DC Karen Thomas took place on the 31st December 2010, that the reason for said trip, was to establish what Dr Vincent Tabak had witnessed in relation to his landlords car changing position, that Landlord being CJ....
But... unfortunately the Police believed that Dr Vincent Tabak was lying, that Dr Vincent Tabak, was trying to deflect from himself, by trying to incriminate his Landlord....
But DC Karen Thomas is mistaken, that cannot be further from the truth.... CJ Dr Vincent Tabak's Landlord backs up, Dr Vincent Tabak's claim... He tells us in his own words that Dr Vincent Tabak's recollection is true and accurate..
He tell us that:
Vincent Tabak helped me move the car that morning, erm, becawse, there was snow on the drive, and I need some help, in the car being pushed up.. erm, the slight incline, from the parking area onto the main part of the drive,, so that I could get the car out
He further tells us that:
This was that one evening, which
might have been Friday 17 December 2010, as I was coming back from the gym at
about 9pm, I had parked my car on the road and was just walking through the gates of
the main driveway,
Clearly here CJ is telling the world that Dr Vincent Tabak was not mistaken, when he stated to the Police that CJ's car had changed position that evening as CJ has indicated by kindly informing us that his car was in it's car parking space on the Saturday morning of the 18th December 2010.... Now if DC Karen Thomas had interviewed CJ, surely CJ told her of her error...
Again The Jury do not get to hear this piece of Information, further adding to CJ Good Character reference of Dr Vincent Tabak....
So when it has been put on the law pages website which I have posted the information before, and that information tells us that Dr Vincent Tabak tried to implicate his Landlord, someone needs to correct them... I would have said it needs taking down but it appears it already has been....
So what have we understood from a quick arrest and trial... Were evidence was collected, were lines of Inquiry clearly failed to happen.... Who do we blame...??
Was it lack of disclosure?? Was it lack of funds on the polices side.... I am no-one, I keep saying, I do not have access, to the information many people have and had at the time, but if in my weird way... I can find a live witness for The Defence, what does that say about The investigation... Should that worry us??
I don't know... But we can only thank CJ, for his honest and true evaluation of Dr Vincent Tabak, we can only thank CJ for letting the world know that Dr Vincent Tabak did NOT try to implicate him in any way.... We can only thank CJ.. for his unfortunate arrest...
Because without that, no-one would know who he is... without Netflix, we cannot see the torment he faced, and with his fight against the media, he would not be a known person to this day... And no-one therefore would hang on to his ever word.... Looking at every syllable, that leaves his lips....
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg496437#msg496437
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.2325
-
Again what CJ did or didnt say that would have any bearing on Tabaks character really doesnt matter. He admitted killing Jo, there was evidence to back it up. This was not a trial where all evidence real or imagined would need to be made available!
-
Are we now saying polite people cant be murderers? charming psychopaths spring to mind. It can be possible and it is!
-
Again what CJ did or didnt say that would have any bearing on Tabaks character really doesnt matter. He admitted killing Jo, there was evidence to back it up. This was not a trial where all evidence real or imagined would need to be made available!
Here we go again.... Why are all the links I have used kept disappearing too?? Any idea.... I must admit that yesterdays link was rapid... And the video has now been pulled also...
I try to evidence my information, it doesn't help when the information keeps getting removed from different websites... I must admit The Law Pages website surprised me that the info had gone....
-
Would words like ... Placid.... formal politeness, always extremely polite, civilised person, heard by the jury whilst said trial was taking place, have changed the jury decision?? Would the jury have viewed Dr Vincent Tabak in a different light, if these two witness's were called to give their opinion of Dr Vincent Tabak??
A different opinion. The choice was clear, Manslaughter or Murder
AT NO POINT COULD THEY HAVE FOUND HIM NOT GUILTY
What is your problem understanding that?
-
Are we now saying polite people cant be murderers? charming psychopaths spring to mind. It can be possible and it is!
I am at a loss, If my efforts cannot get even you and JustSaying, to take an interest and question the Case That Is Dr Vincent Tabak, you two who have greater experience in this field, then I am on a hiding to nothing....
Maybe in time my efforts may be appreciated, but today I feel at a loss...
The removal of so many links since I started writing on here is astounding... Simple put... Its astounding that anyone would want to remove these links, considering you believe he got his just desserts....
Everyone except a few believe in Dr Vincent Tabaks utter guilt.... I don't... I never have....
So some of my posts are left without the source , I gathered the information from.... which is a shame... My quotes and links, evidenced my information.... And they have disappeared just like The Sock...
So the question has to be.... why is anyone so bothered what i write, if my posts come from my strange way of doing things....
Why do people care enough to remove the sources of my information....
If everyone is so happy that Dr Vincent Tabak did indeed kill Joanna Yeates, and he has been incarcerated for this crime.... Then why is a no-body like me going to bother anyone.... You say you have the right person for the crime.... My opinions therefore shouldn't count....
So you do not need to keep removing the links that I have used in my posts that evidence my posts to prove where I gained the source of my information.... Thank you
-
Would words like ... Placid.... formal politeness, always extremely polite, civilised person, heard by the jury whilst said trial was taking place, have changed the jury decision?? Would the jury have viewed Dr Vincent Tabak in a different light, if these two witness's were called to give their opinion of Dr Vincent Tabak??
A different opinion. The choice was clear, Manslaughter or Murder
AT NO POINT COULD THEY HAVE FOUND HIM NOT GUILTY
What is your problem understanding that?
AT NO POINT COULD THEY HAVE FOUND HIM NOT GUILTY
And thats the bit I find ridiculous....
-
AT NO POINT COULD THEY HAVE FOUND HIM NOT GUILTY
And thats the bit I find ridiculous....
So you find him ridiculous. He said it he meant it because HE DID IT. You seriously think during a trial where he had confessed and explained how and why (with prob variations to the truth) that he could ever get found not guilty? Really?
-
So you find him ridiculous. He said it he meant it because HE DID IT. You seriously think during a trial where he had confessed and explained how and why (with prob variations to the truth) that he could ever get found not guilty? Really?
So what was the point of the trial....
A trial I was under the stupid impression that the defendant had the PRESUMPTION of INNOCENCE at the start of a trial....
Not GUILTY before being proven even GUILTIER!!!
My mistake....
But I don't believe Dr Vincent Tabaks statement on the stand ,I do not believe he is guilty.... To make up my mind on said subject... Would require clear evidence supporting a claim or a plea.....
Thank you
-
So what was the point of the trial....
A trial I was under the stupid impression that the defendant had the PRESUMPTION of INNOCENCE at the start of a trial....
Not GUILTY before being proven even GUILTIER!!!
My mistake....
But I don't believe Dr Vincent Tabaks statement on the stand ,I do not believe he is guilty.... To make up my mind on said subject... Would require clear evidence supporting a claim or a plea.....
Thank you
Pkease tell me you arent actually serious? you have posted on here for the length of time you have and now you ask what was the point of THE trial
Yes when someone pleads not guilty they ARE presumed innocent til proven otherwise but when they plead Guilty they ARE GUILTY!
Do you expect the Judge and Jury to overrule what they are being told and decide to find him innocent?
-
Pkease tell me you arent actually serious? you have posted on here for the length of time you have and now you ask what was the point of THE trial
Yes when someone pleads not guilty they ARE presumed innocent til proven otherwise but when they plead Guilty they ARE GUILTY!
Do you expect the Judge and Jury to overrule what they are being told and decide to find him innocent?
Come on Jixy.... You know what I mean 8(8-))
I expect the judge to be furnished with the full facts, from the start.... Doesn't appear (imo) to have been that way.....
-
AS i said yesterday and many times before, each day court rooms are full of people pleading guilty . The same thing happens to them
Slightly different here because the decision was manslaughter or murder. There was never gonna be a not guilty
Think the plot got twisted for you over the months, this is bizarre!
-
AS i said yesterday and many times before, each day court rooms are full of people pleading guilty . The same thing happens to them
Slightly different here because the decision was manslaughter or murder. There was never gonna be a not guilty
Think the plot got twisted for you over the months, this is bizarre!
At least we agree on one thing... This is Bizarre !
-
Come on Jixy.... You know what I mean 8(8-))
I expect the judge to be furnished with the full facts, from the start.... Doesn't appear (imo) to have been that way.....
Actually no i dont. Not sure you know what you mean anymore either
-
CJ.... Gives Dr Vincent Tabak Good Character Reference
CJ on Video Describing Dr Vincent Tabak: 7:16
I thought I would post this seeing as no-one gave Dr Vincent Tabak a Good Character Reference...
CJ, Dr Vincent Tabak's Landlord, whom i would say knew him reasonably well.... He certainly knew him better than Geoff Hardyman, who's defence statement was only any use to "Bernard" The cat, but I am more than positive, "Bernard didn't take the stand....
I have been trying to show where I believe the defence failed their client, Where there is evidence clearly available, from a live witness that is a household name now.... A live witness, who cannot only put himself on Canygne Road on the night in question, but has told us of how he conversed with Dr Vincent Tabak that evening....
A live witness who describes an encounter with Dr Vincent tabak, as he was leaving for the gym that evening, A live witness, who could clarify If Dr Vincent Tabak was one of the 2/3 people at the gate..
A Live witness, who can tell us what attire Dr Vincent Tabak could have been wearing that evening, A live witness that, saw the dusting of snow on the ground....
Now CJ, considering his vilification in the press, must be a brave man.... knowing how bad publicity, can scare away potential witness's has kindly done his bit for Dr Vincent Tabak, not only through adversity, has this man courageously put us straight on some of the events for that evening, he provides us with a 'good Character" reference to boot....
CJ, description of Dr Vincent Tabak, gels with that of DCI Phil Jones, whom described Dr Vincent Tabak as a very Placid Individual to deal with....
CJ, whom has not been bullied or persuaded by the vilification of Dr Vincent Tabak after the trial, feels strong enough about his former tenant, that he has shared with us, his honest opinion, of Dr Vincent Tabak's Character..
Something might I add, that was never allowed, or appeared , to be allowed in court.... CJ... Has put his head above water, and kindly furnished us with many details, and I am sure, if CJ was interviewed, there would be many more details he could tell us if asked....
Dr Vincent Tabak is not only Placid, but very civilised, according to two witness's who's credentials, we can not fail to be impressed by... Firstly DCI Phil Jones, the SOI, of the Investigation into the Murder of Joanna Yeates, again a man whom had every reason to describe Dr Vincent Tabak in an unsavoury light, yet chose, to divulge his thoughts about Dr Vincent Tabak, by describing Dr Vincent Tabak as Placid....
And CJ..... who could forget CJ.... The Landlord who's life has been turned upside down by the events that lead to Joanna Yeates Murder... A Christian and upstanding man, whom has had the public and media behind him, supporting him in every way, since his release from custody, and we have been privy to his torment, we have been allowed to get a glimps of he 3 day ordeal, where he shares with us his treatment at the hands of the media, and his utter shock at being incarcerated, for a crime he did not commit....
Would words like ... Placid.... formal politeness, always extremely polite, civilised person, heard by the jury whilst said trial was taking place, have changed the jury decision?? Would the jury have viewed Dr Vincent Tabak in a different light, if these two witness's were called to give their opinion of Dr Vincent Tabak??
2 men... not mice... whom have standing in the community, who's opinion surely would have resonated with the jury... 2 men whom, hand on heart could have given us a clearer indication as to Dr Vincent Tabak's character....
Yet they did not take the stand... They maybe had no control over that... But they have been telling us for quite awhile, we just hadn't taken any notice....
If there was no medical reason , for Dr Vincent Tabak's apparent behaviour, And no evidence at trial to support Dr Vincent Tabak, being a crazy person, who deliberately strangled Joanna Yeates, no evidence presented proved it was a deliberate act, yet for a stange reason they found him guilty....
Does anyone believe if CJ and DCI Phil Jones had taken the stand that the outcome would have been very different??
Does anyone believe that if these witness were available Dr Vincent Tabak would not have told said tale on the stand..... I wonder, if the evidence of CJ and Dr Vincent Tabak's little conversation on Canygne Road that evening, could cast doubt to the story on the stand, that Dr Vincent Tabak provided us with, coupled with CJ, glowing Character Reference, would the jury in fact have doubted whether it was even possible for Dr Vincent Tabak to commit said Crime??
If we haven't really established the day, then how can the story on the stand be true, and the only reason I believe we haven't established a day, Is because CJ again has provided us with important information....
We were lead to believe that Dr Vincent Tabak had lied about CJ, we were lead to believe when the trip to Holland by DC Karen Thomas took place on the 31st December 2010, that the reason for said trip, was to establish what Dr Vincent Tabak had witnessed in relation to his landlords car changing position, that Landlord being CJ....
But... unfortunately the Police believed that Dr Vincent Tabak was lying, that Dr Vincent Tabak, was trying to deflect from himself, by trying to incriminate his Landlord....
But DC Karen Thomas is mistaken, that cannot be further from the truth.... CJ Dr Vincent Tabak's Landlord backs up, Dr Vincent Tabak's claim... He tells us in his own words that Dr Vincent Tabak's recollection is true and accurate..
He tell us that:
Vincent Tabak helped me move the car that morning, erm, becawse, there was snow on the drive, and I need some help, in the car being pushed up.. erm, the slight incline, from the parking area onto the main part of the drive,, so that I could get the car out
He further tells us that:
This was that one evening, which
might have been Friday 17 December 2010, as I was coming back from the gym at
about 9pm, I had parked my car on the road and was just walking through the gates of
the main driveway,
Clearly here CJ is telling the world that Dr Vincent Tabak was not mistaken, when he stated to the Police that CJ's car had changed position that evening as CJ has indicated by kindly informing us that his car was in it's car parking space on the Saturday morning of the 18th December 2010.... Now if DC Karen Thomas had interviewed CJ, surely CJ told her of her error...
Again The Jury do not get to hear this piece of Information, further adding to CJ Good Character reference of Dr Vincent Tabak....
So when it has been put on the law pages website which I have posted the information before, and that information tells us that Dr Vincent Tabak tried to implicate his Landlord, someone needs to correct them... I would have said it needs taking down but it appears it already has been....
So what have we understood from a quick arrest and trial... Were evidence was collected, were lines of Inquiry clearly failed to happen.... Who do we blame...??
Was it lack of disclosure?? Was it lack of funds on the polices side.... I am no-one, I keep saying, I do not have access, to the information many people have and had at the time, but if in my weird way... I can find a live witness for The Defence, what does that say about The investigation... Should that worry us??
I don't know... But we can only thank CJ, for his honest and true evaluation of Dr Vincent Tabak, we can only thank CJ for letting the world know that Dr Vincent Tabak did NOT try to implicate him in any way.... We can only thank CJ.. for his unfortunate arrest...
Because without that, no-one would know who he is... without Netflix, we cannot see the torment he faced, and with his fight against the media, he would not be a known person to this day... And no-one therefore would hang on to his ever word.... Looking at every syllable, that leaves his lips....
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg496437#msg496437
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.2325
Tabak was not forthcoming with the police when he told them about the car moving, he literally told them the car had moved, not that he helped move it, massive difference
-
What do Internet searches say the differences are of a not guilty and guilty plea to manslaughter?
What did a search say on this Nine?
-
Maybe in time my efforts may be appreciated, but today I feel at a loss...
So the question has to be.... why is anyone so bothered what i write, if my posts come from my strange way of doing things....
Why do you feel in time your efforts may be appreciated? And to what efforts do you refer?
You appear to be ignoring facts which have been pointed out to you numerous times?
VT pleaded guilty to manslaughter therefore there wasn't an option of Not guilty.
He admitted his guilt to killing JY.
Why are you refusing to take this fact on board?
-
So what was the point of the trial....
A trial I was under the stupid impression that the defendant had the PRESUMPTION of INNOCENCE at the start of a trial....
Not GUILTY before being proven even GUILTIER!!!
My mistake....
But I don't believe Dr Vincent Tabaks statement on the stand ,I do not believe he is guilty.... To make up my mind on said subject... Would require clear evidence supporting a claim or a plea.....
Thank you
Why when he had pleaded guilty to manslaughter? He told the court he wasn't innocent to the crime. Therfore innocence wasn't an option.
I suspect the reason you don't believe him to be guilty is because it means you will see it as "all your efforts" have been "wasted" therefore the easiest option for you is denial?
You have been cherry picking evidence to suit your theory and when you ask a question on the board and are given the answer you choose to ignore it and instead ask the same question over and over.
-
Tabak was not forthcoming with the police when he told them about the car moving, he literally told them the car had moved, not that he helped move it, massive difference
It is a massive difference I agree... Could you tell me how you know that he only said the car had moved, and nothing else???
-
My mistake, It appears that The law Pages haven't removed said page... have relocated it
https://www.thelawpages.com/court-cases/Vincent-Tabak-7570-1.law
-
It is a massive difference I agree... Could you tell me how you know that he only said the car had moved, and nothing else???
Why are you doing this to yourself Nine?
Why are you digging yourself deeper into denial?
-
It is a massive difference I agree... Could you tell me how you know that he only said the car had moved, and nothing else???
He pleaded guilty to JY 's murder!
Sadly you probably won't get all the answers you seek.
-
My mistake, It appears that The law Pages haven't removed said page... have relocated it
https://www.thelawpages.com/court-cases/Vincent-Tabak-7570-1.law
Having read that link for the first time, it fully explains how they came to the conclusion the murder was sexually motivated.
It all must have been on his mind quite a lot of the time if he even had to use his work computer to access it. Quite brazen too
-
He pleaded guilty to JY 's murder!
Sadly you probably won't get all the answers you seek.
Thats been obvious from the start...
-
Having read that link for the first time, it fully explains how they came to the conclusion the murder was sexually motivated.
It all must have been on his mind quite a lot of the time if he even had to use his work computer to access it. Quite brazen too
How exactly... Because a judge decided that the evidence that wasn't presented at trial, proved it was a sexually motivated assault??
-
From your posts you seem to have failed to grasp the concept of him pleading guilty and how a trial would work from that. You have posted many examples that you dont understand it!
Right he has looked at porn and included in that is holding a womans neck and being tied up in the boot of a car
She had her neck held, she died and was put in the boot of the car, with blood to prove it
What the sexual element to those scenarios was, we cannot debate because we havent seen the porn he was so keen to look at both at home and work. He was classed as dangerous, which is fully understandable
How do you know how much attention he gave Jo up to that night?
-
How exactly... Because a judge decided that the evidence that wasn't presented at trial, proved it was a sexually motivated assault??
The answer to your question is in the link YOU posted
-
My mistake, It appears that The law Pages haven't removed said page... have relocated it
https://www.thelawpages.com/court-cases/Vincent-Tabak-7570-1.law
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/in-excess/201308/thrilling-killing-and-the-disgust-lust
-
Thats been obvious from the start...
Your numerous Freudian slips suggest subconsciously you know Tabak is guilty IMO.
-
8@??)(
-
From your posts you seem to have failed to grasp the concept of him pleading guilty and how a trial would work from that. You have posted many examples that you dont understand it!
Right he has looked at porn and included in that is holding a womans neck and being tied up in the boot of a car
She had her neck held, she died and was put in the boot of the car, with blood to prove it
What the sexual element to those scenarios was, we cannot debate because we havent seen the porn he was so keen to look at both at home and work. He was classed as dangerous, which is fully understandable
How do you know how much attention he gave Jo up to that night?
It appears to be a defence mechanism?
"Denial is a defence mechanism in which a person, faced with a painful fact, rejects the reality of that fact. They will insist that the fact is not true despite what may be overwhelming and irrefutable evidence."
-
It must be.
There is a lot of cherry picking certain words and making whole new scenarios out of them.
The link Nine posted highlights again, how Tabak was actually treated far more fairly than Nine will ever admit. The porn stuff wasnt brought to court, Nine sees that as there not being one. It wasnt - purely because it could not prove that the offence was premeditated
I think that is someone being fairly treated myself
Same as the time he was on suicide watch. That is always referred to as another method to break him when anyone else would see care and concern
Very strange indeed!
-
After Dr Vincent Tabak was arrested, there were many questions people had be speculating about hoping for the answers to come out at trial... I being one of them..
One of the major issues I had with the trial and what also started me to really question Dr Vincent Tabak guilt was the distain the defence Counsel had for their own client.. It concerned me greatly..
How can they influence a jury as to the guilt of their own client rather than show mitigating circumstances as to why it was a Manslaughter plea Or Object at the many discrepencies that the prosecutions case posed.
There are many examples of the lack of Defending the Defence council did (IMO) below are some of the comments...
1: his conduct after Yeates died when he hid the body was “frankly disgusting” and had caused untold anguish and agony to her family.
2: “I’m not going to ask you to like Vincent Tabak. There’s probably nothing to like.” He could have referred to his client as a psychopath
3: And Miss Morson seems to agree, having failed to make a single appearance at court.
4: He had told “lie after lie to the police. He could have referred to his client as a pathological liar
5: “did everything he could to cover his tracks”. He could have stated his client was cunning and deceptive
6: He added that he would not try to justify Tabak’s actions after her death, saying his client was “living a lie” by attending dinner parties and attempting to carry on his life as normal. He could have said his client appeared to be without a conscience
7: “I’m not going to ask you to have any sympathy for him. He deserves none. He could have referred to his client as evil
8: “I’m not going to ask you to excuse his conduct. There can be no excuse.
9: “If I was to set out to win a popularity contest I would lose.
10: He told the court: “Of course, afterwards his behaviour is utterly disgraceful. It’s not going to be justified by me
With comments like these who needs enemies???? (IMO)
1810
VT put forward his own "mitigating circumstances" when he took the stand, the jury didn't believe him!
It seems his defending council did the best he could do given his clients guilty plea to manslaughter.
-
Just answering a couple of Nine's questions...
It is a massive difference I agree... Could you tell me how you know that he only said the car had moved, and nothing else???
"During the investigation he had told investigators that his landlords (Volvo) vehicle had moved during the night of the murder..."
https://www.thelawpages.com/court-cases/Vincent-Tabak-7570-1.law
No mention of him claiming to have helped the landlord. If he had phoned police to tell them he had helped move the car what use would that have been? He would have clearly been giving the landlord an alibi for why the car was moved. He clearly left out that crucial part...
How exactly... Because a judge decided that the evidence that wasn't presented at trial, proved it was a sexually motivated assault??
“The judge agreed with defence counsel that disclosure of his internet use following his victim's death was not proof that the crime was premeditated...”
https://www.thelawpages.com/court-cases/Vincent-Tabak-7570-1.law
For the judge not being very fair, it seemed he was more than fair here. Just because he did not allow the jury to hear this evidence does not mean he could not use it during his sentencing to suggest the crime was of a sexual nature – it was an aggravating factor.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/explanatory-material/item/aggravating-and-mitigating-factors/
-
The posts today make the case very clear against Tabak. Some of the points havent been mentioned before and I guess that they just add to the list that confirms his guilt
-
My mistake, It appears that The law Pages haven't removed said page... have relocated it
https://www.thelawpages.com/court-cases/Vincent-Tabak-7570-1.law
I am still confused as to how you posted this link as a positive ? the only positive is confirmation of a fair trial
-
I am still confused as to how you posted this link as a positive ? the only positive is confirmation of a fair trial
I agree, it proves the judge was very fair when considering the case for Tabak.
-
Some people see what they want to see. I cannot read that and take away that the murder was not sexually motivated. It is an explanation as to why it wasnt used end of.
-
The video: Countdown to Murder :4:00
David Yeates:
He took away Jo's primary human right... How can you forgive somebody for that... I do not understand
I've been trying to find the clip where Therea Yeates says a similar comment, of: "How can you forgive someone".. I clearly remember seeing the interview and have spent the last hour, skimming the video's available....
But............ They made me think of something entirely differently... These programs were supposed to be made "AFTER" the trial... They are all a rehash of each other virtually... The dates of release may change, but the content and interviews are the same...
I keep going on about how the media haven't said anything after trial... I had believed that the media had been gagged... If I stay with my belief, ....Then we have a problem 'Huston'..........
Maybe I should forgive the media.... I have been frustrated at the fact that they won't speak... I have been frustrated at the fact that nothing changes..... Yes we have had 'The Lost Honour of CJ' since, but that really doesn't talk about Jonna Yeates at all.... It is all about CJ.... made after the trial..
I couldn't understand why CJ in this story never talks of Vincent Tabak... we have a couple of scenes with Vincent Tabak in, but nothing of The Yeates or anything else....
I could be getting this wrong, but I am not sure...
The person really whim stood out in the documentaries is in fact Ann Reddrop..... Now we know that no-one from the judicary have spoken at all upon this case since the trial.... The are zipped lips...
So my confusion of Ann's appearance makes it an even more interesting venture....
Is this the Eureka moment..... I don't know....
In my mind these programs have had to have been filmed before the trial..... with the exception of "The Lost Honour of CJ'....
Now I am not pointing fingers, but am going with what should be a logical conclusion.... based on the belief that the media and all laywers etc, have stayed silent since the trial of Vincent Tabak... The information in the media never changes... It repeats what happened at the time...
We have I will say , the narrative, we had a trial tweeted and articles written at trial, we have a program that generally when anyone refers to Vincent Tabak, especially The Yeates they refer to him as he....
I had mentioned this the other day, and thought that Tanja's name had never been mentioned, but the Yeates, but I was mistaken, there is at one time David Yeates mentions Tanja..
Murder at Christmas Part 1: at 13:49 (published 24th November 2011)
I noticed these foot prints going diagonally across the lawn.. and I wondered where these came from, and I saw these two people, a shorter person and a taller person,walking along the same path, ah.. they must be the ones who caused it.. As I was going to the flat, they stopped, the smaller person was Tanja and she asked if she could help, and the man stood well back from things, didn't say anything
So I was mistaken and Tanja was mentioned, but Vincent Tabak wasn't, he is described as the man!
Don't get me wrong, I'm trying to fatham this... Why mention Tanja?? why has David Yeates got a clear memory of Tanja and mentions her by name, yet cannot remember Dr Vincent Tabaks name, describing him as 'The man'... Did the Yeates know Tanja?? I don't know but it gives ME the impression that they did..
Anyway back to the programs... When were they made?? when were these programs filmed?? We have different dates, yet they all seem to have been recorded around the same time, the same people are in these programs wearing the same clothing and sitting in the same enviroment...
This is were it bugs me.... i have DCI Phil jones.... I have Ann Reddrop... I have the Yeates and I have CJ..... All of thes e people who ordinarily I shouldn't question... but I do... I don't get it....
If as I believe we have a gagging order on the media, and the lawyers don't speak, I can only come to the conclusion that this was made before or during trial....
But Ann Redropp how and why has she got time during a trial to be making programs?? She can't... (imo)
Killers: at 15:27 ( published 27th April 2013)
He went back to work on the Monday, he was talking to people about the disappearance of his neighbour, as already arranged he and Tanja had travelled up country to Cambridge to have Christmas with her parents, and then travelled across to Holland... To have New year with family and friends out there.
The same interview with The Yeates is used in many of these programs... The details are the same,
I cannot get my head around Ann Reddrop appearing on these programs.... Why?? Why would she... The details she divulges are what was going on at trial, but If I believe that the media and everyone stayed silent after the trial, how do I interpret that??
We get roughly a story of events on these programs, and a program i pointed out the other day that was way off the mark... I'm trying to work this out... Clegg has said nothing about this case since trial, in fact I have critised him for it... But if he is not allowed to talk about the case as I have suggested that there is an issue with this... Then do I view Ann's appearance on these programs with suspicion??
In my mind I am thinking what came first the chicken or the egg, or in this case the program then the trial....
Ann's interview for both programs is the same interview, 'Murder at Christmas 'is published 24th November 2011 a few weeks after trial....
Killers: 16:19.. Ann Reddrop
Vincent Tabak was spoken to for the first time by the Police, as a result of that call, when they came round to take details, treating it as it was at that time a Missing person's Inquiry
What call is Ann referring too.... Who pointed the finger at Dr Vincent Tabak at that time, is this the evidence that the phone call she is referring too , the phone call of 'The Sobbing Girl"???
So this call is before the 25th December 2010... We know from Ann statement outside Bristol Crown Court and on The Cps website, that they had been looking at Dr Vincent Tabak since late December 2010.... Yet they arrested CJ... Ann her from her own lips, tells us they had a suspicion whilst Joanna Yeates was Missing, and that obviously prompted the Police speaking to him... We can now understand why DC Karen Thomas, keeps getting in contact with Dr Vincent Tabak, phoning him whilst he is away in Cambridge on the 23rd or 24th December 2010....
Joanna Yeates has supposed to have lain on Longwood Lane for 8 days,... A frequently used lane, by dog walkers , runners, cyclists, pedestrians, and motorists alike... The is news everywhere about a Missing woman,... Yet no-one notices Joanna Yeates lying on a grass verge, not one person has been inquistive as to what the lump maybe... not one dog has gone over to this mound on the verge and discovered what lain there....
I can't see that myself and the residents at the time didn't believe a body could have lain there for that many days either....
So Ann Reddrop has Dr Vincent Tabak in her sights before the discovery of Joanna Yeates body.... Dr Vincent Tabak is away when Joanna Yeates is discovered, so what does that tell us?? Well it tells me a few things...
The apparent Holland Interview was a complete ruse.... Ann tells us that the Police had received a phone call , it has to be The Sobbing Woman, (imo) Yet they miraculously end up in Holland on the 31st December 2010, to interview Dr Vincent Tabak because he apparently knew something about CJ's car.....
So... Was the arrest of CJ a smoke screen to give themselves a reason to Interview Dr Vincent Tabak in Holland?? It has to be (imo)... But then the information divulged by the caller had to be explosive enough for an elaborate, sting... It would have taken time to get cooperation from the Dutch authorities, now if they new of his plans, then they could start applying for cooperation immediately... So he should have been cautioned... They interviewed him for 6 hours the time allowed by Dutch Authorities to interview a suspect or release them or arrest them...
There is no evidence that Joanna Yeates was Murder at the time of the call... And why at this time would anyone call in regards to Dr Vincent Tabak??
It get very complicated.... You therefore have to imagine that Joanna Yeates was dead... I have suggested this before.... They had to know that when they received the call (imo)... To create a scenario, where they could go to Holland... (imo).. And if Joanna Yeates is all ready dead, who put her on Longwood Lane??
They have kept tabs on Dr Vincent Tabak from a very early stage without evidence... Joanna Yeates is supposed to just be a Missing person at this time.... So why the massive interest in Dr Vincent Tabak?? There shouldn't be... No crime has been committed apparent at this point.....
I am not stating any of this as fact as I do not know, but putting forward a scenario, based on the information that is available and when information was recorded in one way or another...
Back to Ann's statement... Vincent Tabak was spoken to for the first time by the Police, as a result of that call, when they came round to take details, treating it as it was at that time a Missing person's Inquiry
Dr Vincent Tabak has left for Cambridge by the 23rd December 2010 I believe.... So we have the 20th December 2010, the 21st December 2010, 22nd December and possibly the 23rd December 2010, as an available time for Dr Vincent Tabak to have been spoken too....
Also the available time in which the Police received the phone call.... Who does that leave to contact the Police...?? By the 20th December 2010....Darragh Bellew had informed everyone on his facebook post that Joanna Yeates was Missing... The Yeates had made appeals.... But what one really has to think about this is an extremley significant detail...
It is not until the 22nd December 2010 that DS Mark Saunders is speaking to Camera about Joanna yeates being Missing.... I am not sure if 44, Canygne Road was ever in any news items before... But I am not sure that this matters...
It.'s deduction.... Who ever called the Police before Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson went to Cambridge, they had to know a few things....
(1): That Joanna yeates lived in the ground floor flat
(2): That Dr Vincent Tabak also lived in the building
(3): That Joanna Yeates was dead
(4): That Dr Vincent Tabak lived next door...
(5): Dr Vincent Tabak had returned from America
(6): That Dr Vincent Tabak was around on Friday 17th December 2010
Now how many people would know that... How many people would know what Dr Vincent Tabak's movement were.... Lets not forget Dr Vincent Tabak had been away... Dr Vincent Tabak had only returned on the Monday 13 December 2010... Someone to even try to connect Dr Vincent Tabak with this Missing persons inquiry would need to know of his movements also , to even suggest that he may be a suspect.... The call , must have been explosive as I have stated... the information divulged by the caller, to even suggest Dr Vincent Tabak, means that the caller knew him... The caller knew him, the caller believed that Joanna yeates was already dead and the caller knew of Dr Vincent Tabak's diary and his work engagements....
It is simple deduction based on what Ann Reddrop tells us.... we do not know wether the caller was male or female, but I have just assumed it has to be the sobbing girl.... The only call we know of that would suggest something untoward abut Dr Vincent Tabak....
So we have CJ... whom they must have wrongly arrested, if they believe at that very early stage that Dr Vincent Tabak is there man.... Bringing me back to did CJ see Dr Vincent Tabak at the gate???? That is the only piece of information that connects the two things we know.....
Someone from that road or from 44, Canygne Road or extremely close to the investigation, had to be the caller... (imo) either that or it had to be one of Dr Vincent work collegues... But i cannot see that being the case, they would have to have a clearer idea of hen she went Missing and every activity that Dr Vincent Tabak did that weekend... Because at this time she has not been found... at this time she is still Missing... at this time, she is not dead.... at this time no-one knew the cause of death or when apparently she had been killed....
What does this phone call hold... what information does this phone call keep from us.... It's a vital piece of evidence, it is the call that points the finger.... There is no forced entry... there is no sexual assault... there is no body... yet this phone call has information that makes the Police sit up and take note... This phone call makes them Interview Dr Vincent Tabak... Are we to believe that this phone call is that sensational, that they ignore all lines of inquiry and focus on Dr Vincent Tabak... A man who didn't know his neighbour... A man who no-one could have known of his movements that Friday night... A man that is polite to all that know him....
So who knew Dr Vincent Tabak... who knew of his movements, who knew enough to make that phone call to the Police....
This amongst other things is why what the programs tell us I question this case.... I cannot make out if the programs are made before trial.. And the only reason that I would say they were, is because, I am under the impression that the media, and the judiciary are silent on this subject, which has frustrated me to this day...
So using that s a template... How were the media allowed to make a program on with this content... with information that was not divulged at trial...
Edit.... The phone Call is NOT The Holland phone call that is for sure... Joanna Yeates is still Missing ,The Holland Phone call was December 30/31st 2010
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The video: Countdown to Murder :4:00
David Yeates:
I've been trying to find the clip where Therea Yeates says a similar comment, of: "How can you forgive someone".. I clearly remember seeing the interview and have spent the last hour, skimming the video's available....
But............ They made me think of something entirely differently... These programs were supposed to be made "AFTER" the trial... They are all a rehash of each other virtually... The dates of release may change, but the content and interviews are the same...
I keep going on about how the media haven't said anything after trial... I had believed that the media had been gagged... If I stay with my belief, ....Then we have a problem 'Huston'..........
Maybe I should forgive the media.... I have been frustrated at the fact that they won't speak... I have been frustrated at the fact that nothing changes..... Yes we have had 'The Lost Honour of CJ' since, but that really doesn't talk about Jonna Yeates at all.... It is all about CJ.... made after the trial..
I couldn't understand why CJ in this story never talks of Vincent Tabak... we have a couple of scenes with Vincent Tabak in, but nothing of The Yeates or anything else....
I could be getting this wrong, but I am not sure...
The person really whim stood out in the documentaries is in fact Ann Reddrop..... Now we know that no-one from the judicary have spoken at all upon this case since the trial.... The are zipped lips...
So my confusion of Ann's appearance makes it an even more interesting venture....
Is this the Eureka moment..... I don't know....
In my mind these programs have had to have been filmed before the trial..... with the exception of "The Lost Honour of CJ'....
Now I am not pointing fingers, but am going with what should be a logical conclusion.... based on the belief that the media and all laywers etc, have stayed silent since the trial of Vincent Tabak... The information in the media never changes... It repeats what happened at the time...
We have I will say , the narrative, we had a trial tweeted and articles written at trial, we have a program that generally when anyone refers to Vincent Tabak, especially The Yeates they refer to him as he....
I had mentioned this the other day, and thought that Tanja's name had never been mentioned, but the Yeates, but I was mistaken, there is at one time David Yeates mentions Tanja..
Murder at Christmas Part 1: at 13:49 (published 24th November 2011)
So I was mistaken and Tanja was mentioned, but Vincent Tabak wasn't, he is described as the man!
If you read up about psychopaths like Tabak you will note they thrive on attention, be it good or bad. Their need for narcisstic supply is their fuel.
All those people who came into contact with him were his victims, not least of all JY's.
By cutting off Tabaks fuel supply (his deep seated need for attention) he no longer has the power/control.
Have you ever considered any of this?
You state:
"I am under the impression that the media, and the judiciary are silent on this subject, which has frustrated me to this day.
And have you ever considered, as one example, your frustrations may come from your lack of knowledge and understanding of dangerous and disordered individuals like Tabak? And that your continued focus on his victims is clouding your judgement?
Could the answer simply be that the media, judiciary and others you mention now have the knowledge and understanding of Tabaks dangerous and disordered personality?
-
I am sat here questioning my own thinking now..... Thinking the call she is referring to is the call that greg made, nut the more i think about that the more I believe that the "Call" Ann Reddrop is referring to is a different call altogether...
They spoke to Dr Vincent tabak after they arrived at Canygne Road after Greg had phoned them.... They went round, according to the trial, The Police went round and spoke to him.... They didn't interview him then... They had no reason too... Just a house to house inquiry about whether someone had seen their neighbour...
So the call Ann Refers too is a different call... And I mean seperate from Gregs call....
This is the call I believe get the Police to interview all the neighbous and take statements... This is the call that gives them a reason to take the DNA samples that CJ spoke of.... He said in one of his interviews that all the neighbours gave statements and fingers prints I believe and DNA samples...
The call Ann is referring too has to be another call other than Greg's... They wouldn't need to take formal interviews from all the residents at this time in the investigation... It would be simply a door to door inquiry
Has Ann divulged a piece of evidence we didn't know about??? Everyone would just assume by that call she was talking about Greg.... But I don't believe that that is the case.... considering a couple of things..... From the outset, they had an incident van parked outside Canygne Road, they treated it as if it was a Murder inquiry, and to take formal statements from residents, before they have even checked with the people she may or may not have been in contact with who would be more likely to have been suspects, is odd.....
So what day did they take formal interviews from all the residents??
It has to be on or before the 23rd December 2010 ..... So I feel confident that the "CALL" that Ann Reddrop refers too is a different phone call than the one Greg made to the Police, reporting that hs girlfriend was Missing....
-
I am sat here questioning my own thinking now..... Thinking the call she is referring to is the call that greg made, nut the more i think about that the more I believe that the "Call" Ann Reddrop is referring to is a different call altogether...
They spoke to Dr Vincent tabak after they arrived at Canygne Road after Greg had phoned them.... They went round, according to the trial, The Police went round and spoke to him.... They didn't interview him then... They had no reason too... Just a house to house inquiry about whether someone had seen their neighbour...
So the call Ann Refers too is a different call... And I mean seperate from Gregs call....
This is the call I believe get the Police to interview all the neighbous and take statements... This is the call that gives them a reason to take the DNA samples that CJ spoke of.... He said in one of his interviews that all the neighbours gave statements and fingers prints I believe and DNA samples...
The call Ann is referring too has to be another call other than Greg's... They wouldn't need to take formal interviews from all the residents at this time in the investigation... It would be simply a door to door inquiry
Has Ann divulged a piece of evidence we didn't know about??? Everyone would just assume by that call she was talking about Greg.... But I don't believe that that is the case.... considering a couple of things..... From the outset, they had an incident van parked outside Canygne Road, they treated it as if it was a Murder inquiry, and to take formal statements from residents, before they have even checked with the people she may or may not have been in contact with who would be more likely to have been suspects, is odd.....
So what day did they take formal interviews from all the residents??
It has to be on or before the 23rd December 2010 ..... So I feel confident that the "CALL" that Ann Reddrop refers too is a different phone call than the one Greg made to the Police, reporting that hs girlfriend was Missing....
Have you ever considered that your deflective tactics are what's keeping your circular arguments going and why you have been unable to reach any definitive conclusions in this case; other than your apparent irrational ones?
-
If you read up about psychopaths like Tabak you will note they thrive on attention, be it good or bad. Their need for narcisstic supply is their fuel.
All those people who came into contact with him were his victims, not least of all JY's.
By cutting off Tabaks fuel supply (his deep seated need for attention) he no longer has the power/control.
Have you ever considered any of this?
You state:
"I am under the impression that the media, and the judiciary are silent on this subject, which has frustrated me to this day.
And have you ever considered, as one example, your frustrations may come from your lack of knowledge and understanding of dangerous and disordered individuals like Tabak? And that your continued focus on his victims is clouding your judgement?
Could the answer simply be that the media, judiciary and others you mention now have the knowledge and understanding of Tabaks dangerous and disordered personality?
So therefore who is Dr Vincent Tabak, is he a seperate individual, or someone who is known by another name??
If Dr Vincent Tabak is this narsicist , psychopath, then why do we not hear him shouting from the roof tops that he is innocent, just to get that attention you are talking of..... Attention for himself, saying look at me.... But he doesn't you yourself have stated that Id Dr Vincent tabak is Innocent , then why is he not making any claims of this....
And if on the other hand he is the type of person you describe.... making wave, shouting from the roof tops, would be a perfect way to bring the attention back on himself.......
-
So therefore who is Dr Vincent Tabak, is he a seperate individual, or someone who is known by another name??
This alone comes across as irrational to me.
-
If Dr Vincent Tabak is this narsicist , psychopath, then why do we not hear him shouting from the roof tops that he is innocent, just to get that attention you are talking of..... Attention for himself, saying look at me.... But he doesn't you yourself have stated that Id Dr Vincent tabak is Innocent , then why is he not making any claims of this....
And if on the other hand he is the type of person you describe.... making wave, shouting from the roof tops, would be a perfect way to bring the attention back on himself.......
Doesn't he have brothers and sisters? Why aren't they campaigning on his behalf?
As I've previously posted; his fuel supply appears to have been cut off.
-
..
And if on the other hand he is the type of person you describe.... making wave, shouting from the roof tops, would be a perfect way to bring the attention back on himself.......
I didn't describe him like this, you did!
-
So therefore who is Dr Vincent Tabak, is he a seperate individual, or someone who is known by another name??
If Dr Vincent Tabak is this narsicist , psychopath, then why do we not hear him shouting from the roof tops that he is innocent, just to get that attention you are talking of..... Attention for himself, saying look at me.... But he doesn't you yourself have stated that Id Dr Vincent tabak is Innocent , then why is he not making any claims of this....
Why do you think this hasn't happened?
And have you considered he may have accepted his fate and be getting his fuel supply from behind the walls of prison?
-
So therefore who is Dr Vincent Tabak, is he a seperate individual, or someone who is known by another name??
If Dr Vincent Tabak is this narsicist , psychopath, then why do we not hear him shouting from the roof tops that he is innocent, just to get that attention you are talking of..... Attention for himself, saying look at me.... But he doesn't you yourself have stated that Id Dr Vincent tabak is Innocent , then why is he not making any claims of this....
And if on the other hand he is the type of person you describe.... making wave, shouting from the roof tops, would be a perfect way to bring the attention back on himself.......
There are many psychopaths like Tabak in prison who do not appear to have the means by which to launch fake innocent campaigns. I'm sure given half the chance some would and indeed do, as I know first hand.
-
Have you considered those closest to him who could be described as knowing him best have now accepted they too were wrong at the time they made the statements they did? That their own brother initially conned them?
"Dr Cora Tabak, an adviser on public health, said his family had been dumbfounded by the news that he had charged with the murder.
His brother, Marcel, suggested he had been made a “scapegoat
Speaking at her home in Utrecht in the Netherlands Dr Cora Tabak said: “I have been sitting open-mouthed since Vincent was charged.
“It's unbelievable - he is my little brother and I know him very well.
“He is innocent. The whole family were shocked, we're completely overcome.
“We can't believe it. Anyone who knows him knows he could never be a killer.
“He is very gentle and social. There is no aggressiveness in him in any way.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8277067/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Vincent-Tabaks-sister-insists-he-could-not-be-the-killer.html
Do you think it possible that once the shock wore off Tabaks family may have came to their senses and realised they couldn't dispute the factual evidence they came to learn about their brother?
Why do you think his brothers and sisters chose in the end to not launch a public campaign in support of the brother they once thought they knew well?
"His family have also offered him their support and even organised a fighting fund back in Holland to pay for any legal fees or travel costs in order to visit him
His sister, Dr Cora Tabak, said he spoke to them openly about his flat was at the centre of a major news story after the disappearance of one of his neighbo
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8496027/Dutch-engineer-Vincent-Tabak-admits-I-did-kill-Jo-Yeates.html
-
My heads on over-drive to day... And seeing as some of you have experience of the law maybe you could answer this
Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to be interested in violent porn... I not going one way or the other on this for the minute, it's not the point of my query.....
So the only title or name we were made aware of was "Sex and Submission".. An adult series available to view on British Tv's at any time....
Dr Vincent Tabak was taken to court again in march 2015 I believe for the charges relating to images on his computer.... Day and date of these images haven't been established....
Now don't get knickers twisted here I am trying to look at this head on.....
What is the date of the images and when were they apparently made or downloaded?? Any of them??
And does the fact Dr Vincent Tabak is Dutch have any baring on this..... What I mean is would it make a difference if the images were made or downloaded whilst he was in Holland or lived in Holland... Meaning the children in said images possibly originated in Holland?? As for the violent porn I can't say....
Does that then mean that the crime of the images should have been the Dutch Authorities jurisdiction??
Can the British Police charge a Dutch National with crimes that could have been committed in Holland?? Is having the information on his computer enough for the British Police to take action, or do they need to identify these poor children to make sure, that they are safe, and if as I say they too are possibly Dutch nationals, then shouldn't that be a Dutch issue, not British??
Is this the reason that there were no protective measure put in place for these children?? British Jurisdiction didn't have the Authority to do it,... It's another question to ponder...
So if the porn, and images of children where downloaded or made on the computer that Dr Vincent Tabak used, if we cannot establish where and what date these images were made, how do we know for a fact , that no-one else at anytime had access to said computer??
All these images should be dated... details in this case are scarce... Dates and times scarcer... I know he plead guilty... He apprantly plead guilty to manslaughter and I am trying to work out why he would do that...
But simply put... Can a Dutch National be charged with something he did in Holland by British Police??
-
My heads on over-drive to day... And seeing as some of you have experience of the law maybe you could answer this
Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to be interested in violent porn... I not going one way or the other on this for the minute, it's not the point of my query.....
If it's not the point of your query as you state, why mention it?
-
My heads on over-drive to day... And seeing as some of you have experience of the law maybe you could answer this
You still haven'tt answered my numerous questions? Is that because you can't or you won't?
-
If it's not the point of your query as you state, why mention it?
Unfortunately.. It's the way I write... It's off the top of my head, what I am thinking hits the page... simple....
I was establishing the two different aspects of the claims made about Dr Vincent Tabak after trial...
-
You still haven'tt answered my numerous questions? Is that because you can't or you won't?
How can I answer for the Tabak family.... I can hazzard a guess but cannot answer for them... I do not know them either...
-
Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to be interested in violent porn... I not going one way or the other on this for the minute, it's not the point of my query.....
So the only title or name we were made aware of was "Sex and Submission".. An adult series available to view on British Tv's at any time....
Now don't get knickers twisted here I am trying to look at this head on.....
You appear to be bringing moral issues to the board?
In others words, you may not find some of the pornography viewed by VT to have been offensive?
-
What is the date of the images and when were they apparently made or downloaded?? Any of them??
And does the fact Dr Vincent Tabak is Dutch have any baring on this..... What I mean is would it make a difference if the images were made or downloaded whilst he was in Holland or lived in Holland... Meaning the children in said images possibly originated in Holland?? As for the violent porn I can't say....
Does that then mean that the crime of the images should have been the Dutch Authorities jurisdiction??
Can the British Police charge a Dutch National with crimes that could have been committed in Holland?? Is having the information on his computer enough for the British Police to take action, or do they need to identify these poor children to make sure, that they are safe, and if as I say they too are possibly Dutch nationals, then shouldn't that be a Dutch issue, not British??
Is this the reason that there were no protective measure put in place for these children?? British Jurisdiction didn't have the Authority to do it,... It's another question to ponder...
So if the porn, and images of children where downloaded or made on the computer that Dr Vincent Tabak used, if we cannot establish where and what date these images were made, how do we know for a fact , that no-one else at anytime had access to said computer??
All these images should be dated... details in this case are scarce... Dates and times scarcer... I know he plead guilty... He apprantly plead guilty to manslaughter and I am trying to work out why he would do that...
But simply put... Can a Dutch National be charged with something he did in Holland by British Police??
Where did Tabak commit these crimes?
And what does your common sense tell you?
IN REAlITY what happened? Where was Tabak charged and by who?
-
My heads on over-drive to day... And seeing as some of you have experience of the law maybe you could answer this
Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to be interested in violent porn... I not going one way or the other on this for the minute, it's not the point of my query.....
So the only title or name we were made aware of was "Sex and Submission".. An adult series available to view on British Tv's at any time....
Dr Vincent Tabak was taken to court again in march 2015 I believe for the charges relating to images on his computer.... Day and date of these images haven't been established....
Now don't get knickers twisted here I am trying to look at this head on.....
What is the date of the images and when were they apparently made or downloaded?? Any of them??
And does the fact Dr Vincent Tabak is Dutch have any baring on this..... What I mean is would it make a difference if the images were made or downloaded whilst he was in Holland or lived in Holland... Meaning the children in said images possibly originated in Holland?? As for the violent porn I can't say....
Does that then mean that the crime of the images should have been the Dutch Authorities jurisdiction??
Can the British Police charge a Dutch National with crimes that could have been committed in Holland?? Is having the information on his computer enough for the British Police to take action, or do they need to identify these poor children to make sure, that they are safe, and if as I say they too are possibly Dutch nationals, then shouldn't that be a Dutch issue, not British??
Is this the reason that there were no protective measure put in place for these children?? British Jurisdiction didn't have the Authority to do it,... It's another question to ponder...
So if the porn, and images of children where downloaded or made on the computer that Dr Vincent Tabak used, if we cannot establish where and what date these images were made, how do we know for a fact , that no-one else at anytime had access to said computer??
All these images should be dated... details in this case are scarce... Dates and times scarcer... I know he plead guilty... He apprantly plead guilty to manslaughter and I am trying to work out why he would do that...
But simply put... Can a Dutch National be charged with something he did in Holland by British Police??
How do you know this wasn't the case?
-
Have you considered those closest to him who could be described as knowing him best have now accepted they too were wrong at the time they made the statements they did? That their own brother initially conned them?
"Dr Cora Tabak, an adviser on public health, said his family had been dumbfounded by the news that he had charged with the murder.
His brother, Marcel, suggested he had been made a “scapegoat
Speaking at her home in Utrecht in the Netherlands Dr Cora Tabak said: “I have been sitting open-mouthed since Vincent was charged.
“It's unbelievable - he is my little brother and I know him very well.
“He is innocent. The whole family were shocked, we're completely overcome.
“We can't believe it. Anyone who knows him knows he could never be a killer.
“He is very gentle and social. There is no aggressiveness in him in any way.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8277067/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Vincent-Tabaks-sister-insists-he-could-not-be-the-killer.html
Do you think it possible that once the shock wore off Tabaks family may have came to their senses and realised they couldn't dispute the factual evidence they came to learn about their brother?
Why do you think his brothers and sisters chose in the end to not launch a public campaign in support of the brother they once thought they knew well?
"His family have also offered him their support and even organised a fighting fund back in Holland to pay for any legal fees or travel costs in order to visit him
His sister, Dr Cora Tabak, said he spoke to them openly about his flat was at the centre of a major news story after the disappearance of one of his neighbo
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8496027/Dutch-engineer-Vincent-Tabak-admits-I-did-kill-Jo-Yeates.html
You appear to once again be taking the facts of this case out of context then adding your own slant?
Why do you appear to look at parts of the case as opposed to lookimg at the entire case as a whole?
-
Where did Tabak commit these crimes?
And what does your common sense tell you?
Common Sense shouldn't need to be applied... If I don't trust what has been stated so far... why would I assume, what I have asked isn't the case.... Dates and times please... establishes contents, a forensic examination of said computer also establishes this...
The Defence appear to have done very little of their own investigations... I am trying to find out how the contents of Dr Vincent Tabaks computer was established, and whether or not it would make a difference.... As to whether it is or should be dealt with by the Dutch Authorities instead of British...!!
-
How can I answer for the Tabak family.... I can hazzard a guess but cannot answer for them... I do not know them either...
What does your common sense tell you?
-
Common Sense shouldn't need to be applied...
Yes, this does appear to be your default setting re this case.
-
You appear to once again be taking the facts of this case out of context then adding your own slant?
Why do you appear to look at parts of the case as opposed to looking at the entire case as a whole?
I need to dissect what has happened, before and since.... Thats just how I have looked at this case.... I can't just accept some random information, without something that establishes it....
By what you are saying ,you want me to just accept the narrative... But if I didn't accept the narrative in the beginning, why would I accept it now....
-
Yes, this does appear to be your default setting re this case.
Thank you... Stephanie.... you keep trying to flatter me.... 8)--))
-
I need to dissect what has happened, before and since.... Thats just how I have looked at this case.... I can't just accept some random information, without something that establishes it....
By what you are saying ,you want me to just accept the narrative... But if I didn't accept the narrative in the beginning, why would I accept it now....
If you choose to use illogical and deluded reasoning that's up to you.
You clearly aren't interested in what others have to say about this case and appear to only want to hear what fits your fantastical theories.
-
I need to dissect what has happened, before and since.... Thats just how I have looked at this case.... I can't just accept some random information, without something that establishes it....
By what you are saying ,you want me to just accept the narrative... But if I didn't accept the narrative in the beginning, why would I accept it now....
IN REALITY you do not need to do anything.
-
But if I didn't accept the narrative in the beginning, why would I accept it now....
Only you can answer that.
I can only give you my opinion
-
Unfortunately.. It's the way I write... It's off the top of my head, what I am thinking hits the page... simple....
That's your choice.
Though we don't all choose to put what we are thinking off the top of our heads as you say on the page.
Have you considered making notes before posting?
-
That's your choice.
Though we don't all choose to put what we are thinking off the top of our heads as you say on the page.
Have you considered making notes before posting?
Yes... i have post it notes all over my desk.....
-
That's your choice.
Though we don't all choose to put what we are thinking off the top of our heads as you say on the page.
Have you considered making notes before posting?
Yes... i have post it notes all over my desk.....
It's interesting that you are prepared to answer this question in the way you have but refuse to do so in relation to Tabaks case?
-
It's interesting that you are prepared to answer this question in the way you have but refuse to do so in relation to Tabaks case?
Because I have in front of me the post it notes.... I know what I did, before I wrote some of my posts.... And something that is spoken sparks my interest, and I go back to what they said on the video....
I cannot answer straight forward questions in relation to Dr Vincent Tabak, when I do not know the answers.... I have searched for answers and you end up with what I bring to the table....
-
Because I have in front of me the post it notes.... I know what I did, before I wrote some of my posts.... And something that is spoken sparks my interest, and I go back to what they said on the video.....
You stated:
Unfortunately.. It's the way I write... It's off the top of my head, what I am thinking hits the page... simple....
Would you agree you have given conflicting statements?
-
You stated:
Would you agree you have given conflicting statements?
Some of it is off the top of my head as, you can clearly see from the way I write.... Notes are many..... some I don't go back too....
How many conflicting statements have been made in this case and by other posters.....
It depends on the order of the notes... Do I use the notes to find the information, or do I use the notes so i have a record of the time something was said, that i can refer, back too quickly once i have started my post.....
I am not on oath.... I shouldn't have to explain this too you...
-
All I have managed to understand , is no-one really wants the real truth when it comes to convictions, a conviction is a conviction.... Another one in the net.... Scores on the doors....
If material that could be vital to any case, and it questions, the very basics of said case, shouldn't it be disclosed...
There are many people on trial in this country where full disclosure, would have stopped a trial in its tracks... Many people in prison for the exact same reason....
I am just looking at why I am not happy about this case... No other case... this one.... And finding information I believe would have and could have changed the complexion of the case.....
That is all... And why anyone else is really bothered trying to get me to stick with the narrative... I have no idea...!!
-
Some of it is off the top of my head as, you can clearly see from the way I write.... Notes are many..... some I don't go back too....
How many conflicting statements have been made in this case and by other posters.....
It depends on the order of the notes... Do I use the notes to find the information, or do I use the notes so i have a record of the time something was said, that i can refer, back too quickly once i have started my post.....
I am not on oath.... I shouldn't have to explain this too you...
The posts from others that seem conflicting to you are the ones that prove his guilt!
-
All I have managed to understand , is no-one really wants the real truth when it comes to convictions, a conviction is a conviction.... Another one in the net.... Scores on the doors....
I take it this is another one of those off the top of your head posts?
This is a rather ludicrous statement to make from my viewpoint.
-
All I have managed to understand , is no-one really wants the real truth when it comes to convictions, a conviction is a conviction.... Another one in the net.... Scores on the doors....
If material that could be vital to any case, and it questions, the very basics of said case, shouldn't it be disclosed...
There are many people on trial in this country where full disclosure, would have stopped a trial in its tracks... Many people in prison for the exact same reason....
I am just looking at why I am not happy about this case... No other case... this one.... And finding information I believe would have and could have changed the complexion of the case.....
That is all... And why anyone else is really bothered trying to get me to stick with the narrative... I have no idea...!!
That whole post highlights once again why 2 years on you post as and what you do...
could have changed the complexion of the case... HOW? a miracle taking place to change his guilty plea and his apology towards the family into a plea of innocence.
Do you ever read your posts back? Do you see how strange some of them are?
-
I take it this is another one of those off the top of your head posts?
This is a rather ludicrous statement to make from my viewpoint.
These kind of posts always appear when another person make a good point that cant really be argued. A vague statement appears to 'make do' as a reasonable reply
-
..
If material that could be vital to any case, and it questions, the very basics of said case, shouldn't it be disclosed...
There are many people on trial in this country where full disclosure, would have stopped a trial in its tracks... Many people in prison for the exact same reason....
I am just looking at why I am not happy about this case... No other case... this one..... And finding information I believe would have and could have changed the complexion of the case.....
You state:
I am just looking at why I am not happy about this case... No other case... this one
But then contradict this statement in the same post?
What cases are you referring to?
-
Killers: 39:09 Ann Reddrop
He says, she, her, didn't like what he was doing, she screamed, in order to stop her, he put his hand over her mouth, when he took his hand away, she screamed again, and it's then when he replaced his hand and he strangled her
Then from Clegg's opening statement..
Vincent Tabak misread her friendliness toward him and made a move towards her as if he
was about to kiss him on her lips.
He put one hand in the middle of her back as if he was about to kiss her, and she screamed
fiercely.
He put his hand over her mouth and said sorry and when he moved his hand away she
screamed again.
He put his hand to her mouth and throat and she went limp. She was dead.
Why is Ann so vague, why doesn't she know that Dr Vincent Tabak had tried to kiss her, this program is supposed to have been made after the trial... Yet Ann apparently has no idea , what Joanna Yeates didn't like....
Ann's answer is He says, she, her, didn't like what he was doing, she screamed
Well Ann what was he supposed to be doing.... You are The head of The Complex case Unit, surely you after trial, should have known exactly what it was Dr Vincent Tabak was doing and what "He said he was doing"!! (imo).....
The vagueness of these programs only makes me question them more.....
it's then when he replaced his hand and he strangled her
That statement suggest that this was sexual... that Dr Vincent Tabak had already put his hand around Joanna yeates throat and she had stated , she didn't like it.... Therefore he must have known her.....
She says he replaces his hand around her throat.... Well it was across her mouth actually!
You can only replace something that was there in the first place......
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
Killers: 39:09 Ann Reddrop
Then from Clegg's opening statement..
Why is Ann so vague, why doesn't she know that Dr Vincent Tabak had tried to kiss her, this program is supposed to have been made after the trial... Yet Ann apparently has no idea , what Joanna Yeates didn't like....
Ann's answer is He says, she, her, didn't like what he was doing, she screamed
Well Ann what was he supposed to be doing.... You are The head of The Complex case Unit, surely you after trial, should have known exactly what it was Dr Vincent Tabak was doing and what "He said he was doing"!! (imo).....
The vagueness of these programs only makes me question them more.....
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
you attack and pick holes in everything connected to this case based on what you think should happen what people should do and say...
From posters on here to strangers in the street BUT never towards Tabak
To look at any case you have to see all sides you dont and never have done that!
-
Just because they wrote it differently is no indication that she didnt know what had taken place. Only if you are looking for another way out for Tabak
-
you attack and pick holes in everything connected to this case based on what you think should happen what people should do and say...
From posters on here to strangers in the street BUT never towards Tabak
To look at any case you have to see all sides you dont and never have done that!
I look at this case on my concerns I had on what I believe was the lack of investigation it appeared that The Defence failed to do....
I have said all along that I believe Dr vincent tabak is Innocent... I am not trying to be unbiased...
-
Lack of investigation? what exactly did expect them to do working with a client who admitted the offence . this has been pointed out to you over and over again, You fail to see it
He was never gonna leave the court a free man yet you seem to think failings by others stopped this from happening
-
Lack of investigation? what exactly did expect them to do working with a client who admitted the offence . this has been pointed out to you over and over again, You fail to see it
He was never gonna leave the court a free man yet you seem to think failings by others stopped this from happening
So what happened between, being arrested charged and held.... he didn't confess immediately... So there had to be time for an Investigation.... Confession can only be attributed to the May 2011 hearing. when the guilty plea was entered.... .. So between January and May 2011.. what did the Defence actually do... ???
-
I look at this case on my concerns I had on what I believe was the lack of investigation it appeared that The Defence failed to do....
I have said all along that I believe Dr vincent tabak is Innocent... I am not trying to be unbiased...
Then what are you trying to be?
-
Another thing im not sure about is why YOU think you deserve an answer to every part of this case.
The court case was based on evidence and his confession. Get over it and accept that is how it works
-
I look at this case on my concerns I had on what I believe was the lack of investigation it appeared that The Defence failed to do....
I have said all along that I believe Dr vincent tabak is Innocent... I am not trying to be unbiased...
If, as you've stated too many times to count, you don't understand law, how and why do you make this claim?
And do you recognise yet another of your contradictions?
-
If, as you've stated too many times to count, you don't understand law, how and why do you make this claim?
And do you recognise yet another of your contradictions?
Last time I looked I believe if was referred to as opinion....
-
If, as you've stated too many times to count, you don't understand law, how and why do you make this claim?
And do you recognise yet another of your contradictions?
No but maybe I am starting to recognise I have been played...
-
No but maybe I am starting to recognise I have been played...
Played by who? you have given up hours and hours for a man who doesnt know you exist and doesnt want or need help from you or anyone else it seems
-
CJ.... Gives Dr Vincent Tabak Good Character Reference
CJ on Video Describing Dr Vincent Tabak: 7:16
I thought I would post this seeing as no-one gave Dr Vincent Tabak a Good Character Reference...
CJ, Dr Vincent Tabak's Landlord, whom i would say knew him reasonably well.... He certainly knew him better than Geoff Hardyman, who's defence statement was only any use to "Bernard" The cat, but I am more than positive, "Bernard didn't take the stand....
I have been trying to show where I believe the defence failed their client, Where there is evidence clearly available, from a live witness that is a household name now.... A live witness, who cannot only put himself on Canygne Road on the night in question, but has told us of how he conversed with Dr Vincent Tabak that evening....
A live witness who describes an encounter with Dr Vincent tabak, as he was leaving for the gym that evening, A live witness, who could clarify If Dr Vincent Tabak was one of the 2/3 people at the gate..
A Live witness, who can tell us what attire Dr Vincent Tabak could have been wearing that evening, A live witness that, saw the dusting of snow on the ground....
Now CJ, considering his vilification in the press, must be a brave man.... knowing how bad publicity, can scare away potential witness's has kindly done his bit for Dr Vincent Tabak, not only through adversity, has this man courageously put us straight on some of the events for that evening, he provides us with a 'good Character" reference to boot....
CJ, description of Dr Vincent Tabak, gels with that of DCI Phil Jones, whom described Dr Vincent Tabak as a very Placid Individual to deal with....
CJ, whom has not been bullied or persuaded by the vilification of Dr Vincent Tabak after the trial, feels strong enough about his former tenant, that he has shared with us, his honest opinion, of Dr Vincent Tabak's Character..
Something might I add, that was never allowed, or appeared , to be allowed in court.... CJ... Has put his head above water, and kindly furnished us with many details, and I am sure, if CJ was interviewed, there would be many more details he could tell us if asked....
Dr Vincent Tabak is not only Placid, but very civilised, according to two witness's who's credentials, we can not fail to be impressed by... Firstly DCI Phil Jones, the SOI, of the Investigation into the Murder of Joanna Yeates, again a man whom had every reason to describe Dr Vincent Tabak in an unsavoury light, yet chose, to divulge his thoughts about Dr Vincent Tabak, by describing Dr Vincent Tabak as Placid....
And CJ..... who could forget CJ.... The Landlord who's life has been turned upside down by the events that lead to Joanna Yeates Murder... A Christian and upstanding man, whom has had the public and media behind him, supporting him in every way, since his release from custody, and we have been privy to his torment, we have been allowed to get a glimps of he 3 day ordeal, where he shares with us his treatment at the hands of the media, and his utter shock at being incarcerated, for a crime he did not commit....
Would words like ... Placid.... formal politeness, always extremely polite, civilised person, heard by the jury whilst said trial was taking place, have changed the jury decision?? Would the jury have viewed Dr Vincent Tabak in a different light, if these two witness's were called to give their opinion of Dr Vincent Tabak??
2 men... not mice... whom have standing in the community, who's opinion surely would have resonated with the jury... 2 men whom, hand on heart could have given us a clearer indication as to Dr Vincent Tabak's character....
Yet they did not take the stand... They maybe had no control over that... But they have been telling us for quite awhile, we just hadn't taken any notice....
If there was no medical reason , for Dr Vincent Tabak's apparent behaviour, And no evidence at trial to support Dr Vincent Tabak, being a crazy person, who deliberately strangled Joanna Yeates, no evidence presented proved it was a deliberate act, yet for a stange reason they found him guilty....
Does anyone believe if CJ and DCI Phil Jones had taken the stand that the outcome would have been very different??
Does anyone believe that if these witness were available Dr Vincent Tabak would not have told said tale on the stand..... I wonder, if the evidence of CJ and Dr Vincent Tabak's little conversation on Canygne Road that evening, could cast doubt to the story on the stand, that Dr Vincent Tabak provided us with, coupled with CJ, glowing Character Reference, would the jury in fact have doubted whether it was even possible for Dr Vincent Tabak to commit said Crime??
If we haven't really established the day, then how can the story on the stand be true, and the only reason I believe we haven't established a day, Is because CJ again has provided us with important information....
We were lead to believe that Dr Vincent Tabak had lied about CJ, we were lead to believe when the trip to Holland by DC Karen Thomas took place on the 31st December 2010, that the reason for said trip, was to establish what Dr Vincent Tabak had witnessed in relation to his landlords car changing position, that Landlord being CJ....
But... unfortunately the Police believed that Dr Vincent Tabak was lying, that Dr Vincent Tabak, was trying to deflect from himself, by trying to incriminate his Landlord....
But DC Karen Thomas is mistaken, that cannot be further from the truth.... CJ Dr Vincent Tabak's Landlord backs up, Dr Vincent Tabak's claim... He tells us in his own words that Dr Vincent Tabak's recollection is true and accurate..
He tell us that:
Vincent Tabak helped me move the car that morning, erm, becawse, there was snow on the drive, and I need some help, in the car being pushed up.. erm, the slight incline, from the parking area onto the main part of the drive,, so that I could get the car out
He further tells us that:
This was that one evening, which
might have been Friday 17 December 2010, as I was coming back from the gym at
about 9pm, I had parked my car on the road and was just walking through the gates of
the main driveway,
Clearly here CJ is telling the world that Dr Vincent Tabak was not mistaken, when he stated to the Police that CJ's car had changed position that evening as CJ has indicated by kindly informing us that his car was in it's car parking space on the Saturday morning of the 18th December 2010.... Now if DC Karen Thomas had interviewed CJ, surely CJ told her of her error...
Again The Jury do not get to hear this piece of Information, further adding to CJ Good Character reference of Dr Vincent Tabak....
So when it has been put on the law pages website which I have posted the information before, and that information tells us that Dr Vincent Tabak tried to implicate his Landlord, someone needs to correct them... I would have said it needs taking down but it appears it already has been....
So what have we understood from a quick arrest and trial... Were evidence was collected, were lines of Inquiry clearly failed to happen.... Who do we blame...??
Was it lack of disclosure?? Was it lack of funds on the polices side.... I am no-one, I keep saying, I do not have access, to the information many people have and had at the time, but if in my weird way... I can find a live witness for The Defence, what does that say about The investigation... Should that worry us??
I don't know... But we can only thank CJ, for his honest and true evaluation of Dr Vincent Tabak, we can only thank CJ for letting the world know that Dr Vincent Tabak did NOT try to implicate him in any way.... We can only thank CJ.. for his unfortunate arrest...
Because without that, no-one would know who he is... without Netflix, we cannot see the torment he faced, and with his fight against the media, he would not be a known person to this day... And no-one therefore would hang on to his ever word.... Looking at every syllable, that leaves his lips....
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg496437#msg496437
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.2325
I think t would be helpful if you watched this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-13908358 and read more on the Dowler family and all they suffered. Is this really what you wanted for Tabaks victims? Just to satisfy your mind?
-
Some of it is off the top of my head as, you can clearly see from the way I write.... Notes are many..... some I don't go back too....
How many conflicting statements have been made in this case and by other posters.....
It depends on the order of the notes... Do I use the notes to find the information, or do I use the notes so i have a record of the time something was said, that i can refer, back too quickly once i have started my post.....
I am not on oath.... I shouldn't have to explain this too you...
I don't think you're on oath and you don't need to explain yourself
I do however think you've made a mistake regarding this case but I do understand how that may have happened
-
The only time thought seems to have been given to the victim or her family is when it has been pointed out to Nine
That is mainly why this whole thread is so difficult to comprehend.
Everyone can come under fire, even Jo for doing something so bad that someone was angry enough to kill her!
I personally dont think your point will ever get through because all concerns have only ever been for TABAK and a false miscarriage of justice!
-
The only time thought seems to have been given to the victim or her family is when it has been pointed out to Nine
That is mainly why this whole thread is so difficult to comprehend.
Everyone can come under fire, even Jo for doing something so bad that someone was angry enough to kill her!
I personally dont think your point will ever get through because all concerns have only ever been for TABAK and a false miscarriage of justice!
I concede in that I think it would be helpful to Nine if she were to look at other cases as she will no doubt find anomalies in many of them, similar to what she has in this case.
I haven't read this entire thread, only parts of it, but it clear there's been numerpus conspiracy theories.
-
No but maybe I am starting to recognise I have been played...
I'd been interested to hear who you think has played you?
I noticed there were several other posters initially who would post on this case. Wonder why they no longer join in with you?
-
I agree that she should look at other cases to find a balance. I think justsaying when they joined the forum suggested that too
Nine doesnt seem to want to compare or look at any of side to innocence. Maybe if she did then all the issues she doesnt understand or gets confused by could become clear
-
How can I answer for the Tabak family.... I can hazzard a guess but cannot answer for them... I do not know them either...
And yet you think you know Tabak and that he's innocent? It makes no sense!?
-
My heads on over-drive to day... And seeing as some of you have experience of the law maybe you could answer this
Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to be interested in violent porn... I not going one way or the other on this for the minute, it's not the point of my query.....
So the only title or name we were made aware of was "Sex and Submission".. An adult series available to view on British Tv's at any time....
Dr Vincent Tabak was taken to court again in march 2015 I believe for the charges relating to images on his computer.... Day and date of these images haven't been established....
Now don't get knickers twisted here I am trying to look at this head on.....
What is the date of the images and when were they apparently made or downloaded?? Any of them??
And does the fact Dr Vincent Tabak is Dutch have any baring on this..... What I mean is would it make a difference if the images were made or downloaded whilst he was in Holland or lived in Holland... Meaning the children in said images possibly originated in Holland?? As for the violent porn I can't say....
Does that then mean that the crime of the images should have been the Dutch Authorities jurisdiction??
Can the British Police charge a Dutch National with crimes that could have been committed in Holland?? Is having the information on his computer enough for the British Police to take action, or do they need to identify these poor children to make sure, that they are safe, and if as I say they too are possibly Dutch nationals, then shouldn't that be a Dutch issue, not British??
Is this the reason that there were no protective measure put in place for these children?? British Jurisdiction didn't have the Authority to do it,... It's another question to ponder...
So if the porn, and images of children where downloaded or made on the computer that Dr Vincent Tabak used, if we cannot establish where and what date these images were made, how do we know for a fact , that no-one else at anytime had access to said computer??
All these images should be dated... details in this case are scarce... Dates and times scarcer... I know he plead guilty... He apprantly plead guilty to manslaughter and I am trying to work out why he would do that...
But simply put... Can a Dutch National be charged with something he did in Holland by British Police??
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/28/joanna-yeates-law-on-gender-hatred
-
Without doubt, Nine has put a huge effort into writing about the Joanna Yeates murder case and had Tabak not confessed or DNA from him been found on the victim, this case might very well have turned out completely differently. However, Vincent Tabak did admit to killing Joanna in what appears to have been quite simply a moment of madness.
I don't believe for a moment that this murder was premeditated otherwise he would have gone to much more trouble to hide his victim's remains. As it was, he panicked and drove around looking for somewhere to dump her. He tried to lift the body over a wall and had he succeeded it would have fallen into a quarry and might not have been discovered for some time if at all leaving few forensic clues to find.
I agree with Nine that the body could not have lain where it was found for any significant length of time. This was a public road and the verge was very narrow, even covered as it was in leaves any walker would have found it suspicious.
-
Without doubt, Nine has put a huge effort into writing about the Joanna Yeates murder case and had Tabak not confessed or DNA from him been found on the victim, this case might very well have turned out completely differently. However, Vincent Tabak did admit to killing Joanna in what appears to have been quite simply a moment of madness.
I don't believe for a moment that this murder was premeditated otherwise he would have gone to much more trouble to hide his victim's remains. As it was, he panicked and drove around looking for somewhere to dump her. He tried to lift the body over a wall and had he succeeded it would have fallen into a quarry and might not have been discovered for some time if at all leaving few forensic clues to find.
I agree with Nine that the body could not have lain where it was found for any significant length of time. This was a public road and the verge was very narrow, even covered as it was in leaves any walker would have found it suspicious.
Not a dog walking area either. It is far too dangerous. However, across the road , there is a car park leading to woods, and I believe this is where people would walk their dogs.
-
Without doubt, Nine has put a huge effort into writing about the Joanna Yeates murder case and had Tabak not confessed or DNA from him been found on the victim, this case might very well have turned out completely differently. However, Vincent Tabak did admit to killing Joanna in what appears to have been quite simply a moment of madness.
I don't believe for a moment that this murder was premeditated otherwise he would have gone to much more trouble to hide his victim's remains. As it was, he panicked and drove around looking for somewhere to dump her. He tried to lift the body over a wall and had he succeeded it would have fallen into a quarry and might not have been discovered for some time if at all leaving few forensic clues to find.
I agree with Nine that the body could not have lain where it was found for any significant length of time. This was a public road and the verge was very narrow, even covered as it was in leaves any walker would have found it suspicious.
DNA a confession and a search of the area where the body was found. Maybe Tabak wasnt as honest as he could have been about certain points in the case
That definitely doesnt indicate he is innocent.
The body WAS found in the location, however long it had been there undiscovered. Maybe once again Tabak had a reason to bend the truth. We know he lied and lied so how can anyone know the exact truth in this case
No one has taken away from Nine the time and effort put into this case but a lot of it has been dismissing the real evidence including words from Tabaks own mouth, backed up with quite bizarre conspiracy theories!
-
Without doubt, Nine has put a huge effort into writing about the Joanna Yeates murder case and had Tabak not confessed or DNA from him been found on the victim, this case might very well have turned out completely differently. However, Vincent Tabak did admit to killing Joanna in what appears to have been quite simply a moment of madness.
I don't believe for a moment that this murder was premeditated otherwise he would have gone to much more trouble to hide his victim's remains. As it was, he panicked and drove around looking for somewhere to dump her. He tried to lift the body over a wall and had he succeeded it would have fallen into a quarry and might not have been discovered for some time if at all leaving few forensic clues to find.
I agree with Nine that the body could not have lain where it was found for any significant length of time. This was a public road and the verge was very narrow, even covered as it was in leaves any walker would have found it suspicious.
What's your conclusion then John?
And what are your thoughts on the following?
"... and a small group of independent thinkers who include Noel O'Gara in Ireland, GW in Bristol, Debra Ann C in the West Midlands and F in Hackney. Our aim is to make this clever young engineers cruel fate and the authorities disgusting cover up better known to the outside world.
http://vincent-tabak-is-innocent.blogspot.com
I presume this is the same Noel O'Gara? https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/ogara-fined-for-illegally-auditing-companies-26514306.html
https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/994988.ripper-victims-son-calls-for-new-inquiry/
-
Without doubt, Nine has put a huge effort into writing about the Joanna Yeates murder case and had Tabak not confessed or DNA from him been found on the victim, this case might very well have turned out completely differently. However, Vincent Tabak did admit to killing Joanna in what appears to have been quite simply a moment of madness.
I don't believe for a moment that this murder was premeditated otherwise he would have gone to much more trouble to hide his victim's remains. As it was, he panicked and drove around looking for somewhere to dump her. He tried to lift the body over a wall and had he succeeded it would have fallen into a quarry and might not have been discovered for some time if at all leaving few forensic clues to find.
I agree with Nine that the body could not have lain where it was found for any significant length of time. This was a public road and the verge was very narrow, even covered as it was in leaves any walker would have found it suspicious.
Not a dog walking area either. It is far too dangerous. However, across the road , there is a car park leading to woods, and I believe this is where people would walk their dogs.
So how did the Birches manage to find her on a grass verge?? They were walking their dogs, You are right mrswah, it is busy, and that is why I cannot understand how Joanna Yeates was found on a grass verge on Longwood Lane close to the quarry entrance...
She had to be somewhere more inaccessible , thats why they used the fire truck, If they were trying to just shield the area, they could have used tarpaulin, as they did at the back of the Flats... But A fire truck with a winch suggests that they need to reach her from a difficult position...
The area that she was discovered changed before trial, she was on a golf course at one point... There were images detailing where she was found,
Police hunting for the missing Bristol architect Joanna Yeates sealed off part of a golf course after a young woman's body was found by a couple walking their dogs on this morning. The discovery was made in the Failand area, about four miles outside the city centre.
Media of course may get details wrong, but that wrong?
If Joanna yeates was actually found on the grass verge as was sated at trial, she simply couldn't have lain there for over 8 days. So was she at another location before? making Longwood Lane the 3 scene of Crime....
If Joanna yeates was moved closer to the time of discovery, which really seems more than likely if we are to believe that Longwood Lane is actually the discovery sight, then Dr Vincent Tabak couldn't have moved her...
He was in Cambridge from the 23rd December 2010 , I believe and then went to Holland from Cambridge to see his family arriving back in Bristol on the 2nd January 2011..
How would Dr Vincent Tabak be able to move her again?? He wouldn't.....
There are 3 forensic tents on Longwood Lane at this time.... None of which were used to cover Joanna Yeates body....They used 7 fire appliances over 4 days, the parents were allowed to walk around the Scene of Crime on the 27th December 2010, there is no way that when the scene obviously hadn't finished being processed that any member of the public would be allowed to walk around or not even if they are family members...
All indicating that where Joanna Yeates had been discovered could not be on that Lane on a grass verge....
Her body had to be deposited over something... We have had a trial, where we are told, whether or nor we believe what Dr Vincent Tabak has stated on the stand, that Joanna Yeates was found on a grass verge on Longwood lane....
The Prosecution have gone with a grass verge on Longwood lane, The defence have gone with a grass verge on Longwood Lane, everything else suggests otherwise...
This is problematic for many reasons... If the real deposition site is else where, what does that say about the evidence that was presented at trial, The DNA, The Blood evidence that are supposed to conclusively prove that Dr Vincent Tabak was the killer of Joanna Yeates...
The obvious piece of evidence that thens puts the rest of the evidence into question is the evidence I believe Tanya Nickson gave,
Forensic scientist Tanya Nickson, who examined bloodstains found on a wall next to where Miss Yeates had been found on Christmas morning on Longwood Lane, in Failand, said the pattern indicated smearing rather than splattering.
She said this suggested that someone had been attempting to put the body over the wall into the quarry below.
Ms Nickson told the jury: "The presence of the blood on the top of the wall may indicate that an attempt was made to deposit the body over the top of the wall."
Tanya Nickson has told the jury of the location of the blood, and suggested that Dr Vincent Tabak was trying to lift Joanna Yeates over the wall so as to hide her body from sight.....
The more likely scenario is that, Joanna Yeates body was discovered elsewhere, and we have Tanya Nickson, telling us something that was NOT possible, bringing into question her evidence ... not only that bringing all of the blood and DNA evidence into question, therefore telling us that what Dr Vincent Tabak stated on the stand was a tale, that someone.. for whatever reason had him believing was true....
It can't have been true.... 7 Fire appliances working on that scene over 4 days suggests that (A) she was in a different location and (B) that they were needed to retrieve something else... They not only used regular fire trucks but, had used a safety boat also... A boat suggesting that Joanna Yeates was more likely in water,than on dry land...
At trial the Fire Service did not attend, anyone following such a case over the Christmas period could not fail to notice the fire service arriving at the scene, all lined up on Longwood Lane, a fire service, who's services were needed over 4 day, the 29th December 2010 being the last day that they were used...
So why were they not at trial?? why didn't The Defence or Prosecution call anyone from the Fire Service to testify to what they were doing at the scene on Christmas day??
It has been a long time being questioned the location of Joanna Yeates body in that area... Testimony from Andrew Mott and PC Martin faithful telling us that they had to stop a body from thawing.... Well where were they when they had been trying to stop this from happening??
We are now left with, a location that doesn't match the defendants testimony, blood evidence that cannot have been where it was claimed, discounting all of the forensic evidence as being collected correctly, each piece of this evidence putting into question Dr Vincent Tabak's testimony on the stand... Showing us we cannot trust what was stated on the stand by him.... As him lying about his Landlord wasn't accurate either, we have CJ's statements to prove that....
Where Dr Vincent Tabak got the information he told on the stand, I cannot say, but virtually all of it was in the media before trial...
Somebody isn't telling the truth.... I know Dr Vincent Tabak didn't tell the truth on the stand, but who else??
If the evidence of trying to implicate CJ, wasn't heard at trial, how was it used when it came to his sentence?? Dr Vincent Tabak, must have remembered helping CJ on that Saturday 18th December 2010 morning, to help push his car up the drive....
Yet Dr Vincent Tabak has apparently no recollection of this when he is at trial... He believes for some obscure reason that he tried to implicate his Landlord, when we know that simply isn't true...
Dr Vincent Tabak appears to have a false memory of events... clearly indicated by him agreeing that he tried to implicate CJ... What other false memories does Dr Vincent Tabak have to the whole episode??
The evidence suggest that they are all false memories (imo) So therefore why must we believe that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates??
As for the Birches.... little to nothing is known of these people, they did not attend court, their statement was just read out.... Are they the figment of someone imagination?? Where did their statement come from?? The same with Andrew Mott and PC Martin Faithful, who both describe seeing Joanna Yeates that day... What of their evidence at trial, did they omit to tell us the real location of Joanna Yeates body??
Did Tanya Nickson also omit where abouts and on which wall she found her evidence??
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/dec/25/joanna-yeates-a-body-found
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8061.msg394112#msg394112
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/family-of-joanna-yeates-visit-spot-where-her-body-was-news-footage/693154970
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8834133/Vincent-Tabak-confessed-Joanna-Yeates-killing-in-emotional-meeting-with-prison-chaplain.html
-
So how did the Birches manage to find her on a grass verge?? They were walking their dogs, You are right mrswah, it is busy, and that is why I cannot understand how Joanna Yeates was found on a grass verge on Longwood Lane close to the quarry entrance...
She had to be somewhere more inaccessible , thats why they used the fire truck, If they were trying to just shield the area, they could have used tarpaulin, as they did at the back of the Flats... But A fire truck with a winch suggests that they need to reach her from a difficult position...
The area that she was discovered changed before trial, she was on a golf course at one point... There were images detailing where she was found,
Media of course may get details wrong, but that wrong?
If Joanna yeates was actually found on the grass verge as was sated at trial, she simply couldn't have lain there for over 8 days. So was she at another location before? making Longwood Lane the 3 scene of Crime....
If Joanna yeates was moved closer to the time of discovery, which really seems more than likely if we are to believe that Longwood Lane is actually the discovery sight, then Dr Vincent Tabak couldn't have moved her...
He was in Cambridge from the 23rd December 2010 , I believe and then went to Holland from Cambridge to see his family arriving back in Bristol on the 2nd January 2011..
How would Dr Vincent Tabak be able to move her again?? He wouldn't.....
There are 3 forensic tents on Longwood Lane at this time.... None of which were used to cover Joanna Yeates body....They used 7 fire appliances over 4 days, the parents were allowed to walk around the Scene of Crime on the 27th December 2010, there is no way that when the scene obviously hadn't finished being processed that any member of the public would be allowed to walk around or not even if they are family members...
All indicating that where Joanna Yeates had been discovered could not be on that Lane on a grass verge....
Her body had to be deposited over something... We have had a trial, where we are told, whether or nor we believe what Dr Vincent Tabak has stated on the stand, that Joanna Yeates was found on a grass verge on Longwood lane....
The Prosecution have gone with a grass verge on Longwood lane, The defence have gone with a grass verge on Longwood Lane, everything else suggests otherwise...
This is problematic for many reasons... If the real deposition site is else where, what does that say about the evidence that was presented at trial, The DNA, The Blood evidence that are supposed to conclusively prove that Dr Vincent Tabak was the killer of Joanna Yeates...
The obvious piece of evidence that thens puts the rest of the evidence into question is the evidence I believe Tanya Nickson gave,
Tanya Nickson has told the jury of the location of the blood, and suggested that Dr Vincent Tabak was trying to lift Joanna Yeates over the wall so as to hide her body from sight.....
The more likely scenario is that, Joanna Yeates body was discovered elsewhere, and we have Tanya Nickson, telling us something that was NOT possible, bringing into question her evidence ... not only that bringing all of the blood and DNA evidence into question, therefore telling us that what Dr Vincent Tabak stated on the stand was a tale, that someone.. for whatever reason had him believing was true....
It can't have been true.... 7 Fire appliances working on that scene over 4 days suggests that (A) she was in a different location and (B) that they were needed to retrieve something else... They not only used regular fire trucks but, had used a safety boat also... A boat suggesting that Joanna Yeates was more likely in water,than on dry land...
At trial the Fire Service did not attend, anyone following such a case over the Christmas period could not fail to notice the fire service arriving at the scene, all lined up on Longwood Lane, a fire service, who's services were needed over 4 day, the 29th December 2010 being the last day that they were used...
So why were they not at trial?? why didn't The Defence or Prosecution call anyone from the Fire Service to testify to what they were doing at the scene on Christmas day??
It has been a long time being questioned the location of Joanna Yeates body in that area... Testimony from Andrew Mott and PC Martin faithful telling us that they had to stop a body from thawing.... Well where were they when they had been trying to stop this from happening??
We are now left with, a location that doesn't match the defendants testimony, blood evidence that cannot have been where it was claimed, discounting all of the forensic evidence as being collected correctly, each piece of this evidence putting into question Dr Vincent Tabak's testimony on the stand... Showing us we cannot trust what was stated on the stand by him.... As him lying about his Landlord wasn't accurate either, we have CJ's statements to prove that....
Where Dr Vincent Tabak got the information he told on the stand, I cannot say, but virtually all of it was in the media before trial...
Somebody isn't telling the truth.... I know Dr Vincent Tabak didn't tell the truth on the stand, but who else??
If the evidence of trying to implicate CJ, wasn't heard at trial, how was it used when it came to his sentence?? Dr Vincent Tabak, must have remembered helping CJ on that Saturday 18th December 2010 morning, to help push his car up the drive....
Yet Dr Vincent Tabak has apparently no recollection of this when he is at trial... He believes for some obscure reason that he tried to implicate his Landlord, when we know that simply isn't true...
Dr Vincent Tabak appears to have a false memory of events... clearly indicated by him agreeing that he tried to implicate CJ... What other false memories does Dr Vincent Tabak have to the whole episode??
The evidence suggest that they are all false memories (imo) So therefore why must we believe that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates??
As for the Birches.... little to nothing is known of these people, they did not attend court, their statement was just read out.... Are they the figment of someone imagination?? Where did their statement come from?? The same with Andrew Mott and PC Martin Faithful, who both describe seeing Joanna Yeates that day... What of their evidence at trial, did they omit to tell us the real location of Joanna Yeates body??
Did Tanya Nickson also omit where abouts and on which wall she found her evidence??
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/dec/25/joanna-yeates-a-body-found
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8061.msg394112#msg394112
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/family-of-joanna-yeates-visit-spot-where-her-body-was-news-footage/693154970
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8834133/Vincent-Tabak-confessed-Joanna-Yeates-killing-in-emotional-meeting-with-prison-chaplain.html
Who "played you" Nine?
No but maybe I am starting to recognise I have been played...
-
Who "played you" Nine?
That is the big question.... appears the public themselves have been played....
-
So how did the Birches manage to find her on a grass verge?? They were walking their dogs, You are right mrswah, it is busy, and that is why I cannot understand how Joanna Yeates was found on a grass verge on Longwood Lane close to the quarry entrance...
She had to be somewhere more inaccessible , thats why they used the fire truck, If they were trying to just shield the area, they could have used tarpaulin, as they did at the back of the Flats... But A fire truck with a winch suggests that they need to reach her from a difficult position...
The area that she was discovered changed before trial, she was on a golf course at one point... There were images detailing where she was found,
Media of course may get details wrong, but that wrong?
If Joanna yeates was actually found on the grass verge as was sated at trial, she simply couldn't have lain there for over 8 days. So was she at another location before? making Longwood Lane the 3 scene of Crime....
If Joanna yeates was moved closer to the time of discovery, which really seems more than likely if we are to believe that Longwood Lane is actually the discovery sight, then Dr Vincent Tabak couldn't have moved her...
He was in Cambridge from the 23rd December 2010 , I believe and then went to Holland from Cambridge to see his family arriving back in Bristol on the 2nd January 2011..
How would Dr Vincent Tabak be able to move her again?? He wouldn't.....
There are 3 forensic tents on Longwood Lane at this time.... None of which were used to cover Joanna Yeates body....They used 7 fire appliances over 4 days, the parents were allowed to walk around the Scene of Crime on the 27th December 2010, there is no way that when the scene obviously hadn't finished being processed that any member of the public would be allowed to walk around or not even if they are family members...
All indicating that where Joanna Yeates had been discovered could not be on that Lane on a grass verge....
Her body had to be deposited over something... We have had a trial, where we are told, whether or nor we believe what Dr Vincent Tabak has stated on the stand, that Joanna Yeates was found on a grass verge on Longwood lane....
The Prosecution have gone with a grass verge on Longwood lane, The defence have gone with a grass verge on Longwood Lane, everything else suggests otherwise...
This is problematic for many reasons... If the real deposition site is else where, what does that say about the evidence that was presented at trial, The DNA, The Blood evidence that are supposed to conclusively prove that Dr Vincent Tabak was the killer of Joanna Yeates...
The obvious piece of evidence that thens puts the rest of the evidence into question is the evidence I believe Tanya Nickson gave,
Tanya Nickson has told the jury of the location of the blood, and suggested that Dr Vincent Tabak was trying to lift Joanna Yeates over the wall so as to hide her body from sight.....
The more likely scenario is that, Joanna Yeates body was discovered elsewhere, and we have Tanya Nickson, telling us something that was NOT possible, bringing into question her evidence ... not only that bringing all of the blood and DNA evidence into question, therefore telling us that what Dr Vincent Tabak stated on the stand was a tale, that someone.. for whatever reason had him believing was true....
It can't have been true.... 7 Fire appliances working on that scene over 4 days suggests that (A) she was in a different location and (B) that they were needed to retrieve something else... They not only used regular fire trucks but, had used a safety boat also... A boat suggesting that Joanna Yeates was more likely in water,than on dry land...
At trial the Fire Service did not attend, anyone following such a case over the Christmas period could not fail to notice the fire service arriving at the scene, all lined up on Longwood Lane, a fire service, who's services were needed over 4 day, the 29th December 2010 being the last day that they were used...
So why were they not at trial?? why didn't The Defence or Prosecution call anyone from the Fire Service to testify to what they were doing at the scene on Christmas day??
It has been a long time being questioned the location of Joanna Yeates body in that area... Testimony from Andrew Mott and PC Martin faithful telling us that they had to stop a body from thawing.... Well where were they when they had been trying to stop this from happening??
We are now left with, a location that doesn't match the defendants testimony, blood evidence that cannot have been where it was claimed, discounting all of the forensic evidence as being collected correctly, each piece of this evidence putting into question Dr Vincent Tabak's testimony on the stand... Showing us we cannot trust what was stated on the stand by him.... As him lying about his Landlord wasn't accurate either, we have CJ's statements to prove that....
Where Dr Vincent Tabak got the information he told on the stand, I cannot say, but virtually all of it was in the media before trial...
Somebody isn't telling the truth.... I know Dr Vincent Tabak didn't tell the truth on the stand, but who else??
If the evidence of trying to implicate CJ, wasn't heard at trial, how was it used when it came to his sentence?? Dr Vincent Tabak, must have remembered helping CJ on that Saturday 18th December 2010 morning, to help push his car up the drive....
Yet Dr Vincent Tabak has apparently no recollection of this when he is at trial... He believes for some obscure reason that he tried to implicate his Landlord, when we know that simply isn't true...
Dr Vincent Tabak appears to have a false memory of events... clearly indicated by him agreeing that he tried to implicate CJ... What other false memories does Dr Vincent Tabak have to the whole episode??
The evidence suggest that they are all false memories (imo) So therefore why must we believe that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates??
As for the Birches.... little to nothing is known of these people, they did not attend court, their statement was just read out.... Are they the figment of someone imagination?? Where did their statement come from?? The same with Andrew Mott and PC Martin Faithful, who both describe seeing Joanna Yeates that day... What of their evidence at trial, did they omit to tell us the real location of Joanna Yeates body??
Did Tanya Nickson also omit where abouts and on which wall she found her evidence??
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/dec/25/joanna-yeates-a-body-found
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8061.msg394112#msg394112
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/family-of-joanna-yeates-visit-spot-where-her-body-was-news-footage/693154970
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8834133/Vincent-Tabak-confessed-Joanna-Yeates-killing-in-emotional-meeting-with-prison-chaplain.html
Why do you think the fire service didn't testify at trial?
-
That is the big question.... appears the public themselves have been played....
You've moved the goal posts again
No but maybe I am starting to recognise I have been played...
First you claim it is YOU who has been played; NOW the public?
Suggesting cognitive dissonance?
-
Why do you think the fire service didn't testify at trial?
Evidence that is not introduced is not evidence.... By omitting these witness's no-one will question the testimony that Dr Vincent Tabak gave... no-one will question that the admission to Manslaughter also could not be true...
Omission is an extremely good way in which to get a jury to believe a story.. If they where not furnished with the full facts at trial, then they made a decision based on lies basically... Their judgement was founded on omissions, their beliefs were founded on untruths and a tale by the defendant that they shouldn't believe because they know and we know Dr Vincent Tabak lied...
Is it justice for anyone when evidence is omitted from a trial... is it Justice for Joanna Yeates if the wrong person is serving a sentence for a crime they didn't commit??
Is it again the lack of disclosure?? Or is it a case of everyone just been happy that someone is sentenced and put away for this crime no matter what.... Saves a lot of leg work....
-
Evidence that is not introduced is not evidence.... By omitting these witness's no-one will question the testimony that Dr Vincent Tabak gave... no-one will question that the admission to Manslaughter also could not be true...
Omission is an extremely good way in which to get a jury to believe a story.. If they where not furnished with the full facts at trial, then they made a decision based on lies basically... Their judgement was founded on omissions, their beliefs were founded on untruths and a tale by the defendant that they shouldn't believe because they know and we know Dr Vincent Tabak lied...
Is it justice for anyone when evidence is omitted from a trial... is it Justice for Joanna Yeates if the wrong person is serving a sentence for a crime they didn't commit??
Is it again the lack of disclosure?? Or is it a case of everyone just been happy that someone is sentenced and put away for this crime no matter what.... Saves a lot of leg work....
So in other words you're claiming the trial judge was deliberately neglectful?
-
Evidence that is not introduced is not evidence.... By omitting these witness's no-one will question the testimony that Dr Vincent Tabak gave... no-one will question that the admission to Manslaughter also could not be true...
Omission is an extremely good way in which to get a jury to believe a story.. If they where not furnished with the full facts at trial, then they made a decision based on lies basically... Their judgement was founded on omissions, their beliefs were founded on untruths and a tale by the defendant that they shouldn't believe because they know and we know Dr Vincent Tabak lied...
Is it justice for anyone when evidence is omitted from a trial... is it Justice for Joanna Yeates if the wrong person is serving a sentence for a crime they didn't commit??
Is it again the lack of disclosure?? Or is it a case of everyone just been happy that someone is sentenced and put away for this crime no matter what.... Saves a lot of leg work....
It's good to see you recognise Tabak lied btw
I've not read all your posts so don't know if you've said this before?
-
Evidence that is not introduced is not evidence.... By omitting these witness's no-one will question the testimony that Dr Vincent Tabak gave... no-one will question that the admission to Manslaughter also could not be true...
Omission is an extremely good way in which to get a jury to believe a story.. If they where not furnished with the full facts at trial, then they made a decision based on lies basically... Their judgement was founded on omissions, their beliefs were founded on untruths and a tale by the defendant that they shouldn't believe because they know and we know Dr Vincent Tabak lied...
Is it justice for anyone when evidence is omitted from a trial... is it Justice for Joanna Yeates if the wrong person is serving a sentence for a crime they didn't commit??
Is it again the lack of disclosure?? Or is it a case of everyone just been happy that someone is sentenced and put away for this crime no matter what.... Saves a lot of leg work....
I don't agree with you that he's innocent but I do agree with you re omission being an extremely good way in which to get a jury to believe a story because of my experiences of Simon Hall's case. (The police initially believed JA's murder had been sexually motivated. They dropped this theory at some point and eventually went with 'a burglary gone wrong' motive, which after over 12 years turned out to be wrong)
Lack of disclosure definitely featured in the Simon Hall case. Just prior to his confession in 2013 I asked the CCRC, and police if I remember correctly, for transcripts of Jamie Barker's police interview; among other things. http://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/he-didn-t-kill-joan-he-was-with-me-1-132848 According to Simon Hall in 2012, he and Barker committed a burglary at Zenith windows just prior to the murder. Barker also failed to mention this during the trial? Did he tell the police during his initial arrest and questioning (on the same day as Hall's arrest) and turned queens evidence?
As well as thinking of his old work-mate, Mr Barker is also now reflecting on the traumatic time he has endured himself.
He said: "It's been nine months of hell. I was never told by police why things were happening.
"We had forensics all over the house and we didn't know why.
"My mum was shaken even when we got to Norwich and then the first thing they came out with was 'What was it like when the forensics descended on your house?'
"She just broke down, but I couldn't speak to her because I'd just given my evidence. That was hard."
I also requested disclosure on Scott Doughty who was also a witness for the prosecution http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8523.msg491072#msg491072 in order to establish what items were seized following a raid at his home just prior to Hall's trial.
The jury in the Simon Hall case were not furnished with the full facts, Their judgement was founded on omissions, untruths and a tale of a burglary gone wrong.
You say you are interested in truth and justice but does that only apply to the Tabak case?
"Is it justice for anyone when evidence is omitted from a trial?"
"...is it a case of everyone just been happy that someone is sentenced and put away for this crime no matter what.... Saves a lot of leg work...."
Many lied or omitted evidence during Simon Hall's trial. Was this the reason he was able to maintain innocence for as long as he did?
-
So how did the Birches manage to find her on a grass verge?? They were walking their dogs, You are right mrswah, it is busy, and that is why I cannot understand how Joanna Yeates was found on a grass verge on Longwood Lane close to the quarry entrance...
She had to be somewhere more inaccessible , thats why they used the fire truck, If they were trying to just shield the area, they could have used tarpaulin, as they did at the back of the Flats... But A fire truck with a winch suggests that they need to reach her from a difficult position...
The area that she was discovered changed before trial, she was on a golf course at one point... There were images detailing where she was found,
Media of course may get details wrong, but that wrong?
If Joanna yeates was actually found on the grass verge as was sated at trial, she simply couldn't have lain there for over 8 days. So was she at another location before? making Longwood Lane the 3 scene of Crime....
If Joanna yeates was moved closer to the time of discovery, which really seems more than likely if we are to believe that Longwood Lane is actually the discovery sight, then Dr Vincent Tabak couldn't have moved her...
He was in Cambridge from the 23rd December 2010 , I believe and then went to Holland from Cambridge to see his family arriving back in Bristol on the 2nd January 2011..
How would Dr Vincent Tabak be able to move her again?? He wouldn't.....
There are 3 forensic tents on Longwood Lane at this time.... None of which were used to cover Joanna Yeates body....They used 7 fire appliances over 4 days, the parents were allowed to walk around the Scene of Crime on the 27th December 2010, there is no way that when the scene obviously hadn't finished being processed that any member of the public would be allowed to walk around or not even if they are family members...
All indicating that where Joanna Yeates had been discovered could not be on that Lane on a grass verge....
Her body had to be deposited over something... We have had a trial, where we are told, whether or nor we believe what Dr Vincent Tabak has stated on the stand, that Joanna Yeates was found on a grass verge on Longwood lane....
The Prosecution have gone with a grass verge on Longwood lane, The defence have gone with a grass verge on Longwood Lane, everything else suggests otherwise...
This is problematic for many reasons... If the real deposition site is else where, what does that say about the evidence that was presented at trial, The DNA, The Blood evidence that are supposed to conclusively prove that Dr Vincent Tabak was the killer of Joanna Yeates...
The obvious piece of evidence that thens puts the rest of the evidence into question is the evidence I believe Tanya Nickson gave,
Tanya Nickson has told the jury of the location of the blood, and suggested that Dr Vincent Tabak was trying to lift Joanna Yeates over the wall so as to hide her body from sight.....
The more likely scenario is that, Joanna Yeates body was discovered elsewhere, and we have Tanya Nickson, telling us something that was NOT possible, bringing into question her evidence ... not only that bringing all of the blood and DNA evidence into question, therefore telling us that what Dr Vincent Tabak stated on the stand was a tale, that someone.. for whatever reason had him believing was true....
It can't have been true.... 7 Fire appliances working on that scene over 4 days suggests that (A) she was in a different location and (B) that they were needed to retrieve something else... They not only used regular fire trucks but, had used a safety boat also... A boat suggesting that Joanna Yeates was more likely in water,than on dry land...
At trial the Fire Service did not attend, anyone following such a case over the Christmas period could not fail to notice the fire service arriving at the scene, all lined up on Longwood Lane, a fire service, who's services were needed over 4 day, the 29th December 2010 being the last day that they were used...
So why were they not at trial?? why didn't The Defence or Prosecution call anyone from the Fire Service to testify to what they were doing at the scene on Christmas day??
It has been a long time being questioned the location of Joanna Yeates body in that area... Testimony from Andrew Mott and PC Martin faithful telling us that they had to stop a body from thawing.... Well where were they when they had been trying to stop this from happening??
We are now left with, a location that doesn't match the defendants testimony, blood evidence that cannot have been where it was claimed, discounting all of the forensic evidence as being collected correctly, each piece of this evidence putting into question Dr Vincent Tabak's testimony on the stand... Showing us we cannot trust what was stated on the stand by him.... As him lying about his Landlord wasn't accurate either, we have CJ's statements to prove that....
Where Dr Vincent Tabak got the information he told on the stand, I cannot say, but virtually all of it was in the media before trial...
Somebody isn't telling the truth.... I know Dr Vincent Tabak didn't tell the truth on the stand, but who else??
If the evidence of trying to implicate CJ, wasn't heard at trial, how was it used when it came to his sentence?? Dr Vincent Tabak, must have remembered helping CJ on that Saturday 18th December 2010 morning, to help push his car up the drive....
Yet Dr Vincent Tabak has apparently no recollection of this when he is at trial... He believes for some obscure reason that he tried to implicate his Landlord, when we know that simply isn't true...
Dr Vincent Tabak appears to have a false memory of events... clearly indicated by him agreeing that he tried to implicate CJ... What other false memories does Dr Vincent Tabak have to the whole episode??
The evidence suggest that they are all false memories (imo) So therefore why must we believe that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates??
As for the Birches.... little to nothing is known of these people, they did not attend court, their statement was just read out.... Are they the figment of someone imagination?? Where did their statement come from?? The same with Andrew Mott and PC Martin Faithful, who both describe seeing Joanna Yeates that day... What of their evidence at trial, did they omit to tell us the real location of Joanna Yeates body??
Did Tanya Nickson also omit where abouts and on which wall she found her evidence??
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/dec/25/joanna-yeates-a-body-found
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8061.msg394112#msg394112
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/family-of-joanna-yeates-visit-spot-where-her-body-was-news-footage/693154970
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8834133/Vincent-Tabak-confessed-Joanna-Yeates-killing-in-emotional-meeting-with-prison-chaplain.html
I disagree
-
I would appreciate someone taking a proper look at this case and why it makes no sense....
I would still like to know where Dr Vincent Tabak confessed, and how this confession was documented... what was the date of this confession... You know simple things like that.. I could confess I am having tea with the Queen right now.... Doesn't make it true though does it!
Why do you appear fixated on Tabak's confession?
When you joined the forum this is what you posted
"There are many miscarriages of justice and their are many people who make false confessions, Good strong evidence is needed to support these confessions that people make.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7744.msg497094#msg497094
-
I wish someone would answer my questions Stephanie, and thanks for your response, nice to see someone else post...
?{)(**
When Sandra Lean attempted to throw me under the bus with regards Simon Hall's confession http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=8086.285 she showed the lengths she was prepared to go in order to attempt to cover up the error of her ways.
I did try to clear this up before but was attacked and the thread was derailed before I had the chance http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg491134#msg491134
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg491328#msg491328
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg491362#msg491362
On 10th January 2017 Sandra Lean stated:
"You see, to this day, we have only Stephanie’s word about the circumstances leading up to the confession, the circumstances of the confession itself, the state of Simon’s mental and emotional well-being (or otherwise), the content of the confession etc. We have no information about how the confession was given or accepted (it was reported at the inquest that he “told his wife” who then “told him to tell the prison.” I have no idea if that is true or not – it was reported in the media, after all.) I’m not inclined to simply take Stephanie’s word (or anyone else’s for that matter) at face value.
But, of course, that is my opinion, one I’m perfectly entitled to hold" http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=595.msg429131#msg429131
Based on the above Nine, what reason would the Yeates family have to lie about Tabak's confession? Do you believe they would want the wrong man in prison for the murder of their daughter? Did they strike you as the type of people to just accept any old thing they were told by the police? Do you think they would have remained silent for all these years if they had any doubts?
And why haven't Tabak's family spoken out? Didn't they hire a publicist in the early days when they thought their brother had been "scapegoated?"
You've ultimately claimed that everyone apart from Vincent Tabak was involved in some kind of conspiracy?
You may be able to accept a confession, or whatever you want to call it Justsaying.... But the facts should support said confession, and if Joanna Yeates did not reach home on Friday 17th December 2010, then I contend that Dr Vincent Tabak did not kill her as was stated at trial...
I don't see that. I see anomalies in the case similar to other cases.
An anomaly is something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected.
-
When Sandra Lean attempted to throw me under the bus with regards Simon Hall's confession http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=8086.285 she showed the lengths she was prepared to go in order to attempt to cover up the error of her ways.
I did try to clear this up before but was attacked and the thread was derailed before I had the chance http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg491134#msg491134
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg491328#msg491328
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg491362#msg491362
On 10th January 2017 Sandra Lean stated:
"You see, to this day, we have only Stephanie’s word about the circumstances leading up to the confession, the circumstances of the confession itself, the state of Simon’s mental and emotional well-being (or otherwise), the content of the confession etc. We have no information about how the confession was given or accepted (it was reported at the inquest that he “told his wife” who then “told him to tell the prison.” I have no idea if that is true or not – it was reported in the media, after all.) I’m not inclined to simply take Stephanie’s word (or anyone else’s for that matter) at face value.
But, of course, that is my opinion, one I’m perfectly entitled to hold" http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=595.msg429131#msg429131
Based on the above Nine, what reason would the Yeates family have to lie about Tabak's confession? Do you believe they would want the wrong man in prison for the murder of their daughter? Did they strike you as the type of people to just accept any old thing they were told by the police? Do you think they would have remained silent for all these years if they had any doubts?
And why haven't Tabak's family spoken out? Didn't they hire a publicist in the early days when they thought their brother had been "scapegoated?"
You've ultimately claimed that everyone apart from Vincent Tabak was involved in some kind of conspiracy?
I don't see that. I see anomalies in the case similar to other cases.
An anomaly is something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected.
Who has ever suggested that the Yeates family lied about anything? I would imagine that they trusted the police implicitly,believed everything they were told, and just wanted the right man imprisoned for their daughter's horrific murder.
As for the Tabak family, who knows why they have not spoken out?
Perhaps they do now think he's guilty.
Perhaps they think they will make things worse for VT in prison if they speak out.
Perhaps they have been told not to.
Perhaps they will speak out one day.
We just don't know do we?
As for Sandra Lean, for what it's worth, I think she asks the right questions-----------
-
Who has ever suggested that the Yeates family lied about anything? I would imagine that they trusted the police implicitly,believed everything they were told, and just wanted the right man imprisoned for their daughter's horrific murder.
As for the Tabak family, who knows why they have not spoken out?
Perhaps they do now think he's guilty.
Perhaps they think they will make things worse for VT in prison if they speak out.
Perhaps they have been told not to.
Perhaps they will speak out one day.
We just don't know do we?
As for Sandra Lean, for what it's worth, I think she asks the right questions-----------
Sandra Lean can keep asking questions till the cows come home, it's not her questions I have a problem with.
I think Nine has put forward a good case but it's clear to me she's been played.
-
Sandra Lean can keep asking questions till the cows come home, it's not her questions I have a problem with.
I think Nine has put forward a good case but it's clear to me she's been played.
By whom?
-
By whom?
For starters, by whomever or whatever raised her doubts re Tabak's confession/guilty plea to manslaughter
-
Countdown To Murder
10:54 of video... DCI Phil Jones
Whilst he was in America, he visited escorts and he was searching for escorts, whilst he was in California, and also we know on a business trip to Newcastle, that from a business telephone that he was using, contacted an escort agency, in the Newcastle area.
Which Newcastle where??
Newcastle, Kwazulu Natal, South Africa
Newcastle-under-Lyme, UK
New Castle, Indiana, America
New Castle, Pennsylvania, America
Newcastle West , County Limerick in place
Newcastle, County Dublin , town in South County Dublin
Newcastle, County Galway
Newcastle, County Tipperary
Newcastle, County Wicklow , town in County Wicklow
Newcastle, Oldcastle, County Meath
England
Newcastle, Herefordshire
Newcastle, Shropshire (Newcastle on Clun), town in the district of South Shropshire
Wales
Little Newcastle (Casnewydd-Bach), Pembrokeshire
Newcastle, Bridgend , Glamorgan
Newcastlstle, County Downe Emlyn , Ceredigion place between (Cardiganshire) and Carmarthenshire
Newcastle, Monmouthshire , town in Monmouthshire
U.S.A.
New Castle, Alabama, Jefferson County
Newcastle, Arkansas, Johnson Township
Newcastle, California, city in Placer County
New Castle, Colorado, in Garfield County Municipality
New Castle Hundred, a unified district in New Castle County, Delaware
New Castle, Delaware, city of New Castle County – and County of New Castle
New Castle, Illinois, Carrier Mills Township
New Castle, Kentucky, city in Henry County
Newcastle, Maine, town in Lincoln County – part of Damariscotta-Newcastle
New Castle, Missouri, Jefferson Township
Newcastle, Nebraska , city in Dixon County
New Castle, New Hampshire , city in Rockingham County
New Castle, New York , town in Westchester County
Newcastle Township, Coshocton County, Ohio, city in Coshocton County
New Castle, Ohio, Belmont County
Newcastle, Oklahoma, city in McClain County
New Castle, North Carolina, Wilkes County
New Castle Township, Pennsylvania, in Schuylkill County town
South Newcastle, Pennsylvania, Lawrence County
Newcastle, Texas, city in Young County
Newcastle, Utah, a unified district in Iron County
New Castle, Virginia, town in Craig County
Newcastle, Washington State, city in King County
Newcastle, Wyoming, city in Weston County
Canada – Newcastle, New Brunswick , a district in the Canadian city Miramichi
Jamaica – Newcastle
Barbados – Newcastle
Australia
Newcastle Waters, Northern Territory
Nothing is clearly defined, it is just left up your imagination to fill in the pieces, Clarity is needed.... This information that DCI Phil Jones has decided to share with us, was neither used in court or it''s sources were never proven... Newcastle... I presume most would think Newcastle England... But it doesn't have to be, Dr Vincent Tabak travels worldwide with the job he does and therefore Newcastle could be anywhere...
The business phone that he used... Was it one provided by Buro Happold, or a seperate phone that he had and that he used only for business, or did he use this mobile phone for other purposes??....
It was never established at trial which phone any texts came from, with the text messages playing a crucial part in this case, we need to establish, which phone sent which message, but there is no distinction between phones that Dr Vincent Tabak, may or may not have used....
What other information was held on the business phone that DCI Phil Jones speaks of??
It extremely important... A time line was established for Dr Vincent Tabak's movement based on what I believed at the time his PRIVATE mobile phone... There where gaps that the prosecution have let us know... There was a gap of an hour that apparently Dr Vincent Tabak sat in his Flat with the body of Joanna Yeates....
If the business phone was not introduced into trial, then we have no idea of it's contents, we have no idea, if there are phone calls or text messages at the relevant time, again putting Dr Vincent Tabak's testimony into question...
If Dr Vincent Tabak has no recollection of aiding CJ on that Saturday morning, what else has he forgotten about,... No witness's were called that could place Dr Vincent Tabak anywhere, yes we had statements read out, but nothing verified these statements...
What did Dr Vincent Tabak do on that weekend??
Firstly we need to establish which phone the Police gathered their information from?? Or as suggested by DCI Phil Jones it was two phones, Is the information we know of a mixture from the two phones?
How bored was Dr Vincent Tabak, bored with still doing work, when he would rather be at a party with Tanja?
No-one has questioned why Dr Vincent Tabak didn't attend Tanja's work party, many time people take their partners to such an event, we have assumed again that it was strictly for employees seeing as Dr Vincent Tabak didn't go... But what if he simply had more work to complete, he had after all not long returned from America on a business trip...
The emails he sent Tanja regularly, did they come from his phone?? A laptop?? or the business phone ?? We are not told... Important information again is just left up to our imaginations, as we ourselves fill in the blanks, deciding, just on the evidence at trial, that a story played out in a particular way...
We are well aware that crucial evidence was omitted.... CJ, telling us that Dr Vincent Tabak helped him on the Saturday, move his car from the drive, we know from CJ that the car was parked on the road on the Friday evening.. Proving that Dr Vincent Tabak didn't lie about CJ or try to incriminate him...
The omissions in this case could dramatically change the complexion of this case... The omissions that could prove one way or another Dr Vincent Tabak's movements on Friday 17th December 2010 through to Monday 20th December 2010, covering the critical time span...
As I said there was a whole hour unaccounted for whilst Dr Vincent Tabak was in his flat... a whole hour where the prosecution where just happy to accept that Dr Vincent tabak was actually in his flat.... I always wondered why they accepted this seeing as there was no evidence at trial to cover this hour....
Was he ringing business partners? Was he talking to someone?? was he texting someone, was he just messing on this business phone for an hour??
The business phone has to be important, the business phone could have been used to send the texts to Tanja... The business phone may have had auto correct on it, sending the "Crisis" message....
Unless we can establish which phone/phones were used by Dr Vincent Tabak over that weekend, how can we confidently establish his movements... A business phone that we do not know if Dr Vincent Tabak had from new... A business phone we do not know if anyone else had ever used or had access to... a business phone that could still have evidence upon it...
We have Lyndsey Farmery, the powerpoint pointer, whom explains to the jury with her slide show that Dr Vincent Tabak sent XYZ message at XXY time... that Dr Vincent Tabak did XYZ search at XYZ time... I say she showed us the text messages , but I cannot be 100% sure, she was the computer expert that took the stand in this trial,.. If Lyndsey Farmery didn't analysis Dr Vincent Tabak's mobile phones who did?? The 1300 page document, did it have which phone which action was done from??
Did Lyndsey Farmery also examine the mobile phones of Dr Vincent Tabak??/ Did Lyndsey Farmery omit the fact that the information from devices that Dr Vincent Tabak used was not all presented at trial...
There should have been miles and miles of information.... Highlighted for the jury to show the relevant times... But i am not sure if that was what happened... I am under the impression that what was seem as incriminating was the only evidence that the jury saw....
Within Lyndsey Farmery's testimony, did she inform the jury that one message had come from Dr Vincent Tabak's personal phone and an other message had come from Dr Vincent Tabak's business phone?? Did she keep them illuminated of the full facts... Or did she too omit evidence in this case??
A slight remark made on video, keeps me questioning the case, keeps me asking what was done for Dr Vincent Tabak... keeps me wondering just how much evidence was omitted and how much of this evidence would have changed the events of May/ October 2011
More needs to be know of this business phone of Dr Vincent Tabak's , more needs to be understood, more needs to be examined as to its full contents and usage, by Dr Vincent Tabak or anyone else...
It is always easy to go with the crowd, it is always easy to believe a story, but when huge amounts have been omitted , then the story can and does change dramatically...
I want to go back to one more issue.... It was established at trial that Dr Vincent Tabak did not know Joanna Yeates, which has been questioned before.. If Dr Vincent Tabak doesn't remember the incident with CJ... what else doesn't he remember??
Did any of these phones have Joanna Yeates as a contact?? It may seem an odd question, but it is a possibility.... I believe that Buro Happold were a client of BDP, they worked together , they got together.... The connection between BDP and Buro Happold has been played down.... A connection one couldn't fail to notice, if one was prepared to look...
A connection that would have been apparent to anyone working for these companies... So did Dr Vincent Tabak ever come into contact with Joanna Yeates in a work capacity?? We don't know... Was this why Dr Vincent Tabak made searches?/ was he concerned just like everyone else whom had come into contact with Joanna Yeates, keeping abreast of this case as it unfolded...
It was made out at trial, that Joanna Yeates and Dr Vincent Tabak were complete strangers, this may be true, but what if it wasn't the case? what if in fact they did know each other. Or had come into contact because of work??
This again would change the complexion of the trial... It has always been maintained that it was a spur of the moment thing... That he suddenly without any reason attacked his neighbour...
Had Dr Vincent Tabak actually been around to flat 1 before?/ had Dr Vincent Tabak worked with Joanna Yeates before??
Here are 2 quotes... from different publications:
Telegraph:
He claimed Miss Yeates had invited him into her flat after seeing him walk past her kitchen window as he was heading to the supermarket. He told the court: “I waved to her and she waved back.”
Sally Ramage .. Cleggs opening speech..
Vincent was walking towards his car when he passed Joanna’s kitchen window. She saw
him, there was a nod of acknowledgement and she beckoned him to come in. She had
opened the door and invited him in.
Clegg clearly telling us that there was a nod of acknowledgement... A nod that suggest that they did know each other...
If we go back to who CJ saw at the gate, who were these people?? did these people enter or leave Joanna Yeates flat.. Did Dr Vincent Tabak in fact enter Joanna yeates flat??
To feel responsible, may be interpreted in another way... for example if someone else was in Joanna Yeates flat and had been there with Dr Vincent Tabak and he had left her with them... It's an idea, but I am trying to put forward why Dr Vincent Tabak makes certain statements at trial... yet has such a vague recollection of events....
I have questioned many times why Joanna Yeates would open the door to a complete stranger... it doesn't seem a likely scenario... Had Dr Vincent Tabak popped in to say hello, then gone to ASDA?? we don't know...
Because we do not know for a fact, the exact time and day of Joanna Yeates death, it is difficult to establish when she was killed.... It is easy enough to have a tale around the apparent events, but the omissions make me question all the events of that time..
The screams are at random times, some when she is clearly not at home, and the scream that Kingdon heard mid morning on Saturday the 18th December 2010...
What proves that Joanna Yeates was dead within minutes of arriving home?? Nothing ... Nothing that Dr Delaney told us on the stand quantifies this... We only have the tale from Dr Vincent Tabak on the stand to tell us this... a tale which I do not believe....
In actual fact Dr Delaney gives us evidence to the contrary... Dr Delaney puts Joanna Yeates in different clothes... now we can interpret that in many ways.... She had time when she got home to change her clothes to the Pink Flower patterned Top, which she obviously wasn't wearing at The Ram that evening.... discounting the idea that she was attacked as soon as she arrived home... She was re-dressed by someone or more than one person, which no evidence of that was brought to trial... Or that simply she had slept in the flat on the Friday night and had changed her clothes in the morning....
There is no satisfactory explanation of the change of clothing given at trial.... Not even the jury questioned this...
So at what time and date , was Joanna Yeates alive?? empty stomach contents, will not prove anything... But a change of clothing gives us a clearer idea, that Joanna Yeates was not attacked immediately as has been suggested...
What really took place at 44, Canygne Road, what was it that made Ann Reddrop as early as late December 2010, see Dr Vincent Tabak as a suspect?? Was it really an anonymous phone call pointing the finger in his direction, that made her pursue him as a suspect, a phone call from a person that has not been identified, a phone call that was not played at trial, a phone call that changed many lives...
Was there a rush to judgement, was every avenue checked and checked again... Was a robust investigation done at the time??
I would say not... Based just on what I have found out since Dr Vincent Tabak's conviction.... Based on the video evidence of the people that were closest to the case in one way or another....
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8839702/Vincent-Tabak-Joanna-flirted-with-me-and-I-made-a-clumsy-pass-at-her.html
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
It has been pointed out that I have come up with wild and wacky scenario's whilst I have written on here... But this has been a work in progress... This has been painstakingly done, whilst i try and dissect the information that I have uncovered..
I have been left with massive amounts of information that has been omitted, making it possible to come up with any kind of scenario, in this case...
But if I stick with the facts... If I stick with the video's etc... I have evidence as to what may have taken place... I have evidence of witness's at the time... I have evidence as to which pieces of evidence had been omitted...
So yes I agree some of my posts appear a little wild... But put aside some of my idea's and concentrate, on the picture as a whole of what I have discovered not just on my own , but with others input to certain information....
My frustrations at earlier stages of writing on here, gave way to me speculating at possible scenario's.. made me speculate as to what may or may not have taken place...
But I believe I have provided evidence that does pose questions as to what really happened to Joanna Yeates.... questions as to why Dr Vincent Tabak had no memory of certain events.... Questions as to why Ann Redropp pursued Dr Vincent Tabak so early on ... and questions as to why certain witness's were never throughly questioned as to what they knew....
It is only by going over and over again on what is stated in video, that clear question can be posed... That questions we clearly can see should have been asked....
That clearly what was stated on the stand by Dr Vincent Tabak was a story... A story that was a lie....
I have been sent on wild goose chases... I have followed suggestions, and picked up from such suggestions ideas that do not sit with what is a reasonable account of events.....
But once I have got back on track... I believe I have clearly indicated that, evidence had and was omitted.... evidence that proves Dr Vincent Tabak believed that he implicated his landlord CJ.... evidence he believes was fact...
When in fact... as demonstrated... he didn't lie about CJ... He didn't implicate CJ... But he lied on the stand that he did!!
Edit.... I must apologise, that you all have had to be apart of my wild and wacky ideas, but the simple fact is that I do not know anyone personally who is interested in this case... I do not know anyone whom I could bounce idea off... So you all have had to be a part of my process, of trying to decipher, the information that is available about this case....
-
I was thinking about the flippant comment I made the other day about The parting of the Red Sea, and how some may see this as being disrespectful, to people of religion...
And I was going to remove this post, but maybe having an understanding as to why i am flippant or have a view of religion, might put something into perspective...
As a child, I explained I was brought up religious, I chose as an adult, not to continue, with such an idea... But that stems mainly from an incident that happened when I was a child, where the bible was used against me, were i didn't want to reveal certain information, either to incriminate myself or a sibling..... Where a promise was more Important to keep maybe at that time....
But my hand was placed firmly on said bible, my hand was held there without me being able to remove it my hand was held firm ,whilst i was questioned about what I had done or what I knew.... Whilst I squirmed not wishing to divulge anything... Yet being forced to confess to something i did not want any part of....
Now this may seem little to no consequence, but you have to understand that I was a small child, I had been brought up to believe that those who would dare lie on the bible, would go to hell and damnation for such an atrocity.... I was fearful, of what would happen to me... I was stuck between a rock and a hard place as to what I should do or say for the best.....
And on reflection as a young adult, I believed that if that was what religion could do to me as an Innocent child, why would i trust it again.....
The point to this tale, is not only to explain my position on a topic, but to show when important information that could be relevant is omitted, someones idea of a persons actions and behaviours may change...... And someone's opinion of a person or their beliefs may be understood a little clearer...
Edit.... Only person to confirm it in any way is Dr Vincent Tabak.... But come to think of it it could have been Clegg....
This Case has such Wide Gaps, it's like "Moses parting of the Red Sea".... What happened to all the fish.... They decided to be helpful that day and all moved along in an orderly fashion...!! Those of you with fins move to the left.... Those moluccas move to the right.... you crabs hurry up and decide what day of the week we are on and whether you turn left or right!!
Double Edit... I thought I would add a little more detail to that event, so you can understand the horror I felt at being put into a position I had no control over,...
Whilst I am being forced into a position I'm am not strong enough to fight against, I have the person whom is in control at the situation, angrily screaming at me, this person had tried on several occasions to illicit the information from me they so desired, to force me into a position of utter panic and fear, where I recall trying to pull myself away from that book... where I struggled and struggled to get far away from a book that could affect my After Life, with one leg stood firm, whilst the other leg was pointed outwards, with my arm at full stretch... where red faced and crying,having already been interrogated on the subject, for some time, where the last possible threat was used, that would convey the information this person needed... An unkind act on a young child, but I remember,I struggled with the hand and person to release me from swearing and confessing to what had happened , whilst at the same moment in time, breaking a promise, I may have made....
To imagine a situation without detail, allows the person hearing such information, to conclude what they believed took place, in any given situation.... If the detail, is missing anyone can interpret what they believe took place, anyone can put their own slant on what might have happened....
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg496589#msg496589
-
I am now contemplating, whether it was a wise decision, to convey a tale, from my childhood, Does it change, peoples views , in a good light, or a bad light, I do not know... I do not really care....
But as with anyone, without knowing the good or bad influences or experiences placed on a persons life, one cannot truly know enough about a person to state one way or another that said, person is what we may believe said person is....
That is why I believe in this case, it was of great value, not only to know of Dr Vincent Tabak's history, but that of Joanna Yeates... History that would give us a clearer indication as to why she or he might behave in a certain way and whether or not their behaviour was out of character....
Who knows us better than ourselves, who can honestly say they know a person inside out, when not having the understanding of how someone may process information... Or how said information is stored in their memory....
Dr Vincent Tabak stated he could not believe he had committed such an act....
0 HAVE YOUR SAY VINCENT Tabak wept in court today as he told for the first time how he “still can’t believe” he killed Joanna Yeates.
Tabak said he “still can’t believe” he killed Miss Yeates, claiming he panicked after she rebuffed his attempts to kiss her.
“I can’t believe I did that,” he told the jury. “I was not thinking straight.”
He said: “I’m so sorry for doing that. I put Joanna’s parents through a week of hell. I still can’t believe I did that.
“I still cannot believe that I was capable (of that).
3 times Dr Vincent Tabak, cannot understand his own actions, 3 times Dr Vincent Tabak doubts himself, 3 times he tells us he cannot believe he did this action......
Dr Vincent Tabak should know himself better than anyone, Dr Vincent Tabak, should be able to sort in his own mind, what prompted such an attack...
But again he fails to recall information, he fails to remember clearly the events and actions he apparently took.... Some may say it was convenient that he forgot, it played into his hands of trying to play down the seriousness of this crime...
But again I will go with his omission, that he saw CJ on the night/day there was snow on the ground.. He failed to mention that he did in fact help CJ and not try to implicate him...
If a man is trying to lessen, his responsibility and want the jury to see him in a favourable light, then why didn't this man protest at the idea that he had lied about his Landlord.. That there was proof that he did see that his Landlords car had changed position....
Maybe it should be for us to question the huge gaps in a story told on a stand... A story that was clearly a lie... A story where he didn't at any time try to defend himself....
Knowing himself better than anyone else could... Where as Dr Vincent Tabak has indicated, knowing himself, he couldn't believe that it was even possible for him to commit such an act....
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/crime/i-can-t-believe-i-killed-jo-yeates-weeps-vincent-tabak-1-3891681
For some reason the forum is stating that my attachments cannot be saved?? Therefore screenshots of this information from the article are not attached to this post...
-
I am now contemplating, whether it was a wise decision, to convey a tale, from my childhood, Does it change, peoples views , in a good light, or a bad light, I do not know... I do not really care....
But as with anyone, without knowing the good or bad influences or experiences placed on a persons life, one cannot truly know enough about a person to state one way or another that said, person is what we may believe said person is....
That is why I believe in this case, it was of great value, not only to know of Dr Vincent Tabak's history, but that of Joanna Yeates... History that would give us a clearer indication as to why she or he might behave in a certain way and whether or not their behaviour was out of character....
Who knows us better than ourselves, who can honestly say they know a person inside out, when not having the understanding of how someone may process information... Or how said information is stored in their memory....
Dr Vincent Tabak stated he could not believe he had committed such an act....
3 times Dr Vincent Tabak, cannot understand his own actions, 3 times Dr Vincent Tabak doubts himself, 3 times he tells us he cannot believe he did this action......
Dr Vincent Tabak should know himself better than anyone, Dr Vincent Tabak, should be able to sort in his own mind, what prompted such an attack...
But again he fails to recall information, he fails to remember clearly the events and actions he apparently took.... Some may say it was convenient that he forgot, it played into his hands of trying to play down the seriousness of this crime...
But again I will go with his omission, that he saw CJ on the night/day there was snow on the ground.. He failed to mention that he did in fact help CJ and not try to implicate him...
If a man is trying to lessen, his responsibility and want the jury to see him in a favourable light, then why didn't this man protest at the idea that he had lied about his Landlord.. That there was proof that he did see that his Landlords car had changed position....
Maybe it should be for us to question the huge gaps in a story told on a stand... A story that was clearly a lie... A story where he didn't at any time try to defend himself....
Knowing himself better than anyone else could... Where as Dr Vincent Tabak has indicated, knowing himself, he couldn't believe that it was even possible for him to commit such an act....
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/crime/i-can-t-believe-i-killed-jo-yeates-weeps-vincent-tabak-1-3891681
For some reason the forum is stating that my attachments cannot be saved?? Therefore screenshots of this information from the article are not attached to this post...
I suspect his tears were for himself!
Do you make this simple (but dangerous) mistake about the psychopathic mind ?
http://psychopathsandlove.com/dangerous-mistake-about-the-psychopathic-mind/
-
I suspect his tears were for himself!
Do you make this simple (but dangerous) mistake about the psychopathic mind ?
http://psychopathsandlove.com/dangerous-mistake-about-the-psychopathic-mind/
Stephanie, how do you know that??
Do you think all people who kill are psychopaths?
-
Stephanie, how do you know that??
Do you think all people who kill are psychopaths?
How do we know you are Helen from Devon? @)(++(*
-
How do we know you are Helen from Devon? @)(++(*
I'm not!! I'm Helen from Dorset!!!
-
I'm not!! I'm Helen from Dorset!!!
Of course you are 8@??)(
My mistake
Helen from Dorest who helps John moderate his forum @)(++(*
-
Of course you are 8@??)(
My mistake
Helen from Dorest who helps John moderate his forum @)(++(*
Among many others!
-
Among many others!
Of course you are @)(++(*
-
What do you think of this Nine?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6243685/Brother-law-32-admits-killing-midwife-Samantha-Eastwood.html
'He is absolutely horrified about what happened and he is deeply sorry. Not only for himself, but for all those others who are victims of this crime.'
Someone else who was as horrified as Tabak for his actions!
-
One last thing Nine, you are clearly in denial. He did try to set up CJ and that has been proven.
He told police that the car had moved during the night, not that he helped CJ move it on the morning. As Jixy pointed out before, there is massive difference in the two stories.
-
One last thing Nine, you are clearly in denial. He did try to set up CJ and that has been proven.
He told police that the car had moved during the night, not that he helped CJ move it on the morning. As Jixy pointed out before, there is massive difference in the two stories.
As far as I know, CJ has never denied (or confirmed) moving his car. Some reports in the media say that it was Tanja who phoned the police about it, not Vincent. If it is true that CJ parked his car in the street after returning from the gym, and VT helped him move it from the drive the following morning, then it must have been moved at some point. There is nothing particularly sinister about this, in my opinion. it doesn't point the finger at anybody.
-
As far as I know, CJ has never denied (or confirmed) moving his car. Some reports in the media say that it was Tanja who phoned the police about it, not Vincent. If it is true that CJ parked his car in the street after returning from the gym, and VT helped him move it from the drive the following morning, then it must have been moved at some point. There is nothing particularly sinister about this, in my opinion. it doesn't point the finger at anybody.
The police clearly thought different. It clearly states on the law pages that VT phoned police from Holland to tell them he remembered that the car had moved on the night. I am not disputing he helped CJ move the car on the morning but that is not what he told police, he was clearly indicating the car had moved without any help from himself - there is a difference between helping to move a car on a morning and seeing it had been moved on a night.
-
The police clearly thought different. It clearly states on the law pages that VT phoned police from Holland to tell them he remembered that the car had moved on the night. I am not disputing he helped CJ move the car on the morning but that is not what he told police, he was clearly indicating the car had moved without any help from himself - there is a difference between helping to move a car on a morning and seeing it had been moved on a night.
Semantics....
Clearly Dr Vincent Tabak would have noticed that the car had changed position... If Dr Vincent tabak has left his property for any reason after 9:00pm on Friday 17th December 2010 and we are lead to believe he went to collect his girlfriend from her party.....And in the morning he sees this car then parked on the drive, It doesn't take a nuclear physicist to see that the car had clearly been moved from the road to the drive, clearly indication a change of position....
-
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/28/yeates-landlord-criticises-police
During the trial it emerged that Tabak had tried to shift blame on to Jefferies by telling police the landlord had moved his car on the night of the killing. The judge, Mr Justice Fielding, said it was an "aggravating feature" of the case that he had tried to blame Jefferies.
And yes The Guardian is a very reputable newspaper.
-
The police clearly thought different. It clearly states on the law pages that VT phoned police from Holland to tell them he remembered that the car had moved on the night. I am not disputing he helped CJ move the car on the morning but that is not what he told police, he was clearly indicating the car had moved without any help from himself - there is a difference between helping to move a car on a morning and seeing it had been moved on a night.
I wasn't disputing that either! It is well known that either he or Tanja rang the police from Holland. CJ was already in custody by then, though, and, like CJ, Vincent and Tanja were merely doing what the police had asked them to do, ie phoning the police if they remembered anything else! IMO, CJ probably did move his car, probably because he had heard it was going to snow that night, so he wanted to make it easier to drive it out in the morning. As far as I know, he has never denied doing so, and I don't believe there was any sinister reason why he did!
Interesting that those who contacted the police with additional information ended up getting arrested. It certainly puts me off ever doing the same!
-
Semantics....
Clearly Dr Vincent Tabak would have noticed that the car had changed position... If Dr Vincent tabak has left his property for any reason after 9:00pm on Friday 17th December 2010 and we are lead to believe he went to collect his girlfriend from her party.....And in the morning he sees this car then parked on the drive, It doesn't take a nuclear physicist to see that the car had clearly been moved from the road to the drive, clearly indication a change of position....
Nine, he tried to make police believe that there was something sinister in the car being moved. He knew himself that it did not matter that the car had moved because he knew without a doubt that CJ was innocent. He knew this because he himself killed Joanna - as admitted. Doesn't take a "nuclear physicist" to work that out either based on the evidence!
-
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/28/yeates-landlord-criticises-police
During the trial it emerged that Tabak had tried to shift blame on to Jefferies by telling police the landlord had moved his car on the night of the killing. The judge, Mr Justice Fielding, said it was an "aggravating feature" of the case that he had tried to blame Jefferies.
And yes The Guardian is a very reputable newspaper.
The Guardian is my favourite newspaper!
I don't agree with the judge in this instance, however.
-
Nine, he tried to make police believe that there was something sinister in the car being moved. He knew himself that it did not matter that the car had moved because he knew without a doubt that CJ was innocent. He knew this because he himself killed Joanna - as admitted. Doesn't take a "nuclear physicist" to work that out either based on the evidence!
I don't agree. VT and Tanja both thought the car had been moved, and surely, you don't believe Tanja had anything to do with the murder,
-
I wasn't disputing that either! It is well known that either he or Tanja rang the police from Holland. CJ was already in custody by then, though, and, like CJ, Vincent and Tanja were merely doing what the police had asked them to do, ie phoning the police if they remembered anything else! IMO, CJ probably did move his car, probably because he had heard it was going to snow that night, so he wanted to make it easier to drive it out in the morning. As far as I know, he has never denied doing so, and I don't believe there was any sinister reason why he did!
Interesting that those who contacted the police with additional information ended up getting arrested. It certainly puts me off ever doing the same!
He was arrested because he was asking too many questions about forensics etc -this cause alarm bells to ring, they took his DNA and surprise, surprise a match came up with the DNA found on the victims body! This would not stop me coming forward with information if I had nothing to hide! I never said you were disputing it, nor did I imply that you were.
-
I don't agree. VT and Tanja both thought the car had been moved, and surely, you don't believe Tanja had anything to do with the murder,
How do you know she did believe that? How do you know that VT didn't just suggest it to her and she went along with him? There is nothing in any court reporting to suggest it was her who told police this either way but there is a lot suggesting it was him. Including the some of Nines own links.
-
He was arrested because he was asking too many questions about forensics etc -this cause alarm bells to ring, they took his DNA and surprise, surprise a match came up with the DNA found on the victims body! This would not stop me coming forward with information if I had nothing to hide! I never said you were disputing it, nor did I imply that you were.
So, is it suspicious to ask questions about the forensics? I recall the police were suspicious because he remarked about the front door being removed, and he was told it was "normal procedure". Well, I would have asked about that too, because I have never heard of that being done before, "normal procedure" or not! I am inquisitive, and I certainly would have been, had it been my next door neighbour who had been killed. As for the DNA, it had to be enhanced, and, from what I remember reading. the sample was used up in the enhancing procedure , so it could never be checked by the defence.
Therefore, I ask questions!
-
How do you know she did believe that? How do you know that VT didn't just suggest it to her and she went along with him? There is nothing in any court reporting to suggest it was her who told police this either way but there is a lot suggesting it was him. Including the some of Nines own links.
I have read reports saying it was her who rang the police. Will try to find the links.
-
So, is it suspicious I one asks questions about the forensics? I recall the police were suspicious because he remarked about the front door being removed, and he was told it was "normal procedure". Well, I would have asked about that too, because I have never heard of that being done before, "normal procedure" or not! I am inquisitive, and I certainly would have been, had it been my next door neighbour who had been killed. As for the DNA, it had to be enhanced, and, from what I remember reading. the sample was used up in the enhancing procedure , so it could never be checked by the defence.
Therefore, I ask questions!
You don't just ask questions, you dispute all of the evidence available.
-
You don't just ask questions, you dispute all of the evidence available.
Ok, so I question the evidence! I think outside the box, I'm afraid.
This is neither right not wrong, IMO.
-
I have read reports saying it was her who rang the police. Will try to find the links.
With all due respect I am not interested in newspaper reports, I am interested in what the evidence was at trial. The judge clearly stated that it was VT who tried to blame CJ - he must have had good reason to think such a thing. Wonder why his girlfriend isn't fighting for her beloved - perhaps because she too is sickened by his guilt? I have seen suggestions that his family are unable to speak out, I find this complete rubbish. As I have pointed out numerous times, people with higher profile cases manage to speak out about their alleged innocence, what is so different about Tabak?
-
Ok, so I question the evidence! I think outside the box, I'm afraid.
This is neither right not wrong, IMO.
Questioning the evidence and outright disputing it is two totally different things. People have been convicted on a lot less. I do not see people disputing the evidence in those cases - in fact the way it is disputed in this case means that every single person ever found guilty of murder must be innocent.
-
With all due respect I am not interested in newspaper reports, I am interested in what the evidence was at trial. The judge clearly stated that it was VT who tried to blame CJ - he must have had good reason to think such a thing. Wonder why his girlfriend isn't fighting for her beloved - perhaps because she too is sickened by his guilt? I have seen suggestions that his family are unable to speak out, I find this complete rubbish. As I have pointed out numerous times, people with higher profile cases manage to speak out about their alleged innocence, what is so different about Tabak?
I agree that the judge did indeed say that, but I don't have to agree with him.
As for his girlfriend and family, as I have said previously, we cannot know for sure why they don't speak out.
Sometimes, I really wish one of them would come on to this forum and tell us!!!!!
-
I agree that the judge did indeed say that, but I don't have to agree with him.
As for his girlfriend and family, as I have said previously, we cannot know for sure why they don't speak out.
Sometimes, I really wish one of them would come on to this forum and tell us!!!!!
Sometimes Mrswah - peoples silence speaks volumes! Including Vincent Tabaks!
-
Questioning the evidence and outright disputing it is two totally different things. People have been convicted on a lot less. I do not see people disputing the evidence in those cases - in fact the way it is disputed in this case means that every single person ever found guilty of murder must be innocent.
Nonsense. There are many people who have been convicted, and who I believe really are/were guilty.
-
Nonsense. There are many people who have been convicted, and who I believe really are/were guilty.
Yes, and I bet they were convicted on more or less the same evidence which convicted Tabak... Strange that!
-
Sometimes Mrswah - peoples silence speaks volumes! Including Vincent Tabaks!
Everything speaks volumes------silence, too much talking, "cockiness", body language------the problem is, we never really know.
-
Everything speaks volumes------silence, too much talking, "cockiness", body language------the problem is, we never really know.
From experience Mrswah - those who do not claim innocence, nor fight for their freedom, are generally guilty...
-
Yes, and I bet they were convicted on more or less the same evidence which convicted Tabak... Strange that!
How do you know?
-
From experience Mrswah - those who do not claim innocence, nor fight for their freedom, are generally guilty...
Probably!
There are exceptions to every rule. We are all unique people.
-
How do you know?
Probably because I have had the advantage of sitting in numerous trials and seen first hand what evidence is used to convict people. You would be surprised (though you shouldn't be) how often internet searches, DNA, fibre, victims blood, oh and confessions of guilt are used to convict people...
-
Probably!
There are exceptions to every rule. We are all unique people.
That we are, but the suggestion that he is unable to speak out, or his family are unable to speak out on his behalf, is just ridiculous - how do you think other people manage to fight their conviction? Why would VT be silenced when other people manage to speak out? Even the evil Ian Brady managed to speak out through others, though he was not claiming innocence. Myra Hindley even had people speaking out on her behalf - what is so special about Tabak that he is being blocked *&^^&
-
Another thing I find strange is how some people take it personally when others point out the strong evidence which was used to convict. These opinions are based on fact, not on speculation or outright conspiracy.
Why is that? *%87
-
Probably because I have had the advantage of sitting in numerous trials and seen first hand what evidence is used to convict people. You would be surprised (though you shouldn't be) how often internet searches, DNA, fibre, victims blood, oh and confessions of guilt are used to convict people...
I'm not surprised, no.
As a matter of interest, do you always believe the evidence put forward?
-
I'm not surprised, no.
As a matter of interest, do you always believe the evidence put forward?
Evidence which cannot be, or is not disputed - yes, without a doubt, why wouldn't I?
-
I was thinking about the flippant comment I made the other day about The parting of the Red Sea, and how some may see this as being disrespectful, to people of religion...
And I was going to remove this post, but maybe having an understanding as to why i am flippant or have a view of religion, might put something into perspective...
As a child, I explained I was brought up religious, I chose as an adult, not to continue, with such an idea... But that stems mainly from an incident that happened when I was a child, where the bible was used against me, were i didn't want to reveal certain information, either to incriminate myself or a sibling..... Where a promise was more Important to keep maybe at that time....
But my hand was placed firmly on said bible, my hand was held there without me being able to remove it my hand was held firm ,whilst i was questioned about what I had done or what I knew.... Whilst I squirmed not wishing to divulge anything... Yet being forced to confess to something i did not want any part of....
Now this may seem little to no consequence, but you have to understand that I was a small child, I had been brought up to believe that those who would dare lie on the bible, would go to hell and damnation for such an atrocity.... I was fearful, of what would happen to me... I was stuck between a rock and a hard place as to what I should do or say for the best.....
And on reflection as a young adult, I believed that if that was what religion could do to me as an Innocent child, why would i trust it again.....
The point to this tale, is not only to explain my position on a topic, but to show when important information that could be relevant is omitted, someones idea of a persons actions and behaviours may change...... And someone's opinion of a person or their beliefs may be understood a little clearer...
Edit....
Double Edit... I thought I would add a little more detail to that event, so you can understand the horror I felt at being put into a position I had no control over,...
Whilst I am being forced into a position I'm am not strong enough to fight against, I have the person whom is in control at the situation, angrily screaming at me, this person had tried on several occasions to illicit the information from me they so desired, to force me into a position of utter panic and fear, where I recall trying to pull myself away from that book... where I struggled and struggled to get far away from a book that could affect my After Life, with one leg stood firm, whilst the other leg was pointed outwards, with my arm at full stretch... where red faced and crying,having already been interrogated on the subject, for some time, where the last possible threat was used, that would convey the information this person needed... An unkind act on a young child, but I remember,I struggled with the hand and person to release me from swearing and confessing to what had happened , whilst at the same moment in time, breaking a promise, I may have made....
To imagine a situation without detail, allows the person hearing such information, to conclude what they believed took place, in any given situation.... If the detail, is missing anyone can interpret what they believe took place, anyone can put their own slant on what might have happened....
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg496589#msg496589
Nine can I ask how you found this forum?
-
Nine can I ask how you found this forum?
I was looking to see if anything had changed regards Dr Vincent Tabak... So I did a google search and found the forum... simple as that really...
I was hoping to find a forum that had other people interested in the case , and I found that mrswah had started a topic....
I wanted to know if anyone else had see the case as a miscarriage of justice.... I think I may have used those words in my search criteria, along with Dr Vincent Tabak's name...
I am now trying to think of the exact words i used... forum was one of them...
Why do you ask???
-
I posted a while ago an image that showed the intercom outside Joanna Yeates Flat and where was written upon it Flat 1, It had taken me a while stopping and starting a clip to be able to freeze frame the intercom and capture, the image...
I had struggled to find a close up image of Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat intercom.... well one that got close up enough to show us the number of the flat...
I have many times stated that I believed that the basement was connected, I got excited when I found the forensic team doing forensics on the bay window in December 2010, wondering if the flat could have been shared or if the Flat was Dr Vincent Tabak's why were they seeing him as a suspect so early on..... why were they working on the Flat we know as his....
All this time I have argued about this case, all this time I have tried to unravel what is wrong and what is staged, all this time I have tried to find something that could be a key to the mystery that is somewhere around the internet contradicting the narrative we have been told....
And at last I believe I have found it.....
A clip, that show the scaffolding being erected, when I screenshot the news footage I captured a close up of the intercom panel that was outside Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat..... Or should I rephrase that...
The Flat we have been lead to believe that Dr Vincent Tabak lived in... The Flat at the back of the building with the wooden framed door with glass panels.... The Flat where we have been lead to believe that Dr Vincent Tabak carried Joanna Yeates from her Flat at the side of the building, around to his Flat at the back, with no-one being or witnessing this event taking place...
A Flat were a jury visited, a flat were the media filmed... A Flat that I am being to wonder if it ever existed.... How can a man be arrested for murder and sentenced based on evidence that is incorrect... How can a jury have been allowed to believe that this flat at the back of the building is Vincent Tabak's Flat?
How is it possible, to commit a crime from a none existing Flat?
Flat 2 was depicted in 'The Lost Honour of CJ.' we remember a man portraying CJ go to Flat 2 and a man portraying Dr Vincent Tabak opening the door, CJ is asking for assistance, he has Greg in tow.... CJ is looking for jump leads...
There is also a video where CJ describes that Dr Vincent Tabak lived in a Flat at the back of the building and Joanna Yeates Flat and Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat both had their own entrances...
We have the article that Liz Lowman describes people leaving the communal Flat and until now I had no proof that it was even possible to show that the basement Flat was just that..... communal...
But to my surprise today, I came across a clip , that reveals just that.... A clip that clearly shows the intercom panel on the left hand side of the door we have been told is Flat 2 and finally managed to secure an images of this intercom panel... This intercom panel revealing to us that the Flat we have been lead to believe is Flat 2 isn't... The Flat we have been lead to believe is independent and separate from Joanna Yeates who lived at Flat 1 isn't...
The intercom panel clearly shows us that The Flat we know as Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat has the Flat number of Flat 1....
This is incredible, the implications of this info casts doubts on many things... The implications and the story that was told on the stand by Dr Vincent Tabak... A story that we know is a lie....
But why have the media gone with this... They clearly would have seen that the basement Flat was indeed just one Flat... They clearly walked around the entire ground floor outside...
So which Flat did Dr Vincent Tabak live in?? How did he apparently walk out of the Flat t with the glass panelled door to the side of the building to the Flat with the solid door, to pass a kitchen window, where apparently Joanna Yeates and Dr Vincent Tabak first set eyes upon each other that evening , and with a nod, waved and was invited in....
A huge pack of lies on the stand, by a man who couldn't remember so many details... by a man who struggled to answer the questions posed to him by The Prosecution...
Well how bad was his memory.... It must have been shocking if he didn't know the difference between a basement Flat and one in the main building....
I had also some time ago an image of a man I believed to be possibily Dr Vincent Tabak entering or should I say returning to Canygne Road and entering the main entrance, there were a couple of woman I think waiting for him outside the main entrance.... I suggested that it might have been Dr Vincent Tabak going to Canygne Road to collect some belongings, before he moved to Aberdeen Road...
Does the fact that Flat 2 is really one basement Flat now clear up the image of the man I posted?? Was it in fact Dr Vincent Tabak returning to collect some belongings??
Therefore if Dr Vincent Tabak actually lived in the main building, how would he seriously be able to move a body into said main building without any other tenants noticing??
I had said I believed that the Red Book case ,shelving unit hide a doorway to the other flat.. I believed that the sensor that sat at the top of this shelving unit indicated a door way...
I have stated many many times that Joanna Yeates Flat had been staged, and I know believe that the proof that both intercoms of the basements flat, show us this is the case... I believe that both intercoms show is that the Flat is indeed one Flat and not two...
That has now opened up a whole different ball game, that has now opened up a whole can of worms...
Isn't it time that the truth was really known, isn't it time that we are told what really happened to Joanna Yeates.. isn't it time the real killer was revealed??
Was the Flat shared?? I don't know or did Dr Vincent Tabak actually live in a different part of the building....
Maybe the Ikea mens testimony could be needed, they may be able to shed light on which entrance they delivered the furniture too....
Liz Lowman, who lives on the opposite side of the road, said Mr Jefferies told her the three people were coming out of a shared entrance to the house.
“These people were leaving through the communal entrance,” she said. “Unfortunately, we didn’t hear or see anything.
“I don’t think there was a party that night as I would have heard the music and we heard nothing and we were in all evening.
Do we also ask for Liz Lowmans testimony, seeing as it was she who explained that the flat was communal, and had a communal entrance, or is that 2 entrances??
Again the forum is stating that my attachments couldn't be saved, again I have not the ability to put up the proof that the intercom panel that is next to the door of Dr Vincent Tabak's apparent Flat is indeed stating that this Flat is in fact FLAT1... I do not understand why this is happening... Could someone please clarify why i am having this problem??
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8230708/Joanna-Yeates-was-with-two-people-her-landlord-tells-police.html
-
JustSaying and Stephanie-------please can we stop the sniping/goading/insulting and keep to civil discussion? Thank you!!!
-
I am intrigued - please tell us Dr, how have I played Nine? What have I told her that is false about anything she has asked? Just because I do not add links like you do does not mean it is false, in fact she can look up anything I have said in my answers to her questions and she will see it is true - she is quite capable of doing that.
Whose playing who *&^^&
It gets weird on here....
I am having issues posting attachments, I like to evidence where I get my info from... makes things a little difficult..
maybe mrswah will let me know when its all ok seeing as hse is the moderator of this forum... 8)-)))
I sometimes wonder whether what I write gets read... whether it makes a difference I have no idea... but it seems to amuse some as to what I have said... For why I don't know... *&^^&
-
It gets weird on here....
I am having issues posting attachments, I like to evidence where I get my info from... makes things a little difficult..
maybe mrswah will let me know when its all ok seeing as hse is the moderator of this forum... 8)-)))
I sometimes wonder whether what I write gets read... whether it makes a difference I have no idea... but it seems to amuse some as to what I have said... For why I don't know... *&^^&
Will look into it, Nine.
-
That we are, but the suggestion that he is unable to speak out, or his family are unable to speak out on his behalf, is just ridiculous - how do you think other people manage to fight their conviction? Why would VT be silenced when other people manage to speak out? Even the evil Ian Brady managed to speak out through others, though he was not claiming innocence. Myra Hindley even had people speaking out on her behalf - what is so special about Tabak that he is being blocked *&^^&
Now that is an interesting term you use there.... &^^&*
-
Inappropriate posts will be reported, and either edited or deleted. You know that very well.
-
So what makes you carry on??
What do you mean?
Are you referring to miscarriages of justice cases?
There are no genuine MOJ's being discussed on this forum as far as I'm aware?
-
Posters are reminded to keep within the topic under discussion. Anything else will be removed. TY
-
What do you mean?
Are you referring to miscarriages of justice cases?
There are no MOJ's being discussed on this forum as far as I'm aware?
That is even more confusing... Or should that be possible miscarriages of justice?
-
That is even more confusing... Or should that be possible miscarriages of justice?
Have edited my post - genuine MOJ's is what I meant 8((()*/
-
Have edited my post - genuine MOJ's is what I meant
Oopsie Stephanie.. thanks for correcting that... my mind was about to go walkabouts.... @)(++(*
-
That is even more confusing... Or should that be possible miscarriages of justice?
That is just Stephanie's opinion, Nine. Luke's is a potential miscarriage of justice, and you yourself claim Tabak is (even if I and others do not believe it) - it is just matter of opinion on what people believe or not.
-
That is just Stephanie's opinion, Nine. Luke's is a potential miscarriage of justice, and you yourself claim Tabak is (even if I and others do not believe it) - it is just matter of opinion on what people believe or not.
I agree... we all have a different opinion ... I have briefly looked at Luke's case, there seems to be hands on deck with that one, this case takes up my time, I don't know how i could contribute to another...
Feeling I am pointlessly pointing things out, that has no effect... Can be unsatisfactory sometimes...
Sometimes I think I will stop... then I find something new... Amazing... The thing is , anyone can find out what I have found.... it's all over the internet... &^^&*
-
Inappropriate posts will be reported, and either edited or deleted. You know that very well.
I've no idea why my early reply to Nine has been removed as it was perfectly reasonable?!!
So I repeat... Nine, until this attachment problem is resolved why don't you provide a link to the video you're so enthusiastic about. It's easy enough, then we can do our own screenshots of the doorway to Tabak's flat, if necessary.
-
It gets weird on here....
I am having issues posting attachments, I like to evidence where I get my info from... makes things a little difficult..
maybe mrswah will let me know when its all ok seeing as hse is the moderator of this forum... 8)-)))
I sometimes wonder whether what I write gets read... whether it makes a difference I have no idea... but it seems to amuse some as to what I have said... For why I don't know... *&^^&
There is currently no restriction on attachments, the following are supported.. doc, gif, jpg, mpg, pdf, png, txt and zip files.
There is a technical issue with uploads which we are attempting to resolve however.
-
That is just Stephanie's opinion, Nine. Luke's is a potential miscarriage of justice, and you yourself claim Tabak is (even if I and others do not believe it) - it is just matter of opinion on what people believe or not.
No it's a matter of the illusion and whether one believes it or not.
There are numerous and quite apparent genuine Miscarriages of justice cases but no one of this forum appears interested in them?
-
There is currently no restriction on attachments, the following are supported.. doc, gif, jpg, mpg, pdf, png, txt and zip files.
I tried uploading three different jpgs of the flat layout very early this morning and had the same problem as Nine, so maybe it's been sorted by now?
-
No it's a matter of the illusion and whether one believes it or not.
That is your opinion.
There are numerous and quite apparent genuine Miscarriages of justice cases but no one of this forum appears interested in them?
If you think this then perhaps you should start up some threads in support of those who you think are a MOJ?
-
There is currently no restriction on attachments, the following are supported.. doc, gif, jpg, mpg, pdf, png, txt and zip files.
There is a technical issue with uploads which we are attempting to resolve however.
Ah, I see... so not sorted then.
-
There were two errors on the system but I have cleared them now. Attachments can again be uploaded.
-
There were two errors on the system but I have cleared them now. Attachments can again be uploaded.
Many thanks John!
-
That is just Stephanie's opinion, Nine. Luke's is a potential miscarriage of justice, and you yourself claim Tabak is (even if I and others do not believe it) - it is just matter of opinion on what people believe or not.
Interesting thought!
-
I've no idea why my early reply to Nine has been removed as it was perfectly reasonable?!!
So I repeat... Nine, until this attachment problem is resolved why don't you provide a link to the video you're so enthusiastic about. It's easy enough, then we can do our own screenshots of the doorway to Tabak's flat, if necessary.
I keep looking at the screenshot and sometimes it clearly looks like a number 1.. then another time it looks like a 3
I'll post the link and you can see what I mean... take plenty screen shots so you can capture it...
So is it Flat 1 Or Flat 3??
The News clip doesn't appear to work in google browser, try safari or another browser.....
Is that a case I need to amend my post... ?? I can't see how really ..It clearly looks like a 1 on some screen shoots, then a not so clear 3 on other screen shots... odd that... !
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-12260496/a-32-year-old-man-is-charged-with-jo-yeates-murder
-
There were two errors on the system but I have cleared them now. Attachments can again be uploaded.
excellent.... ?{)(**
-
I keep looking at the screenshot and sometimes it clearly looks like a number 1.. then another time it looks like a 3
I'll post the link and you can see what I mean... take plenty screen shots so you can capture it...
So is it Flat 1 Or Flat 3??
The News clip doesn't appear to work in google browser, try safari or another browser.....
Is that a case I need to amend my post... ?? I can't see how really ..It clearly looks like a 1 on some screen shoots, then a not so clear 3 on other screen shots... odd that... !
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-12260496/a-32-year-old-man-is-charged-with-jo-yeates-murder
Nine it looks like it says flat 3.
-
I keep looking at the screenshot and sometimes it clearly looks like a number 1.. then another time it looks like a 3
I'll post the link and you can see what I mean... take plenty screen shots so you can capture it...
So is it Flat 1 Or Flat 3??
The News clip doesn't appear to work in google browser, try safari or another browser.....
Is that a case I need to amend my post... ?? I can't see how really ..It clearly looks like a 1 on some screen shoots, then a not so clear 3 on other screen shots... odd that... !
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-12260496/a-32-year-old-man-is-charged-with-jo-yeates-murder
Have attached the images I am talking about...
Edit.. tried to attach my images and the same problem...
Double Edit... Think I need to stop posting attachments... As t doesn't work...
-
Actually on closer analysis - it looks like it says flat 2.
-
Nine it looks like it says flat 3.
I thought that on some of the screen shots, but on others it looks like Flat 1.... Either way it is not Flat 2... meaning Flat 2 is in the main building... therefore how could Dr Vincent Tabak take a body into the main building for an hour and no-one notices.....that:....
(A): He took the body into the main building
Or
(B): He took the body out of the main building??
-
Actually on closer analysis - it looks like it says flat 2.
Well there a surprise.....
Think John need a emoji where I just slap my forehead!
-
There were two errors on the system but I have cleared them now. Attachments can again be uploaded.
Appears not John....
-
Well there a surprise.....
Think John need a emoji where I just slap my forehead!
To be honest Nine, when it is at the very bottom of the screen it looks like a 3, when the camera moves a little it looks like a 2. I definitely do not think it is a 1.
-
To be honest Nine, when it is at the very bottom of the screen it looks like a 3, when the camera moves a little it looks like a 2. I definitely do not think it is a 1.
Oh well my great discovery isn't so great after all.... I see a 1 or a 3... .. .you see another... someone else will probably see a 5 then a 7 and before we know it every flat number in the building....
-
Noticeable points on this image.....
This is from The Judge Rinder program... It's dark but that doesn't detract from what is there...
We firstly can notice the hanging basket above the door...
The glass panelled door has moved from what we knew as Flat 2 to the side of the building which is Flat 1..
The lady walking from the left wearing a white hat facing to the right, with a red shoulder bag at the end of the path supports this, we can also see the house light from across the road...
We can also see the edge of the building...
The window is the small kitchen window....
We can see the low edge of the wall of the front garden..
Therefore, did Flat 1 originally have the glass panel door there???...
When did they exchange it??
Why would they change it??
Is that why Joanna Yeates let Dr Vincent Tabak in.... Because she could see him through the glass panelled door??
Sorry for the large image but uploads are problematic.. Might need to slide image left to see the door.... 8)-)))
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8239.0;attach=14549;image)
-
thanks for reducing the size myster..
-
thanks for reducing the size myster..
That's OK. If you want to reduce future photos, once uploaded click on each until a surrounding box appears. Move your cursor to any of the four corners, click and hold down left mouse button on chosen corner, then drag towards the centre to reach the size you desire. Then release, job done.
-
That's OK. If you want to reduce future photos, once uploaded click on each until a surrounding box appears. Move your cursor to any of the four corners, click and hold down left mouse button on chosen corner, then drag towards the centre to reach the size you desire. Then release, job done.
That was from an image already on the site... I linked it.... Thats why its so big... it was large when I first added it... Smaller makes it difficult to see some of the detail... But thanks for tidying it up.. ?{)(**
-
Just been looking at the fuller sized image again... and lightening it up a little..
There is a figure of a man on the path, Just stood there about half way up to the left, nearly missed him as there's something blurred in front of him... ... The lady looks heavy set and has what appears to be shoulder length dark hair..
It gave me a thought... Are these supposed to be the people who were seem at The Gate??
Looking again... They are both inside the gate... maybe the woman is just closing it.....
Still can't put attachments up.... 8)><(
Did CJ see a man and a woman that evening??
-
Centre for Criminal Appeals – Written evidence (FRS0068)
1. The Centre for Criminal Appeals is a legal action charity that fights miscarriages of justice and demands reform.
2. We are writing to provide the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee with a brief perspective on the following topic, based on our experience investigating and litigating potential wrongful conviction cases in England and Wales:
“How the Criminal Justice System can be equipped with robust, accurate and transparent forensic science”.
3. It has long been known that misleading, unscientific or otherwise flawed forensic evidence can contribute towards the wrongful conviction of innocent people.
4. However, forensic science also has the potential help to put miscarriages of justice right. New testing techniques may exonerate an individual, while improved scientific understanding may reveal that expert evidence presented to the jury was flawed.
5. Unfortunately, there is currently too little transparency surrounding forensic science in our criminal justice system. Too often it is impossible to test the robustness and accuracy of forensic evidence presented to juries, or conduct new forensic work which may exonerate a person. In our view, miscarriages of justice are going unidentified and uncorrected as a result.
6. First, transcripts of expert evidence in criminal cases are too often inaccessible. This is partly due to the premature destruction of transcripts and audio recordings of trial proceedings. However, it is also a consequence of the high prices charged by transcription companies. It is rare to be granted legal aid to cover the costs of purchasing transcripts of witnesses’ evidence. What this means in practice is that it is often very difficult for appeal practitioners to establish what exactly an expert witness has told a jury. This makes it nearly impossible to prove if an expert has misrepresented the significance of their findings or gone beyond their area of expertise.
7. Second, the legal framework governing post-conviction disclosure makes it nearly impossible for appeal practitioners to access documentary material and physical evidence for scientific testing which could lead to a convicted defendant’s exoneration.
8. Post-conviction disclosure is governed by:
Section 72 of the Attorney General’s Guidelines on Disclosure (2013), which states: “Where, after the conclusion of the proceedings, material comes to light, that might cast doubt on the safety of the conviction, the prosecutor must consider disclosure of such material.”
The case of R (Nunn) v Chief Constable of Suffolk Constabulary and another [2014] UKSC 37, which endorsed this guideline “with the addition that if there exists a real prospect that further enquiry may reveal something affecting the safety of the conviction, that enquiry ought to be made”.
9. This legal framework is inherently flawed for three reasons:
It places those seeking disclosure in a Catch-22. To make a successful request, they will need to know of the likely existence of specific exculpatory material held by police and prosecutors in advance. Yet the only possible way of discovering the existence of such material will almost always be through having access to the files and physical evidence and reviewing or testing these;
It leaves decision-making regarding access to material to police forces and the Crown Prosecution Service, who naturally have little incentive to open their past actions to scrutiny, let alone the resources to do so;
It relies on the Criminal Cases Review Commission as a “safety net” (Nunn, paragraph 39) that can be trusted to obtain and review sufficient post-conviction disclosure from the police and CPS. This disregards that facts that (a) in cases where a first appeal has not been possible (perhaps due to the need for post-conviction disclosure) defendants are ineligible for a case review by the CCRC, and (b) in practice the CCRC uses its investigatory powers very conservatively, as evidenced by its low referral rates (1.24% in 2017/18, 0.77% in 2016/17) and the tragic case of Victor Nealon, who spent an extra decade wrongly imprisoned because the CCRC refused to conduct the DNA testing that would eventually exonerate him.
10. What this lack of transparency means in practice is that is appeal practitioners are often prevented from being able to:
identify non-disclosure of exculpatory forensic material;
instruct new experts to identify serious flaws in the trial forensic evidence;
arrange fresh testing of physical evidence which may point to a convicted person’s innocence;
check whether unidentified DNA profiles or fingerprints which may belong to an alternative suspect can be matched with those contained on national databases.
11. Thirdly, documentary material and physical evidence is too often lost or prematurely destroyed by police forces. This of course makes it impossible for forensic evidence to be reviewed or retested.
12. In conclusion, we believe the following changes are needed to ensure that our criminal justice system can be equipped with robust, accurate and transparent forensic science:
Defendants without the means to pay should have a right to access transcripts of expert evidence given at their trial free of charge;
Via their appeal representatives, convicted defendants must be granted a right to controlled access to documentation held by police forces and the Crown Prosecution Service, such as correspondence with experts, forensic examiners’ bench notes and unused material and crime scene documentation, unless police or the CPS can demonstrate a specific and overwhelmingly compelling reason why such access should not be granted;
Suitably qualified experts instructed by appeal practitioners on behalf of convicted individuals must be granted controlled access to physical evidence so that they can be re-examined or re-tested, unless a police can demonstrate a specific and overwhelmingly compelling reason why such access should not be granted;
Police forces must take greater care to ensure documents and exhibits are not lost or prematurely destroyed, with appropriate penalties introduced for such failings. Physical evidence and documents in a case, including unused material and sensitive unused material should be retained for as long as the defendant remains under the supervision of the criminal justice system or remains on a risk register.
14 September 2018
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/science-and-technology-committee-lords/forensic-science/written/89851.html
-
Definitely no 2...
(https://i.imgur.com/UCenTZz.png)
-
No matter how long I look at it, it's just a blur.
-
I find statements interesting, so I just want to query what Mrs Yeates states on video....
From The Telegraph:
In their statement, Mr Yeates, 63, and Mrs Yeates, 58, of Ampfield, Hampshire, said: "It is now three weeks since Jo disappeared and our lives were changed for ever.
At 1:45 of the video ' Judge Rinders Program on Joanna Yeates..
It was a very close relationship, because erm.. they worked abroad a lot... So for the lot of the time it was just Jo and I that lived at home and I would like to think, it was as close at it could be, she loved playing out doors, and she has always liked the outdoors adventurous little girl, as she got a bit older she liked horse riding, and er.... very keen on horses. She also had a flare for designing,and painting and doing craft work,.. Not necessarily very tidily, but that discipline came later in life,
I was wondering who Mrs Yeates is referring too when she said that "It was a very close relationship, because erm.. they worked abroad a lot... So for the lot of the time it was just Jo and I that lived at home"
I have to believe it must be her brother Chris Yeates... As "THEY" worked abroad....
She has to be referring to Chris Yeates, going from the information,
Mr and Mrs Yeates were joined by Miss Yeates's brother Chris, 28, and boyfriend Greg Reardon, 27.
She doesn't say Chris was at School, there is only 2 Years between them according to this article... Is that correct??
Is Chris a lot older than Joanna Yeates?? Is Teresa Yeates his mother?? why would there only be Jo and her at home a lot of the time??
I was trying to think when they were born.. Chris should have been born 1983
Joanna ............................ 1985
So Chris should have been at home with Jo at the same time.....
But Mrs Yeates clearly tells us she was home alone most of the time with Joanna
I just don't understand her statement..... Just Jo and I.... Not Chris... It is hard to tell from images of Chris Yeates his age... Some people look forever young....
So who is Mrs Yeates referring too? and if it's not Chris Yeates were was he at that time??
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/parents-of-jo-yeates-make-appeal-to-public-2187209.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8248191/Joanna-Yeates-murder-our-daughter-was-dumped-like-garbage.html
-
Right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty
Article 6 says that anyone charged with a criminal offence must be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Requiring a defendant to prove elements of his or her defence might breach this right – particularly if a legal burden of proof is placed on the defendant, requiring them to prove the case against them is not true.
So how can Dr Vincent Tabak face a jury as a GUILTY Man?? He Plead guilty to Manslaughter in May 2011 (apparently) and we all were told about it... The jury knew before and during trial....
Did Dr Vincent Tabak prove the case against himself was not true.... &^^&*
He lied and lied and lied again.... His testimony is the case.... His testimony is the only account of events.... His testimony is a lie....
He was not presumed Innocent at the start of trial...
Has Article 6 of the human rights been breached??
Edit... For starters....I have shown he lied about CJ... he did not try to implicate him...
https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act/article-6-right-fair-trial
-
So how can Dr Vincent Tabak face a jury as a GUILTY Man?? He Plead guilty to Manslaughter in May 2011 (apparently) and we all were told about it... The jury knew before and during trial....
Did Dr Vincent Tabak prove the case against himself was not true.... &^^&*
He lied and lied and lied again.... His testimony is the case.... His testimony is the only account of events.... His testimony is a lie....
He was not presumed Innocent at the start of trial...
Has Article 6 of the human rights been breached??
Edit... For starters....I have shown he lied about CJ... he did not try to implicate him...
https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act/article-6-right-fair-trial
Nine this has been explained to you numerous times, but for some reason it is not sinking in.
Tabak was accused of murder - hence the trial by jury, which is the same for anyone who is accused of murder but denies it. However his defence was manslaughter, that he killed her but did not mean to - the jury rejected his defence of manslaughter and found him guilty of murder, after the Crown proved its case against him.
Article 6 has not been breached.
Neither have you shown that Tabak did not lie about CJ - you believe he did not lie but that isn't proof.
-
No matter how long I look at it, it's just a blur.
(https://i.imgur.com/51QaKyH.png)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/51QaKyH.png)
Now that simply wasn't there Myster... You have drawn it on.....
-
(https://i.imgur.com/51QaKyH.png)
Or are you trying to tell me that the Flats are the other way around?? Number 2 side entrance... Number 1 at the back??
-
Now that simply wasn't there Myster... You have drawn it on.....
LOL!!! Of course I've drawn it on, to show the shape of the embossed or engraved figure 2 on the metallic plate to the left.
-
If you don't think it says no. 2, whereabouts is your no. 1? On the plate or somewhere else?
-
??
This is pointless... I cannot attach images...
-
Definitely no 2...
(https://i.imgur.com/UCenTZz.png)
Ok Myster.... let me try again.... where did your image come from?? Because the intercom on the footage i have isn't smooth it's more like a grill...
-
If you don't think it says no. 2, whereabouts is your no. 1? On the plate or somewhere else?
There is a oblong white button, which bares the words and Number Flat 1...
I believe it is written on there, could be a name for instance...
-
Judge Rinder: Mrs Yeates says at: 10:10 of the video..
I looked through her pockets, and found the receipt from Tesco's, so I knew she bought a Pizza there and a few other things..so.. erm, I knew her last.....the last time that she would have been around... doing something, erm, we also then looked for the pizza, and we couldn't find it anywhere.
That quote... a couple of observations, firstly... What else did Joanna Yeates buy?? Mrs Yeates talks of 1 receipt, but talks of a few other things as if the receipt gave her that information... Even if we decide the few other things are from elsewhere, what were they?? She doesn't mention the cider... This program is constructed after Dr Vincent Tabak is in prison....
Secondly... I knew her last.....the last time that she would have been around... doing something,
That comment is weird... If I split the sentence.. I have I knew her last.... was she going to say movements??
Then she follows that with the last time she would have been around....
Now lets remember here.... The Yeates have arrived at Canygne Road, after a phone call from Greg... they go out looking for their daughter... Mrs Yeates is banging on car doors, believing that Joanna Yeates has been abducted.... Then they have seen Dr Vincent Tabak on the lawn in the front and Tanja, they are searching everywhere, in the neighbourhood and the Police come...
How did Mrs Yeates deduce from a Tesco's receipt that she had found in Joanna Yeates pocket, that was the last time that Joanna Yeates had been around???.. she's not talking CCTV, she talking a receipt.....
Why would the receipt indicate that this would have been the last time that Joanna Yeates had been around??
She had no communication with her daughter that weekend even though she had sent a text message to her in the afternoon, but she says it wasn't unusual, for Joanna not to respond...
So I'll ask again.... how did she deduce from a receipt with no other evidence.... that had to be the last time that Joanna Yeates had been around???
There has been a whole weekend, they have no idea as to whether Joanna Yeates has popped in or out at any time, if she went to visit someone or took the Pizza to share, with someone, or anything else for that matter...
What is it that makes her so sure??
Lets take the Pizza comment.... we also then looked for the pizza, and we couldn't find it anywhere
Ok.... So we have on no evidence decided that because there is a receipt for a Pizza in Joanna Yeates pocket, that she must have come home and been abducted, and the abductor or killer had taken the Pizza...
How did she come to that conclusion??
Joanna Yeates isn't there... there's a receipt... she bought food... a whole weekend has passed and they have decided that the most important clue at that stage of the game is to find the Pizza?? How did they not know whether she ate it or not?? How did they not now that she had shared it with someone elsewhere?? How did they know for a fact that Joanna Yeates was Missing soon after she bought the Pizza??
What is it about Joanna Yeates that makes this adult unable to do simple tasks for herself over a weekend?/ that someone would jump to a certain conclusion based on a receipt for a Pizza and the fact that the pizza wasn't there....
How does a pizza receipt tell anyone it would be the last time Joanna Yeates would be around... doing something???
That indicate that she'd been reported missing sooner... maybe on the 17th December 2010... because I cannot for the life in me believe that Mrs Yeates would go from finding a receipt for Friday 17th December 2010, to that receipt being the last time she was doing something...
Did Joanna Yeates always keep her receipts?? was the only thing that Joanna Yeates capable of doing was a bit of shopping??
She was described as a healthy woman, no money worries, no drink problems.... So why couldn't she have done anything else that weekend?? she is supposed to be 25 years old, a educated independent female, who was looking for company by all accounts.... She doesn't have any medical issues we are aware of... So what would stop her going to see someone...?? anyone...??
Why would Mrs Yeates know it would have been the last time she would have been around?? What is it that indicates that idea?? what is it about the flat that would tell them this info??
The only way someone would know something like that is if someone had said that was when they last saw her.... Was Joanna Yeates being monitored?? followed??
I just don't know how anyone can get from a receipt that that had to be the last time that Joanna Yeates had been around?
-
From Countdown to Murder : David Yeates....
She's taken the opportunity to tidy things up... For starters she had organised the washing, you know Clothes washing and erm... washing up the stuff in the kitchen, things were nice and tidy..
From Judge Rinder program.... David Yeates When we got there, the flat........................... indicated, that nobody had been there over the weekend.. which again was weird.
Mrs Yeates then say: There was no washing up that had been done, it was very untidy.... (nods her head) she definitely disappeared Friday night..
Ok it doesn't take Einstein to work out things aren't making sense.....
2 programs with 2 different accounts of what the Flat looked like when they arrived.... When did they arrive??
It's confusing, especially if you put Greg into the mix whom apparently had gone around tidying things up!! With ever increasing levels of stress?? Greg also ate that evening... maybe it was his dishes in the sink!!
Again how does Mrs Yeates decide on the fact that the washing up isn't done is the reason Joanna Yeates went Missing on the Friday night!!
Goodness, anyone can make a mess in a day or so... doesn't mean they went missing a day or so before... They might have decided to tale it easy whilst their partner was away and tidy up later...
But what ever way you look at it... The Yeates cannot have it both ways... either it was nice and tidy... or it was a mess!! (imo) (not being disrespectful... just observing).....
But David has already contradicted that account... so where do we stand???
-
??
This is pointless... I cannot attach images...
Until this image attachment problem is resolved, you need to upload to an independent picture / photo hosting site. I'm using "imgur" at the moment, which is free but if I remember, you have to register with an email address and a nickname / password, etc.
If you decide to go this route: Upload the chosen image from your computer to the website, then highlight and copy that image's address from the right-hand box. Back in your posting page, click on the "Insert Image" icon button at the far left, then paste that address in the "Enter image location" box which appears. Reduce or increase the image size if necessary before posting.
-
Ok Myster.... let me try again.... where did your image come from?? Because the intercom on the footage i have isn't smooth it's more like a grill...
The screenshot came from about halfway in the BBC video link which you posted here - http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg498115#msg498115 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg498115#msg498115)
-
The screenshot came from about halfway in the BBC video link which you posted here - http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg498115#msg498115 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg498115#msg498115)
I've just looked at this video again from 00:44 onwards and you're right, it is or appears to be a metallic grill which doesn't show up on my earlier screenshot, probably as a result of loss of image quality through uploading and downloading. But I still think it's a number 2 in the flat area at the centre of this grill (or whatever it is)? And can't make out anything resembling a 1 in the area below said grill in the earlier photo I posted.
(https://i.imgur.com/MsExwXD.png)
-
I've just looked at this video again from 00:44 onwards and you're right, it is or appears to be a metallic grill which doesn't show up on my earlier screenshot, probably as a result of loss of image quality through uploading and downloading. But I still think it's a number 2 in the flat area at the centre of this grill (or whatever it is)? And can't make out anything resembling a 1 in the area below said grill in the earlier photo I posted.
(https://i.imgur.com/MsExwXD.png)
How comes the issue of uploading attachments hasn't been resolved?
-
How comes the issue of uploading attachments hasn't been resolved?
No idea... not my problem, I'm afraid.
-
Joanna Yeates Flat entrance... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/uknews/8822613/Inside-the-flat-where-Joanna-Yeates-was-killed-by-Vincent-Tabak.html (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/uknews/8822613/Inside-the-flat-where-Joanna-Yeates-was-killed-by-Vincent-Tabak.html)
Enlarged view of the entrance contraption / intercom / doorbell, similar to that outside Tabak's flat. Perhaps the cover / grill has been removed by police for forensic analysis of fingerprints, saliva DNA, etc.
(https://i.imgur.com/wmnG8rN.png)
-
Joanna Yeates Flat entrance... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/uknews/8822613/Inside-the-flat-where-Joanna-Yeates-was-killed-by-Vincent-Tabak.html (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/uknews/8822613/Inside-the-flat-where-Joanna-Yeates-was-killed-by-Vincent-Tabak.html)
Enlarged view of the entrance contraption / intercom / doorbell, similar to that outside Tabak's flat. Perhaps the cover / grill has been removed by police for forensic analysis of fingerprints, saliva DNA, etc.
(https://i.imgur.com/wmnG8rN.png)
Well myster... funny you should show that image again.....
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/police-investigation-continues-flat-door-removed-people-news-footage/685650778
That footage is dated 29th December 2010.... The Intercom from the Flat we know as Joanna Yeates Flat.. Flat 1.. Is having the intercom removed...
Now I have said before that even though these clips are dated on Getty doesn't mean that they were not filmed before.... Getty may have been given them on one date and uploaded them on another date...
So.... It is entirely possible, for the intercom to have been removed before... And then put on the flat at the back... That's why the flat at the back has the image of the Intercom saying Flat 1...
To me everything is staged.... But I do not know the purpose...
The date of the builders putting up the scaffolding doesn't have to be the 22nd January 2011 either... all this could have been done at any time...
To be honest I do not know who to believe anymore... We have people on video contradicting themselves.. we have images of the back of Canygne Road before Dr Vincent Tabak is a suspect...
For some reason the whole incident, has got the media involved... and I don't think it's as simple as her being Murdered... If that was the case...
The amount of footage is considerable.. even though certain articles and forum/groups have been removed.....
It's either some elaborate media exercise or they are very well aware who killed Joanna Yeates and they can't touch them for it...
Everything appears to be pre-recorded... The Police Conferences, the media footage, the documentaries... everything... Now Avon and Somerset Police have there own media centre.... Did they do all the recording then distribute it to news outlets??
Is that why the Police got upset with ITV... they did a piece to camera they didn't have permission for??
No media group should have that closer access to a potential crime scene.... To get around the back of the building, to walk on the pavement.... To get up close and personal with that door...
there are a couple of ideas, that I was thinking..... Dr Vincent Tabak has moved out of the premises literally by the 23rd December 2010, he has gone to Cambridge then on to Holland coming back on the 2nd January 2011 and then moving to Aberdeen Road...
This then has me wondering... when in fact did Dr Vincent Tabak mention about the Forensics on the door?? It's like you have knowledge, make a statement then they arrest you....
Did Dr Vincent Tabak see them removing Joanna Yeates door before he left for Cambridge?? As with CJ seeing people at the gate.... He reports that and within no time he is arrested...
The only difference with Dr Vincent Tabak is it took a while to arrest him... But Ann did say it was a planned arrest...
If I decide that Dr Vincent Tabak saw the removal of the door before he left bristol... then do I also assume that... "That Phone Call" was in fact Dr Vincent Tabak, and he was mentioning about seeing them remove the door and thought it quite strange?? (given you the answer of "He was over interested in forensics")
I am not saying that is the case, but a scenario....
It is strange that there is no crystal clear images of the intercom of Dr Vincent Tabak... The media not zooming in on this detail... The Media, then not being clear on the matters in hand....
The media either colluded or were fooled themselves.... by person or persons unknown....
I'm hoping that there is still some integrity in the media and go with that they were supplied with the images of the close ups of the building down the side and across the back....
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/joanna-yeates-murder-trial-defendant-vincent-tabak-gives-news-footage/656385638
The link above shows Joanna Yeates door, with a bunch of keys ,mortice keys that would and possibly could fit the glass panelled door....
Going back to the Media?? Who is the media?? CJ was arrested and taken from his home without any of the major news outlets noticing, yet the media were apparently parked outside 24/7... So was it the Polices media??
Thinking about it... why would the media be allowed to walk around Joanna Yeates Flat when the trial is taking place... I believe that footage was released to the media...
This Clip... taken in December when Joanna yeates is Missing...
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/vincent-tabak-trial-date-unknown-snow-on-ground-outside-news-footage/656487136
Now the media shouldn't have access to a crime scene,... I have said before.. they shouldn't be walking on potential evidence... But I don't think it is the News media.... Is it A&S own media??
I do not believe that the news media have the original footage...
The footage of The Yeates arriving at The Old Bailey... know one knew until the last minutes that the court venue had been changed, but we have The Yeates walking down the pavement with Emma the FLO officer....
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/vincent-tabak-faces-murder-trial-england-london-ext-news-footage/656058150
Again is this A&S's own footage??
This Clip
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/vincent-tabak-trial-continues-bristol-crown-court-rebecca-news-footage/656136396
Rebecca Scott arriving at court... She a witness being identified before she has taken the stand.... The media I believe are not allowed to identify witness's.... well I don't believe they did... It's the same people who have made virtually every piece of media about this case....
Two cat trays... always bugged me... But if that is one basement flat then the other tray would be need near the other door....
Back to the tour video... Were there 2 video's made and the media chose which one they used... That would explain the trainers being moved and the clock being 5 minutes difference in time in some images....
Is this the reason that all the footage is just clips...??
I get the feeling thats why the images and clips are so strange... The media knew what was happening and how they were being manipulated... It's a possibility... The identity of some of the officers are covered by their caps... But now I have a thought.....
So there are the official clips that have been distributed to the media... Then there is the medias own clips.....
This is why I have Tim Roth in the middle of an image dressed as a Police Officer... The media were trying to point out what the Police were doing in an odd way... I kept seeing people whom i thought I recognised.... And couldn't understand what was going on....
We have the images that have sent me around the twist... unprecedented footage of a crime scene or scenes.... we have footage of The Yeates walking around a Crime Scene.... when the 2nd Scene of Crime hasn't finished being processed....
You wouldn't get that .. it shouldn't be allowed.... The Funeral... there was supposed to have been 300 people attend yet we see very few people... no crowds crying at the funeral nothing... That too must be from the original source and not the news media.... (imo)
I couldn't understand why I recognised people whom I believed had been on TV before, yet they were slap bang in the middle of a crime scene....!!
Now I think I understand... You have 'The Original Source".. who may be the Police I don't know.... and the rest of the media, whom have some different images... I believe it is the rest of the media whom are trying to discredit the "The Original Source"... by introducing many red herrings in the form of Tim Roth, for instance....
We have Emma the FLO telling us about what Greg has said about Innocent men before CJ was released... Now if the media know that this is all orchestrated, then I believe they released the footage before it was meant to be released.... The Police must have sent it too them before CJ's release...
The Police controlled the medias access to this case... they controlled everything....
Is this why BDP release the information that Joanna Yeates was found on the 24th December 2010, when the official date was the 25th December 2010... The too were not going to be manipulated...
Come to think of it... some of the media had already stated on the 26th December that Joanna Yeates had been strangled, if my memory serves me correctly.... But those articles have been removed...
I've had my self in knots, not understanding why the media do not say anything... and why the story is always rehashed...
But if the Polices own the footage, then the media may have only had a license to use it for so long.... It's the same media, over and over again.... nothing differs... The CCTV footage never changes... no different angles....no Dr Vincent Tabak at the till paying for his goods....
If the only footage is the original footage that was distributed amongst the media... the media will have an issue reusing it possibly...
Now... Longwood Lane.... we have the fire service there over 4 days, we have men with rope access gear shown on the 27th December 2010... Now as I stated that footage could have been taken before... The media just published it on that date.... Why are they going to be parked at the bottom of Longwood Lane when nothing is happening and the police wouldn't want them accidentally taking footage of something they may not want them to see??
I believe they were given the footage .. I think the medias footage would have been taken from the bottom of providence lane I think its called... at the cross roads of Longwood lane...
So are the news media playing the police at there own game.... ?? Who was the original source of the footage??
Still doesn't answer who killed Joanna Yeates... But I can keep questioning that in my mind... is she really dead??
Was there really a crime?? I don't know... apologises if there was... But something is mighty fishy about this case....
Come to think of it the media centre at A&S hasn't it got something to do with Southwest One ??..
Are they the original source?? Is that why the Police keep the video's of Joanna Yeates CCTV clips etc on their youtube site... It's a possibility....
So who is the original source??
Is this the reason The Yeates keep making documentaries... which contradict each others statements to shed light on what happened with the media footage?? ... Or have they forgotten what they have said previously????
I don't know....
But if Joanna Yeates was Murdered, If Dr Vincent Tabak is in prison... then The Yeates footage is to highlight something that they cannot speak of.... The real killer either cannot be prosecuted or has been protected... (imo)
Either that or this is some strange, publicity stunt! but I can't say....
Edit... Did a trial really take place... Or is that the media again highlighting this case in there own way??
-
Well myster... funny you should show that image again.....
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/police-investigation-continues-flat-door-removed-people-news-footage/685650778
That footage is dated 29th December 2010.... The Intercom from the Flat we know as Joanna Yeates Flat.. Flat 1.. Is having the intercom removed...
Now I have said before that even though these clips are dated on Getty doesn't mean that they were not filmed before.... Getty may have been given them on one date and uploaded them on another date...
So.... It is entirely possible, for the intercom to have been removed before... And then put on the flat at the back... That's why the flat at the back has the image of the Intercom saying Flat 1...
To me everything is staged.... But I do not know the purpose...
The date of the builders putting up the scaffolding doesn't have to be the 22nd January 2011 either... all this could have been done at any time...
To be honest I do not know who to believe anymore... We have people on video contradicting themselves.. we have images of the back of Canygne Road before Dr Vincent Tabak is a suspect...
For some reason the whole incident, has got the media involved... and I don't think it's as simple as her being Murdered... If that was the case...
The amount of footage is considerable.. even though certain articles and forum/groups have been removed.....
It's either some elaborate media exercise or they are very well aware who killed Joanna Yeates and they can't touch them for it...
Everything appears to be pre-recorded... The Police Conferences, the media footage, the documentaries... everything... Now Avon and Somerset Police have there own media centre.... Did they do all the recording then distribute it to news outlets??
Is that why the Police got upset with ITV... they did a piece to camera they didn't have permission for??
No media group should have that closer access to a potential crime scene.... To get around the back of the building, to walk on the pavement.... To get up close and personal with that door...
there are a couple of ideas, that I was thinking..... Dr Vincent Tabak has moved out of the premises literally by the 23rd December 2010, he has gone to Cambridge then on to Holland coming back on the 2nd January 2011 and then moving to Aberdeen Road...
This then has me wondering... when in fact did Dr Vincent Tabak mention about the Forensics on the door?? It's like you have knowledge, make a statement then they arrest you....
Did Dr Vincent Tabak see them removing Joanna Yeates door before he left for Cambridge?? As with CJ seeing people at the gate.... He reports that and within no time he is arrested...
The only difference with Dr Vincent Tabak is it took a while to arrest him... But Ann did say it was a planned arrest...
If I decide that Dr Vincent Tabak saw the removal of the door before he left bristol... then do I also assume that... "That Phone Call" was in fact Dr Vincent Tabak, and he was mentioning about seeing them remove the door and thought it quite strange?? (given you the answer of "He was over interested in forensics")
I am not saying that is the case, but a scenario....
It is strange that there is no crystal clear images of the intercom of Dr Vincent Tabak... The media not zooming in on this detail... The Media, then not being clear on the matters in hand....
The media either colluded or were fooled themselves.... by person or persons unknown....
I'm hoping that there is still some integrity in the media and go with that they were supplied with the images of the close ups of the building down the side and across the back....
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/joanna-yeates-murder-trial-defendant-vincent-tabak-gives-news-footage/656385638
The link above shows Joanna Yeates door, with a bunch of keys ,mortice keys that would and possibly could fit the glass panelled door....
Going back to the Media?? Who is the media?? CJ was arrested and taken from his home without any of the major news outlets noticing, yet the media were apparently parked outside 24/7... So was it the Polices media??
Thinking about it... why would the media be allowed to walk around Joanna Yeates Flat when the trial is taking place... I believe that footage was released to the media...
This Clip... taken in December when Joanna yeates is Missing...
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/vincent-tabak-trial-date-unknown-snow-on-ground-outside-news-footage/656487136
Now the media shouldn't have access to a crime scene,... I have said before.. they shouldn't be walking on potential evidence... But I don't think it is the News media.... Is it A&S own media??
I do not believe that the news media have the original footage...
The footage of The Yeates arriving at The Old Bailey... know one knew until the last minutes that the court venue had been changed, but we have The Yeates walking down the pavement with Emma the FLO officer....
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/vincent-tabak-faces-murder-trial-england-london-ext-news-footage/656058150
Again is this A&S's own footage??
This Clip
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/vincent-tabak-trial-continues-bristol-crown-court-rebecca-news-footage/656136396
Rebecca Scott arriving at court... She a witness being identified before she has taken the stand.... The media I believe are not allowed to identify witness's.... well I don't believe they did... It's the same people who have made virtually every piece of media about this case....
Two cat trays... always bugged me... But if that is one basement flat then the other tray would be need near the other door....
Back to the tour video... Were there 2 video's made and the media chose which one they used... That would explain the trainers being moved and the clock being 5 minutes difference in time in some images....
Is this the reason that all the footage is just clips...??
I get the feeling thats why the images and clips are so strange... The media knew what was happening and how they were being manipulated... It's a possibility... The identity of some of the officers are covered by their caps... But now I have a thought.....
So there are the official clips that have been distributed to the media... Then there is the medias own clips.....
This is why I have Tim Roth in the middle of an image dressed as a Police Officer... The media were trying to point out what the Police were doing in an odd way... I kept seeing people whom i thought I recognised.... And couldn't understand what was going on....
We have the images that have sent me around the twist... unprecedented footage of a crime scene or scenes.... we have footage of The Yeates walking around a Crime Scene.... when the 2nd Scene of Crime hasn't finished being processed....
You wouldn't get that .. it shouldn't be allowed.... The Funeral... there was supposed to have been 300 people attend yet we see very few people... no crowds crying at the funeral nothing... That too must be from the original source and not the news media.... (imo)
I couldn't understand why I recognised people whom I believed had been on TV before, yet they were slap bang in the middle of a crime scene....!!
Now I think I understand... You have 'The Original Source".. who may be the Police I don't know.... and the rest of the media, whom have some different images... I believe it is the rest of the media whom are trying to discredit the "The Original Source"... by introducing many red herrings in the form of Tim Roth, for instance....
We have Emma the FLO telling us about what Greg has said about Innocent men before CJ was released... Now if the media know that this is all orchestrated, then I believe they released the footage before it was meant to be released.... The Police must have sent it too them before CJ's release...
The Police controlled the medias access to this case... they controlled everything....
Is this why BDP release the information that Joanna Yeates was found on the 24th December 2010, when the official date was the 25th December 2010... The too were not going to be manipulated...
Come to think of it... some of the media had already stated on the 26th December that Joanna Yeates had been strangled, if my memory serves me correctly.... But those articles have been removed...
I've had my self in knots, not understanding why the media do not say anything... and why the story is always rehashed...
But if the Polices own the footage, then the media may have only had a license to use it for so long.... It's the same media, over and over again.... nothing differs... The CCTV footage never changes... no different angles....no Dr Vincent Tabak at the till paying for his goods....
If the only footage is the original footage that was distributed amongst the media... the media will have an issue reusing it possibly...
Now... Longwood Lane.... we have the fire service there over 4 days, we have men with rope access gear shown on the 27th December 2010... Now as I stated that footage could have been taken before... The media just published it on that date.... Why are they going to be parked at the bottom of Longwood Lane when nothing is happening and the police wouldn't want them accidentally taking footage of something they may not want them to see??
I believe they were given the footage .. I think the medias footage would have been taken from the bottom of providence lane I think its called... at the cross roads of Longwood lane...
So are the news media playing the police at there own game.... ?? Who was the original source of the footage??
Still doesn't answer who killed Joanna Yeates... But I can keep questioning that in my mind... is she really dead??
Was there really a crime?? I don't know... apologises if there was... But something is mighty fishy about this case....
Come to think of it the media centre at A&S hasn't it got something to do with Southwest One ??..
Are they the original source?? Is that why the Police keep the video's of Joanna Yeates CCTV clips etc on their youtube site... It's a possibility....
So who is the original source??
Is this the reason The Yeates keep making documentaries... which contradict each others statements to shed light on what happened with the media footage?? ... Or have they forgotten what they have said previously????
I don't know....
But if Joanna Yeates was Murdered, If Dr Vincent Tabak is in prison... then The Yeates footage is to highlight something that they cannot speak of.... The real killer either cannot be prosecuted or has been protected... (imo)
Either that or this is some strange, publicity stunt! but I can't say....
Edit... Did a trial really take place... Or is that the media again highlighting this case in there own way??
Are you really serious?
-
It's either that or it's about hacking and The Leveson....
And as Leveson 2 isn't going to happen we do not know what would have been revealed there....
Did the media hack the Police and find out about Operation Braid??
Did they try to pre-empt the police by orchestrating the media around Canygne Road....
Is this the reason CJ is innocent... It is all rubbish....!
Dr Vincent Tabak.... Did he agree to play his part.... Did he allow his name to be used??
This case is fishy... end of.... whether you agree or not makes no difference.... But I would say why have the media unprecedented access... ?? why would CJ allow the media to gain access to his property after he was vilified??
Nothing is ever going to change in this case... It's tosh.... something stinks...
I'm never going to get anywhere, nothing is really clarified.... To many Missing Pieces....
Someone has been taking the Pish... (imo)
-
LOL!!! Of course I've drawn it on, to show the shape of the embossed or engraved figure 2 on the metallic plate to the left.
Oooh naughty!!! Ha ha.
I have to admit that, apart from Myster's number, I can't see a number at all.
-
From Sally Ramages paper...
This is what Tabak’s defence counsel said in his address to the court:
The two were facing each other. He put one arm around her back with his hand in the
middle of her back. And she screamed. He put his other hand over her mouth which
caused the noise of the scream to cease.He removed his hand from her mouth and the
screaming continued. He then put his hand around her throat. He believes it was the one
that had been from behind her back and held it there for about 20 seconds. He applied no
more than moderate force on a scale of one to three - light, moderate and severe. He did
not intend death or serious injury. The actions described above killed Miss Yeates. The
defendant accepts his actions were unlawful. He removed the hand from the mouth and the
screaming continued and then he put the hand around the throat. He believes it was the one
from around her back and held it there for about 20 seconds.' In a typed statement signed
by Vincent Tabak in September 2011, Tabak claimed that he didn't intend death or serious
injury.
So how did the prosecution, read out the Defences opening statement before the defence read it out??
Vincent Tabak: How I killed Joanna Yeates
By The Bristol Post | Posted: October 18, 2011
VINCENT Tabak strangled Joanna Yeates for "around 20 seconds" but did not mean to kill her, his murder trial has been told.
The first hint of the Dutchman's account of what led to Miss Yeates' death in her flat in Canynge Road, Clifton, came yesterday, when a section of his defence-case statement summarising events to the best of his knowledge was read out.
The sixth day of the trial also saw Miss Yeates' boyfriend Greg Reardon tell of his mounting panic as he came home to find the landscape architect was not at home but had left behind her phone, keys, wallet and glasses.
The defence's version of events was read to the jury by 'Nigel Lickley QC, prosecuting', as he questioned a pathologist about the wounds suffered by Miss Yeates.
The statement said: "The two were facing each other. He put one arm around her back, at the middle of her back. She screamed. He put his other hand over her mouth and noise of the screaming ceased. He removed his hand from her mouth and the screaming continued. He then put his hand around her throat, which had been the hand around her back.
"He held it there for around 20 seconds. He applied no more than moderate force, on a scale of one to three of light, moderate and severe.
"He didn't intend serious injury. The action killed Miss Yeates. He accepts it was unlawful."
Home office pathologist Dr Russell Delaney said that, owing to injuries she sustained to her neck, it was his opinion Miss Yeates' killer used two hands to strangle her, although he could not rule out the use of one hand.
The pathologist told the jury he would have expected Miss Yeates to struggle, but it was not "scientifically possible" to determine the length of time that the fatal sequence of events occurred.
Referring to evidence of there being a scream, pause, scream and then noise he told the court: "I can't determine at what point in that sequence of events that the neck compression was occurring."
Tabak, 33, admits the manslaughter of his 25-year-old neighbour but denies murdering her in December last year.
He held his head in his hands as Miss Yeates' boyfriend, Greg Reardon, told jurors how he went to Sheffield to visit his brother on the night of Friday, December 17.
Mr Reardon, who met Miss Yeates when both worked for Bristol-based Building Design Partnership, said the plan was that while he spent the weekend away his girlfriend was going to relax, do some baking and look after their cat, Bernard.
He was set to arrive back on Sunday, December 19, so that he and Miss Yeates could watch the final of TV show The Apprentice together, he said.
Mr Reardon, dressed in a dark suit and tie, described how he last saw Miss Yeates at work just before 5pm on the Friday.
He told the court: "We met in the lobby to say goodbye. We had a kiss and a cuddle."
Mr Reardon said he grabbed a bite to eat on his walk home and had to get help starting Miss Yeates' Ford Ka car for the trip to Sheffield from his landlord, Chris Jefferies, and a neighbour.
Mr Reardon said he tried phoning both Miss Yeates' mobile phone and landline at 10.35pm, after he arrived in Sheffield.
He then texted her, saying he had to jump start the car but it was OK, and asking her if she had a good night in the pub.
The court heard Mr Reardon tried calling her twice on the Saturday, at lunchtime and in the evening, but got no reply.
He said he returned to Bristol on Sunday, arriving in Clifton just after 8pm. Miss Yeates' boots were in the middle of the hallway and several coats were strewn on the floor. One of the lounge lights and the hall light were on.
He told the jury: "I immediately thought she had been quite lazy or been and gone in a rush and not tidied up."
Mr Reardon said he went around the flat, tidying up, ate an Asda frozen pizza and drank an opened bottle of cider in the kitchen. He said Miss Yeates would sometimes open drinks and leave them.
At 9pm he rang her mobile, only to hear it ringing in the flat.
He said: "I found it in the pocket of her white jacket. I had a certain level of stress. I really didn't know what was going on. I tried to justify it to keep myself calm and thought she had gone out for the evening and forgot her phone.
"I was worried because it was cold and she wasn't wearing her warm jacket. I thought it was quite possible she had gone to a friend's house to watch The Apprentice in different clothes."
Mr Reardon said he continued tidying up when he found Miss Yeates' blue rucksack and, rummaging through it, discovered it contained her spectacles, sunglasses, wallet and keys as well as her stripy top.
"I panicked," he said. "It was a realisation something was wrong. At the very best she had been locked out with all her stuff in the flat. I rang round her friends and my friends in Bristol to try and find out where she was."
The court heard Mr Reardon also became aware the cat was affectionate to him, his cat litter was old and he was hungry.
Rubbish in the bin had not been added to since the Friday.
Mr Reardon also found one of Miss Yeates' earrings, which she normally put on her bedside table, on the floor of the bedroom and another under the duvet.
After calling Miss Yeates' parents at 12.36am on the Monday, he called police nine minutes later and reported Jo missing. The court heard that, in those early hours, he accompanied police to Tabak's flat next door but didn't join in the police's conversation with him.
Detective Constable Karen Thomas said Tabak initially said he had not left his flat that Friday night.
She said she was contacted by Tabak's girlfriend, Tanja Morson, when Tabak's landlord Chris Jefferies was arrested in connection with the murder inquiry. Tabak told her he had seen Mr Jefferies' car facing in different directions that night.
Tabak and Miss Morson had gone to Holland for New Year and DC Thomas went out to see them, interviewing Tabak for six hours in a hotel in Amsterdam.
She described how he was "overly interested" in the forensic examination of Miss Yeates' flat and in particular why police had taken away her front door.
Tabak also said for the first time that he had gone out twice the night Miss Yeates disappeared, in addition to collecting Miss Morson from her party – contradicting what he had told the detective before.
"I immediately thought it was strange," she said.
Tabak consented to a DNA mouth swab, she said.
Rebecca Scott, a PHD student described as Miss Yeates' best friend, told the jury Miss Yeates and Mr Reardon were "the perfect couple".
Miss Scott said she had been conversing with Miss Yeates via social networking website Facebook, and they had arranged to meet on Christmas Eve in Romsey, Hampshire, where both their parents lived.
It was at 8.13pm on December 17, Miss Scott said, when Miss Yeates called her and said how she would like to see her in Swansea.
Miss Scott said the winter snow had left buses and trains cancelled, and she was staying in that night.
She told the court: "We had a laugh and a joke about the previous time we had seen each other.
"She wasn't drunk at all. She was just Jo. She was perfectly normal."
Miss Yeates' body was found in Longwood Lane, Failand, on Christmas Day last year.
The case continues.
And why on earth is The Prosecution reading out The Defences opening speech....
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Vincent-Tabak-killed-Joanna-Yeates/story-13588955-detail/story.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20140906044940/http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Vincent-Tabak-killed-Joanna-Yeates/story-13588955-detail/story.html
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
THE DEFENCE CASE
Defence Opening Speech
At the start of the defence case the defence representative (or the defendant if he is unrepresented) may address the jury by summarising what the defendant's case is. The right to make an opening speech exists only where the defendant intends to call at least one defence witness in person (other than the defendant himself).
Defence opening speeches are relatively rare and are generally reserved for long and complex cases where it would assist the jury to be given some advance detail of the defence case.
So the above post shows us it was the prosecution that read the defences opening statement.... And according to this article, The Defences opening speech is rare, reserved for complex cases...
The more interesting point I would say is this:
The right to make an opening speech exists only where the defendant intends to call at least one defence witness in person (other than the defendant himself).
We know Dr Vincent Tabak took the stand, we know the defence made an opening speech, or was that really the prosecution??
So who was the defendants witness???
Dr Carey?? Was that it??? Was that whom the defendant chose??
What happened to Tanja Morson?? or CJ?? anyone who knew him??
This rare opening speech for a simple murder appears extraordinary , so many firsts wth this case....
https://www.defence-barrister.co.uk/crown-court-trial-part-2/#The-Defence-Case
-
Required elements of the defence case statement
The defence case statement must be in writing, signed by the defendant or the defendant’s solicitor and outline:
the nature of the defence of the accused, including any particular defence upon which they intend to rely;
the matters of fact on which the accused takes issue with the prosecution;
why the accused takes issue with the prosecution;
particulars of the matters of fact on which they intend to rely in their defence;
any point of law (including those as to admissibility of evidence or abuse of process) which the accused wishes to take, and any authority on which they intend to rely on for that purpose.
Bare denials are not sufficient to comply with the above stated obligations. Therefore, a complete denial of the prosecution’s case or the evidence of their witnesses without any reasoning on the defendant’s side is insufficient (R v Bryant (2005)).
In writing.... not typed then???
From Sally Ramage
In a typed statement signed
by Vincent Tabak in September 2011, Tabak claimed that he didn't intend death or serious
injury.
So I am going to suggest that The Defence's opening speech,that The Prosecution read out, was the statement that Dr Vincent Tabak apparently signed... As anything the defence had, should be disclosed to The Prosecution, if I am understanding this correctly....
But the most interesting point is this:
The defence case statement must be in writing, signed by the defendant or the defendant’s solicitor and outline:
So the solicitor has the ability to sign such documents?? That's interesting.... So did Dr Vincent Tabak actually sign his statement of September 2011??
https://www.inbrief.co.uk/court-proceedings/defence-case-statement/
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
27th December 2010
Post mortem results on body of architect due to be released
By Daily Echo Reporter
An Avon and Somerset police spokesman said: “We are satisfied the body is Joanna Yeates, but this is pending the results of a postmortem which is not expected for at least 24 hours due to the nature of how she was found in such extreme conditions.”
We have not had official identification of Joanna Yeates on the 27th December 2010... yet we have the Yeates family visiting Longwood lane on the 27th December 2010 , to lay flowers on a grass verge, we do not know it is her yet!! Why are you already at the scene??
We do not know how she died... we know nothing.... But we end up with The press, following The Yeates family onto a potential Crime Scene, when there is nothing Official.... How does that work??
Details
Credit: ITN
Clip #: 693155122 SD
Collection: ITN
Date created: 27 December, 2010
Licence type: Rights-ready
Release info: Not released. More information
Clip length: 00:03:46:24
Location: United Kingdom
Mastered to: QuickTime 8-bit Photo-JPEG SD 720x576 25p More information
Originally shot on: 576 25i
Source: ITN
Object name: r27121002_11286.mov
https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/8757749.Police_to_reveal_how_Joanna_Yeates_died/?ref=rc
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/family-of-joanna-yeates-visit-spot-where-her-body-was-news-footage/693155122
-
So the above post shows us it was the prosecution that read the defences opening statement.... And according to this article, The Defences opening speech is rare, reserved for complex cases...
The more interesting point I would say is this:
The right to make an opening speech exists only where the defendant intends to call at least one defence witness in person (other than the defendant himself).
We know Dr Vincent Tabak took the stand, we know the defence made an opening speech, or was that really the prosecution??
So who was the defendants witness???
Dr Carey?? Was that it??? Was that whom the defendant chose??
What happened to Tanja Morson?? or CJ?? anyone who knew him??
This rare opening speech for a simple murder appears extraordinary , so many firsts wth this case....
https://www.defence-barrister.co.uk/crown-court-trial-part-2/#The-Defence-Case
What is a "simple murder?"
-
27th December 2010
Post mortem results on body of architect due to be released
By Daily Echo Reporter
We have not had official identification of Joanna Yeates on the 27th December 2010... yet we have the Yeates family visiting Longwood lane on the 27th December 2010 , to lay flowers on a grass verge, we do not know it is her yet!! Why are you already at the scene??
We do not know how she died... we know nothing.... But we end up with The press, following The Yeates family onto a potential Crime Scene, when there is nothing Official.... How does that work??
https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/8757749.Police_to_reveal_how_Joanna_Yeates_died/?ref=rc
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/family-of-joanna-yeates-visit-spot-where-her-body-was-news-footage/693155122
Wasn't JY unofficially identified by her watch?
If you watch the video where the press are filming the family they appear to be behind a cordon and using their cameras to zoom in and out.
I don't understand why you are asking "why are you already at the scene & "How does that work?"?"
Can you expand.
And can you hazard a guess at what the police may have been doing at the crime scene between the time the body was found and when the family visited the site to lay flowers (25th - 27th Dec)?
-
In writing.... not typed then???
From Sally Ramage
So I am going to suggest that The Defence's opening speech,that The Prosecution read out, was the statement that Dr Vincent Tabak apparently signed... As anything the defence had, should be disclosed to The Prosecution, if I am understanding this correctly....
But the most interesting point is this:
The defence case statement must be in writing, signed by the defendant or the defendant’s solicitor and outline:
So the solicitor has the ability to sign such documents?? That's interesting.... So did Dr Vincent Tabak actually sign his statement of September 2011??
https://www.inbrief.co.uk/court-proceedings/defence-case-statement/
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
Why do you openly defend Tabak but criticise everyone else?
-
Why do you openly defend Tabak but criticise everyone else?
I am not critising Sally Ramage, she has pointed out an issue with the statement within, what she had written..
-
I am not critising Sally Ramage, she has pointed out an issue with the statement within, what she had written..
Okay then,
Why do you openly defend Tabak and Sally Ramage but criticise everyone else?
-
Why do you openly defend Tabak but criticise everyone else?
It's ridiculous..... I try to fathom the law.... The law appears to be have ignored looking at what has been stated....
My god... doesn't make a difference does it.... I could do this until the cows come home... and no-one who look at this case... I don't understand what it is about Dr Vincent Tabak, that no-one will consider anything about the case....
I have I believe demonstrated on a number of occasions, why I believe the case needs re-examining, but that won't happen....
Head , bang and brick wall spring to mind.... Just repeat on a daily bases until you forget, what you believe is wrong with this case.... Follow the herd and we will embrace you...... and then give you an ice pack.....
Nothing I have stated resonate with anyone??
-
Wasn't JY unofficially identified by her watch?
If you watch the video where the press are filming the family they appear to be behind a cordon and using their cameras to zoom in and out.
I don't understand why you are asking "why are you already at the scene & "How does that work?"?"
Can you expand.
And can you hazard a guess at what the police may have been doing at the crime scene between the time the body was found and when the family visited the site to lay flowers (25th - 27th Dec)?
(https://cdn.images.dailystar.co.uk/dynamic/1/photos/831000/620x/Joanna-Yeates-grave-569281.jpg)
Which watch.... ??
She appears to have more than one... who confirmed she was wearing her white watch on the 17th December 2010??
And how on earth is a watch a way to identify someone who was in a frozen state??
What about A visual inspection?? DNA??
-
What is a "simple murder?"
The alternative to a complex one, which the Head of The South West Complex Case Unit, should not have involve herself in...
I have highlighted the 21 criteria for The head of The Complex Case Unit and this 'murder" doesn't come under such criterias...
Therefore the term simple was used....
-
So the above post shows us it was the prosecution that read the defences opening statement.... And according to this article, The Defences opening speech is rare, reserved for complex cases...
The more interesting point I would say is this:
The right to make an opening speech exists only where the defendant intends to call at least one defence witness in person (other than the defendant himself).
We know Dr Vincent Tabak took the stand, we know the defence made an opening speech, or was that really the prosecution??
So who was the defendants witness???
Dr Carey?? Was that it??? Was that whom the defendant chose??
What happened to Tanja Morson?? or CJ?? anyone who knew him??
This rare opening speech for a simple murder appears extraordinary , so many firsts wth this case....
https://www.defence-barrister.co.uk/crown-court-trial-part-2/#The-Defence-Case
What does your common sense tell you?
"The family of Joanna Yeates can begin to plan her funeral after her body was released, it emerged today.
A post mortem examination was carried out last week on behalf of Vincent Tabak by a pathologist, Bristol Crown Court was told.
Michael Fitton QC, representing Tabak, told the preliminary hearing that Dr Nat Carey conducted the examination last Wednesday.
"With his consent we have consented to the release of the body of the deceased," Mr Fitton told the court.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/joanna-yeates-body-released-to-family-2199445.html
-
What does your common sense tell you?
I'm flogging a dead horse!
-
(https://cdn.images.dailystar.co.uk/dynamic/1/photos/831000/620x/Joanna-Yeates-grave-569281.jpg)
Which watch.... ??
She appears to have more than one... who confirmed she was wearing her white watch on the 17th December 2010??
And how on earth is a watch a way to identify someone who was in a frozen state??
What about A visual inspection?? DNA??
You tell me
-
I'm flogging a dead horse!
Because it's all a lie......
-
What does your common sense tell you?
"The family of Joanna Yeates can begin to plan her funeral after her body was released, it emerged today.
A post mortem examination was carried out last week on behalf of Vincent Tabak by a pathologist, Bristol Crown Court was told.
Michael Fitton QC, representing Tabak, told the preliminary hearing that Dr Nat Carey conducted the examination last Wednesday.
"With his consent we have consented to the release of the body of the deceased," Mr Fitton told the court.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/joanna-yeates-body-released-to-family-2199445.html
That statement has just made something dawn on me.......
I was trying to establish whether or not Clegg had received the files that Paul Cook and Micheal Fitton QC, had when they represented Dr Vincent Tabak....
I had always assumed that Clegg cannot have had these files..... That there must have been more statements between his first counsel.... I had even thought his first counsel had questioned Tanja Morson and CJ... It seemed a likely scenario...
So if Dr Carey is independent of anything Paul Cook and Micheal Fitton QC had started... Then how and when did Dr Carey examine Joanna yeates??
They allowed Joanna Yeates to be buried.... When and how could Dr Carey do anything??
What did he do... witness a report on how she died??
And if Clegg didn't have these files.... How comes he used Dr Carey as The defence witness??
Also... If the original counsel, did not transfer the documentation they had.... Then why did Clegg use Dr Carey??
-
Joanna Yeates murder case: Neighbour heard cry for help
By This is Bristol | Posted: January 22, 2011
Joanna Yeates murder case: Neighbour heard cry for help
By This is Bristol | Posted: January 22, 2011
joanna-yeates2
Murder victim Joanna Yeates
A resident who lives near the flat of murder victim Joanna Yeates has told police he may have heard her call for help.
The man, who asked not to be named, heard a chilling cry which worried him so much that he looked out of his window in his property, which is behind where Miss Yeates' lived, and then went outside to check it out.
He is unsure of exactly when the incident happened but has become increasingly concerned that it was on December 18 – the morning after Miss Yeates was last seen.
After first hearing the cry and not being able to work out where it had come from, the man dismissed it as someone falling on an icy pavement nearby.
It was only when Miss Yeates' body was found on Christmas Day that the incident returned to haunt him and he went to police officers to discuss it further.
The man told the Evening Post: "I was working in my bedroom when I heard a cry – it was not a scream, but it was pretty loud. It sounded like a female voice or young child.
"I didn't hear the first word but the next two words were definitely 'help me'.
"It sounded like an impassioned plea and the impression I got was that it came from the direction of Canynge Road.
"It was not so much the words that were said that unnerved me but the way they were said.
"I opened the bedroom window and looked out but couldn't see anything. I then went outside and looked and listened for about 10 seconds but when I didn't see or hear anything I dismissed it because the pavements were slippy."
The man told the Post he was unsure on which day he had heard the cry and at one stage thought it had happened before Miss Yeates disappeared.
But the incident returned to haunt him after the 25-year-old landscape architect's strangled body was found near Failand.
The man said: "Over the next few days they found the body and it started to play on my mind and I thought to myself there was a greater probability what I heard was relevant, so I contacted police.
"The moment they found the body and I realised it was a murder investigation it really started playing on my mind. I realised what I had heard could be really significant."
He checked the computer he was working on when he heard the cry, to see if he could find something to jog his memory.
The man added: "I still can't be exactly sure which day I heard it but I definitely heard a cry for help.
"It has worried me since because I have felt guilty that I was not more proactive but I was not aware at that time of what was to follow."
The man spoke to the Post as police were granted more time to question Dutch architect Vincent Tabak, who was arrested on suspicion of Miss Yeates' murder on Thursday morning.
The 32-year-old was being held at an unnamed police station yesterday.
The team investigating Miss Yeates' murder currently have until this evening to either bring a charge, apply for more time or release him on bail or without charge.
Police erected scaffolding and green tarpaulin as they examined his flat in 44 Canynge Road, which adjoins the flat Miss Yeates lived in with boyfriend Greg Reardon, 27.
The properties were separated by a door between Miss Yeates' bedroom and one of the two bedrooms of the flat occupied by Mr Tabak which was bricked up when the building was converted to flats.
He is registered as living at the address with his girlfriend Tanja Morson, 34, but was arrested from 37 Aberdeen Road, less than a mile away in Redland, where it is understood he was staying with the permission of a friend who was abroad.
Canynge Road remained cordoned off yesterday.
Searches also took place at the property in Aberdeen Road but a cordon put up by officers on Thursday following the arrest was removed by last night, although a police car remained outside the property.
Avon and Somerset Constabulary still refuse to confirm whether Mr Tabak was the 32-year-old man they had arrested.
Mr Tabak, who works in Bath, is understood to have gone to Holland to spend Christmas with family on December 19 and to not have returned to Bristol until recently.
Miss Yeates was last seen alive when she went for drinks with colleagues at the Bristol Ram pub in Park Street on December 17 and made her way home via three local shops.
Miss Yeates' landlord Chris Jefferies, 65, who was arrested on December 30, remains on police bail.
Not only do we have the report on Kingdon, But we have a report that Dr Vincent Tabak was away in Holland from the 19th December 2010....
Now that puts the cat amongst the pigeons...
Not surprised all of The Bristol Posts articles have been removed, if the have information that may contest, the lies told on the stand....
So..... Where was Dr Vincent Tabak on the 19th December 2010????? Anyone??? Anyone like to confirm this detail????
Have more untruths been told on the stand?? by others?? And not on the stand??
Funny thing was... I had read before somewhere that Dr Vincent Tabak was in Holland at this time...
https://web.archive.org/web/20140906002920/http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/NEIGHBOUR-HEARD-HELP/story-11245954-detail/story.html#q56jPYPPp0PcVuHK.99
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/NEIGHBOUR-HEARD-HELP/story-11245954-detail/story.html#q56jPYPPp0PcVuHK.99
-
Because it's all a lie......
What's all a lie?
-
Help Bristol police find killer who strangled Clifton architect Joanna Yeates
Wednesday, December 29, 2010, 07:38
The detective leading the hunt for the murderer of Bristol landscape architect Joanna Yeates has appealed for the public's help.
Detective Chief Inspector Phil Jones has urged anyone with information that could help track down her killer to come forward.
He said: "Somebody out there does know what happened to Joanna. Someone out there is holding that vital piece of information we need to help provide Joanna's family with the answers they need and want."
He made his plea after disclosing the result of a post-mortem examination which revealed the 25-year-old from Clifton was strangled.
Around 70 police and civilian staff are involved in the investigation, which has become one of the biggest in Bristol for years.
The family of Miss Yeates said yesterday that it had been a "relief" to see her body after going through the worst week of their lives when she was found to be missing.
Her father David, 63, said: "I fear that whoever has done this will never hand themselves in, but we live in hope that the police will catch who is responsible.
"We are sure that the police know more about what happened than they are telling us, but at the moment we are not questioning them because we feel they are doing their best.
"Hearing Jo had been murdered was not a surprise because we had been told to prepare for the worst.
"Since hearing about her death all sorts of things have been running through our mind and we are trying to rationalise what has happened.
"Last week was the worst of our lives and we are hoping that we will never have to go through anything like this again.
"Things were made just that little bit less terrible when we saw Jo's body.
"It was a relief to see her body again – we just said 'welcome back'."
Mr Yeates said his family were keen to make arrangements for his daughter's funeral but they had been informed by the police that her body was unlikely to be released "for a while".
Miss Yeates was last seen alive on December 17 and reported missing by her boyfriend Greg Reardon, 27, two days later when he returned home from a weekend away.
Her fully clothed body was discovered by dog walkers, partially covered by leaves and snow, on a quiet lane three miles from her home, at around 9am on Christmas Day.
The post-mortem examination had been delayed because of the frozen state of her body.
DCI Jones said police believed Miss Yeates' body had lain there several days.
He said: "The pathologist concluded that the cause of her death was compression of the neck; in other words, strangulation.
"As a result of the findings of the post mortem, we believe that Joanna's body has been in the roadside verge off Longwood Lane, Failand, for several days before being discovered on Christmas morning."
DCI Jones said officers were continuing their meticulous search of the area in which Miss Yeates was found in the hope of finding anything that might lead them to her killer.
He said one important line of inquiry was examining all possible routes between her home and the destination where her body was found three miles away.
This investigation will include reviewing relevant CCTV footage from cameras on the Clifton Suspension Bridge, which is an obvious link between the locations.
DCI Jones said he was keeping an 'open mind' about whether Miss Yeates was held before she was killed, whether she knew her killer or whether there was a link to any outstanding missing person or murder inquiry. He said forensic investigations were continuing into information on her computer and mobile phone.
DCI Jones did confirm that Miss Yeates' body had no other significant injuries and that officers were trying to ascertain whether she was killed at the spot her body was discovered.
He declined to speculate on the identity or existence of any suspects but stressed Mr Reardon was a witness and not a suspect.
DCI Jones urged any members of the public to come forward if they have any information whatsoever, however small or insignificant they may think it is.
He said: "We know some of her last movements on Friday, December 17. We know where and when she was found. We now know how she died.
"What we have to do next is find out why she was killed and who was responsible.
"I have a large team of police officers and staff who have been working tirelessly to help find the answers to those questions.
"I would urge anyone listening who has any information whatsoever to please come forward and speak to us."
Miss Yeates, a landscape architect for city-based firm BDP, was reported missing on the evening of December 19 by Mr Reardon.
He had returned to the couple's home in Canynge Road, Clifton, after a weekend away in Sheffield visiting family.
Miss Yeates was last seen alive two days earlier after visiting the Bristol Ram pub on Park Street with work colleagues.
She left the pub at 8pm and stopped on her way home at Waitrose on Clifton Triangle.
At 8.30pm she rang her best friend, Rebecca Scott, to arrange to meet on Christmas Eve, and at 8.40pm she left the Tesco Express on Regent Street in Clifton, where she had bought a Tesco Finest mozzarella, tomato and basil pesto pizza.
It emerged yesterday that Miss Yeates also bought a bottle of cider at off licence Bargain Booze, also in Regent Street.
Shop assistant Robin Paine, 54, said: "It was a really busy night because it was the last Friday that the students were here. I don't remember her coming in but she is on our CCTV, which the police took on Monday morning.
"That was less than 24 hours after she had been found so it made me think something awful had happened to her.
"It's hit the community very hard – it's all anyone is talking about.
"It's quite horrifying to think that this can happen and that it now appears she's been murdered. We all feel for the family, especially given the time of year."
What happened before Mr Reardon returned to the couple's flat on Sunday evening, after visiting his brother in Sheffield, is unclear.
He found Miss Yeates gone but her coat, mobile phone, keys, purse and bank cards still in the flat.
The pizza and its box were missing, and police have since appealed for information as to its whereabouts.
Police have said there were no signs of forced entry or a struggle at the Victorian flat, which is near Clifton College.
Eight days later Miss Yeates' body was found close to the entrance of Bristol and Clifton Golf Club, in Failand.
Bob Cook, district councillor for Long Ashton and Failand, said yesterday: "It is dreadful and has been very upsetting for the people of both communities in Failand and Long Ashton.
"We never expect this sort of thing to happen where we live.
"It is very sad as it affects so many people and our hearts go out to her family and friends."
Miss Yeates' body was formally identified by her parents David and Theresa on Monday.
Together with their son, Christopher, and Mr Reardon they made an emotional visit to the site where she was discovered.
After laying flowers nearby they made their way to Flax Bourton mortuary to formally identify her body.
Anyone who can help with the investigation should call the Operation Braid incident room on 0845 456 7000 or Crimestoppers, anonymously, on 0800 555111.
Why is everything the opposite way around???
The Yeates go to a potential Crime Scene first, to lay flowers on Longwood lane before they go to Flax Bourton Mortuary, to identify Joanna Yeates body.....
Why would they do that?? I am not being disrespectful... I do not know how and why they would lay flowers on a Lane before they have identified their daughters body....
I remember Mr Yeates stating something along the lines that no-one else was Missing at that time, but that simply wasn't true... He may not have know this but there was a young lady of a similar look and age Missing from Ireland, called Blathnaid Timothy.... Who went Missing around 14th December 2010...
Why are they agreeing to do a photo opportunity, before there is an official identification of the woman who was found on Longwood Lane??
It is frankly weird....(using an Ann Reddropp term) that the family all go to a possible scene of Crime before they have identified their daughter, walking all over this second scene of crime and the police allowing this to happen...
The Post Mortem hadn't been finished until the evening of the 27th December 2010, DCI Phil Jones tells us on his conference with the press.... The press conference was held on the 28th December 2010:
Press Conference at: 0:34 seconds
Good Morning.... The investigation into the death of 25 year old Joanna Yeates is now a Murder Investigation, and I'm leading that Murder Investigation, as you know the post mortem examination has taken longer than usual because of the frozen condition of her body. The pathologist completed his examination last night
So before a cause of death has been established, before the police even know if a crime has been committed, before The yeates conclusively know that it is their daughter that has been found on Longwood Lane...
* Mr Yeates
* Mrs Yeates
* Greg Reardon
* Alla Ritch
* Frank Reardon
* Chris Yeates
Are all allowed to walk around a potential crime scene, being allowed under The Police Tape, to the area where Joanna Yeates body was supposed to have been located.... 6 people, whom should not have had access to that crime scene until after, it had been processed...
6 People allowed to walk around this potential Crime Scene, before it was announced that a murder had in fact taken place... Where we can see on this video Emma the FLO officer raising the Police tape to allow The Yeates and others to walk under this tape.... to an area, where her body was found...
Why contaminate a scene of crime?? why allow the family partner and a brother to visit this site before you have established, whether or not this is the site where a murder did in fact occur??
Before an potential suspects have been established we allow 2 people for starters, who may or may not know a vital piece of information.... It is not until the 28th December 2010 that DCI Phil Jones tells the media that Greg Reardon is a witness and not a suspect....
I am not pointing the finger at Greg, I'm pointing out inconsistencies...
We do not know if a Crime has been committed, we have potential suspect/suspects, walking around a crime scene before we even know that it's a crime scene... We allow people to lay flowers, before we know who they are laying flowers for and before an official identification has been made.....
I say suspects, because everyone at that point should be a suspect... (imo)... Once they have established that a crime has indeed taken place, I would have thought that they then double check alibi's and double check any information that they have received... Not allow everyone to descend onto a potential crime scene....
It is not a crime scene until the crime has been established... There maybe something that they need to search for.... And it turned out they did... "A Missing Sock".... There could potentially have been other evidence there belonging to Joanna Yeates.... But no.... lets do a photo opportunity first and then lets establish whether or not a crime has taken place.....
Doesn't that strike you as odd..... weird???
We never once see The Yeates or even Greg Reardon at Canygne Road, we never once see them there.... Joanna Yeates is a Missing person, surely one of them would want to be at Canygne Road in case she returns?? Instead, they arrive at Longwood lane..... they arrive at Longwood Lane to lay flowers, but we do not see any of them laying flowers at Canygne Road?? ....Why?.... why not??
I am flummoxed, by this case... I am flummoxed that everything works the wrong way round and no-one questions it... I am flummoxed that after all this time no-one has come forward to say what they know....
It is like I have said many times before... everything is staged.... everything we have witnessed on video and in the news appears staged....
And this particular scene at Longwood Lane only confirms my suspicions.... (imo)
https://web.archive.org/web/20110101011015/http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/Help-Bristol-police-killer-strangled-Clifton-architect-Joanna-Yeates/article-3046838-detail/article.html
http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/Help-Bristol-police-killer-strangled-Clifton-architect-Joanna-Yeates/article-3046838-detail/article.html
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/missing-woman-probably-died-by-drowning-coroner-1.1400477
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8noQpXm0HQU
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/family-of-joanna-yeates-visit-spot-where-her-body-was-news-footage/693155122
-
The Yeates go to a potential Crime Scene first, to lay flowers on Longwood lane before they go to Flax Bourton Mortuary, to identify Joanna Yeates body.....
Why would they do that?? I am not being disrespectful... I do not know how and why they would lay flowers on a Lane before they have identified their daughters body....
What is the logical reason to this?
Why do you think flowers were laid on Longwood Lane?
You claim I am not being disrespectful but why make that statement if it doesn't enter your thought processes?
-
I pointed out that DS Mark Saunders had told us of some CCTV footage that shows Canygne Road on that weekend and he talks of seeing cars and people Milling about....
He is not the only one who refers to this CCTV, footage... indirectly DCI Phil Jones also divulges this information..
On The Police Conference video dated 28th December 2010 DCI Phil Jones states at : 3:24
At the time she would have arrived home, which would have been at approximately 8:45pm there were other pedestrians and vehicles in Canygne Road at that time.
Therefore confirming (imo) that he too saw the CCTV that DS Mark Saunders has spoken of.... CCTV footage that should clearly indicate if Joanna yeates reached home... CCTV footage that should clearly indicate Dr Vincent Tabak's movements that evening...
* Leaving no doubt as to what happened on that weekend...
* Leaving no doubt as to whom arrived or left that area....
* Leaving no doubt as to the timings, of peoples statements....
* Leaving no doubt as to whether people entered or left 44, Canygne Road...
* Leaving no doubt as to when Greg arrived home....
* Leaving no doubt that CJ's car was on the road...
* Leaving no doubt that CJ's car was moved to the drive...
* Leaving no doubt as to the time Dr Vincent Tabak arrived home with Tanja
* Leaving no doubt to the quick response from the police
* Leaving no doubt showing the yeates banging on car boots
* Leaving no doubt that Dr Vincent Tabak left to go to Asda
* Leaving no doubt, that bins in the area were searched
* Leaving no doubt, that np other tenant left that building at that time
* Leaving no doubt as to the time The Yeates arrived
* leaving no doubt as to whether Greg went out searching the area for her
* Leaving no doubt as to whether Dr Vincent Tabak brought his car from the road
* Leaving no doubt, when he retuned home after disposing apparently of Joanna Yeates body..
* Leaving no doubt that Joanna Yeates didn't leave her flat after 8:45pm on Friday 17th December 2010
* Leaving no doubt that Dr Vincent Tabak took photo's in the snow
* leaving no doubt that Dr Vincent Tabak cycled home from work
* Leaving no doubt what time Dr Vincent Tabak arrived home from work
* Leaving no doubt as to the time Tanja Morson left for her party
* Leaving no doubt that CJ helped start Greg's car
* Leaving no doubt that Peter Stanley helped start Greg car
* Leaving no doubt what time Greg left for Sheffield
* Leaving no doubt as to the time Greg arrived home after work
* Leaving no doubt that Joanna Yeates didn't have visitors
The CCTV footage that should have supported Dr Vincent Tabak's claims on the stand, sadly missing from trial...
-
I pointed out that DS Mark Saunders had told us of some CCTV footage that shows Canygne Road on that weekend and he talks of seeing cars and people Milling about....
He is not the only one who refers to this CCTV, footage... indirectly DCI Phil Jones also divulges this information..
On The Police Conference video dated 28th December 2010 DCI Phil Jones states at : 3:24
Therefore confirming (imo) that he too saw the CCTV that DS Mark Saunders has spoken of.... CCTV footage that should clearly indicate if Joanna yeates reached home... CCTV footage that should clearly indicate Dr Vincent Tabak's movements that evening...
* Leaving no doubt as to what happened on that weekend...
* Leaving no doubt as to whom arrived or left that area....
* Leaving no doubt as to the timings, of peoples statements....
* Leaving no doubt as to whether people entered or left 44, Canygne Road...
* Leaving no doubt as to when Greg arrived home....
* Leaving no doubt that CJ's car was on the road...
* Leaving no doubt that CJ's car was moved to the drive...
* Leaving no doubt as to the time Dr Vincent Tabak arrived home with Tanja
* Leaving no doubt to the quick response from the police
* Leaving no doubt showing the yeates banging on car boots
* Leaving no doubt that Dr Vincent Tabak left to go to Asda
* Leaving no doubt, that bins in the area were searched
* Leaving no doubt, that np other tenant left that building at that time
* Leaving no doubt as to the time The Yeates arrived
* leaving no doubt as to whether Greg went out searching the area for her
* Leaving no doubt as to whether Dr Vincent Tabak brought his car from the road
* Leaving no doubt, when he retuned home after disposing apparently of Joanna Yeates body..
* Leaving no doubt that Joanna Yeates didn't leave her flat after 8:45pm on Friday 17th December 2010
* Leaving no doubt that Dr Vincent Tabak took photo's in the snow
* leaving no doubt that Dr Vincent Tabak cycled home from work
* Leaving no doubt what time Dr Vincent Tabak arrived home from work
* Leaving no doubt as to the time Tanja Morson left for her party
* Leaving no doubt that CJ helped start Greg's car
* Leaving no doubt that Peter Stanley helped start Greg car
* Leaving no doubt what time Greg left for Sheffield
* Leaving no doubt as to the time Greg arrived home after work
* Leaving no doubt that Joanna Yeates didn't have visitors
The CCTV footage that should have supported Dr Vincent Tabak's claims on the stand, sadly missing from trial...
The FACT is he pleaded guilty to manslaughter - on the stand - at his trial!
No matter how hard you try to make excuses for him Nine you cannot get away from the FACTS!
-
Documentary about Joanna Yeates and murderer Vincent Tabak airs tonight
By The Bristol Post | Posted: March 26, 2015
The parents of Joanna Yeates and her wrongly accused landlord Christopher Jefferies will all feature in a new documentary about her murder this evening.
Criminologist Professor David Wilson will also be talking about the murder in the programme called The Killer Next Door: The Last Hours of Joanna Yeates.
It will air on Channel 5 at 8pm as part of the Countdown to Murder series.
It is billed as a "forensic and chillingly accurate documentary" about both Joanna and her Dutch-born killer, Vincent Tabak, who lived in a neighbouring flat in Canynge Road in Clifton.
A spokesman for Channel 5 said: "In a murder mystery that gripped the nation, Joanna Yeates disappeared in the run-up to Christmas 2010.
"This documentary chronicles in detail the tragic events that led to her life tragically colliding with her killer.
"Her next door neighbour, Vincent Tabak, was a quiet Dutch engineer away on business. But Tabak harboured sinister fantasies and in the week before Christmas 2010 he used her cat as a way to make contact and then he murdered Jo in cold blood.
"With interviews with Joanna's parents David and Teresa Yeates, landlord Christopher Jefferies, criminologist Professor David Wilson and Ann Reddrop, the CPS prosecutor, this forensic and chillingly accurate documentary looks at the details of the last days leading up to Joanna's tragic death from the perspective of both murderer and victim."
Chillingly accurate.... This is 'The Countdown to Murder" program... where it depicts Joanna Yeates in her pink flower patterned top,... where it shows events that were not part of the trial.... so how can it be accurate??
https://web.archive.org/web/20150617163654/http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Documentary-Joanna-Yeates-murderer-Vincent-Tabak/story-26237304-detail/story.html
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Documentary-Joanna-Yeates-murderer-Vincent-Tabak/story-26237304-detail/story.html
-
The FACT is he pleaded guilty to manslaughter - on the stand - at his trial!
No matter how hard you try to make excuses for him Nine you cannot get away from the FACTS!
I am not getting away from the facts... I am clearly pointing them out!
-
Documentary about Joanna Yeates and murderer Vincent Tabak airs tonight
By The Bristol Post | Posted: March 26, 2015
Chillingly accurate.... This is 'The Countdown to Murder" program... where it depicts Joanna Yeates in her pink flower patterned top,... where it shows events that were not part of the trial.... so how can it be accurate??
https://web.archive.org/web/20150617163654/http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Documentary-Joanna-Yeates-murderer-Vincent-Tabak/story-26237304-detail/story.html
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Documentary-Joanna-Yeates-murderer-Vincent-Tabak/story-26237304-detail/story.html
It's a TV programme Nine. You'll have to take up your complaints with the producers and ask them why they chose to describe it as chillingly accurate.
-
I am not getting away from the facts... I am clearly pointing them out!
Your numerpus posts remind me of a statement made by former prosecutor Richard Binstead when referring to the Gordon Park case.
"The Shocking Truth About British Justice,' which singles out case in question and seeks to depict it as an example of flawed police investigation, a totally misconceived decision to prosecute it, and finally a wrongful decision by the jury to convict the accused.
“As I had been involved in the case as a prosecutor and was very familiar with the evidence on which the case was based, I strongly felt that I should redress the balance.”
Mr Binstead's book is fiercely critical of Dr Lean's book.
He states: “Whatever merits Sandra Lean's book and her appraisal of the evidence in the Park case may have, they are, to my mind, completely eclipsed by her entrenched and overwhelming antagonism towards and her disdain for the way that the organs of the criminal justice system operate and conduct their affairs.”
http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/16759455.former-prosecutor-publishes-book-backing-lady-in-the-lake-murder-conviction/
-
I'm flogging a dead horse!
Tabaks confession appears to be the elephant in the room.
-
That statement has just made something dawn on me.......
I was trying to establish whether or not Clegg had received the files that Paul Cook and Micheal Fitton QC, had when they represented Dr Vincent Tabak....
I had always assumed that Clegg cannot have had these files..... That there must have been more statements between his first counsel.... I had even thought his first counsel had questioned Tanja Morson and CJ... It seemed a likely scenario...
So if Dr Carey is independent of anything Paul Cook and Micheal Fitton QC had started... Then how and when did Dr Carey examine Joanna yeates??
They allowed Joanna Yeates to be buried.... When and how could Dr Carey do anything??
What did he do... witness a report on how she died??
And if Clegg didn't have these files.... How comes he used Dr Carey as The defence witness??
Also... If the original counsel, did not transfer the documentation they had.... Then why did Clegg use Dr Carey??
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg498485#msg498485
-
Your numerpus posts remind me of a statement made by former prosecutor Richard Binstead when referring to the Gordon Park case.
"The Shocking Truth About British Justice,' which singles out case in question and seeks to depict it as an example of flawed police investigation, a totally misconceived decision to prosecute it, and finally a wrongful decision by the jury to convict the accused.
“As I had been involved in the case as a prosecutor and was very familiar with the evidence on which the case was based, I strongly felt that I should redress the balance.”
Mr Binstead's book is fiercely critical of Dr Lean's book.
He states: “Whatever merits Sandra Lean's book and her appraisal of the evidence in the Park case may have, they are, to my mind, completely eclipsed by her entrenched and overwhelming antagonism towards and her disdain for the way that the organs of the criminal justice system operate and conduct their affairs.”
http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/16759455.former-prosecutor-publishes-book-backing-lady-in-the-lake-murder-conviction/
Commission refers the murder conviction of Gordon Park to the Court of Appeal
26th October 2018
The Criminal Cases Review Commission has referred Gordon Park’s murder conviction to the Court of Appeal.
Gordon Park was convicted in January 2005 at Manchester Crown Court for the murder of his wife, Carol Park, 29 years after she went missing in the summer of 1976. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.
Carol Park’s body was found by amateur divers in Coniston Water, Cumbria, in 1997 and the case became known as the Lady in the Lake murder. (See below for a detailed chronology of the case).
Mr Park appealed against his conviction but the appeal was dismissed in November 2008. Little over a year later, on 25 January 2010, he committed suicide in his cell at HMP Garth in Lancashire. In November 2010 members of Mr Park’s family applied on his behalf to the CCRC.
Following an exhaustive investigation, the CCRC has decided to refer Mr Park’s murder conviction for a fresh hearing at the Court of Appeal.
The Commission is referring the case because it considers there is a real possibility that the Court will quash the conviction in light of new evidence. In the Commission’s view that real possibility arises from the cumulative effect of a number of matters including:
the non-disclosure of expert opinion undermining the consistent implication by the prosecution that Gordon Park’s climbing axe, Exhibit 1 at trial, could be the murder weapon.
the non-disclosure of information undermining the reliability of a prosecution witness who gave evidence of a prison confession.
new scientific evidence showing that Gordon Park was not a contributor to DNA preserved within knots of the rope used to bind Carol Park’s body.
renewed relevance of expert evidence, presented for the appellant at the first appeal, that a rock found in the lake near Mrs Park’s remains could not specifically be linked to rocks at Bluestones (the Parks’ home).
The Commission’s painstaking and detailed review has considered numerous issues and lines of enquiry and involved several visits to Cumbria, interviews with multiple witnesses old and new, the use of cutting edge DNA testing and the investigation of multiple potential alternative suspects.
During the review we have used our section 17[1] powers dozens of times to obtain material from the Forensic Archive, seven individual police forces, the courts, the Crown Prosecution Service, prison authorities, the Probation Service, and a number of other government agencies and public bodies.
Chronology of the case
Carol Park went missing in the summer of 1976 having been last seen in mid-July.
In August 1997 human remains were found by amateur scuba divers in Coniston Water, Cumbria. The remains were found at a depth of 24 metres, about 200 metres from eastern shore of the lake; they were tightly wrapped in bags and bound with knotted ropes. The body was later confirmed as that of Carol Park.
Gordon Park was arrested following the discovery of the body and was charged with Carol Park’s murder. The prosecution was discontinued in January 1998 on the basis that there was no realistic prospect of a conviction on the evidence then available.
New evidence came to light following the broadcast in September 2000 of a TV documentary called ‘A Very British Murder[2].
Mr Park was arrested on 13 January 2004 and again charged with murdering Carol Park “on or about” Saturday 17 July 1976.
Media coverage of his arrest generated new information which was used in the case against Mr Park.
His trial at Manchester Crown Court began on 25 November 2004 and the jury heard evidence over 27 days. At 3.45pm on Friday 28 January 2005, after deliberating for nine hours and twenty-seven minutes, the jury, by a unanimous verdict, found Gordon Park ‘guilty’ of Carol Park’s murder.
He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a recommended minimum prison term of 15 years.
Gordon Park’s appeal against conviction was dismissed at the Court of Appeal in November 2008.
On 25 January 2010, on his sixty-sixth birthday, Gordon Park took his own life in his cell at HMP Garth in Lancashire.
Members of Mr Park’s family, aided by his legal representatives, applied to the Commission for a posthumous review of his conviction on November 2010.
Mr Park’s family were represented in their application to the CCRC by Mr Maslen Merchant of Hadgkiss, Hughes & Beale Solicitors.
This press release was issued by Justin Hawkins, Head of Communication, Criminal Cases Review Commission, on 07947 355231 or e-mail press@ccrc.gov.uk
Notes for editors
The Commission is an independent body set up under the Criminal Appeal Act 1995. It is responsible for independently reviewing suspected and alleged miscarriages of criminal justice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is based in Birmingham and is funded by the Ministry of Justice.
There are currently 11 Commissioners who bring to the Commission considerable experience from a wide variety of backgrounds. Commissioners are appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of the Prime Minister in accordance with the Office for the Commissioner for Public Appointments’ Code of Practice.
The Commission usually receives around 1,500 applications for reviews (convictions and/or sentences) each year. Typically, around 3.5%, or one in 29, of all applications are referred to the appeal courts.
The Commission considers whether, as a result of new evidence or argument, there is a real possibility that the conviction would not be upheld were a reference to be made. New evidence or argument is argument or evidence which has not been raised during the trial or on appeal. Applicants should usually have appealed first. A case can be referred in the absence of new evidence or argument or an earlier appeal only if there are “exceptional circumstances”.
If a case is referred, it is then for the appeal court to decide whether the conviction is unsafe or the sentence unfair.
More details about the role and work of the Criminal Cases Review Commission can be found at ccrc.gov.uk The Commission can be found on Twitter using @ccrcupdate and on Facebook at
[1] Section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 give the CCRC to obtain material from any public body.
[2] Broadcast on Channel 4 on Tuesday 12 September 2000.
https://ccrc.gov.uk/commission-refers-the-murder-conviction-of-gordon-park/
-
https://ccrc.gov.uk/commission-refers-the-murder-conviction-of-gordon-park/
https://ccrc.gov.uk/commission-statement-on-the-court-of-appeal-decision-to-uphold-the-conviction-of-simon-hall/
"completely eclipsed by her entrenched and overwhelming antagonism towards and her disdain for the way that the organs of the criminal justice system operate and conduct their affairs.”
-
https://ccrc.gov.uk/commission-statement-on-the-court-of-appeal-decision-to-uphold-the-conviction-of-simon-hall/
"completely eclipsed by her entrenched and overwhelming antagonism towards and her disdain for the way that the organs of the criminal justice system operate and conduct their affairs.”
The same could be said of the CCRC on the basis they referred both cases...
-
The same could be said of the CCRC on the basis they referred both cases...
I agree
"During the review we have used our section 17[1] powers dozens of times to obtain material from the Forensic Archive, seven individual police forces, the courts, the Crown Prosecution Service, prison authorities, the Probation Service, and a number of other government agencies and public bodies.
Had the CCRC used their section 17[1] powers during their initial review of Simon Hall's case, they may have uncovered the zenith burglary omission years before, along with many other factors.
-
I'm flogging a dead horse!
I'd certainly say so.
-
I'm flogging a dead horse!
Or should I say a dead Zebra.......
-
"During the review we have used our section 17[1] powers dozens of times to obtain material from the Forensic Archive, seven individual police forces, the courts, the Crown Prosecution Service, prison authorities, the Probation Service, and a number of other government agencies and public bodies.
It's clear the CCRC are attempting to appease their critics
-
I agree
"During the review we have used our section 17[1] powers dozens of times to obtain material from the Forensic Archive, seven individual police forces, the courts, the Crown Prosecution Service, prison authorities, the Probation Service, and a number of other government agencies and public bodies.
Had the CCRC used their section 17[1] powers during their initial review of Simon Hall's case, they may have uncovered the zenith burglary omission years before, along with many other factors.
My point being - even those higher up the professional ladder get it wrong sometimes...
-
I agree
"During the review we have used our section 17[1] powers dozens of times to obtain material from the Forensic Archive, seven individual police forces, the courts, the Crown Prosecution Service, prison authorities, the Probation Service, and a number of other government agencies and public bodies.[/b]
Had the CCRC used their section 17[1] powers during their initial review of Simon Hall's case, they may have uncovered the zenith burglary omission years before, along with many other factors.
My point being - even those higher up the professional ladder get it wrong sometimes...
As they did in the Simon Hall case you mean?
Will be interesting to see what the CCRC have uncovered in relation to Gordon Parks prison and probation records and other government agencies and public bodies.
No doubt the PPO will feature in there somewhere https://www.ppo.gov.uk
https://www.ppo.gov.uk/app/uploads/2014/07/162_10_Death_of_a_male_prisoner.pdf
-
Joanna Yeates' Body Released To Her Family
3:41pm UK, Monday January 31, 2011
Katie Stallard, West of England correspondent
The information emerged during a preliminary hearing for Miss Yeates' neighbour, Vincent Tabak, who is accused of killing the young architect some time between December 16 and December 26.
The Dutch engineer appeared at Bristol Crown Court via videolink from HMP Long Lartin, in Worcestershire, as a timetable for the trial was set out.
Michael Fitton QC, representing Tabak, told the court that pathologist Dr Nat Carey had "consented to the release of the body of the deceased" a week ago after carrying out a post mortem.
The developments come as new pictures of Miss Yeates with her boyfriend Greg Reardon and her friends were released by Crimewatch.
The television programme had reconstructed her final moments to prompt witnesses to come forward, but the scenes were not shown following Tabak's arrest.
Joanna Yeates with her boyfriend Greg Reardon and a friend
New pictures of Joanna Yeates (left) with her boyrfriend Greg and a friend
In court, Tabak was shown on a screen, seated at a table with his hands clasped in front of him, and wearing a red jumper and dark trousers.
He appeared calm and relaxed as proceedings were relayed to him.
A plea hearing was set for May 4, and Tabak was told that a provisional trial date had also been fixed for October 4 at Bristol Crown Court.
However, the judge, the Hon Mr Justice Treacy, stressed this was subject to "further consideration".
He told Tabak: "Your next appearance in court will be May 4 - do you understand?"
Tabak replied: "Yes, I understand. Thank you."
The accused made no application for bail and was remanded in custody at the end of the hearing.
Trilingual Tabak lived next door to Miss Yeates with his girlfriend, Tanja Morson.
He was the second person to be arrested after Miss Yeates' body was found dumped by the side of a road on Christmas Day.
Her boyfriend Greg Reardon had reported her missing six days earlier.
A post-mortem revealed the 25-year-old had been strangled.
A 66-year-old man remains on police bail on suspicion of Miss Yeates' murder.
Michael Fitton QC, representing Tabak, told the court that pathologist Dr Nat Carey had "consented to the release of the body of the deceased" a week ago after carrying out a post mortem.
So on the 24th January 2011 Dr Carey authorised the release of Joanna Yeates body!
We have had no application for bail at this point.... we now know that Dr Vincent Tabak was still using Paul Cook and Micheal Fitton QC..
Back to my earlier question... Did Clegg get the files from Fitton and Cook?? what was held in these files... Dr Carey's examination was obviously held there... Did Clegg receive the files from Cook and Fitton?? Did they interview any witness's??
Within 4 days of Dr Vincent Tabak being charged Joanna Yeates body has been released... With no Evidence that Dr Vincent Tabak is responsible, no investigation been carried out, by the Defence Councel, not having enough time to do this... they allow for Joanna Yeates body to be released???
Did Dr Vincent Tabak have any say in this ?? Did they get his consent??
Within the time frame that Cook and Fitton represented Dr Vincent Tabak he had been moved prisons 3 times within 48 hours from Bristol, to Gloucester , from Gloucester to Long Lartin... what access did they manage to get of their client?? At any time??
Dr Vincent Tabak hasn't accepted any responsibility... he hasn't had access to his family or girlfriend, he hasn't had time to know what the best course of action should be....
Lets just think about what that is saying... article date: 31st January 2011
A week previous.....................................................: 24th January 2011
So 2 days after Dr Vincent Tabak has been charged, no evidence that Dr Vincent Tabak committed this crime... No Bail applied for, nothing even establishing Dr Vincent Tabak's whereabouts for that weekend... Nothing establishing where or when Joanna Yeates had been killed... Dr Carey , whom The Defence of the time appear to have used, decides to let the body of Joanna Yeates go....
The 24th January 2011 being Dr Vincent Tabak's first day in court, where he appeared at Bristol magistrates, where nothing had been decided whatsoever....
I think all that happened that day was that Dr Vincent Tabak agreed his name was Dr Vincent Tabak.... and that was it..... My God.... a bit quick of the mark.....
Looks like the case was done and dusted before he had time to speak to anyone.... Did Paul Cook or Micheal Fitton QC actually even speak to Dr Vincent Tabak??
The evidence at that time would have been minimal... They hadn't time to inquire or cross reference anything....
Who actually sent Dr Carey to perform this examination???
This case is mighty weird..... (imo) Why was Dr Vincent Tabak not allowed to apply for Bail??? Why would he not want Bail???
As I say.... It appears that everything was done and dusted early on..... weird!!
https://web.archive.org/web/20101227084703/http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Joanna-Yeates-New-CCTV-Pictures-Of-Architect-Who-Disappeared-A-Week-Ago-In-Bristol/Article/201012415868004
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Joanna-Yeates-New-CCTV-Pictures-Of-Architect-Who-Disappeared-A-Week-Ago-In-Bristol/Article/201012415868004
-
Joanna Yeates' Body Released To Her Family
3:41pm UK, Monday January 31, 2011
Katie Stallard, West of England correspondent
Michael Fitton QC, representing Tabak, told the court that pathologist Dr Nat Carey had "consented to the release of the body of the deceased" a week ago after carrying out a post mortem.
So on the 24th January 2011 Dr Carey authorised the release of Joanna Yeates body!
We have had no application for bail at this point.... we now know that Dr Vincent Tabak was still using Paul Cook and Micheal Fitton QC..
Back to my earlier question... Did Clegg get the files from Fitton and Cook?? what was held in these files... Dr Carey's examination was obviously held there... Did Clegg receive the files from Cook and Fitton?? Did they interview any witness's??
Within 4 days of Dr Vincent Tabak being charged Joanna Yeates body has been released... With no Evidence that Dr Vincent Tabak is responsible, no investigation been carried out, by the Defence Councel, not having enough time to do this... they allow for Joanna Yeates body to be released???
Did Dr Vincent Tabak have any say in this ?? Did they get his consent??
Within the time frame that Cook and Fitton represented Dr Vincent Tabak he had been moved prisons 3 times within 48 hours from Bristol, to Gloucester , from Gloucester to Long Lartin... what access did they manage to get of their client?? At any time??
Dr Vincent Tabak hasn't accepted any responsibility... he hasn't had access to his family or girlfriend, he hasn't had time to know what the best course of action should be....
Lets just think about what that is saying... article date: 31st January 2011
A week previous.....................................................: 24th January 2011
So 2 days after Dr Vincent Tabak has been charged, no evidence that Dr Vincent Tabak committed this crime... No Bail applied for, nothing even establishing Dr Vincent Tabak's whereabouts for that weekend... Nothing establishing where or when Joanna Yeates had been killed... Dr Carey , whom The Defence of the time appear to have used, decides to let the body of Joanna Yeates go....
The 24th January 2011 being Dr Vincent Tabak's first day in court, where he appeared at Bristol magistrates, where nothing had been decided whatsoever....
I think all that happened that day was that Dr Vincent Tabak agreed his name was Dr Vincent Tabak.... and that was it..... My God.... a bit quick of the mark.....
Looks like the case was done and dusted before he had time to speak to anyone.... Did Paul Cook or Micheal Fitton QC actually even speak to Dr Vincent Tabak??
The evidence at that time would have been minimal... They hadn't time to inquire or cross reference anything....
Who actually sent Dr Carey to perform this examination???
This case is mighty weird..... (imo) Why was Dr Vincent Tabak not allowed to apply for Bail??? Why would he not want Bail???
As I say.... It appears that everything was done and dusted early on..... weird!!
https://web.archive.org/web/20101227084703/http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Joanna-Yeates-New-CCTV-Pictures-Of-Architect-Who-Disappeared-A-Week-Ago-In-Bristol/Article/201012415868004
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Joanna-Yeates-New-CCTV-Pictures-Of-Architect-Who-Disappeared-A-Week-Ago-In-Bristol/Article/201012415868004
He had confessed Nine!
-
I am beginning to think even if you saw this murder with your own eyes NINE you still would say he was innocent. this is getting ridiculous now
-
He had confessed Nine!
The apparent confession didn't happen until he went to The Old bailey on the 5th May 2011... Or if you like the none confession to the apparent Chaplain at Long Lartin jail... on the 24th January 2011 Dr Vincent Tabak hasn't been moved prison locations yet.....
My post is taking 24th January 2011......
So he confessed to the Police??? Is that what you are saying????
And they decided... ok... thats a wrap????
Didn't release him to check whether or not he was taking the pish or he was a fantasist... no... just accepted an admission of guilt without supporting evidence!!
-
I am beginning to think even if you saw this murder with your own eyes NINE you still would say he was innocent. this is getting ridiculous now
And if he was there doing said Murder if I was there witnessing it.... I would say he did it.... I saw it.....
But the only thing that is ridiculous is this Case..... (imo) ?{)(**
-
It really annoys me when you say apparent Chaplain, just because its a volunteer role he is still a Chaplain. Not a plant, someone undercover or any other sinister motive you have previously claimed
Are you trying to tell us, all other cases accused of murder/manslaughter get bail? Tabak was badly done to? Really?
-
I am beginning to think even if you saw this murder with your own eyes NINE you still would say he was innocent. this is getting ridiculous now
Don't bother..
I remember saying something similar to Sandra Lean re the LM case.
"I believe if you were now showed a video of him murdering [Name removed], you would still make up every excuse under the sun to attempt to suggest it wasn't him
Her response:
"That is, quite frankly, one of the most sick posts I think I've ever seen.
I had two daughters around Jodi's age at the time - why on earth would I make any effort whatsoever to help someone whom I had reason to suspect might be freed back into my own community, where my children lived, to do the same again?http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.135.html
You can't reason with people who choose to be unreasonable.
-
Nine dismisses everything that shows Tabak to be guilty. Even the Chaplain comes under fire. She clearly doesnt know much about the law, prison service or anyone working as a Chaplain. Instead she attacks the Chaplain, pretending he isnt real to dismiss any words Tabak said to him
The Chaplain was real just like the confession!
-
bristol_evening_post Saturday, January 08, 2011, 07:00
Was Joanna Yeates' killer behind the murder of Glenis Carruthers?
Glenis Carruthers was murdered in 1974
By Tom Morris T.Morris
Similarities between the Clifton killings of Joanna Yeates and Glenis Carruthers are too alarming to ignore, a leading criminologist has told the Evening Post.
Professor David Wilson said that although the murders were 36 years apart, both women were strangled, were found not wearing their shoes and had been in a similar area of Clifton.
Neither had been sexually assaulted or had suffered any significant injuries other than from strangulation.
Yesterday Avon & Somerset police confirmed that CCTV footage from Bristol Zoo had been seized.
The zoo is close to Miss Yeates' home in Canynge Road and the spot where Miss Carruthers' body was discovered in January 1974.
The Evening Post has learned that the Avon and Somerset force's Major Crime Review Team, which probes so-called "cold cases" where several years have passed without a culprit being brought to justice, will be devoting every member of its five-strong team to sifting through the 24 boxes of evidence and exhibits held on the Carruthers case next week.
Mr Wilson, who is professor of criminology and criminal justice at Birmingham City University, has visited both Canynge Road and Longwood Lane, between Failand and Long Ashton, where Miss Yeates' body was found dumped on Christmas Day.b
He said the striking similarities between the cases made a possible link difficult to ignore.
Mr Wilson told the Post: "In my experience of dealing with murderers I never accept the idea of coincidence and therefore I want to look very carefully at whether seemingly random factors are connected.
"To think that Glenis Carruthers was killed in the same way, in roughly the same street, her body was dumped and there was no sexual assault seems to me to be worth pursuing."
Mr Wilson has researched many murderers, including serial killer Fred West, Soham murderer Ian Huntley, and Suffolk strangler Steven Wright.
Yesterday he made several startling observations about other aspects of the Yeates investigation.
He strongly believes that Miss Yeates' killer was known to her, lives in Bristol and is likely to have revisited the scene of the crime to obtain a sick thrill.
Mr Wilson added that he thought her missing sock was either used as a murder weapon, a gag or was taken as a trophy.
He said: "I think this was an opportunistic killing within a broad circle of friends and acquaintances.
"I still think the killer is in Bristol. Nothing strikes me as this being a stranger who perpetrated this murder and nothing suggests it is a serial killer.
"I don't fear this case is connected in any way to Melanie Hall or Claudia Lawrence, as I have seen reported in some papers.
"I actually think the police have a very good idea who they think did it. Police have to keep some information back because it allows them to rule in or rule out suspects.
"I always teach that murder is about access, opportunity and finally about motivation.
"Don't worry about the motivation initially.
"Worry about who has access to the victim and who has had the opportunity to use this access to effect the kill. Statistics show that 90 per cent of murders in England and Wales were cleared up in 2009.
"The reason those murders got cleared up in a huge number of cases is not because of DNA, CCTV or criminal profilers. It is the fact the murderers are often related or a friend, so it becomes quite easy to identify who the main suspects are."
Mr Wilson said he believed the killer acted alone, had a sexual motive and panicked when dumping the body.
He said: "I think it's only one person. There has been the phenomenon of people murdering in pairs such a husband and wife or two male friends working together in tandem but I don't think so in this case.
"I think there was sexual motivation because strangulation is a very intimate form of murder.
"Also the missing sock is either the murder weapon, was used to gag her or was taken as a trophy.
"Many murderers are trophy takers, as it is part of the fantasy. I think it is very relevant.
"I have visited the site of disposal and I don't think he intended to leave the body where it was left.
"I wonder whether he was frightened about being seen by another car or was physically not able to get the body over the wall. I imagine he was trying to get the body into the quarry beyond the wall.
"I do think the perpetrator of this murder has had some luck. "Police have never really been able to establish a timeline because her body was frozen, so when she died is very difficult to establish.
"If the body had not been frozen, and this has worked to the perpetrator's advantage, a good solid timeline would have allowed police to rule in and out suspects.
"I think the key will be DNA."
Mr Wilson said the killer would find it difficult not to visit the scene of the crime, partly because the case had attracted such a high level of media attention.
He said: "It would not surprise me if the killer had been to the scene of the crime as part of the thrill. It is all part of the power and control, and why they commit the crime in the first place.
"Killers very often follow very carefully how the case is being reported in the press or broadcasts on the news. Often they gain satisfaction from these reports and how they are being discussed.
"Some killers like the fear they engender in the community. Some like to feel they have done one over on the police and the public. It is the extension of their power.
"Think about Ian Huntley and the Soham murders. He was constantly in the media and propelling himself into the spotlight.
"By and large the Evening Post is the one the killer will be reading more than anything else on a regular basis.
"I know of one murderer who loved reading his local paper because it gave him such a thrill. 'It's me in the paper but nobody knows it's me' – he loved all that.
"Another killer called Dennis Rader (an American serial killer) was so annoyed at some press reports about who they thought was murdering people that he wrote to them saying they had got it wrong.
"It is all about arrogance, egotism and narcissism."
Miss Yeates was last seen alive on December 17 after drinking with colleagues at the Bristol Ram pub in Park Street.
She walked home visiting three shops and buying a pizza and two bottles of cider.
She was reported missing by her boyfriend Greg Reardon, 27, two days later when he returned home from a weekend away.
Her snow-covered body was found dumped on a verge in Longwood Lane on Christmas Day.
Miss Yeates' landlord Chris Jefferies, 65, a former teacher at Clifton College, was arrested on suspicion of murder on December 30 but released on police bail two days later.
The team working on the case, codenamed Operation Braid, now numbers 80 officers and the investigation is one of the biggest in the Avon and Somerset force's history. The team, which includes scientific, forensic and behavioural experts, is following up more than 1,000 lines of inquiry.
Yesterday the mother of murdered teenager Louise Smith, 18, called for police to carry out DNA tests in Clifton if they had obtained any samples from Miss Yeates' body.
Police have refused to confirm or deny whether a sample of DNA has been found on her body or at her flat.
The Sun newspaper has offered a £50,000 reward for finding Miss Yeates' killer while Avon & Somerset police have retracted a complaint made to broadcasting watchdog Ofcom regarding the coverage of the case by ITV.
● Anyone with information about Miss Yeates' murder should call the police on 0845 456 7000 or Crimestoppers on 0800 555111.
Our Criminologist has been identified , I believe.... The very same Criminologist who appeared in the program Countdown to Murder, who's opinion by the time he appears in said program has obviously changed....!!
He talks of Dr Vincent Tabak and his motives, obviously not connecting the two Murders as Dr Vincent Tabak was not even born when Glenis Caruthers was Murdered!!
So many people getting involved in this case at such an early stage.....
Dr Wilson talks of Denis Radar, the BTK killer, a serial killer know for Binding , Torturing, then killing his victims, no matter what the age... Whom by the way... was apprehended because he made an error when he sent messages to the Police, I believe, via his churches computer,( if memory serves me correctly) and they then had evidence of who accessed said computer at said time, message was sent.....
Now is Dr Wilson hinting that something had been sent to the Police or someone else via a church computer??? Because it seem and odd example for him to use....
Obviously Dr Wilson believed that there was a serial killer looses, and not only that they had connections to the church, (imo)....
Well, we have already been told that Dr Vincent Tabak didn't have a religion.... He is NOT a serial killer..... So where does that leave Dr Wilson????
https://web.archive.org/web/20110108152449/http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/DID-KILL-GLENIS/article-3079127-detail/article.html
http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/DID-KILL-GLENIS/article-3079127-detail/article.html
-
In the wrong clearly just like everyone else just not Tabak
-
In the wrong clearly just like everyone else just not Tabak
Jixy.... I have always said, that I have never been happy with this case... And I believe Dr Vincent Tabak to be Innocent....
I have not been satisfied with what appears, to be a slap dash, approach to this case, where valuable evidence was ignored and where statements that have been made on video contradict each other...
There is clearly something else going on!!! (imo) 8)--))
-
The apparent confession didn't happen until he went to The Old bailey on the 5th May 2011... Or if you like the none confession to the apparent Chaplain at Long Lartin jail... on the 24th January 2011 Dr Vincent Tabak hasn't been moved prison locations yet.....
My post is taking 24th January 2011......
So he confessed to the Police??? Is that what you are saying????
And they decided... ok... thats a wrap????
Didn't release him to check whether or not he was taking the pish or he was a fantasist... no... just accepted an admission of guilt without supporting evidence!!
All you've demonstrated is how easy it is for anyone to twist and distort a variety of sources in order to produce a narrative that suits a given agenda
-
All you've demonstrated is how easy it is for anyone to twist and distort a variety of sources in order to produce a narrative that suits a given agenda
Which the same could be said of the Police and CPS.... Still wondering on what evidence they arrested Dr Vincent Tabak with??
Oh yes... It was that phone call we never heard....!! That wasn't corroborated..... silly me....
-
I was just about to post similar... All these errors you chase nine while you ignore all the true facts of the case.
That is the weird and strange thing you claim. It's your view on it. You come up with the longest posts to dismiss the evidence while you chase your tail on conspiracy and wrong doing.
Everyone is wrong no matter what their connection. Even if he was truly innocent then all sides would have to be looked at objectively and that is something you never do
-
Nine dismisses everything that shows Tabak to be guilty. Even the Chaplain comes under fire. She clearly doesnt know much about the law, prison service or anyone working as a Chaplain. Instead she attacks the Chaplain, pretending he isnt real to dismiss any words Tabak said to him
The Chaplain was real just like the confession!
What exactly showed Dr Vincent Tabak to be guilty.... And don't say the pack of lies he told on the stand....
-
I think this has all been covered in great detail mostly by justsaying but Inc myself and Stephanie.
It isn't the evidence it is your acceptance of it or lack of it
-
Nine dismisses everything that shows Tabak to be guilty. Even the Chaplain comes under fire. She clearly doesnt know much about the law, prison service or anyone working as a Chaplain. Instead she attacks the Chaplain, pretending he isnt real to dismiss any words Tabak said to him
The Chaplain was real just like the confession!
You put it in a nutshell.... The Chaplain was real just like the confession! Therefore the confession was not real....
Brotherton assumed the role of Chaplain apparently.... No Chaplain would divulge what a person told them in confidence... whether or not that person was religious....
It makes a mockery of the church.... Something I don't believe they would be happy with.... (imo)
-
Again... The Chaplain was real so was the confession
You can say it as many times as you like in bold and big... It stands
But let's pretend it wasn't... Why did he keep up with the confession at the trial and apologise.
He gave it freely not under police interrogation. Freely and he stuck with it. Get a grip
-
I think this has all been covered in great detail mostly by justsaying but Inc myself and Stephanie.
It isn't the evidence it is your acceptance of it or lack of it
Yes I am accepting that there was a lack of evidence..... How kind of you to notice..... 8)-)))
-
Again... The Chaplain was real so was the confession
You can say it as many times as you like in bold and big... It stands
But let's pretend it wasn't... Why did he keep up with the confession at the trial and apologise.
He gave it freely not under police interrogation. Freely and he stuck with it. Get a grip
Dr Vincent Tabak did not say to Brotherton that he had killed Joanna Yeates..... Those words never left his lips.....
-
Yes I am accepting that there was a lack of evidence..... How kind of you to notice..... 8)-)))
It's a pity your cleverness doesn't extend to your research. Your comments clearly backs up your approach to the case.
YOUR acceptance of the evidence or YOUR lack of it. There was plenty of real evidence
-
Dr Vincent Tabak did not say to Brotherton that he had killed Joanna Yeates..... Those words never left his lips.....
Oh come on Nine! Admitting he was guilty of the crime was just as good as admitting he killed her! As you very well know!
-
It's a pity your cleverness doesn't extend to your research. Your comments clearly backs up your approach to the case.
YOUR acceptance of the evidence or YOUR lack of it. There was plenty of real evidence
But it apparently never found its way to trial......
Anyway Jixy... Since when is the word of the man of the cloth evidence and proof?? You trying to tell me that men of the cloth never lie??
Where is the report that Brotherton made to his superiors when he reported this matter??
-
@)(++(*
-
Oh come on Nine! Admitting he was guilty of the crime was just as good as admitting he killed her! As you very well know!
Which Crime would he be referring too at that point..... It doesn't prove he admitted to killing Joanna Yeates as well you know also.....
-
What makes a murderer not a murderer... When nine is pretending to investigate
-
But it apparently never found its way to trial......
Anyway Jixy... Since when is the word of the man of the cloth evidence and proof?? You trying to tell me that men of the cloth never lie??
Where is the report that Brotherton made to his superiors when he reported this matter??
Where is the report suggesting Tabak denies the confessions to Brotherton?
-
When he was on trial and he took time out to say sorry why didn't he shout out the Chaplain wasn't real I didn't confess I am innocent
No he chose to say sorry
-
Which Crime would he be referring too at that point..... It doesn't prove he admitted to killing Joanna Yeates as well you know also.....
Really? So you tell me which crime he was going to plead guilty too? He was only on remand for one crime at that point in time - the killing of Jo Yeates… So no, as you suggest, I do not well know, Nine. Very obvious he was speaking of the killing, very stupid to say otherwise.
-
Don't bother..
I remember saying something similar to Sandra Lean re the LM case.
"I believe if you were now showed a video of him murdering [Name removed], you would still make up every excuse under the sun to attempt to suggest it wasn't him
Her response:
"That is, quite frankly, one of the most sick posts I think I've ever seen.
I had two daughters around Jodi's age at the time - why on earth would I make any effort whatsoever to help someone whom I had reason to suspect might be freed back into my own community, where my children lived, to do the same again?http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.135.html
You can't reason with people who choose to be unreasonable.
Sandra Lean attempts to use Ethos as a way of appealing to her audience by mentioning her daughters as if to show she's credibile and of an ethical character.
But what she forgets are the facts some of us don't. Like for example her personal involvement with Billy Middleton and the saga involving him, one of her daughters, and how the pair of them made an attempt to deflect the fact their true characters had been exposed http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg384537.html?PHPSESSID=rnk4mga75qhbk5rli70e6b29p2#msg384537
-
When he was on trial and he took time out to say sorry why didn't he shout out the Chaplain wasn't real I didn't confess I am innocent
No he chose to say sorry
This is surreal *%87
-
This is surreal *%87
On a par with Tesko's terrific toilet talks. 8(8-))
-
This is surreal *%87
Sometimes there is no other way to try and tell Nine he is guilty. She makes out he was so badly treated he had NO chance to defend himself and it all happened around him because its a huge set up. It clearly isnt...
-
Sometimes there is no other way to try and tell Nine he is guilty. She makes out he was so badly treated he had NO chance to defend himself and it all happened around him because its a huge set up. It clearly isnt...
Clear? It's positively sparkling! &^^&*
-
@)(++(*
-
What makes a murderer not a murderer... When nine is pretending to investigate
Thanks Jixy...
-
any time Nine 8(0(*
-
Strange how this thread is even here really...
Tabak was many things to many different people. Not just the placid man you like to mention. A man of many faces, now why would that be?
The boyfriend, the friend the colleague, the man who watched violent porn. Who knew him or what he was capable of?
Quick to jump in an ring the Police while away but once arrested has very little to say. Yet even while he was abroad he was tracking the case of someone he didnt know? He was on holiday enjoying the festivities but his mind was never away from Jo
So keen on Jo it even distracted his work, whether searching for updates or how to get away with murder. Definitely dedicated to the topic wasnt he
A clever man who just wasnt quite clever enough!
He didnt really want to be involved in any of the search, yet searched the net for details about Jo before she was even reported missing. His DNA was on her body, her blood in his boot and his reluctance to give his DNA sample
You ask over and over why he was charged.... it speaks for itself yet you still refuse to accept the findings
The only decision the Jury had to make was murder or manslaughter
2 years debating this is actually a total insult to Jo and her family!
-
Strange how this thread is even here really...
Tabak was many things to many different people. Not just the placid man you like to mention. A man of many faces, now why would that be?
The boyfriend, the friend the colleague, the man who watched violent porn. Who knew him or what he was capable of?
Quick to jump in an ring the Police while away but once arrested has very little to say. Yet even while he was abroad he was tracking the case of someone he didnt know? He was on holiday enjoying the festivities but his mind was never away from Jo
So keen on Jo it even distracted his work, whether searching for updates or how to get away with murder. Definitely dedicated to the topic wasnt he
A clever man who just wasnt quite clever enough!
He didnt really want to be involved in any of the search, yet searched the net for details about Jo before she was even reported missing. His DNA was on her body, her blood in his boot and his reluctance to give his DNA sample
You ask over and over why he was charged.... it speaks for itself yet you still refuse to accept the findings
The only decision the Jury had to make was murder or manslaughter
2 years debating this is actually a total insult to Jo and her family!
Thanks again Jixy..........
-
I accept the thanks and think that should be the end of this thread
-
Ok Jixy... Here's one last post.....
Just something else that has me wondering what has been going on....
12:04, UK, Friday 04 February 2011
By Ruth Barnett, Sky News Online
Suspects arrested by police should have anonymity until they are charged, an MP said as she launched an attack on press reporting of the Joanna Yeates murder case.
Anna Soubry, Conservative MP for Broxtowe and a former journalist and barrister, said coverage of suspects in the case had been "unacceptable and plain wrong".
She wants the press to be banned from reporting the name and address of people under arrest until they are charged, or unless a judge grants permission.
Anyone who does publish a suspect's name could get six months in prison under her proposals, which are being discussed in the House of Commons.
Officers on the hunt for Miss Yeates' killer arrested her landlord, Chris Jeffries, on suspicion of murder. He has since been released on bail.
The architect's neighbour, Vincent Tabak, was subsequently charged with her killing and is being held on remand.
Mr Jeffries, who has always maintained his innocence, is considering suing police for wrongful arrest, Sky sources have said.
Friends say he fully expects to be eliminated from the inquiry.
Although Ms Soubry did not mention Mr Jeffries by name, she criticised the media "vilification" of the first man arrested.
"As we have seen recently in events down in Bristol, it has now got to the stage where many of us believe this is something that has got to stop," she told MPs.
"There is a great wrong being done and it's time it is righted."
She added: "This is not an attack on the media but it is effectively a serious criticism of the antics that have prevailed for too long amongst certain sections of the media."
But Philip Davies, the Tory MP for Shipley, said coverage of those arrested served as a "great control on potential abuse by the police" as without it officers could arrest many people without being held to account.
Why did an MP get involved in this case?? An MP whom was trying to have a Bill presented ??
Anonymity (Arrested Persons) Bill
© Parliamentary copyright House of Commons 2011
Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to the Information Policy Team,
Office of Public Sector Information, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
LONDON — THE STATIONERY OFFICE LIMITED
Printed in the United Kingdom by
The Stationery Office Limited
£x.xx
xxxbarxxx
A
BILL
To prohibit the publication of certain information regarding persons who have
been arrested until they have been charged with an offence; to set out the
circumstances where such information can be published without committing
an offence; and for connected purposes.
Presented by Anna Soubry.
Ordered, by The House of Commons,
to be Printed, 30 June 2010.
What was it about this case that has prompted Parliament to get involved, that The Leveson Inquiry has been part of this case also??
The Bill is going through it's stages and an MP jumps up and gets involved.... Odd... What was it about CJ that prompted Anna Soubry to get involved,?? According to the article, this voicing and her opinion is made before CJ is released from bail....
No-one at this stage knows whether or not he will be charged.... We have no idea why the Police still have him on Bail... Yet Anna is immediately concerned that CJ of all people in the media needs a mention in Parliament, without telling us his name...
But why?? We have had The Attorney General, and now Anna Soubry, getting involved in a case that is a simple Murder... Why would they?? It makes no sense.....
DCI Phil Jones told us at The Leveson the reason they kept CJ on bail was because of a trainer that had been found, behind the backboards under a kitchen sink in that house... We don't know exactly where in that house this trainer with blood on it was found...
But because CJ is arrested and vilified in the press, we suddenly have interest from such quarters, quarters that should not have an interest in a man that no-one knows or is really bothered about...
Or is it a case that CJ, is better known than we think... Has he friends in high places?? I don't know... But The Case had everyone on the band wagon... And when it came to trial, nothing.... When it came to Dr Vincent Tabak being mentioned in the media when he was arrested.... Nothing... Why Not??
What is it about CJ..... that everyone jumped to his defence?? CJ having many many solicitors taking action on his behalf?? Where even the attorney General and Anna Soubry MP felt it important enough to get involved, where The Attorney General in July 2011 even names Dr Vincent Tabak as the man who killed Joanna yeates before a trial had taken place....
Finally... What is it about Joanna Yeates ?? Who was she really??
And Dr Vincent Tabak... why was everyone happy to have him behind bars, even before trial???
There are more serious question that really need asking... I am not the one able to do it... But there are many people who can... (imo)
The Bill was then withdrawn in 2012...
Latest news on the Anonymity (Arrested Persons) Bill 2010-12
This Bill has been withdrawn and will not progress any further.
The Bill had its first reading on 30 June 2010 through the Presentation Bill Procedure.
If you require any further information about the Bill then please contact the sponsoring Member, Anna Soubry.
Why withdraw it at that time?? Why would Anna want to withdraw it?
Then a reintroduction to this Bill in 2017
Latest news on the Anonymity (Arrested Persons) Bill [HL] 2017-19
First reading took place on 4 July. This stage is a formality that signals the start of the Bill's journey through the Lords.
Second reading - the general debate on all aspects of the Bill - is yet to be scheduled.
All very mysterious....
Edit.... CJ was only mention over 3 days from arrest... yet Anna Sourby is bring him to everyones attention... CJ is still on Bail... The media are saying nothing else about CJ... yet she allows us to remember that he has been vilified... she allows us to not forget what happened at that time....
Why on earth is she getting involved?? She was stopping the "Fade factor".... (imo)!
And as a Criminal Barrister she should have known better (imo)
The former business minister Anna Soubry (pictured top), who practiced as a criminal barrister in Nottingham for 15 years, has turned down the chance to be Miss Truss’s number two describing the job offer as an “insult”.
Tut Tut.........
https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/anonymityarrestedpersons.html
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmbills/009/11009.pdf
https://news.sky.com/story/yeates-coverage-prompts-call-for-anonymity-10489652
https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-12/anonymityarrestedpersons.html
https://www.legalcheek.com/2016/07/anna-soubry-experienced-criminal-barrister-refuses-to-serve-under-legal-novice-truss-at-ministry-of-justice/
-
He took the life of a young talented woman and admitted it and rightly sentenced. Maybe think of the victim as even Tabak managed to do that in the end.
Stop digging for stuff that simply doesnt exist and show some decency to JO instead of TABAK
-
He took the life of a young talented woman and admitted it and rightly sentenced. Maybe think of the victim as even Tabak managed to do that in the end.
Stop digging for stuff that simply doesnt exist and show some decency to JO instead of TABAK
Yes Jixy ..... But here's a question someone my be able to answer.....
Say for instance CJ did end up getting charged....
Then what would have been the implications of a MP getting involved in a case before a trial could take place?? Would it have been prejudicial??
Would and could it have affected a possible trial??
She had no idea CJ would be released from bail..... she shouldn't have any idea of that...
Edit.... Lets be perfectly clear here.... This is still a live investigation... and Mp's are not waiting until a trial has taken place or someone has been charged... They are actively getting involved during a live Investigation.....
Doesn't that strike you as odd!!
-
lets be very clear here...the only thing i find odd is why you chose to chase a convicted murderer around when he doesnt want or need you to.
Prejudicial to his case? How exactly. There was NEVER gonna be a not guilty. Murder or Manslaughter. You know the subject he spent quite a lot of time researching himself!
The 'story' as we were told it was only from him. For all YOU know he could have forced her door open when she answered it and barged in. We have the nice flowery version of oh she waved and invited me over. Funny when he demonstrated that at court it was a wave not a come on over signal. Now that is very telling.
The questions you ask have NOTHING to do with Tabaks guilt just you trying to identify errors in the proceedings.
I have been looking at a case where someone got a huge sentence and strangely he challenged it *%87 the sentence stands but technicalities were mentioned. It changed NOTHING!
Stop banging on about CJ even he managed to show compassion to JO and Tabak despite his obvious trauma. He didnt want anyone else going through what he had. Then there is YOU.... unbelievable
-
lets be very clear here...the only thing i find odd is why you chose to chase a convicted murderer around when he doesnt want or need you to.
Prejudicial to his case? How exactly. There was NEVER gonna be a not guilty. Murder or Manslaughter. You know the subject he spent quite a lot of time researching himself!
The 'story' as we were told it was only from him. For all YOU know he could have forced her door open when she answered it and barged in. We have the nice flowery version of oh she waved and invited me over. Funny when he demonstrated that at court it was a wave not a come on over signal. Now that is very telling.
The questions you ask have NOTHING to do with Tabaks guilt just you trying to identify errors in the proceedings.
I have been looking at a case where someone got a huge sentence and strangely he challenged it *%87 the sentence stands but technicalities were mentioned. It changed NOTHING!
Stop banging on about CJ even he managed to show compassion to JO and Tabak despite his obvious trauma. He didnt want anyone else going through what he had. Then there is YOU.... unbelievable
So why has no-one even looked at this case, if i have managed to show "so" many errors 'technicalities' that are wong with this case...
]
Dennis Eady, a case consultant for the Cardiff University Innocence Project, said so few cases were referred back to the appeal court because the CCRC’s remit was too narrow. The CCRC will only refer cases on a legal technicality or when when there is significant new evidence.
Isn't there several legal technicalities wrong in Dr Vincent Tabak's Case?? Or is our judiciary just happy to let that slide??
It would be a refreshing change if they put their hands up and stated that they were wrong... Blatantly everything is set out for all to see.... yet The Justice System, ignore what is right in front of them...
Our Justice System is shameful... Really shameful.... a shiny example of what not to do and who not to trust.... Never will I trust the Police , the justice system in this country again.... why would I... when they have proven themselves to be not interested in Justice.... Just happy that anyone pays for a crime, so the figures add up... So the wheels of justice are seen to turn...
Well can someone let them know that one of the cogs are actually broken, and they seem to have deviated down the wrong path.....
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/may/30/criminal-cases-review-commission-not-fit-for-purpose-lawyers-say
-
Shameful are the people who post about this murderer chasing their tails for no reason whatsoever
A point about Tabak that has never been challenged despite his many faces.....he is a very intelligent man
Some people have been wrongly convicted, fought will all they have in Prison, studied law and helped themselves
Tabak had the advantage of being very intelligent to start with. What has he done? NOTHING
You expected a full trial complete with every person who ever set eyes on Tabak. That didnt happen so YOU see fault in every aspect of the trial
Internet searches DNA Blood a confession his interest in the case, the phone call his reluctance to give his DNA yet he seems to quite enjoy that fact that he lived in the same building as JO until it was time to take any action in looking for her. All that a set up? He pleads guilty to the porn, yet still YOU wont believe it belongs to HIM
In a court room where he has NO restrictions, he could have grabbed a life line and explained all those things you PRESUME happened to him.... did he ? NO and why not? because he is GUILTY
With all the above and a guilty plea to causing her death, who the hell do you expect to look at it?
I didnt say there was anything wrong with his case, the point I was making is when things ARE wrong people challenge it
-
Even guilty people have chanced their arm and got their voice heard shouting about their innocence. Not so hard is it?
-
So why has no-one even looked at this case, if i have managed to show "so" many errors 'technicalities' that are wong with this case...
Did you ever look at other cases or did you solely focus on this case?
-
Shameful are the people who post about this murderer chasing their tails for no reason whatsoever
A point about Tabak that has never been challenged despite his many faces.....he is a very intelligent man
Some people have been wrongly convicted, fought will all they have in Prison, studied law and helped themselves
Tabak had the advantage of being very intelligent to start with. What has he done? NOTHING
You expected a full trial complete with every person who ever set eyes on Tabak. That didnt happen so YOU see fault in every aspect of the trial
Internet searches DNA Blood a confession his interest in the case, the phone call his reluctance to give his DNA yet he seems to quite enjoy that fact that he lived in the same building as JO until it was time to take any action in looking for her. All that a set up? He pleads guilty to the porn, yet still YOU wont believe it belongs to HIM
In a court room where he has NO restrictions, he could have grabbed a life line and explained all those things you PRESUME happened to him.... did he ? NO and why not? because he is GUILTY
With all the above and a guilty plea to causing her death, who the hell do you expect to look at it?
I didnt say there was anything with his case, the point I was making is when things ARE wrong people challenge it
In all fairness to Nine she has demonstrated that it appears Tabak was wrongly convicted. She has set out a compelling case.
IMO Tabak is on the psychopathy spectrum and is quite clearly guilty. He most certainly is not a victim of a miscarriage of justice.
-
luckily for the family of Jo she doesnt. She goes on and on. Long posts dont equal good points. She never actually answers all the points of his guilt just rambles about things that she thinks should have happened which make him appear innocent to her. That is quite different
I don't think it's fair to judge Nine on the length of her posts, her style of writing and whether or not she chooses to answers questions posed.
There's not much difference between her arguments and those of Sandra Lean's in the Mitchell case IMO.
Sandra Lean has rambled on for over 15 years regarding things she thinks should have happened
In Nines view Tabak is innocent - In my view Luke Mitchell is guilty - In your view he's innocent?
-
Yes Jixy ..... But here's a question someone my be able to answer.....
Say for instance CJ did end up getting charged....
Then what would have been the implications of a MP getting involved in a case before a trial could take place?? Would it have been prejudicial??
Would and could it have affected a possible trial??
She had no idea CJ would be released from bail..... she shouldn't have any idea of that...
Edit.... Lets be perfectly clear here.... This is still a live investigation... and Mp's are not waiting until a trial has taken place or someone has been charged... They are actively getting involved during a live Investigation.....
Doesn't that strike you as odd!!
Nine I think the MP's point was that it should never be trial by media BEFORE trial by jury, whether the person has been charged or not!
-
luckily for the family of Jo she doesnt. She goes on and on. Long posts dont equal good points. She never actually answers all the points of his guilt just rambles about things that she thinks should have happened which make him appear innocent to her. That is quite different
Vincent Tabak could crawl out of the woodwork at any time and claim he's innocent, just as has been does in countless other cases.
Gordon Park is also on the psychopathy spectrum imo but his case has been referred to the court of appeal?
As I've said elsewhere a wrongful conviction doesn't equal a miscarriage of justice. Being wrongfully convicted doesn't mean a person is factually innocent.
-
She can write posts a million miles long i really couldnt care less. What I judge her on is that fact she insists he is innocent when he clearly isnt. Nothing she has ever posted points to a miscarriage of justice. NOTHING
Her posts never answer what is being asked, just a deflection to go on and on about things that really dont matter when looking at Tabak and his guilt
CJ had an horrific time at the hands of the media and Jo lost her life. Those things are important to me not explaining to someone over and over again who refuses to listen to see how a trial goes when someone pleads guilty to causing a death compares to them fighting any conviction by pleading not guilty
Luke is saying he is innocent (this isnt the place btw) and Tabak took time to say he was guilty even telling us a version of how that came to be. Yes it has big holes but only because he didnt want us to know the full truth
Nine is disgusted at the perceived wrong doing in this case and I am equally right and entitled to be disgusted at people protesting and fighting a case where the man himself says GUILTY!
-
She can write posts a million miles long i really couldnt care less. What I judge her on is that fact she insists he is innocent when he clearly isnt. Nothing she has ever posted points to a miscarriage of justice. NOTHING
I feel the same about the Luke Mitchell case!
He may have been wrongly convicted but he doesn't appear factually innocent to me!
-
IMO you are doing to [Name removed] and [Name removed]'s family what Nine is doing to Jo and her family
The same could be said for ALL people who question cases - the difference in this case is that the evidence was overwhelming. The only "compelling" thing in this case is Tabak's obvious guilt.
-
Vincent Tabak could crawl out of the woodwork at any time and claim he's innocent, just as has been does in countless other cases.
Gordon Park is also on the psychopathy spectrum imo but his case has been referred to the court of appeal?
As I've said elsewhere a wrongful conviction doesn't equal a miscarriage of justice. Being wrongfully convicted doesn't mean a person is factually innocent.
Maybe Tabak could but the evidence wont go away will it? so how far would he get? not that it is likely to happen?
I havent commented about Gordon Park and I dont intend to especially on the TABAK thread
-
I feel the same about the Luke Mitchell case!
He may have been wrongly convicted but he doesn't appear factually innocent to me!
What is your definition of "wrongly convicted"? - it could mean the wrong person has been convicted...
I asked you yesterday but you still did not answer - define factual innocence - how can a person show this if the court itself refuses to accept it?
-
In all fairness to Nine she has demonstrated that it appears Tabak was wrongly convicted. She has set out a compelling case.
IMO Tabak is on the psychopathy spectrum and is quite clearly guilty. He most certainly is not a victim of a miscarriage of justice.
A compelling case *%87 but he is quite clearly guilty? how does that work then
-
As I stated previously, there's no reasoning with unreasonable people!
It is not being unreasonable - How can a person fight their conviction without offending the victims family? It is impossible!
-
Ok Jixy... Here's one last post.....
Just something else that has me wondering what has been going on....
12:04, UK, Friday 04 February 2011
Why did an MP get involved in this case?? An MP whom was trying to have a Bill presented ??
What was it about this case that has prompted Parliament to get involved, that The Leveson Inquiry has been part of this case also??
The Bill is going through it's stages and an MP jumps up and gets involved.... Odd... What was it about CJ that prompted Anna Soubry to get involved,?? According to the article, this voicing and her opinion is made before CJ is released from bail....
No-one at this stage knows whether or not he will be charged.... We have no idea why the Police still have him on Bail... Yet Anna is immediately concerned that CJ of all people in the media needs a mention in Parliament, without telling us his name...
But why?? We have had The Attorney General, and now Anna Soubry, getting involved in a case that is a simple Murder... Why would they?? It makes no sense.....
DCI Phil Jones told us at The Leveson the reason they kept CJ on bail was because of a trainer that had been found, behind the backboards under a kitchen sink in that house... We don't know exactly where in that house this trainer with blood on it was found...
But because CJ is arrested and vilified in the press, we suddenly have interest from such quarters, quarters that should not have an interest in a man that no-one knows or is really bothered about...
Or is it a case that CJ, is better known than we think... Has he friends in high places?? I don't know... But The Case had everyone on the band wagon... And when it came to trial, nothing.... When it came to Dr Vincent Tabak being mentioned in the media when he was arrested.... Nothing... Why Not??
What is it about CJ..... that everyone jumped to his defence?? CJ having many many solicitors taking action on his behalf?? Where even the attorney General and Anna Soubry MP felt it important enough to get involved, where The Attorney General in July 2011 even names Dr Vincent Tabak as the man who killed Joanna yeates before a trial had taken place....
Finally... What is it about Joanna Yeates ?? Who was she really??
And Dr Vincent Tabak... why was everyone happy to have him behind bars, even before trial???
There are more serious question that really need asking... I am not the one able to do it... But there are many people who can... (imo)
The Bill was then withdrawn in 2012...
Why withdraw it at that time?? Why would Anna want to withdraw it?
Then a reintroduction to this Bill in 2017
All very mysterious....
Edit.... CJ was only mention over 3 days from arrest... yet Anna Sourby is bring him to everyones attention... CJ is still on Bail... The media are saying nothing else about CJ... yet she allows us to remember that he has been vilified... she allows us to not forget what happened at that time....
Why on earth is she getting involved?? She was stopping the "Fade factor".... (imo)!
And as a Criminal Barrister she should have known better (imo)
Tut Tut.........
https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/anonymityarrestedpersons.html
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmbills/009/11009.pdf
https://news.sky.com/story/yeates-coverage-prompts-call-for-anonymity-10489652
https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-12/anonymityarrestedpersons.html
https://www.legalcheek.com/2016/07/anna-soubry-experienced-criminal-barrister-refuses-to-serve-under-legal-novice-truss-at-ministry-of-justice/
I can't believe you are seriously asking this question? Soubry was trying to get a bill passed that stopped the naming of suspects before being charged. CJ had been released from custody after being vilified in the press and Tabak subsequently charged and remanded. It was relevant to the bill she was trying to pass and a good example of the damage that naming suspects before being charged can have on their lives. She didn't mention him by name but she didn't really have to did she? She had a vested interest - nothing mysterious.
The guy isn't even claiming innocence - bottom line!
-
I can't believe you are seriously asking this question? Soubry was trying to get a bill passed that stopped the naming of suspects before being charged. CJ had been released from custody after being vilified in the press and Tabak subsequently charged and remanded. It was relevant to the bill she was trying to pass and a good example of the damage that naming suspects before being charged can have on their lives. She didn't mention him by name but she didn't really have to did she? She had a vested interest - nothing mysterious.
The guy isn't even claiming innocence - bottom line!
I havent seen you post much on this thread Caroline but when you do...the voice of reason. Thank you
-
I can't believe you are seriously asking this question? Soubry was trying to get a bill passed that stopped the naming of suspects before being charged. CJ had been released from custody after being vilified in the press and Tabak subsequently charged and remanded. It was relevant to the bill she was trying to pass and a good example of the damage that naming suspects before being charged can have on their lives. She didn't mention him by name but she didn't really have to did she? She had a vested interest - nothing mysterious.
The guy isn't even claiming innocence - bottom line!
8@??)( Common sense!
-
"This criminal case is of enormous significance for any skilled, educated person studying or working abroad. The police, judiciary, news media, and business and academic communities have ruthlessly compromised themselves. This case has demonstrated how gullible the general public is. It has shown how easily intelligent people can be manipulated into embracing a witch-hunt mentality. http://vincent-tabak-is-innocent.blogspot.com
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9318.msg454813#msg454813
-
"This criminal case is of enormous significance for any skilled, educated person studying or working abroad. The police, judiciary, news media, and business and academic communities have ruthlessly compromised themselves. This case has demonstrated how gullible the general public is. It has shown how easily intelligent people can be manipulated into embracing a witch-hunt mentality. http://vincent-tabak-is-innocent.blogspot.com
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9318.msg454813#msg454813
Just as barbaric as what is stated on this thread - more conspiracy theory by whomever wrote that blog!
-
“In my opinion you are thoroughly deceitful, dishonest and manipulative”
- Mr. Justice Field, sentencing Vincent Tabak, 28th October 2011
This damning and utterly false description of the defendant’s character can be shown to have applied far more accurately to the public prosecutor and her QC, the police, his own lawyers and the other bullies into whose clutches he had fallen since the time of his arrest. A barrister enjoys the privilege of immunity from prosecution for everything he says in court. Unlike the witnesses, he does not take the oath, so he has the freedom to “lead” evidence to deceive and manipulate the jury unless the judge intervenes to prevent it. It is also the judge’s job to ensure that the jury does not interpret as evidence anything they hear or see in court whose integrity is not confirmed by a witness under oath. The following account of this case’s main examples of documented deceit and manipulation is aimed at all those who dispute that the police and judiciary would ever knowingly convict an innocent man with the argument that THEY WOULDN’T DO THAT, WOULD THEY? - YES THEY WOULD http://vincent-tabak-is-innocent.blogspot.com/2012/01/deceitful-and-manipulative.html
Disclaimer
This unofficial web site has been rigorously researched on the basis of published information, much of which can be readily verified by reference to online sources. However, many of the detailed reports have recently been removed from the news media's own websites. Where this account of the case contains inferences, these are usually obvious from the contexts. Some inferences are formulated as questions. A small number of key facts have been obtained by means of Freedom of Information applications, and a few others by private communication.
Could be Sandra Lean?
-
Guys... you all know who I am.... An uneducated woman, Who just likes fair!!
-
Nine you like the post saying the blog could be written by Sandra? really ?
Didn't Nine say on a previous post that she had asked Sandra to help and Sandra declined? Which is not surprising.
-
why would Sandra or anyone else with a clear view and thought process on trials miscarriage of justice and guilty people want to touch this with a barge pole?
-
“In my opinion you are thoroughly deceitful, dishonest and manipulative”
- Mr. Justice Field, sentencing Vincent Tabak, 28th October 2011
This damning and utterly false description of the defendant’s character can be shown to have applied far more accurately to the public prosecutor and her QC, the police, his own lawyers and the other bullies into whose clutches he had fallen since the time of his arrest. A barrister enjoys the privilege of immunity from prosecution for everything he says in court. Unlike the witnesses, he does not take the oath, so he has the freedom to “lead” evidence to deceive and manipulate the jury unless the judge intervenes to prevent it. It is also the judge’s job to ensure that the jury does not interpret as evidence anything they hear or see in court whose integrity is not confirmed by a witness under oath. The following account of this case’s main examples of documented deceit and manipulation is aimed at all those who dispute that the police and judiciary would ever knowingly convict an innocent man with the argument that THEY WOULDN’T DO THAT, WOULD THEY? - YES THEY WOULD http://vincent-tabak-is-innocent.blogspot.com/2012/01/deceitful-and-manipulative.html
Disclaimer
This unofficial web site has been rigorously researched on the basis of published information, much of which can be readily verified by reference to online sources. However, many of the detailed reports have recently been removed from the news media's own websites. Where this account of the case contains inferences, these are usually obvious from the contexts. Some inferences are formulated as questions. A small number of key facts have been obtained by means of Freedom of Information applications, and a few others by private communication.
Could be Sandra Lean?
Complete BS!
-
Complete BS!
I'm no longer persuaded by the way she writes but some people are!
-
“In my opinion you are thoroughly deceitful, dishonest and manipulative”
- Mr. Justice Field, sentencing Vincent Tabak, 28th October 2011
This damning and utterly false description of the defendant’s character can be shown to have applied far more accurately to the public prosecutor and her QC, the police, his own lawyers and the other bullies into whose clutches he had fallen since the time of his arrest. A barrister enjoys the privilege of immunity from prosecution for everything he says in court. Unlike the witnesses, he does not take the oath, so he has the freedom to “lead” evidence to deceive and manipulate the jury unless the judge intervenes to prevent it. It is also the judge’s job to ensure that the jury does not interpret as evidence anything they hear or see in court whose integrity is not confirmed by a witness under oath. The following account of this case’s main examples of documented deceit and manipulation is aimed at all those who dispute that the police and judiciary would ever knowingly convict an innocent man with the argument that THEY WOULDN’T DO THAT, WOULD THEY? - YES THEY WOULD http://vincent-tabak-is-innocent.blogspot.com/2012/01/deceitful-and-manipulative.html
Disclaimer
This unofficial web site has been rigorously researched on the basis of published information, much of which can be readily verified by reference to online sources. However, many of the detailed reports have recently been removed from the news media's own websites. Where this account of the case contains inferences, these are usually obvious from the contexts. Some inferences are formulated as questions. A small number of key facts have been obtained by means of Freedom of Information applications, and a few others by private communication.
?{)(**
-
why would Sandra or anyone else with a clear view and thought process on trials miscarriage of justice and guilty people want to touch this with a barge pole?
The biggest stumbling block in respect to fighting a MOJ for Tabak, is Tabak himself given that he has never claimed to be one. You're kinda on a losing streak when you first have to convince the appellant.
-
So true. The whole thread in a nutshell... Not gonna happen and neither should it
-
"During his opening speech at the Old Bailey, defence lawyer Mr Bennathan said: "Only one person is on trial here sitting in the dock - Russell Bishop.
"But the law allows a defendant like him to point out facts, ask questions, to the jury that might suggest the possibility that another person exists who may have carried out these awful attacks
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-46032500
-
"During his opening speech at the Old Bailey, defence lawyer Mr Bennathan said: "Only one person is on trial here sitting in the dock - Russell Bishop.
"But the law allows a defendant like him to point out facts, ask questions, to the jury that might suggest the possibility that another person exists who may have carried out these awful attacks
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-46032500
But if Dr Vincent Tabak asked questions of the jury or pointed out fact , we wouldn't know... It was never reported.
-
Nine.... he could have done a lot of things but he stood by his admission of guilt. He would never be able to question the Jury ever...
-
But if Dr Vincent Tabak asked questions of the jury or pointed out fact , we wouldn't know... It was never reported.
Think about all of the things you could make claim to with the excuse that it simply was never reported?
-
I ask again:
Could posters please keep to the topic, and refrain from goading other posters and arguing.
Thank you!
-
But if Dr Vincent Tabak asked questions of the jury or pointed out fact , we wouldn't know... It was never reported.
A comma may be a little thing but it totally changes a sentence, just like the evidence in this case...
-
A comma may be a little thing but it totally changes a sentence, just like the evidence in this case...
Sorry if my punctuation, isn't up to scratch, I have explained, my position...
-
Nine I wasnt actually on about your punctuation, it was in the article. You then commented about asking the Jury questions
-
Nine I wasnt actually on about your punctuation, it was in the article. You then commented about asking the Jury questions
@)(++(* Oopsie.....
-
Anything I can transcribe, I put on here, the importance of having the words of anyone involved in this case, should supersede any media reports... (imo)
I found this tweet, which lead me to the interview
BBC Points West
Verified account
@bbcpointswest
The Dad of Jo Yeates has been speaking to the BBC for the first time since her killer was convicted. LISTEN TO IT HERE http://tinyurl.com/3wwbe4l
6:32 PM - 1 Nov 2011
about 7 years ago ·
The Dad of Jo Yeates has been speaking to the BBC for the first time since her killer was convicted.
David Yeates:
We didn't expect the trial in itself to take the turns that it did, we were warned to a certain extent and some comments made by the barrister prior to the trial, but they really, we didn't really understand the import of what he was saying and so when... Tabak's sexual bits came out and the potential impact, it was quite a shock... erm... A we didn't have any real forewarning about, not, forewarning we can only,something we sh didn't expect..
Another thing was the injuries on Jo, although none of them were individually serious, it indicated er.... and extended and significant struggle that she had with Tabak, and before she was eventually murdered and that was a tremedous shock to us.. er .. so.... (huh) certainly wasn't what we expected at all..em we did no really know what to expect, we didn't expect that.[/b]
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
BBC West Interviewer:
A you've probably been through a lot that you didn't expect, over the course of the last year or so, erm... if it's possible can you describe, what its been like for you and your family.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
David Yeates:
It's been.. (exhales).. when initially, weren't over, we're still in shock to a certain extent to what happened.. erm, because it's something..... ur... you can't believe, we've had sort of two liv, two strands to our lives really, erm.. one is a sort of soap opera., so to speak, you know with, the media, the police and all the things to do with Jo's death. And the other one is our normal life. and erm... it's been very very difficult it.. Jo's death has qua, an enormous impact on not just my immediate family, my son and my wife, but also er, for extended family er.. Jo's cousins and uncles, aunts etc....
She was a very........ She was an ordinary girl but she had a very bubbly personality, she'll erm... she was very positive, she had a to die for personality and it had an enormous impact, very very difficult for my family to come to terms with it, she's not... we're not going to see her again...... erm..... It's been very very difficult. and it's continuing really, people talk about the trial, the trial as been closure, it's not closure of anything... it's just the end of the administrative part, in this case Jo's death.... erm... Our lives carry on and we still sort of have to ( clears throat) deal with the fact that Jo's no longer around... erm...
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
BBC West Interviewer:
You said two things in this statement that was read out after the trial, the first that this was never really about Justice for Jo.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
David Yeates:
No
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
BBC West Interveiwer: yes, yes, can you explain that.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
David Yeates:
Well thee.. The trial, was Crown verses Tabak, it doesn't mention Jo's name in it, erm , I don't believe the justice... the legal system, certainly when it comes to these type of trials, Is too erm.... sort out a justice for a person who's been killed, it really is the process applying,,.. erh... the legal...... I don't know what the right word is..... It's for in this case Tabak, to get his legal desserts.. so to speak according to the law..... erm, that what I meant by that Jo' ..it.. k..er er... rather than Jo it could have been anybody , it still would have been Crown Verses Tabak .... erm no account is really taken of the impact, on er.. Jo's family etc... in determining the sentence, it;s probably right, but it isn't about justice for Jo..... and the second question
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
BBC West Interviewer:
Was just about that again, you've already made a lead or two slightly about the sentence.. and the comment that went from the media, picked up straight away, was the comment about capital punishment...
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
David Yeates:
yes
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
BBC West Interviewer:
Em... do you still feel that way
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
David Yeates:
I've felt that way for a long time, it's not.. not, not just , since Jo died, it's been, it's my general view,
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
BBC West Interviewer:
Right..
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
David Yeates:
But I therefore, extreme cases of murdering, and killing, capital punishment, is right.... I'm not saying that this comes under that heading, but it would have been... I would have been happier, if that was an option,
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
BBC West Interviewer:
Yer..
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
David Yeates:
But it's not
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
BBC West Interviewer:
Yer.. yer... just.. can I just ask you to describe for me what Jo was like as a person.. as a daughter..
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
David Yeates:
Erm........... she filled the.. our house with em... with life when she used to come home, she was on the go, a lot of the time, if she felt depressed, whatever, she'd go to her bedroom, and er... but... it didn't last very long, erm.... she had a lot of friends, and she loved, and she loved life, er, she loved being, doing things out doors, doing things. She was probably, very similar in fact to Tanja Morson, who, I think it was written, she was the instigator of a lot of things, and her group of friends... in the same way as Jo was the instigator,her group, in many cases her group friends.
(Big inhale) Em....... she (clears throat) she did her best, to keep in contact with her, old friends and associates, including old boyfriends, erm.... she seemed to, shall we say, collect friends, as she went through life, they weren't discarded, as she moved, she was a very, she was a very loving daughter and mum, theresa got on very well, incredibily well, they went on holiday together, erm.. they used to enjoy going round the shops together, er, erm... my wife looks like, baking, and she enjoys baking, and making, things.. That was Jo's forte as it, she used to enjoy making things, to er, you know, she liked being different, so to speak, in her, have different clothes, whatever...
But...er.. when it came to the crib.... came to er cri.. christmas, she would quite often make presents for her friends rather than go and buy them, she used to give up her time, you know time for things like that,and also every birthday, she made me, a cake, and that was her christma, that was her birthday present to me..
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
BBC West Interviewer:
Em..
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
David Yeates:
She loved Christmas, that was the best time of the year, erm, she liked just being , er, em, with the four of us because, Chris and her other partner, we were looking forward to it being the six of us, but no sort of outside family,because it's a bit too big, a bigger group
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
BBC West Interviewer:
Yer
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
David Yeates: She enjoyed playing cards and games, and being competitive, and er... yer she enjoyed the whole razzamataz to do with Christmas, thats why Christmas, her, being found on Christmas day really was so poignant.
Interesting comments there.... an eye opener.
https://www.facebook.com/pointswest/videos/301224559905161/
https://twitter.com/bbcpointswest/status/131438516302381058
-
My above post....
A few things stick out.... I do not know which one to start with...
Firstly David Yeates appears to talk around things... Generalising.... she liked baking,... what happened to her being sporty... she was arty..... what happened to her being a landscape architect?
Her injuries were NOT significant!
Another thing was the injuries on Jo, although none of them were individually serious, it indicated er.... and extended and significant struggle that she had with Tabak, and before she was eventually murdered and that was a tremedous shock to us.. er .. so.... (huh) certainly wasn't what we expected at all..
Before she was eventually murdered??
His language I find odd.. There was no signs of a struggle in the Flat... How long was this fight supposed to have been for??
we've had sort of two liv, two strands to our lives really, erm.. one is a sort of soap opera., so to speak, you know with, the media, the police and all the things to do with Jo's death. And the other one is our normal life.
Soap Opera? what is he talking about... This is no soap opera, this IS their lives, their normal lives... it is all apart of the same...
The trial, was Crown verses Tabak, it doesn't mention Jo's name in it, erm , I don't believe the justice... the legal system, certainly when it comes to these type of trials, Is too erm.... sort out a justice for a person who's been killed, it really is the process applying,,.. erh... the legal...... I don't know what the right word is..... It's for in this case Tabak, to get his legal desserts.. so to speak according to the law..... erm, that what I meant by that Jo' ..it.. k..er er... rather than Jo it could have been anybody , it still would have been Crown Verses Tabak .... erm no account is really taken of the impact, on er.. Jo's family etc... in determining the sentence, it;s probably right, but it isn't about justice for Jo.....
It's not going to mention Jo's name... why would it... It is the crown against the defendant, not what charge the defendant is facing....
I thought the family could read impact statements... Or was that not an option in 2011??
Erm........... she filled the.. our house with em... with life when she used to come home, she was on the go, a lot of the time, if she felt depressed, whatever, she'd go to her bedroom, and er... but... it didn't last very long, erm.... she had a lot of friends, and she loved, and she loved life, er, she loved being, doing things out doors, doing things. She was probably, very similar in fact to Tanja Morson, who, I think it was written, she was the instigator of a lot of things, and her group of friends... in the same way as Jo was the instigator,her group, in many cases her group friends.
Now two interesting points in this part of the interview.....
Joanna Yeates had bouts of depression, David is telling us so....
She would go to her bedroom?? It sounds like he talking of a young child... It is important that Joanna Yeates history is known, the fact that depression was even a part of Joanna Yeates life is important, the police, may have had a different approach, if they were aware of that fact...
Did Joanna Yeates take medication for her depression?? A question that really needs to be known... a question that could shape the way in which her body reacted, to substances etc.... If she took medication should she have been drinking?? Would the medication have any impact on her breathing for instance?? Some anti- depressant medications can cause shortness of breath on there own....
I could never get around the fact that it only took 20 seconds.... It seemed an incredibly short time, but if Joanna Yeates had medication for depression for instance, did the medication play a part in her death??
TanjaMorson!!!.... Tanja Morson again being mentioned... but not in a good light, what did she instigate?? What was it that she instigated??
There was nothing in the media, in relation to Tanja Morson instigating things with her friends... so how does David yeates know this?? Why are the Yeates still in contact with Tanja Morson??
They mention Tanja by name in the programs , when they cannot remember Dr Vincent Tabak's name and refer to hm as he/ him... But have the ability to remember Tanja... a girl they spoke to for a couple for seconds and who was not at the trial....
David is aware of what Tanja did or does with her friends.... Instigating... that cunjors up a miriad of ideas... what possibly did Tanja Morson Instigate??
David talks almost as if he knows Tanja Morson (imo).. Did Joanna Yeates and Tanja Morson know each other?? had they come across each other?? before Joanna Yeates moved into Canygne Road...
I don't know what the right word is..... It's for in this case Tabak, to get his legal desserts.. so to speak according to the law.....
A few times now when i have listened to David Yeates speak I have wondered whether he is English, or whether he spent a great deal of his time growing up in another country...
"Legal Desserts".... That's just desserts... He has used the term, "walkabouts before" and just something from him gives me the impression that he speaks a different language... Bi-lingual or something like that... It's just the impression he gives me.....
So what do I make of this interview that is dated 1st November 2011
I don't know really... i'd need to look at it again... But again... little pieces of important information are there, which could have been of significance to a trial, it could have been significant as to the outcome of a post mortem...
The post mortem results are given before any toxicology results have been made, as the stomach contents went to Scotland...
No talk of medication, doesn't mean no medication was in her system..... There has been plenty of things omitted from this case....
If tangible pieces of evidence are omitted, that could change the outcome of someones death, and the outcome of a trial, isn't it prudent to question this....
I believe there are many secrets still not known.... many aspects, that could change the course of what happened to Joanna Yeates...
It is a shame we were not furnished with the full facts at the beginning.... And even more of a shame that Tanja Morson has kept her head down.... Because there are many questions I believe that she herself knows the answer to.... (imo)...
Edit......... He doesn't mention Greg Reardon... He even calls Chris "she" referring to her other partner?
-
David Yeates:
She loved Christmas, that was the best time of the year, erm, she liked just being , er, em, with the four of us because, Chris and her other partner, we were looking forward to it being the six of us, but no sort of outside family,because it's a bit too big, a bigger group
Chris?? What does that mean... I assumed he meant Chris Yeates.... But maybe not.... Did Joanna Yeates have more than one partner??
Was her partner called Chris??
When I have read that again it sounds like she has two partners...... or is that just me??
Edit...
The 6 of us
* Mr Yeates
* Mrs Yeates
* Joanna Yeates
* Greg Reardon ( other partner??)
* Chris??
* Chris Yeates (brother)
So what happened to Alla Ritch and her son??
-
Anything I can transcribe, I put on here, the importance of having the words of anyone involved in this case, should supersede any media reports... (imo)
I found this tweet, which lead me to the interview
about 7 years ago ·
The Dad of Jo Yeates has been speaking to the BBC for the first time since her killer was convicted.
Interesting comments there.... an eye opener.
https://www.facebook.com/pointswest/videos/301224559905161/
https://twitter.com/bbcpointswest/status/131438516302381058
not sure about the 'interesting comments' or it being an eye opener. There is no rule book on what people should or shouldnt say when their Daughter has been murdered.
It goes no way towards making any points to his innocence either
-
Chris?? What does that mean... I assumed he meant Chris Yeates.... But maybe not.... Did Joanna Yeates have more than one partner??
Was her partner called Chris??
When I have read that again it sounds like she has two partners...... or is that just me??
Edit...
The 6 of us
* Mr Yeates
* Mrs Yeates
* Joanna Yeates
* Greg Reardon ( other partner??)
* Chris??
* Chris Yeates (brother)
So what happened to Alla Ritch and her son??
And when you get these answers? what does it prove? nothing. he is still guilty so what is the point you are trying to make?
-
they weren't discarded, as she moved, she was a very, she was a very loving daughter and mum,
David then says:.. Theresa and her got on incredibly well..... But I question whether he meant that Joanna Yeates was a mum?? It sounds like he means that.....
I have questioned this before... The idea that they believed that she had been abducted and what was left behind, has always had me wondering, what it could be, what it could be that was significant enough for the Yeates to believe that their daughter had been abducted....
So had Joanna Yeates had a child??
-
David Yeates:
She loved Christmas, that was the best time of the year, erm, she liked just being , er, em, with the four of us because, Chris and her other partner, we were looking forward to it being the six of us, but no sort of outside family,because it's a bit too big, a bigger group
they weren't discarded, as she moved, she was a very, she was a very loving daughter and mum,
If I put these too statements together, to me it makes a little more sense.....
If Joanna Yeates had a child, and the father of the child was called Chris, then Chris and her other partner coming for Christmas makes sense....
Joanna Yeates may no longer be with the father of her child, but she had always stayed friends with her ex- boyfriends.... Making an ex and a new partner being at The Yeates for Christmas, not that unusual....
Are these interviews slowly revealing more about Joanna Yeates and Canygne Road , other than what we have been Officially told....
-
So who do the six now become?
* Mr Yeates
* Mrs Yeates
* Joanna Yeates
* Greg Reardon
* Chris ( other partner... possible father)
* Child
It is a possibility... with the full facts missing, I just question the possibilities.....
-
Chris?? What does that mean... I assumed he meant Chris Yeates.... But maybe not.... Did Joanna Yeates have more than one partner??
Was her partner called Chris??
When I have read that again it sounds like she has two partners...... or is that just me??
Edit...
The 6 of us
* Mr Yeates
* Mrs Yeates
* Joanna Yeates
* Greg Reardon ( other partner??)
* Chris??
* Chris Yeates (brother)
So what happened to Alla Ritch and her son??
He's talking about her brother!
-
they weren't discarded, as she moved, she was a very, she was a very loving daughter and mum,
If I put these too statements together, to me it makes a little more sense.....
If Joanna Yeates had a child, and the father of the child was called Chris, then Chris and her other partner coming for Christmas makes sense....
Joanna Yeates may no longer be with the father of her child, but she had always stayed friends with her ex- boyfriends.... Making an ex and a new partner being at The Yeates for Christmas, not that unusual....
Are these interviews slowly revealing more about Joanna Yeates and Canygne Road , other than what we have been Officially told....
Nine? He isn't saying 'and mum' - he said 'and um.
-
Nine? He isn't saying 'and mum' - he said 'and um.
@)(++(* These trials are sent to test us!
-
@)(++(* These trials are sent to test us!
Back to the drawing board @)(++(*
-
"During his opening speech at the Old Bailey, defence lawyer Mr Bennathan said: "Only one person is on trial here sitting in the dock - Russell Bishop.
"But the law allows a defendant like him to point out facts, ask questions, to the jury that might suggest the possibility that another person exists who may have carried out these awful attacks
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-46032500
How many other cases are there where a QC uses their legal privilege when defending their client to accuse another person of being responsible for the crime?
UK cases that is.
-
How many other cases are there where a QC uses their legal privilege when defending their client to accuse another person of being responsible for the crime?
UK cases that is.
Has Mr Bennathan used his LPP (legal protection privilege) in good faith or is he guilty of misusing it?
-
How to be a defence lawyer. Tips from barrister William Clegg QC
To my surprise, many defence barristers, started with the defence. Looking at every from the clients perspective and trying to establish. " what are we saying?" 'What is our client saying'?
My approach was to forget about that and first to see what the other side was saying. And whether they could actually establish what they were alleging. I would pretend for a moment that I was the prosecutor, and work out what they would be doing to try to prove the case and how? Then look at it the other way round, and try and spot the pitfalls in their approach.
I learnt to speed read, scanning a file of papers to identify those passages I needed to revisit. When I reached important witness's. I read their evidence again and again, thinking about it all the time. Often thinking was as important as the reading.
I nearly always visited the scene of a murder, to understand the evidence and to speak more authoritatively in court. There was also the possibility that I would uncover some aspect of the evidence that could be challenged.
Wow..... I love a little video, reveals so much, tells us exactly what we need to know....
Well where do i start!
Clegg.... My God... Scary.... In his own words, he tells us how incompetent he was at defending Dr Vincent Tabak, not only that defending anyone.....
To my surprise... Not just your surprise Bill... but too my surprise, you are happily telling us what you do or don't do for your client...
I would pretend for a moment that I was the prosecutor, and work out what they would be doing to try to prove the case and how? Then look at it the other way round, and try and spot the pitfalls in their approach.
Really..... you are actually telling me that you looked at Dr Vincent Tabak and looked for the pitfalls in this case!! Come on Bill... tell me where did you look?? How long did you look for ?? What pitfalls of the Prosecutions approach did you see??
* Missing CCTV from Canygne Road that DS Mark Saunders had viewed for instance??
* Establishing your clients movements at the relevant times??
* Seeing if your client was even in the country at the relevant time??
* Asking why the victims family walked on Longwood Lane before it was even established as a second scene of
crime?
I learnt to speed read, scanning a file of papers to identify those passages I needed to revisit.
I nearly spat my coffee out when you said that..... 'Speed read'.... are you serious!! The amount of information that you would miss is beyond belief... I have read over and over again reports on this case and yes... I have scanned the reports... then when I revisited them have found valuable information there....
I cannot believe that you admit to speed reading important documents when your clients freedom is on the line.... I cannot believe that YOU even think that it is OK to do this.... how many years have you been a barrister for ??
* Did you speed read the toxicology results and decide that:
* Joanna Yeates must have not eaten the Pizza because her stomach contents were empty??
* Did you speed read that the blind was broken??
* Did you speed read that Joanna Yeates body had started to thaw
* Did you speed read that Avon and Somerset Fire Service were used on the scene for 4 days?
* Did you speed read that Kingdon heard someone shout "Help me" mid morning on the 18th December 2010??
* Did you speed read that Joanna Yeates arrived home between 8:30pm and 9:00pm on Friday 17th December
2010??
* Did you speed read that Dr Vincent Tabak had in fact seen that CJ's car had moved from the road to the drive and
he wasn't incriminating his landlord?
* Did you speed read that Greg drank from a stale bottle of Cider?? that was purchased on the same evening as the
Pizza?
Scanning files... wow... and if something in those files obviously doesn't spark your interest you appear to ignore that....
When I reached important witness's. I read their evidence again and again, thinking about it all the time. Often thinking was as important as the reading.
How did you determine which witness's were important??
Here we go...... Important witness's....
* Sobbing girl ( did you miss her??)
* CJ... ( saw people at the gate)
* Peter Stanley ( helped start Greg's car)
* Tanja Morson ( Dr Vincent Tabak's girlfriend)
* Kingdon ( heard screams)
* Mrs Yeates ( banged on car doors, thought daughter had been abducted)
* Mr Yeates... ( who saw piles of washing in the flat)
* Greg Reardon ( who spent 4 hours, searching a tiny flat, before ringing Joanna Yeates parents)
* Rebecca Scott ( who was on the phone at the same time Joanna Yeates , should be in a shop... no CCTV of her on
a phone in a shop)
* DS Mark Saunders and him viewing CCTV from Canygne Road on the relevant time of the weekend of 17th
December 2010/ 19th December 2010
* DCI Phil Jones and why he took over the chain of command on the 27th December 2010?
* Dc Karen Thomas, and why she interviewed your client for 6 hours, which is the allotted time for a suspect to be
interviewed, in Holland, before either being charged or released... ( he wasn't a suspect at that point ,
apparently!!)
* Geoffrey Hardyman and what he witnessed... Oh yes, nothing he was in bed.... But you used him as a defence
witness talking about Joanna Yeates cat... which was relevant to Dr Vincent Tabak how??
Lets cut to the chase and i will list witness's......
(1): * Darragh Bewell (Friend of Joanna Yeates)
(2): * Andrew Mott (Forensic Officer )
(3): * Lyndsey Lennen (Forensic Specialist)
(4): * DC Mark Luther (Officer In charge of Case )
(5): * Tanja Nickson (Wall Analyist)
(6): * Lindsey Farmery ( IT Power Point Expert)
(7): * Dr Delaney (Pathologist)
(8): * Dr Carey (Pathologist)
(9): * Greg Reardon (Joanna Yeates boyfriend)
(10) * DC Karen Thomas ( Holland Interview)
(11) * Father Henwood (Dog walker who met Joanna Yeates )
(12) * Brotheron (Asummed role of Chaplain)
(13) * DC Geofrey Colvin (Arrested Dr Vincent Tabak)
(14) * Rebecca Scott (Joanna Yeates friend )
(15) * Harry Walker ( neighbour who heard screams )
(16) * Florian Lehman (Neighbour who heard Screams )
(17) * Zoe Lehman (neighbour who heard screams )
(18) * Dr Jennifer Miller ( Examined Joanna Yeates stomach contents )
(19) * DC Richard Barnston ( 200 page transcript?? Interviewed Dr Vincent Tabak)
(20) * DC Paul Derrick ( asked about Dr Vincent Tabak's first lawyer ).
(21) * Karl Harrison (Forensic Archeologist)
(22) * Maria Brown (Held the Party on Canygne Road)
(23) * Peter Brown (Held Party on Canygne Road)
(24) * Nurse Ruth Booth Pearson (examined Dr Vincent Tabak when he was arrested )
(25) * Daniel Birch ( Dog walker who found Joanna Yeates)
(26) * Samuel Huscroft (Friend Joanna Yeates ) (text received from Joanna Yeates )
(27) * Mathew Wood (Chris Yeates Friend... Joanna Yeates (text Received from Joanna Yeates )
(28) * Sarah Maddox (At Dinner Party Dr Vincent Tabak attended )
(29) * PC Steve Archer ( Was there when Dr Vincent Tabak was arrested )
(30: * Mathew Phillips (Heard a shreik... was at party on Canygne Road )
(31) * Louise Althrope (Attended Party with Dr Vincent Tabak)
(32) * Geofrey Hardyman (Tenant of 44 Canygne Road )
(33) * Elizabeth Chandler ( Office Manager at BDP)
(34) * Shrikart Sharma ( Dr Vincent Tabak's Boss )
(35) * Glen O'Hare ( Hosted Part Dr Vincent Tabak attended ).
(36) * Anneleise Jackson, (PC... Greg's Phone Call statement )
(37) * Peter Lindsell ( Friends of Joanna Yeates .. at Bristol Mead Station ( Text received from Joanna Yeates )
(38) * Andrew Lillie (Attended a Dinner Party with Dr Vincent Tabak )
(39) * Linda Marland (Attended Party Dr Vincent Tabak attended ) (party was in a bar in Bristol)
(40): Micheal Breen... Not sure where to put him
(41): PC Martin Faithful
Did you question why Civilian Andrew Mott was in charge of a Crime scene trying to stop a body from thawing?? Did you question why PC Martin faithful, also tried to stop a body from thawing??
Did you question why 3 forensic tents were used none of which covered the body of Joanna Yeates??
What did each one of these witness's tell you?? The Birches for instance? were you happy that they just said that they found Joanna Yeates.... Did you not question the exact location that they found her in ?? we know that the location changed... did you not question that, or were you just happy that some random people stated they found her??
Bill.... did you really read all of those 41 witness's statement or did you, as in your own words...
I learnt to speed read, scanning a file of papers to identify those passages I needed to revisit... Did you decide on a quick speed read and a scan that the witness's were not relevant?? I don't know.... I am asking!!!
I read their evidence again and again, thinking about it all the time. Often thinking was as important as the reading.
Which evidence did you read again and again?? and what exactly were you thinking of at the time??
Bill... the only important witness you appear to have taken any notice of was a witness who wasn't important at all... 'Geoffrey Hardyman'... A man who saw nothing nor heard nothing, yet you used his statement for Dr Vincent Tabak's defence!
Now this next statement might just be my favourite bit....
I nearly always visited the scene of a murder, to understand the evidence and to speak more authoritatively in court. There was also the possibility that I would uncover some aspect of the evidence that could be challenged.
Did you visit Canygne Road?? Did you Bill.... Did you see the distance from Joanna Yeates door to the glass panelled door that was supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabak's door?? Did you calculated how hard it would be to carry a dead weight between the two, and not only close Joanna Yeates door behind him but open his own door and then take Joanna Yeates into his spare room???
Dr Vincent Tabak, is carefully carrying Joanna Yeats as to not leave any evidence behind... he must be super strong.... Did you not question if that was even possible??
Body fluids???? Did that not pop into your head?? Did you not ask where all of the body fluids disappeared to?? None in Joanna Yeates Flat and none in your clients Flat or your clients car?? Did that not strike you as odd!!
Did you walk around Flat 1 Canygne Road?? Did you walk around your clients flat??
Did you go to Longwood Lane and see how difficult it would be for a body to lay on a grass verge for over 8 days without being spotted??
Not only that, did you try to time, how possible everything was within the time frame Dr Vincent Tabak had??
Did you read all of the text messages from everyone in this case?? Did you try to see what your client did for 1 hour whilst sat in his Flat with the body of Joanna Yeates?? Did you check Dr Vincent Tabak's business phone??
Did you check whether or not the blind stayed up all the time as Greg had stated.... Or did you just take Greg's word for that??
Did you see that the Flat had all of its carpets removed... That the Flat had been staged.... that tiles had been painted.... That all of Greg's possessions had been removed.... Did you see how tiny that flat was?? Did you see the surfboard in the hallway?? Did you see how small that kitchen was, where no signs of a struggle were seen,?? You couldn't swing a cat in that kitchen!!
Did you not question why your client would move Joanna Yeates to her bedroom and put her on a bed?? The difficulty in that manouver, and for what purpose?? Only to move her again from there down the hall out of the door turn left, turn left again... carry her along the back and into his Flat and put her in his spare room!!
Why would he?? Why would he want to have evidence in his own home??
Did you not think it prudent to speak to CJ??? The Landlord whom had seen/heard people at the gate on the evening of the 17th December 2010? Did you not ask what he had witnessed?? Did you not ask him if he had seen your client that evening..... I know that he did.... why don't you??
You see Bill... I could go on..... Did you check all the CCTV.... or did you just take the prosecutions word that the CCTV was what it was??
Did you not look at Dr Delaney's report and question why Joanna Yeates was found in a flower patterned pink top, when in The Ram her top is clearly plain?? Did that not peek your interest??
My approach was to forget about that and first to see what the other side was saying. And whether they could actually establish what they were alleging. I would pretend for a moment that I was the prosecutor, and work out what they would be doing to try to prove the case and how? Then look at it the other way round, and try and spot the pitfalls in their approach.
Did you really check what the prosecution were alleging?? Because I cannot see that myself.... As my 2 years posting on here will prove.... My cross referencing of everything I can find and questioning why I believe you failed your client.....
So Bill..... Would you now like to tell us in detail... How you investigated, the evidence for your client Dr Vincent Tabak? And why you didn't apply for bail??
One last thing Bill..... Was it the statement from the chaplain that made it a slam dunk??
Did you see what Brotherton said as an apparent man of the cloth and you believe that??
Did the fact that Brotherton was implying that your client had confessed to killing Joanna Yeates, make you believe that was true?? Was it this scanned witness statement that clinched the deal for your client?? This man whom had assumed the role of Chaplain, you appear to have believed his statement true and correct??
Because with what you have divulged as your approach.... that is the only conclusion I can come too.... And you obviously believe a man of the cloth would not lie.... (imo)
I often wondered whether you read this.... But i don't think you have.... You might have scanned through it and believed that no-one gives a damn....
But Bill.... I give a damn.... and I am sure the public give a damn, when they realise, your scanning of files is not good enough... when you cherry pick what you think is relevant.....
Now I understand why you stated those things about your client in court.....
1: his conduct after Yeates died when he hid the body was “frankly disgusting” and had caused untold anguish and agony to her family.
2: “I’m not going to ask you to like Vincent Tabak. There’s probably nothing to like.”
3: And Miss Morson seems to agree, having failed to make a single appearance at court.
4: He had told “lie after lie to the police.
5: “did everything he could to cover his tracks”.
6: He added that he would not try to justify Tabak’s actions after her death, saying his client was “living a lie” by attending dinner parties and attempting to carry on his life as normal.
7: “I’m not going to ask you to have any sympathy for him. He deserves none.
8: “I’m not going to ask you to excuse his conduct. There can be no excuse.
9: “If I was to set out to win a popularity contest I would lose.
10: He told the court: “Of course, afterwards his behaviour is utterly disgraceful. It’s not going to be justified by me
Those ten statements that had me concerned.... concerned whether or not you had your clients best interest at heart....
Obviously you didn't... I think you forgot something Bill....
I would pretend for a moment that I was the prosecutor,
When it came to trial you weren't the prosecutor, even though your behaviour suggests that you were!! (imo)
You obviously forgot..............!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GW6MM7dLhuY
-
In light of what The Leveson revealed.... and what others has stated since trial
* CCTV footage at Nero cafe.....
* Trainer with blood spots behind the kick board under the sink.....
* The Yeates contradicting themselves
* CJ hearing/seeing people at the gateo n 17th Deceber 2010
* CJ talking with Dr Vincent Tabak on the day of a light dusting of snow
* CJ having Dr Vincent Tabak move his car from the drive
* Builders removing the door that was Joanna yeates
* Builders not wearing protective clothing
* Builders wiping their noses on gloves and not changing them
* The Yeates walking around the second scene of crime on the 27th December 2010
* The Yeates laying flowers before they have identified their daughter on Longwood lane
* The date the phone call to the Police changed from Sunday 19th December 2010 to Monday 20th December 2010
* The washing pile of clothes that Mr Yeates saw
* The business phone of Dr Vincent Tabak
* Ann Reddropp looking at Dr Vincent tabak beofre he was even a suspect, before the Holland interview
* The media walking all over the first scene of crime whilst Joanna yeates was still a Missing person
* The media at the back videoing Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat beofre he was a suspect
* The Sobbing girls phone call
* BDP announcing on 24th December 2010 that Joanna Yeates had been found dead
* 4 Fire Appliances being used over 4 days, including a rescue boat
* An actor clearly being seen in the middle of this inquiry
* The Prosecution were really looking for a serial killer, with the police looking at the Glenis Caruthers Case.
* Why The Yeates believed that their daughter had been abducted
* Why the Yeates were banging on car boots when they arrived at Canygne Road
* Why the Police say they found the receipt from Tesco's when Mrs Yeates says it was her who found the receipt..
* Why there was no CCTV footage from Clifton Suspension bridge
* Why the private CCTV wasn't shown
* Why Chris Yeates was in a hole of despair on the 19th December 2010 , when Joanna Yeates wasn't reported
missing until the 20th December 2010
* Why forensics are being done on the bay windows of a flat purported to be Dr Vincent Tabak's whilst Joanna
Yeates is a Missing person
* Why every detail of this crime was already in the papers before trial...
* Why Tanja Morson wasn't questioned??
* Why the images in Asda do not look like Dr Vincent Tabak
* Why the kitchen tiles in the kitchen were painted in between her being Missing and found dead!
Again as always i could keep going.... But in the light of what I have found, wouldn't it be more prudent for William Clegg to bring his clients case back up for review... To say that now he believes his clients plea and tale on the stand could not be true.....
A challenge Bill.... Take a look at this case properly and then tell me you did all you could for your client!!
Maybe it should be you taking this case to the CCRC!!
-
From one of my posts... CJ's statement
“The police said they were intending to organise a
video identification parade. It turned out to be an attempt
to widen the investigation illegitimately. My
solicitor said it was the only time he had told a policeman
that his lack of candor was deceitful.
Then......
4. What does that mean?
Well, that’s a little subjective, but case law has shown the following to be a problem:
*Photos or descriptions where identity is at issue – ie the defendant claims it was not him who committed the crime and the prosecution has eyewitnesses whose testimony has to be tested by way of an ID parade. They must rely on their memory of the offence, not a photo helpfully published by the media. This action cause the record fine for contempt (so far) £80,000 for the Sun and £20,000 for Kelvin MacKenzie as editor.
Therefore... The action must be for identifying CJ... and not vilifying CJ... (imo) He had not been picked out of any ID parade...
What came first the ID parade or the papers images?? No-one could then ID CJ... for anything after that... whether he was innocent or not.... whether he was a witness or not..... (imo)
Edit.... And if they ever did an ID parade of CJ was it before or after he dyed and cut his hair??
https://davidbanksmedialaw.com/2011/11/22/contempt-of-court-and-how-to-avoid-it/
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg469886#msg469886
-
Slightly less probable solution than average. BUT it does raise the issue of whether or not the self serving bottom feeders moved Yeates’s body from its original point of discovery for reasons we cannot determine. In all it appears to be a red herring, if the body was moved, so what. The question is why would the judicial system be so determined and so collaborative in framing Tabak. Answer; it has to be protecting itself. The system always protects itself from its own failings and prevents exposure of its previous failings. If the system knew of the presence of a single unidentified individual that had led to the wrongful conviction of multiple crowd pleasers, then it will do anything it can to prevent its failings becoming public. End of story. They celebrate their complicity and rejoice in convincing the gullible masses. Pity the choir boys.
Who are the "bottom feeders?"
-
But if Dr Vincent Tabak asked questions of the jury or pointed out fact , we wouldn't know... It was never reported.
Are you familiar with Dutchman Romano van der Dussen Nine?
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/sally-anne-bowman-killer-confesses-rape-which-innocent-man-served-11-years-jail-1506714
Sally Anne's mother, Linda Bowman, who is supporting Romano's appeal against his convictions, earlier expressed her dismay that if the Spanish authorities had investigated the case more thoroughly, her daughter might still be alive.
"I am absolutely appalled," she said. "An innocent man has spent 11 years of a 16 year sentence in prison for a crime he did not do. I feel very strongly that if the Spanish authorities had done their jobs properly, my Sally Anne would be alive. He did not assault those three women in Spain - Sally Anne's killer did. He is someone's son and he is locked up for something he didn't do
I have been doing all I can in my capacity..... I have no other way in which to highlight what I believe is wrong with this case...
Hence, here I am...
And have you thought about contacting prisonLAW?
https://www.prisonlaw.nl/prisonlaw-s-objectives
"PrisonLAW is an independent legal organization focused on assisting Dutch prisoners abroad. PrisonLAW’s main objectives are providing legal information and fighting human rights violations. In short: PrisonLAW seeks a new chance for justice. The provision of aid and services to detainees can be accomplished by creating a constructive cooperation with several parties in The Netherlands and the host countries concerned. PrisonLAW aims at helping prisoners enforce their rights to aid and services. In this regard PrisonLAW holds the detainee to be the central figure. The detainee decides what kind of aid he or she needs and what services might be useful. PrisonLAW cannot take part in the judicial proceedings of a foreign country. This means that matters such as establishing a judicial decision, answering the question of guilt and determining the punishment rest with the local authorities. On a diplomatic level PrisonLAW will strive to secure the fair trials of Dutch prisoners in the host country in question.
-
Are you familiar with Dutchman Romano van der Dussen Nine?
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/sally-anne-bowman-killer-confesses-rape-which-innocent-man-served-11-years-jail-1506714
"During his trial at the Old Bailey in 2008 he claimed he found Miss Bowman dead and had sex with her corpse after a drink and drugs binge.
Dixie’s confession to Romano Van der Dussen’s lawyer Rachel Imamkhan about the rape came when she visited him in prison while preparing an appeal case for Mr Van der Dussen.
https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/13337229.Sally_Anne_Bowman_s_murderer_confesses_to_brutal_rape_that_another_man_has_served_12_years_in_prison_for/
-
From The Sally Ramage papers.....
At this point the jury on Wednesday morning 19 October 2011, were invited to write into
their copy of the prosecution chart where they see the words typed in by Tabak
‘definition’ before the words ‘sexual conduct’. The jury were invited to write the word
‘definition’, so that this entry is more accurate, the prosecution counsel Nigel Lickley said,
because these words were missed out when the prosecution constructed the chart of
evidence.
Now the term 'Sexual Conduct' has always had me baffled, it appeared to be wrong... The lay person would know it as Misconduct....
But seeing as I have been looking at twitter... I decided to see if anyone had tweeted about "Sexual Conduct' I believe it is a term used within the Police etc... So of course my obvious choice for the tweet is MTW....
Mark Williams-Thomas
Verified account
@mwilliamsthomas
#childprotection -Headlands School has now had 5 members of staff face criminal proceedings in relation to inappropriate sexual conduct
8:16 AM - 2 Feb 2010
Now MTW was a Police Officer as we know..... And I have said many times before that I believed that the searches were made up.....
The only way that they are not made up is if Dr Vincent Tabak worked for the Police??? Or the tweets are those of a Police officer.... Any Police Officer...
I have covered before the fact that Lickley QC, has the jury change what is written in their notes/ 1300 page document........ A No No.... (imo)
Where did the information of the searches come from.... No Computer Forensic analysis was at trial... (Yes we have the Polices own computer expert).... no-one who was independent looked at Dr Vincent Tabak' computers or computers he may have had access too....
How would a Dutch National know to search the term 'Sexual Conduct' as a legal term?? he wouldn't (imo) so why was that amongst the searches of Dr Vincent Tabak??
NB: I only used MTW as an example, as you must appreciate, he is well known and a former Police Officer he was the first person I thought may use that term in his tweets and be a useful example....
https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/8534922037
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
It wasn't only Sally Ramage whom reported about the term'Sexual Conduct'
There were tweets about the term that Dr Vincent Tabak apparently looked up:
Rupert Evelyn
@rupertevelyn
19 Oct 2011
More
Tabak searched "definition sexual conduct" and then "definition of sexual assault". #yeates
Jon Kay
Verified account
@jonkay01
21 Oct 2011
More
Tabak denies that looking up "sexual conduct" online shows he realised the attack had been sexual.
Jon Kay
Verified account
@jonkay01
21 Oct 2011
More
Tabak admits looking up "murder and manslaughter" "sexual conduct and sexual assault" on Internet in days after killing Jo.
steven morris
@stevenmorris20
21 Oct 2011
More
Tabak: "I was worried if my pass could be seen as sexual conduct" Denies he was being "calculating"
steven morris
@stevenmorris20
21 Oct 2011
More
Tabak also asked why he looked up "definition sexual conduct"....
Jon Kay
Verified account
@jonkay01
19 Oct 2011
More
Court hears Tabak later looked-up English language definitions of "sexual assault" and "sexual conduct".
Harriet Tolputt
@HarrietTolputt
19 Oct 2011
More
Tabak typed in to Google "definition of sexual conduct" and "definition of sexual assault" #joannayeates
Emma Hallett
@EmmaLHallett
19 Oct 2011
More
Tabak alleged to have Googled "definition of sexual conduct", "definition of sexual assault" and "sexual offences explained".
Richard Payne
@richardpayneitv
19 Oct 2011
More
Tabak looked up average sentences for murder and manslaughter and definitions of sexual conduct and sexual assault.
Heart Gloucs.
Verified account
@HeartGlos
21 Oct 2011
More
Tabak asked why he looked up online definitions of sexual conduct and sexual assault after Jo died
Katie Stallard-Blanchette
@katiestallard
19 Oct 2011
More
Tabak googled 'definition sexual conduct' and 'definition of sexual assault' #VincentTabak
Jane Onyanga-Omara
@janeomara
19 Oct 2011
More
#Tabak searched online for definition of sexual conduct and definition of sexual assault, court hears
Emma Hallett
@EmmaLHallett
21 Oct 2011
More
Tabak denies that looking up "sexual conduct" online shows he realised the attack had been sexual. #payeates
Heart West News
@HeartWestNews
21 Oct 2011
More
Tabak asked why he looked up online definitions of sexual conduct and sexual assault after Jo died
Richard Payne
@richardpayneitv
21 Oct 2011
More
On Jan 11 Tabak looked up murder and manslaughter on internet and definition of sexual conduct and sexual assault.
Heart Gloucs.
Verified account
@HeartGlos
19 Oct 2011
More
Tabak searched definition of sexual conduct and definition of sexual assault
Heart West News
@HeartWestNews
19 Oct 2011
More
Tabak searched definition of sexual conduct and definition of sexual assault
Again I will ask... why would Dr Vincent Tabak search that term???
https://twitter.com/search?q=tabak%20sexual%20conduct&src=typd
-
Would have posted this here, but i thought it may get lost , and I may need to refer to it again...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9448.msg500727#msg500727
-
I've often wondered why MTW was interested in the Case in the beginning, he was there for the early reporting from outside Canygne Road..
Now it's a Missing persons enquiry when he first appears outside the house....
But I started to wonder if he felt there was some connection to that house and the child abuse, that appears to have plagued that address.....
I have also noticed he has some connection to Holland, and was wondering if he ever worked in conjunction with the Dutch Authorities....
Then I looked on twitter, to see what he and the Dutch connection might be....
Mark Williams-Thomas
Verified account
@mwilliamsthomas
Following Following @mwilliamsthomas
More
Watch the press conference here that gives further details about the Dutch Nursery child abuse case- http://bit.ly/huMaav
12:58 PM - 13 Dec 2010
.......................
Mark Williams-Thomas
Verified account
@mwilliamsthomas
Following Following @mwilliamsthomas
More
The Dutch nursery empl worked at a number of different nurseries & also did babysitting - Could be many more that 50child victims
8:40 AM - 13 Dec 2010
But maybe the defence could have used MTW expertise, he seems to have stumbled upon the Dutch's attitude to Porn..
Mark Williams-Thomas
Verified account
@mwilliamsthomas
Following Following @mwilliamsthomas
More
Dutch research -13yrs to 18yrs (471) more teenagers viewed adult porn likely 2 have 'recreational' attitude to sex, c it as purely function
4:38 PM - 23 Mar 2011
Recreational..... normal.... What we have to remember is the series of porn in which Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have been interested... A series called Sex and submission, which is paid per view on any TV... for adults to view.. So knowing it was a part of the Dutch way of life, does the viewing of the porn now seems as incriminating as it was made out to be.... None of the porn was brought to trial... And maybe the reason really being, was that it was part of growing up in Holland, it was normal and what he apparently viewed was legal porn to boot....
MTW then appears to have a problem with his Blackberry..... And it translated all of his text into Dutch
Mark Williams-Thomas
Verified account
@mwilliamsthomas
Following Following @mwilliamsthomas
More
For some reason my input language on my Blackberry changed to Dutch!!! No idea how
8:13 PM - 26 Jun 2012
Wasn't Dr Vincent Tabak supposed to have owned a Blackberry???
Now that has just given me an idea.... Is that how they translated all of Dr Vincent Tabak's text messages and emails on his phone..... They just changed the language settings????
We haven't had any verification on how anything Dr Vincent Tabak searched for or sent was translated and by whom... It has always been one of my bug bares.... How did they translate everything that Dr Vincent Tabak wrote, seeing as he was a Dutch National... And I was informed that we Dutchies google in Dutch!!
So back to my original question.... Is it feasible that MTW's interest in the case stemmed from what that Flat had been before.... Everyone knew it had been previously owned by a man that had been convicted of child abuse images etc... Was he checking everyone out in that building... Did the fact a Dutchman lived there also spark his interest??
I don't know.... But thankfully MTW likes to share his tweets, and without them the defence may never have been informed of what a blackberry can do of its own accord, and how it can be used in changing which language one wishes to view anything in..... and how it is quite acceptable for the Dutch to view porn at an early age, and how it is seen by the Dutch as purely functional....
https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/14303110788812800
https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/217697105068830721
https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/50597364288847873
https://twitter.com/search?q=%40mwilliamsthomas%20dutch&src=typd
-
Criminologist questions why Chris Jefferies is still a suspect in Jo Yeates murder case
By - January 26, 2011
A leading criminologist has questioned why the landlord of Jo Yeates stills remains a suspect in her murder.
Criminologist questions why is Chris Jefferies is still Jo Yeates murder suspect
Eccentric Chris Jefferies, 66, was arrested on suspicion of murdering the 25-year-old on December 30 at the Canynge Road, Clifton, Bristol, where the two both lived.
Police obtained two extensions to keep Mr Jefferies detained for the maximum time limit but released him early on police bail, without charge, on January 1.
Dutch engineer Vincent Tabak, 32, was then arrested and charged with Jo’s murder.
But despite Tabak’s charge, Mr Jefferies has not had his police bail cancelled and is therefore still a suspect, police confirmed today.
David Wilson, professor of criminology and criminal justice at Birmingham City University, said it would be normal practice to release other suspects from bail following a charge.
Professor Wilson, who has researched many murderers including serial killer Fred West, Soham murderer Ian Huntley, and Suffolk strangler Steven Wright, said: ”I’ve not heard that the landlord Chris Jefferies has had his bail cancelled, which could be seen as significant.
”Now that they’ve charged Vincent Tabak it would make sense for police to cancel Mr Jefferies’ bail – that would be normal procedure.
”I’d expect the police to act quickly to end any misunderstanding in relation to Mr Jefferies not being released from bail.”
After Tabak was charged on Saturday evening Inspector David Horwood, from Avon and Somerset police, said: ”We’re now considering the impact of the charge on other aspects of the investigation.”
A force spokesman confirmed Mr Jefferies was still on bail but refused to comment further.
Criminologists everywhere....
What is it about this case that they all come out of the wood work??
After Tabak was charged on Saturday evening Inspector David Horwood, from Avon and Somerset police, said: ”We’re now considering the impact of the charge on other aspects of the investigation.”
So what other aspects of the Investigation?? What were they really looking at?? What was "Operation Braid"???
This case cannot be as clear cut as everyone wants us to believe.... I don't see it myself....
Joanna Yeates murder: how the inquiry will develop
12:24PM GMT 29 Dec 2010
Miss Yeates's body was found on Christmas Day three miles from her home in Bristol after being missing for eight days. Detectives investigating the murder of the 25 year-old will be looking at forensic evidence, CCTV footage and continuing to talk to witnesses in their hunt for the killer.
Mr Williams-Thomas, a criminologist, said: "The key for the police now is the two locations - where she lived and where the body was found. They will have found as much information as they can from places such as the shops she visited and the pub that she drank at through CCTV and talking to people.
"The focus forensically is these two places. At the location the body was found they will be looking for transfer of fibres or DNA in her clothes. They would look to see if there are car or footprint marks. These may have been clearer in the snow.
"Toxicology reports on the body will show whether any drugs or alcohol were used to subdue her and they will be looking for signs of struggle on her body. That will show how she was strangled. Obviously they will be searching for anybody who was in the area at the time."
Miss Yeates's body was found frozen through - a fact which will help forensic experts because it slows down the rate of decay.Mr Williams-Thomas said: "The body will be in pretty much the condition that it was in when it was dumped."
Turning to Miss Yeates's flat in the Clifton area of Bristol police are expected to focus on how she got home on December 17 and the circumstances under which she left.
Mr Williams-Thomas said: "The key to the flat is that she either went back home or someone went back to the flat with her property. It is more likely that she went back home."
The front door of the property will prove the focus for most of the forensic investigation.
Mr Williams-Thomas said: "Every contact leaves a trace so they will be looking for that in the front door. The only way in and out of the property is through that so if the killer opened it, banged it, forced it - there will be traces that can be lifted."
The front door is being removed today to be taken to a forensic laboratory for intensive light testing.
Information released revealed that the landlord saw Miss Yeates leaving the flat on Friday night with two other people.
Mr Williams-Thomas said: "I would be very confident saying that whoever killed her she knew. There's no sense that she was pulled off the street by a stranger."
He added: "To dump the body so close suggests someone who either lives in the area or knows the locality well. It suggests that the killer might have been panicked."
There are two obvious routes from Miss Yeates's flat to the spot in Failand where she was found - over Clifton Suspension Bridge or over another bridge further down.
Both bridges have CCTV footage - however, if Miss Yeates's body was taken by car it will take police teams days of scouring footage and sending car indexes to the DVLA to eliminate vehicles.
There will also be an investigation into online contact that Miss Yeates may have had on Facebook or Twitter or by email.
Mr Williams-Thomas said: "The police will now have to build up a picture of her life over the last two or three years. Very few offences are stranger offences. If they can find that link back they may then find the offender."
Everyones an expert..... everyone knows more than the Police.... none of them are on the investigation as far as i know.... yet they are vying for attention in the media.... Personally i find it weird, but that is me....
Faces on the TV... faces we recognise and are supposed to trust their opinion.... Well their opinion is no different from mine to be honest... What makes them more knowledgable?? Their statements are incorrect, my statements may be incorrect... What facts of the case do they know??
I do not know if David Wilson did a piece to camera at the time.... I know he participated in a documentary were he contradicts his original theory.... And of course we have MWT outside Canygne Road and on Longwood Lane....
Take this comment from David Wilson..... and of course the printing of this comment by this newspaper.....
David Wilson, professor of criminology and criminal justice at Birmingham City University, said it would be normal practice to release other suspects from bail following a charge.
If CJ thought that the 3 days of vilification did damage to his reputation, he should have read more of the articles that followed.. (imo)
David Wilson, is known... he's on TV.... he will have a following, and people will believe what he says is of importance... By making the comment he made on the 26th January 2011 after the charging of Dr Vincent Tabak and after he appeared at court... David Wilson is bringing into question, why they still have CJ on bail.... which anyone whom followed the case would see as significant... They would put two and two together and believe that CJ must have some involvement....
Yet CJ doesn't flinch at this obvious article.... He's more bothered about the photo's of him in the paper and whether or not he went into peoples flats unannounced....
He should have been concerned as to what this article is intermating... "Normal Practice"?? Suggesting that it was extremely unusual to keep someone on bail following the charge of another, suggesting that there may be more to this landlord than meets the eye, and his arrest was warranted, further investigation into him is needed.....
So why didn't this article bother CJ??
Next The article with MWT.....
Miss Yeates's body was found frozen through - a fact which will help forensic experts because it slows down the rate of decay.Mr Williams-Thomas said: "The body will be in pretty much the condition that it was in when it was dumped."
Such a generalisation..... It's not exactly rocket science.....
Now re-reading that statement, in the light of the trial, it looks like he was accurate....
But, on the 29th December 2010 no-one knew how long Joanna Yeates had been on Longwood Lane for .... No-one knew whether or not she had been abducted....
She could have easily been kept at someones home, and started to decay, then be dumped... anything could have happened....
So a general statement will be accurate, if the second scene of crime is actually the second scene of crime..... No-one knows how long Joanna Yeates has been on Longwood lane at that point in time.... So which dumped does he mean... She may have been dumped in a barn covered in hay and nature started to take its course... Then moved and dumped somewhere else..... Then moved again....
By generalising about the apparent condition of Joanna Yeates body without supporting evidence, because people know who you are, they will believe your opinion... But the facts are not known at this point....
Joanna Yeates may have been kept in someones freezer..... That may be the reason that she was frozen to the core... we don't know... Because no-one knows when she was placed on Longwood Lane.....
So is it rocket science?? I'd say not....
Mr Williams-Thomas said: "Every contact leaves a trace so they will be looking for that in the front door. The only way in and out of the property is through that so if the killer opened it, banged it, forced it - there will be traces that can be lifted."
The front door is being removed today to be taken to a forensic laboratory for intensive light testing.
Now how did MWT know that the front door was being removed on that day?? which front door did he believe was going to be removed??
Has MWT got contacts within Avon and Somerset Police, telling him information?? Or did he just get info like other journalists??
The door that he has set so much stall in, that didn't even come as evidence at trial....
Did the fact that many criminologists were part of this investigation through the media, sway the public's opinion??
Do they sway opinion when they appear on our TV's.... Makes great telly for some.... But I believe that what happens is they reinforce the public's idea about an individual.... Based purely on their reputation.... And not based in fact....
I could have a room full of people and give them some true facts about a case, but if a well known criminologist, were to speak to the same set of people in that room and give them an opposing view based on no facts.... I bet the room would ignore what ever I had to say.... And be swayed by the well known criminologists persuasive argument...
My point being.... every known trick in the book was used to influence the public about Dr Vincent Tabak... Experts whom do not have access to investigative material and suspects of the time, making statements in the media... And these same experts making their way onto programs about this case....
Experts who we find out later have changed their opinion on what they were happy to tell us in the beginning....
They never disagree with each other.... that has become clear... we never see 2 criminologists on a program having opposing views about a case.... Now that would make for some good TV....
Every expert in their field will have opposing views.... This is why when we come to trial, both the prosecution and The defence have their own experts, experts that cast doubt on what the prosecution may be claiming.....
When it comes to trial by media, we do not get the opposing views.... we do not get experts telling us different reasons for their conclusions on the same program... We can all make generalisations... We can all put two and two together, but do we have the correct answer....
If most of the evidence in this case didn't make it to trial, then how can it be a fair trial.... If Dr Vincent Tabak admitted to something he didn't do... how would we know??
If the truth about this case ever surfaces, where will it leave these experts??
With egg on their faces??
The experts are only working with information that hey have been given, and not the full facts... there opinion is formed on very little....
The fact that David Wilson is part of a program where the facts of the case are virtually ALL incorrect, makes me wonder why he hasn't spoken up about it...
The Countdown to Murder program, where events didn't actually happen that way.... where Dr Vincent Tabak didn't go around to Joanna Yeates house with Bernard the cat, where Dr Vincent Tabak didn't lie in wait for Joanna Yeates to arrive home.... were we see Joanna Yeates wearing a Pink Flowered top all day on the 17th December 2010, when the CCTV footage from the Ram clearly shows her in a plain top.....
Why would he not come forward and say something?? The facts of the case are what was stated at trial by the defendant.... whether or not you believe what the defendant stated was true or not.... The prosecution may have suggested ideas, but Dr Vincent Tabak was convicted on what he stated on the stand, and that didn't include what was suggested by the prosecution... He was convicted by his tall story......
The story on a Countdown to Murder, is inaccurate, going from what was stated at trial..... why would they produce such a program?? Why didn't they stick to what Dr Vincent Tabak stated on the stand?? There was no evidence at trial of a fight in the hallway, as depicted in this program.... No finger prints, no blood, no nothing coming from this hallway in terms of evidence..... Yet the program happily tells us this was the version of events....
Did people not believe anyone would actually notice that the program was factually incorrect in accordance with what had been stated at trial... ?? was no-one concerned that someone would pick up on this fact??
All these programs appear to do is reinforce in the publics mind that the person who has been imprisoned for the crime , did in fact do the crime.... But why would you need to reinforce the public's opinion?? why would you need to tell them an untrue story??
The only use of these programs I have found... Is that the people who give interviews are shown up for the statements they made previous... Like the Yeates adding a detail we knew nothing about... "The Washing Pile"...
Do we need celebrity criminologist to tell us what the facts are?? Do we really need them to share their opinions?? Wouldn't it be more prudent if we actually had statements from those involved, rather than those who surmise...
Opinion is just that .... opinion.... we all have one.... But again I will reiterate, Should we have celebrity criminologists?? Should there be a warning placed on such programs? Should the public be informed that what is stated is based on opinion and not all on fact... (imo)
If the public stops getting spoon feed these ideas, they may at some point think for themselves... They may question what may have taken place, and not have a biased opinion made for them by someone they trust whom they know nothing about....
15 minutes of fame... Andy Warhol I believe stated that... In the future everyone will get their 15 minutes of fame...
Well 15 minutes of fame could be a lifetime of devastation for some, those 15 minutes of fame, could be the difference between truth and fiction....
As a society we love media... we are influenced by media.... we may not all take notice, but it is ingrained in many of us....
But this case shouldn't be about media... The media shouldn't have told us all of the apparent facts of the case before trial.... The media shouldn't be parked outside a house 24/7 for a Missing persons inquiry....
The media, should not be influencing what we believe to be true, when in fact certain pieces of information were never produced as evidence...
It all appears to be about entertainment... when I wish it were based on fact... were I do not know whom to believe anymore...
Trial by media is not helpful... and this case certainly was that.... And a case that was and is still in the public eye so many years on.... But where the media appear to have failed in furnishing us with the truth.... Where the media know more than they are telling us... (never mind the police)
The media were outside Flat 2... They were on Longwood Lane when The Yeates placed flowers and crossed Crime scene tape, before they had officially identified their daughter.... Yet the very same media, didn't bring these oddities and wrong procedures to our attention... They never pointed out how odd this was and unusual this was.... even how it wasn't procedural... They ignore it.... They know ... they know what is right procedure and what is wrong procedure, but do not point out to the public, what is going on....
Maybe at the time they thought keeping quite was helpful for the Investigation..... But what about since the trial??
The media should be informative... And they should raise questions and doubts based on what they knew at the time and whether there opinion has changed... Even if it brings into question a trial.....
But that isn't ever going to happen.... Just like the criminologists we have got used to seeing on TV... They too are not going to put up their hands and state that they may have been wrong....
Until the public themselves wake up and question what happens at trial or in the media, then we are left with a biased view based on nothing but opinion... And the likes of Dr Vincent Tabak will spend time in prison for a crime that could not have been committed in the way he has stated.....
A crime where nothing at trial supported what he said.... But a public happy that someone payed the price.... It could have been anyone.... It didn't matter.... The book on the case was then closed...
https://stories.swns.com/news/criminologist-questions-why-chris-jefferies-is-still-a-suspect-in-jo-yeates-murder-case-14343/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8229691/Joanna-Yeates-murder-how-the-inquiry-will-develop.html
-
And, we were never told whether or not any forensic evidence was actually found on that front door.
-
I presumed that the prosecution where aware of what the defence would say at trial... by this statement in the media.....
The defence's version of events was read to the jury by 'Nigel Lickley QC, prosecuting', as he questioned a pathologist about the wounds suffered by Miss Yeates.
The statement said: "The two were facing each other. He put one arm around her back, at the middle of her back. She screamed. He put his other hand over her mouth and noise of the screaming ceased. He removed his hand from her mouth and the screaming continued. He then put his hand around her throat, which had been the hand around her back.
"He held it there for around 20 seconds. He applied no more than moderate force, on a scale of one to three of light, moderate and severe.
"He didn't intend serious injury. The action killed Miss Yeates. He accepts it was unlawful."
Home office pathologist Dr Russell Delaney said that, owing to injuries she sustained to her neck, it was his opinion Miss Yeates' killer used two hands to strangle her, although he could not rule out the use of one hand.
The pathologist told the jury he would have expected Miss Yeates to struggle, but it was not "scientifically possible" to determine the length of time that the fatal sequence of events occurred.
Referring to evidence of there being a scream, pause, scream and then noise he told the court: "I can't determine at what point in that sequence of events that the neck compression was occurring."
The case has always appeared wrong to me, having no legal knowledge ,it has been difficult to try to put together arguments of law.....
So... we have in May 2011 Dr Vincent Tabak apparently pleading guilty to Manslaughter....
We have in September 2011 an enhanced statement which Dr Vincent Tabak apparently signed....
Doesn't that constitute a person admitting guilt???
I HAVE TOLD MY LAWYER I AM GUILTY. CAN I STILL HAVE A TRIAL?
Criminal lawyers (Barristers and Solicitors) are under a duty not to knowingly or recklessly mislead the court. If a defendant informs his lawyer that he is guilty, it will be very difficult for the lawyer to represent the client at a trial without misleading the court. As soon as the lawyer suggested to the court that his client was not guilty, this would be a misleading statement. Similarly, if the lawyer had been told by his client that he was guilty, calling the client to give evidence of his innocence to the charge would mean that he was knowingly involved in misleading the court.
The only way a lawyer could represent a defendant in this situation would by by not calling the defendant (or any witness that positively suggested the defendant was not guilty) and simply running the trial by testing the evidence, being careful not to suggest at any stage that the defendant was not guilty.
This means the lawyer could test in cross-examination the reliability of a witness's evidence (for example dealing with poor lighting conditions, a fleeting glance or other obstructions in a visual identification case) and could go on to suggest to the court that the prosecution had failed to establish that the witness's identification was reliable. However, to go further and advance a positive case would be to cross the line and mislead the court. Clearly to run a trial in such circumstances is an extremely difficult task and if a defendant who had told his lawyer he was guilty were to insist, for example, that he wanted to give evidence, call witnesses, or ensure that his lawyer clearly suggested that he was not guilty (all matters which take place in a usual criminal trial) the lawyer would have no option but to withdraw from the case. Due to the lawyer's duty of confidentiality to his or her client, the reason for withdrawing could not be revealed to the judge.
The only way a lawyer could represent a defendant in this situation would by by not calling the defendant (or any witness that positively suggested the defendant was not guilty) and simply running the trial by testing the evidence, being careful not to suggest at any stage that the defendant was not guilty.
The fact that we are well aware 5 months before trial that Dr Vincent Tabak has pled guilty to Manslaughter, means that the DEFENCE is aware of said guilt!
Therefore how did Clegg defend him still??
When did Clegg become his representative??
The only way a lawyer could represent a defendant in this situation would by by not calling the defendant (or any witness that positively suggested the defendant was not guilty) and simply running the trial by testing the evidence, being careful not to suggest at any stage that the defendant was not guilty.
So why call Dr Vincent Tabak to the stand???
This case is bizzare... Everything is the opposite way around... nothing makes sense.... why would you call the defendant??
So without Dr Vincent Tabak on the stand , the evidence that was presented was 'ZERO" zero evidence to test....
Clegg did cover himself slightly there, by his statements he made to the jury...
1: his conduct after Yeates died when he hid the body was “frankly disgusting” and had caused untold anguish and agony to her family.
2: “I’m not going to ask you to like Vincent Tabak. There’s probably nothing to like.”
3: And Miss Morson seems to agree, having failed to make a single appearance at court.
4: He had told “lie after lie to the police.
5: “did everything he could to cover his tracks”.
6: He added that he would not try to justify Tabak’s actions after her death, saying his client was “living a lie” by attending dinner parties and attempting to carry on his life as normal.
7: “I’m not going to ask you to have any sympathy for him. He deserves none.
8: “I’m not going to ask you to excuse his conduct. There can be no excuse.
9: “If I was to set out to win a popularity contest I would lose.
10: He told the court: “Of course, afterwards his behaviour is utterly disgraceful. It’s not going to be justified by me
No witness's were called to give any positive information about the defendant.... No Good Character witness's, no witness's to corroborate what Dr Vincent Tabak did that weekend or his girlfriend Tanja Morson attending trial, the most obvious person whom could testify to Dr Vincent Tabaks mood, behaviour, or anything about him...
if a defendant who had told his lawyer he was guilty were to insist, for example, that he wanted to give evidence, call witnesses, or ensure that his lawyer clearly suggested that he was not guilty (all matters which take place in a usual criminal trial) the lawyer would have no option but to withdraw from the case.
Well his Lawyers must have known of the guilty plea.... everyone else did....
Why didn't Clegg etc... withdraw from the case??
In my mind, it's like everyone has gone out of their way to deliberately show this trial up as being completely unfair and not legal... They have gone above and beyond, to show that they will bend the rules and run a trial based on the opposite of what the law dictates.....
Why??
I have covered nearly everything, on this case... well everything I can think of at this moment in time....
I will come back to this..... But it is plain..... wrong .... wrong ...... wrong!!!!! (imo)(of course)
https://www.defence-barrister.co.uk/is-it-ever-worth-pleading-guilty/#What-is-a-Newton-Hearing?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg498453#msg498453
-
William Clegg's book "Under The Wig".......
Catherine Baksi
@legalhackette
NEW ON LEGAL HACKETTE'S BRIEF: William Clegg QC discusses the ‘crisis’ in criminal justice, ‘squalid’ courts, ditching wigs, mental ill-health among barristers, and his book, Under the Wig, ghost-written by one of his former clients. https://legalhackette.com/2018/10/05/legal-hackette-lunches-with-william-clegg-qc/ …
Now who was the ghost writer??? Anyone know??? Former Client???
https://twitter.com/legalhackette/status/1048114382763413504
-
WHAT IS A BASIS OF PLEA?
Imagine you are guilty of an offence and have decided to plead guilty, but the case put forward by the prosecution is more serious than what you accept actually happened.
In these circumstances, you can still plead guilty but can do so on a proposed basis (a basis of plea) which the judge and the prosecution can either accept or reject.
The purpose of the basis of plea is to remove various aggravating features of the case which would lead to a higher sentence.
If the basis of plea is accepted by the prosecution and by the judge, the sentence will proceed on the version put forward by the defence. If the basis of plea is rejected by the prosecution and the judge thinks that the version of events it puts forward is sufficiently more serious than the version put forward by the defence (so as to justify a higher sentence), then there will be a mini-trial (without a jury in the Crown Court) for the judge to decide on the facts of the case.
This type of mini-trial is called a Newton Hearing. In reaching a decision on the facts at a Newton Hearing the judge will have to be satisfied so that he/she is sure that the prosecution version is correct. If sure, the judge will then sentence on the prosecution version, but if less than sure the judge will sentence on the defendant’s version.
It is also worth bearing in mind that the judge is entitled to reject a basis of plea which he/she considers to be absurd. If the judge takes the view that the basis put forward by the defence is patently absurd then sentence will take place on the prosecution version of events without a Newton Hearing taking place. The judge is the final arbiter on whether or not a basis of plea is accepted and is entitled to reject a basis even if accepted by the prosecution, although this would be quite rare.
Imagine you are guilty of an offence and have decided to plead guilty, but the case put forward by the prosecution is more serious than what you accept actually happened.
In these circumstances, you can still plead guilty but can do so on a proposed basis (a basis of plea) which the judge and the prosecution can either accept or reject.
I read articles, trying to understand, how everyone already knew that Dr Vincent Tabak had pled Guilty to Manslaughter on the 5th May 2011 and how the public were informed of this on that day... How the public were also informed that The Prosecution were not accepting the plea to Manslaughter and how a trial would take place....
I feel I must be thick as two short planks... I cannot get my head around why the public, knew from the 5th May 2011 that Dr Vincent Tabak pled guilty to manslaughter.... Not only that ,but ... the public, were told on a daily basis throughout trial that Dr Vincent Tabak had plead guilty to Manslaughter....
But if my understanding of this article is correct, then shouldn't Dr Vincent Tabak have just been faced with the judge and a mini trial without a jury... (A newton hearing)
If the basis of plea is accepted by the prosecution and by the judge, the sentence will proceed on the version put forward by the defence. If the basis of plea is rejected by the prosecution and the judge thinks that the version of events it puts forward is sufficiently more serious than the version put forward by the defence (so as to justify a higher sentence), then there will be a mini-trial (without a jury in the Crown Court) for the judge to decide on the facts of the case.
The fact is the plea was put forward, and was rejected by the prosecution..... We were all told... So why did we have a full trial with jury in tow??
Shouldn't it have been a Newton hearing??? Should a Newton hearing have taken place???
Do we take from that that the Defence didn't put forward their version of events at this hearing ,and the prosecution rejected the plea on that basis??
But if so, why the trial..... why didn't a Newton Hearing take place??
There is no evidence presented at trial, by the prosecution, to put Dr Vincent Tabak in Longwood Lane on Friday 17th December 2010... They only have Dr Vincent Tabak's word on the stand that he was there on that day... Yet Dr Vincent Tabak lies, according to the trial... so why believe what he states on the stand as true....
There is no evidence presented at trial that Joanna Yeates was killed in her Flat, apart from Dr Vincent Tabak telling us on the stand that she was at home, when this occurred....
There is no DNA evidence presented by The Prosecution of Dr Vincent Tabak being in Joanna Yeates Flat..
There is no DNA evidence presented by the prosecution, of Joanna Yeates being in Dr Vincent Tabak's flat..
So the prosecutions evidence , must suggest that the offence was more serious than the defences argument... But as far as i can tell, the prosecution had no evidence to suggest that.... No witness's to state that it was premeditated, or that Dr Vincent Tabak had been stalking Joanna Yeates for instance....
We have a man, whom has been home a matter of days, that according to trial, did not know his neighbour, had been away for the majority of the time his neighbour had moved in next door, and on the first night, she is alone, without any reason for him to know she was alone, he goes around to his neighbours house and kills her....
He has been invited in according to his tale on the stand, they converse, she then tells a complete stranger, she doesn't know, that she is alone.... She was already worried about being alone, but apparently that seem to have not been of a concern, when she saw a man she had never meet....
It doesn't make sense....
Shouldn't the prosecution be able to prove how Dr Vincent Tabak gained access??
We get the depiction in a program, of Dr Vincent Tabak forcing his way into the flat with Bernard in his arms... This was a theory i believe of how he gained entrance.... surely there should have been evidence in the hallway of the fight that ensued, blood...DNA.. finger prints.... Finger prints on Joanna Yeates front door?? The door that was removed for evidence, should have been at trial, showing us that Dr Vincent Tabak had not only entered the flat but closed the door behind himself...
I would understand this better, if when it came to trial, The prosecution, brought forth evidence of Dr Vincent Tabak being in Joanna Yeates Flat.... And Joanna Yeates being in Dr Vincent Tabak's flat... The Prosecution were happy to accept that Dr Vincent Tabak had Joanna Yeates in his flat for an hour, before he went to ASDA... So shouldn't there be evidence of this....
Shouldn't there be evidence of body fluids in either of the flats??
Going back for one moment.... DC Karen Thomas states that it was Dr Vincent Tabak's over interest in forensics that had her being suspicious of Dr Vincent Tabak.... We heard he was concerned when the door of Joanna Yeates had been removed.....
This suggesting he is forensically aware....
This suggests that Dr Vincent Tabak must have touched the door...... And he was aware that he did......
So, if he is a man that knows about forensics, then why would he carry a body around to his own home for an hour before moving a body to his car?? Why not put her directly into the boot of your car?
He is apparently forensically minded that he bins the bicycle cover, and ditches the sock... Covering his tracks all the way.... It's his first Murder... he is an amateur, he has no record, nothing.... So he's either cunning and forensically minded, or he has never done anything like this before.... So why bring a body into your own home??
Why would decomposition, be an issue?? why would looking that up be a problem, when a body is outside in freezing temperatures??
If Dr Vincent Tabak is a dangerous man that is a serial killer as was suggested in the beginning, that who ever murdered Joanna Yeates was this type of person, why didn't they wait to gather evidence to prove that.... The evidence brought to trial by the prosecution is flimsy at best.... If it hadn't been for the fact that we get the guilty plea, in May 2011, then the prosecution had no case....
But going from what the article states, then should there have been a trial by jury anyway??
There is no CCTV putting Dr Vincent Tabak anywhere when this crime was to have taken place, apart from a trip to ASDA... Shopping isn't a crime... But suggesting he went shopping with her in the boot of the car sounds dramatic.... Where's the CCTV of him arriving in the carpark?? Travelling to ASDA in Bedminster?? Travelling on any road... The Park Street footage is useless... It doesn't clarify , who is in a car and what car and registration that car is.... It could be anyones car.... And the CCTV footage of Canygne Road that DS Mark Saunders has made us aware of , with cars and people milling around, doesn't make it to trial.... The CCTV footage that should clearly indicate that Joanna yeates arrived back at Canygne Road, after she had left The Ram pub...
The CCTV footage that should show Zoe and Florian Lehman, walking to the party and what time they arrived... The CCTv footage that should show Dr Vincent Tabak arriving and leaving Canygne Road in his car at any given time... The CCTV footage that should show who left or arrived at the small gate, that CJ has made us aware of...
The most important piece of footage that could and should clarify many questions, missing from a trial of a man ,whom has admitted to killing Joanna Yeates...
If the Prosecution cannot prove that Joanna Yeates was killed at home as was told on the stand, why accept that was the story from the defendant?? They accepted that after he killed her he went and took her to his home and sat there for an hour.... Well..... If he lives next door, show us the footage of him arriving or leaving his home.... At least that would prove something....
Or at least shows us the Canygne Road footage of Joanna Yeates arriving home...... But i do not believe that they can... If Colin Ports statement at The Leveson has anything to go by.... He states that the last sighting of Joanna Yeates is at The Hop House Pub......
Now that is either on her way home before 9:00pm... or it is after that time.... Suggesting that she went home and left again.... So which is it??
The only way to settles it would be to see the CCTV footage that DS Mark Saunders speaks of.... But for some reason that appears to be a problem, for some reason that was not brought to trial as evidence.... for some reason the jury were not shown this evidence....
I don't understand why.....
Am I just babbling.... Have I got this all wrong..... It makes no sense...
Everything about what should happen in law, doesn't appear to follow...(imo) Thats what I can see anyway... I am confused why no-one else points this out...
https://www.defence-barrister.co.uk/is-it-ever-worth-pleading-guilty/
-
WHAT IS A BASIS OF PLEA?
Imagine you are guilty of an offence and have decided to plead guilty, but the case put forward by the prosecution is more serious than what you accept actually happened.
In these circumstances, you can still plead guilty but can do so on a proposed basis (a basis of plea) which the judge and the prosecution can either accept or reject.
I read articles, trying to understand, how everyone already knew that Dr Vincent Tabak had pled Guilty to Manslaughter on the 5th May 2011 and how the public were informed of this on that day... How the public were also informed that The Prosecution were not accepting the plea to Manslaughter and how a trial would take place....
I feel I must be thick as two short planks... I cannot get my head around why the public, knew from the 5th May 2011 that Dr Vincent Tabak pled guilty to manslaughter.... Not only that ,but ... the public, were told on a daily basis throughout trial that Dr Vincent Tabak had plead guilty to Manslaughter....
But if my understanding of this article is correct, then shouldn't Dr Vincent Tabak have just been faced with the judge and a mini trial without a jury... (A newton hearing)
If the basis of plea is accepted by the prosecution and by the judge, the sentence will proceed on the version put forward by the defence. If the basis of plea is rejected by the prosecution and the judge thinks that the version of events it puts forward is sufficiently more serious than the version put forward by the defence (so as to justify a higher sentence), then there will be a mini-trial (without a jury in the Crown Court) for the judge to decide on the facts of the case.
The fact is the plea was put forward, and was rejected by the prosecution..... We were all told... So why did we have a full trial with jury in tow??
Shouldn't it have been a Newton hearing??? Should a Newton hearing have taken place???
Do we take from that that the Defence didn't put forward their version of events at this hearing ,and the prosecution rejected the plea on that basis??
But if so, why the trial..... why didn't a Newton Hearing take place??
There is no evidence presented at trial, by the prosecution, to put Dr Vincent Tabak in Longwood Lane on Friday 17th December 2010... They only have Dr Vincent Tabak's word on the stand that he was there on that day... Yet Dr Vincent Tabak lies, according to the trial... so why believe what he states on the stand as true....
There is no evidence presented at trial that Joanna Yeates was killed in her Flat, apart from Dr Vincent Tabak telling us on the stand that she was at home, when this occurred....
There is no DNA evidence presented by The Prosecution of Dr Vincent Tabak being in Joanna Yeates Flat..
There is no DNA evidence presented by the prosecution, of Joanna Yeates being in Dr Vincent Tabak's flat..
So the prosecutions evidence , must suggest that the offence was more serious than the defences argument... But as far as i can tell, the prosecution had no evidence to suggest that.... No witness's to state that it was premeditated, or that Dr Vincent Tabak had been stalking Joanna Yeates for instance....
We have a man, whom has been home a matter of days, that according to trial, did not know his neighbour, had been away for the majority of the time his neighbour had moved in next door, and on the first night, she is alone, without any reason for him to know she was alone, he goes around to his neighbours house and kills her....
He has been invited in according to his tale on the stand, they converse, she then tells a complete stranger, she doesn't know, that she is alone.... She was already worried about being alone, but apparently that seem to have not been of a concern, when she saw a man she had never meet....
It doesn't make sense....
Shouldn't the prosecution be able to prove how Dr Vincent Tabak gained access??
We get the depiction in a program, of Dr Vincent Tabak forcing his way into the flat with Bernard in his arms... This was a theory i believe of how he gained entrance.... surely there should have been evidence in the hallway of the fight that ensued, blood...DNA.. finger prints.... Finger prints on Joanna Yeates front door?? The door that was removed for evidence, should have been at trial, showing us that Dr Vincent Tabak had not only entered the flat but closed the door behind himself...
I would understand this better, if when it came to trial, The prosecution, brought forth evidence of Dr Vincent Tabak being in Joanna Yeates Flat.... And Joanna Yeates being in Dr Vincent Tabak's flat... The Prosecution were happy to accept that Dr Vincent Tabak had Joanna Yeates in his flat for an hour, before he went to ASDA... So shouldn't there be evidence of this....
Shouldn't there be evidence of body fluids in either of the flats??
Going back for one moment.... DC Karen Thomas states that it was Dr Vincent Tabak's over interest in forensics that had her being suspicious of Dr Vincent Tabak.... We heard he was concerned when the door of Joanna Yeates had been removed.....
This suggesting he is forensically aware....
This suggests that Dr Vincent Tabak must have touched the door...... And he was aware that he did......
So, if he is a man that knows about forensics, then why would he carry a body around to his own home for an hour before moving a body to his car?? Why not put her directly into the boot of your car?
He is apparently forensically minded that he bins the bicycle cover, and ditches the sock... Covering his tracks all the way.... It's his first Murder... he is an amateur, he has no record, nothing.... So he's either cunning and forensically minded, or he has never done anything like this before.... So why bring a body into your own home??
Why would decomposition, be an issue?? why would looking that up be a problem, when a body is outside in freezing temperatures??
If Dr Vincent Tabak is a dangerous man that is a serial killer as was suggested in the beginning, that who ever murdered Joanna Yeates was this type of person, why didn't they wait to gather evidence to prove that.... The evidence brought to trial by the prosecution is flimsy at best.... If it hadn't been for the fact that we get the guilty plea, in May 2011, then the prosecution had no case....
But going from what the article states, then should there have been a trial by jury anyway??
There is no CCTV putting Dr Vincent Tabak anywhere when this crime was to have taken place, apart from a trip to ASDA... Shopping isn't a crime... But suggesting he went shopping with her in the boot of the car sounds dramatic.... Where's the CCTV of him arriving in the carpark?? Travelling to ASDA in Bedminster?? Travelling on any road... The Park Street footage is useless... It doesn't clarify , who is in a car and what car and registration that car is.... It could be anyones car.... And the CCTV footage of Canygne Road that DS Mark Saunders has made us aware of , with cars and people milling around, doesn't make it to trial.... The CCTV footage that should clearly indicate that Joanna yeates arrived back at Canygne Road, after she had left The Ram pub...
The CCTV footage that should show Zoe and Florian Lehman, walking to the party and what time they arrived... The CCTv footage that should show Dr Vincent Tabak arriving and leaving Canygne Road in his car at any given time... The CCTV footage that should show who left or arrived at the small gate, that CJ has made us aware of...
The most important piece of footage that could and should clarify many questions, missing from a trial of a man ,whom has admitted to killing Joanna Yeates...
If the Prosecution cannot prove that Joanna Yeates was killed at home as was told on the stand, why accept that was the story from the defendant?? They accepted that after he killed her he went and took her to his home and sat there for an hour.... Well..... If he lives next door, show us the footage of him arriving or leaving his home.... At least that would prove something....
Or at least shows us the Canygne Road footage of Joanna Yeates arriving home...... But i do not believe that they can... If Colin Ports statement at The Leveson has anything to go by.... He states that the last sighting of Joanna Yeates is at The Hop House Pub......
Now that is either on her way home before 9:00pm... or it is after that time.... Suggesting that she went home and left again.... So which is it??
The only way to settles it would be to see the CCTV footage that DS Mark Saunders speaks of.... But for some reason that appears to be a problem, for some reason that was not brought to trial as evidence.... for some reason the jury were not shown this evidence....
I don't understand why.....
Am I just babbling.... Have I got this all wrong..... It makes no sense...
Everything about what should happen in law, doesn't appear to follow...(imo) Thats what I can see anyway... I am confused why no-one else points this out...
https://www.defence-barrister.co.uk/is-it-ever-worth-pleading-guilty/
Yes Nine, you do have it wrong because you're not separating the two very DIFFERENT charges. Tabak admitted to 'manslaughter' and NOT 'murder'. The above means (for instance) that in such instances were there might be a burglary and it is suspected by the prosecution that there were aggravated circumstances; the defendant agrees to plead guilty to the burglary but won't admit to threatening the victim. The case of 'aggravated burglary' in this instance is more serious so may warrant the mini trial. The aggravated behavior is part of the burglary offense whereas murder is NOT part of manslaughter - they different entities for obvious reasons and is the reason Tabak faced a full trial by jury.
-
Read the examples in this article and it might clear things up - https://www.defence-barrister.co.uk/is-it-ever-worth-pleading-guilty/
-
Read the examples in this article and it might clear things up - https://www.defence-barrister.co.uk/is-it-ever-worth-pleading-guilty/
Basis of Plea Example 1
Stephen Holmes is charged with Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm. The prosecution case is that, following a minor disagreement in the pub, the victim was punched twice in the face, then fell to the ground and was kicked three or four times in the head. The victim sustained a broken nose and facial bruising.
Stephen accepts punching the victim and causing the injuries, but denies that the victim fell over and denies that he kicked the victim to the head. He accepts he is guilty of the offence (by punching twice in the face and causing injury) and sets out his version of events on a ‘Basis of Plea’ document which is handed to the prosecution.
The prosecution do not accept this version of events. Stephen Holmes pleads guilty and the prosecution hand up the Basis of Plea to the judge. The judge takes the view that, since kicking to the head is a serious aggravating factor of an assault, there would be a material difference in the sentence passed on each different basis. For this reason the judge adjourns the case for a Newton Hearing for the prosecution to prove its version against the defendant.
So example 1 appears to be the closest..... But........ Therefore The Prosecution should have a Basis of Plea.... If again, I am on the correct track....
So if no Basis of Plea is entered into, then a trial will take place..... But then why do we know before hand that the defendant has plead guilty to manslaughter???
Why are we told day in and day out that the defendant plead guilty to manslaughter..... Why do we know via the court case about contempt in July 2011 , that the defendant is guilty!!
And why did Clegg, put him on the stand???
Everyone including myself early on thought that some of the theories leonora put forward were way off base... But I understand completely where he is coming from....
The idea that it wasn't Dr Vincent Tabak who made the plea via the link from Long Lartin, doesn't really seem that far fetched....
I have a problem, with the fact that we all already know that Dr Vincent Tabak has plead guilty to manslaughter.... not only that The defence know this.... Either you have an acceptance of the Manslaughter plea, or a Newton hearing by the judge...
How can a defendant who is known by the public to have admitted to manslaughter then take the stand and tell everyone how he did it????
I keep saying what happened to the presumption of Innocence?? The presumption of Innocence you have when you face a jury??
You can't and shouldn't face a jury.... Guilty, until proven guiltier!!
If I am correct in my understand of my post the other day ,where i questioned why Clegg put him on the stand, then Clegg knowing he had admitted to killing her shouldn't have had him on the stand.....
Sorry Caroline... I must be as thick as two short planks.... I thought the presumption of Innocence was key....
As i look it appears that the old addage of The Presumption of Innocence has been removed.... But had it been removed when Dr Vincent Tabak faced trial??
Whats wrong with this country???
Red-faced Ministry of Justice (MoJ) officials have been forced to deny claims that they had dismantled a centuries-old cornerstone of British law in advice that the ministry gave to people facing criminal trials.
The principle in question is the presumption of a person’s innocence until proved guilty, a right whose origins can be traced back to Magna Carta, which has its 800th anniversary this year.
In an embarrassing turn of events, the department hastily took down its new “easy read” guide, which explains to people with learning difficulties what they can expect if they are accused of a crime and say they are not guilty.But as the legal blogger Jack of Kent explained: “The MoJ tells defendants that they have to prove they are innocent. This is a reversal of the actual burden of proof – it is, of course, for the prosecution to prove to the court a defendant is guilty.”
So we have Dr Vincent Tabak telling the court he did it with no supporting evidence, we have Dr Vincent Tabak solving a crime on his own, by admitting to said crime......
What about the supporting evidence.... What about a jury being prejudiced.... This makes no ****ing sense...
It's so frustrating.....
So example:....
You could badger a defendant.... threaten a defendant.... threaten a defendants family, say deportation.... anything.... not Dr Vincent Tabak persay... anyone.... You could use every trick in the book that the public may not be aware of, and get a man/woman to admit to something they did not do, and get them then to stand up in a court of law and tell a jury that they are guilty, before a jury proves them even guiltier!!!
Them then fearing for the consequences if they do not do this, hoping that they might just get a shorter sentence for something they did not do in a bid to protect themselves or their family....
So have I got that right.....
Dr Vincent Tabak could be a fantasist for all anyone knows..... I'll keep saying it.... I do not believe he is guilty.... give me proper evidence to support that he did it and I may change my mind....
This case is full on freaky....
ok... I'll let most be happy with what they believe is right in this case.... That they got the right man..... That they are happy that it was decided in July 2011 that Dr Vincent Tabak did indeed kill Joanna Yeates... Before he went to trial.... before he took the stand and told his version of events.... Before he could retract, said plea...
Lets rejoice on the Great British judicial system, that doesn't give a shit about who's in court.... Nar... lets not bother with who's in the dock....
I know..... why don't we , keep said defendant in custody, without seeing anyone for weeks... keep them in custody, without applying for bail... take them to court several times, without still applying for bail, whilst staying silent on the matter... get everyone to sign a statement of guilt, then keep them on remand until they plead guilty to a lesser charge, then give them a full trial, where they start off as guilty, they then take the stand to tell the jury how they did it and then let a jury decide just how guilty they think said defendant is.....
My goodness.... you save such a lot of time.... and stop the pesky public asking questions they shouldn't ask....
I am speechless!!!
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/feb/01/presumed-guilty-ministry-justice-axes-criminal-trial-advice
-
#TheLawIsBroken the famous hashtag on twitter, where everyone tries to point out issues with the law.... What do we tell them??..... don't bother... The Laws not broken... It's fixed!!
Sean Jones
@seanjonesqc
Nov 3
More
#Barcouncil Western Circuit will be setting up a helpline for victims of harassment.
1 reply 3 retweets 0 likes
Reply 1 Retweet 3 Like Direct message
Humpty Bumpty
@RealHumptyB
Following Following @RealHumptyB
More
Replying to @seanjonesqc
Better than nothing but wouldn't women lawyers prefer an independent service/helpline? Let's remember this issue affects or has affected women at all levels of the legal profession, incl judges.
I am told many are silenced by fear.
#TheLawIsBroken @MaxHillQC @JudiciaryUK #MeToo
Fear.... wow
Max Hill
@MaxHillQC
Nov 2
More Max Hill Retweeted CPS
On day two in post, I can see how seriously CPS take the need to get disclosure right, and to make correct fact-specific decisions case by case; and yesterday’s judgment in RvE shows that we do get it right. Our task is to do so every time.Max Hill added,
CPS
Verified account
@cpsuk
An important ruling from the Court of Appeal this week has endorsed @cpsuk guidance that examining digital devices of complainants is not automatically a reasonable line of enquiry for investigators: http://bit.ly/2OiYExu
13 replies 18 retweets 57 likes
Reply 13 Retweet 18 Like 57 Direct message
Em Smith
@EmFlamingo
Follow Follow @EmFlamingo
More
Replying to @MaxHillQC
Was at a mags trial this week, CPS served unused schedule 20 mins after trial was due to start. Unused flagged information that possibly undermined prosecution case. Result: no evidence offered (CPS knew no chance of adjournment). Happens all the time. #TheLawIsBroken
9:51 AM - 8 Nov 2018
Serving papers late..... where have I heard that before????
Why bother with courts... eh.... why bother anymore.... lets go back eons and just burn them at the stake... That will save so much money time and effort.....
I am beyond perplexed....
I pity anyone who has to deal with our justice system... I pity anyone who finds themselves being accused without proof, I pity anyone who has to try and defend themselves, without the expertise to do so and the money it takes to do so.... Especially when ALL of the evidence isn't forth coming!!!!
https://twitter.com/hashtag/TheLawIsBroken?src=hash
https://twitter.com/RealHumptyB/status/1058669744990154752
https://twitter.com/EmFlamingo/status/1060469794867200000
-
So example 1 appears to be the closest..... But........ Therefore The Prosecution should have a Basis of Plea.... If again, I am on the correct track....
So if no Basis of Plea is entered into, then a trial will take place..... But then why do we know before hand that the defendant has plead guilty to manslaughter???
Why are we told day in and day out that the defendant plead guilty to manslaughter..... Why do we know via the court case about contempt in July 2011 , that the defendant is guilty!!
And why did Clegg, put him on the stand???
Everyone including myself early on thought that some of the theories leonora put forward were way off base... But I understand completely where he is coming from....
The idea that it wasn't Dr Vincent Tabak who made the plea via the link from Long Lartin, doesn't really seem that far fetched....
I have a problem, with the fact that we all already know that Dr Vincent Tabak has plead guilty to manslaughter.... not only that The defence know this.... Either you have an acceptance of the Manslaughter plea, or a Newton hearing by the judge...
How can a defendant who is known by the public to have admitted to manslaughter then take the stand and tell everyone how he did it????
I keep saying what happened to the presumption of Innocence?? The presumption of Innocence you have when you face a jury??
You can't and shouldn't face a jury.... Guilty, until proven guiltier!!
If I am correct in my understand of my post the other day ,where i questioned why Clegg put him on the stand, then Clegg knowing he had admitted to killing her shouldn't have had him on the stand.....
Sorry Caroline... I must be as thick as two short planks.... I thought the presumption of Innocence was key....
As i look it appears that the old addage of The Presumption of Innocence has been removed.... But had it been removed when Dr Vincent Tabak faced trial??
Whats wrong with this country???
So we have Dr Vincent Tabak telling the court he did it with no supporting evidence, we have Dr Vincent Tabak solving a crime on his own, by admitting to said crime......
What about the supporting evidence.... What about a jury being prejudiced.... This makes no ****ing sense...
It's so frustrating.....
So example:....
You could badger a defendant.... threaten a defendant.... threaten a defendants family, say deportation.... anything.... not Dr Vincent Tabak persay... anyone.... You could use every trick in the book that the public may not be aware of, and get a man/woman to admit to something they did not do, and get them then to stand up in a court of law and tell a jury that they are guilty, before a jury proves them even guiltier!!!
Them then fearing for the consequences if they do not do this, hoping that they might just get a shorter sentence for something they did not do in a bid to protect themselves or their family....
So have I got that right.....
Dr Vincent Tabak could be a fantasist for all anyone knows..... I'll keep saying it.... I do not believe he is guilty.... give me proper evidence to support that he did it and I may change my mind....
This case is full on freaky....
ok... I'll let most be happy with what they believe is right in this case.... That they got the right man..... That they are happy that it was decided in July 2011 that Dr Vincent Tabak did indeed kill Joanna Yeates... Before he went to trial.... before he took the stand and told his version of events.... Before he could retract, said plea...
Lets rejoice on the Great British judicial system, that doesn't give a shit about who's in court.... Nar... lets not bother with who's in the dock....
I know..... why don't we , keep said defendant in custody, without seeing anyone for weeks... keep them in custody, without applying for bail... take them to court several times, without still applying for bail, whilst staying silent on the matter... get everyone to sign a statement of guilt, then keep them on remand until they plead guilty to a lesser charge, then give them a full trial, where they start off as guilty, they then take the stand to tell the jury how they did it and then let a jury decide just how guilty they think said defendant is.....
My goodness.... you save such a lot of time.... and stop the pesky public asking questions they shouldn't ask....
I am speechless!!!
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/feb/01/presumed-guilty-ministry-justice-axes-criminal-trial-advice
Nine sorry but you are over simplifying things.... what happens in a 'normal' trial re bail etc is quite different when someone has been murdered
Not sure where you are getting your info, if its a just a Google search for what happened at a trial. Maybe only look at what happens in a murder trial then you dont get so confused
-
So example 1 appears to be the closest..... But........ Therefore The Prosecution should have a Basis of Plea.... If again, I am on the correct track.... Closest to what/ It's not close to the Tabak case for reasons I already gave! Murder and Manslaughter for DIFFERENT charges!
So if no Basis of Plea is entered into, then a trial will take place..... But then why do we know before hand that the defendant has plead guilty to manslaughter??? Because he told his counsel that he INTENDED to please guilty to manslaughter but the prosecution said NO!
Why are we told day in and day out that the defendant plead guilty to manslaughter..... Why do we know via the court case about contempt in July 2011 , that the defendant is guilty!! No idea what this means?
And why did Clegg, put him on the stand??? Why wouldn't he? It's his right to take the stand
Everyone including myself early on thought that some of the theories leonora put forward were way off base... But I understand completely where he is coming from.... I am sure I wouldn't
The idea that it wasn't Dr Vincent Tabak who made the plea via the link from Long Lartin, doesn't really seem that far fetched.... Yes it does - completely far fetched.
I have a problem, with the fact that we all already know that Dr Vincent Tabak has plead guilty to manslaughter.... not only that The defence know this.... Either you have an acceptance of the Manslaughter plea, or a Newton hearing by the judge... I have already explained that Newton DOES NOT apply here because the crime of MURDER and NOT aggravated manslaughter - it's a different crime altogether!
How can a defendant who is known by the public to have admitted to manslaughter then take the stand and tell everyone how he did it???? He didn't, he was there to defend himself not against manslaughter charge but a MURDER charge. He wasn't on trial for manslaughter, he was on trial for MURDER!
I keep saying what happened to the presumption of Innocence?? The presumption of Innocence you have when you face a jury?? The presumption of innocence was the presumption of innocence to MURDER
You can't and shouldn't face a jury.... Guilty, until proven guiltier!! But that isn't and was the case - he was by his own admission 'guilty' of manslaughter BUT until convicted, he was innocent (under the law) to the crime of MURDER!
If I am correct in my understand of my post the other day ,where i questioned why Clegg put him on the stand, then Clegg knowing he had admitted to killing her shouldn't have had him on the stand..... No you aren't correct because this was his chance to explain what happened - you talk about fairness but would deny him his opportunity to fight his own corner
Sorry Caroline... I must be as thick as two short planks.... I thought the presumption of Innocence was key.... No need to apologise to me and it is - the key being the presumption of innocent of MURDER not manslaughter (which he had already admitted to)
As i look it appears that the old addage of The Presumption of Innocence has been removed.... But had it been removed when Dr Vincent Tabak faced trial?? Nope
Whats wrong with this country??? Lots but not in this particular case.
So we have Dr Vincent Tabak telling the court he did it with no supporting evidence, we have Dr Vincent Tabak solving a crime on his own, by admitting to said crime...... So people shouldn't be allowed to confess without providing evidence? Seriously?
What about the supporting evidence.... What about a jury being prejudiced.... This makes no ****ing sense... Makes perfect sense
It's so frustrating.....
So example:....
You could badger a defendant.... threaten a defendant.... threaten a defendants family, say deportation.... anything.... not Dr Vincent Tabak persay... anyone.... You could use every trick in the book that the public may not be aware of, and get a man/woman to admit to something they did not do, and get them then to stand up in a court of law and tell a jury that they are guilty, before a jury proves them even guiltier!!! So, if you big on evidence, where is the evidence that Tabak was pressurised into admitting to manslaughter? He admitted it, he hasn't retracted it and he isn't claiming to be a MOJ
Them then fearing for the consequences if they do not do this, hoping that they might just get a shorter sentence for something they did not do in a bid to protect themselves or their family.... Again evidence?
So have I got that right.....
Dr Vincent Tabak could be a fantasist for all anyone knows..... I'll keep saying it.... I do not believe he is guilty.... give me proper evidence to support that he did it and I may change my mind.... His admission to ending her life!
This case is full on freaky....
ok... I'll let most be happy with what they believe is right in this case.... That they got the right man..... That they are happy that it was decided in July 2011 that Dr Vincent Tabak did indeed kill Joanna Yeates... Before he went to trial.... before he took the stand and told his version of events.... Before he could retract, said plea... Who said he was retracting anything?
Lets rejoice on the Great British judicial system, that doesn't give a shit about who's in court.... Nar... lets not bother with who's in the dock....
I know..... why don't we , keep said defendant in custody, without seeing anyone for weeks... keep them in custody, without applying for bail... take them to court several times, without still applying for bail, whilst staying silent on the matter... get everyone to sign a statement of guilt, then keep them on remand until they plead guilty to a lesser charge, then give them a full trial, where they start off as guilty, they then take the stand to tell the jury how they did it and then let a jury decide just how guilty they think said defendant is..... But that isn't what happened
My goodness.... you save such a lot of time.... and stop the pesky public asking questions they shouldn't ask.... It's great to ask questions, it's understanding the answers that seems to be the problem and you're applying criteria that is incorrect but not listening when it's pointed out.
I am speechless!!! I doubt it. &%54%
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/feb/01/presumed-guilty-ministry-justice-axes-criminal-trial-advice
-
So example 1 appears to be the closest..... But........ Therefore The Prosecution should have a Basis of Plea.... If again, I am on the correct track.... Closest to what/ It's not close to the Tabak case for reasons I already gave! Murder and Manslaughter for DIFFERENT charges!
So if no Basis of Plea is entered into, then a trial will take place..... But then why do we know before hand that the defendant has plead guilty to manslaughter??? Because he told his counsel that he INTENDED to please guilty to manslaughter but the prosecution said NO!
Why are we told day in and day out that the defendant plead guilty to manslaughter..... Why do we know via the court case about contempt in July 2011 , that the defendant is guilty!! No idea what this means?
And why did Clegg, put him on the stand??? Why wouldn't he? It's his right to take the stand
Everyone including myself early on thought that some of the theories leonora put forward were way off base... But I understand completely where he is coming from.... I am sure I wouldn't
The idea that it wasn't Dr Vincent Tabak who made the plea via the link from Long Lartin, doesn't really seem that far fetched.... Yes it does - completely far fetched.
I have a problem, with the fact that we all already know that Dr Vincent Tabak has plead guilty to manslaughter.... not only that The defence know this.... Either you have an acceptance of the Manslaughter plea, or a Newton hearing by the judge... I have already explained that Newton DOES NOT apply here because the crime of MURDER and NOT aggravated manslaughter - it's a different crime altogether!
How can a defendant who is known by the public to have admitted to manslaughter then take the stand and tell everyone how he did it???? He didn't, he was there to defend himself not against manslaughter charge but a MURDER charge. He wasn't on trial for manslaughter, he was on trial for MURDER!
I keep saying what happened to the presumption of Innocence?? The presumption of Innocence you have when you face a jury?? The presumption of innocence was the presumption of innocence to MURDER
You can't and shouldn't face a jury.... Guilty, until proven guiltier!! But that isn't and was the case - he was by his own admission 'guilty' of manslaughter BUT until convicted, he was innocent (under the law) to the crime of MURDER!
If I am correct in my understand of my post the other day ,where i questioned why Clegg put him on the stand, then Clegg knowing he had admitted to killing her shouldn't have had him on the stand..... No you aren't correct because this was his chance to explain what happened - you talk about fairness but would deny him his opportunity to fight his own corner
Sorry Caroline... I must be as thick as two short planks.... I thought the presumption of Innocence was key.... No need to apologise to me and it is - the key being the presumption of innocent of MURDER not manslaughter (which he had already admitted to)
As i look it appears that the old addage of The Presumption of Innocence has been removed.... But had it been removed when Dr Vincent Tabak faced trial?? Nope
Whats wrong with this country??? Lots but not in this particular case.
So we have Dr Vincent Tabak telling the court he did it with no supporting evidence, we have Dr Vincent Tabak solving a crime on his own, by admitting to said crime...... So people shouldn't be allowed to confess without providing evidence? Seriously?
What about the supporting evidence.... What about a jury being prejudiced.... This makes no ****ing sense... Makes perfect sense
It's so frustrating.....
So example:....
You could badger a defendant.... threaten a defendant.... threaten a defendants family, say deportation.... anything.... not Dr Vincent Tabak persay... anyone.... You could use every trick in the book that the public may not be aware of, and get a man/woman to admit to something they did not do, and get them then to stand up in a court of law and tell a jury that they are guilty, before a jury proves them even guiltier!!! So, if you big on evidence, where is the evidence that Tabak was pressurised into admitting to manslaughter? He admitted it, he hasn't retracted it and he isn't claiming to be a MOJ
Them then fearing for the consequences if they do not do this, hoping that they might just get a shorter sentence for something they did not do in a bid to protect themselves or their family.... Again evidence?
So have I got that right.....
Dr Vincent Tabak could be a fantasist for all anyone knows..... I'll keep saying it.... I do not believe he is guilty.... give me proper evidence to support that he did it and I may change my mind.... His admission to ending her life!
This case is full on freaky....
ok... I'll let most be happy with what they believe is right in this case.... That they got the right man..... That they are happy that it was decided in July 2011 that Dr Vincent Tabak did indeed kill Joanna Yeates... Before he went to trial.... before he took the stand and told his version of events.... Before he could retract, said plea... Who said he was retracting anything?
Lets rejoice on the Great British judicial system, that doesn't give a shit about who's in court.... Nar... lets not bother with who's in the dock....
I know..... why don't we , keep said defendant in custody, without seeing anyone for weeks... keep them in custody, without applying for bail... take them to court several times, without still applying for bail, whilst staying silent on the matter... get everyone to sign a statement of guilt, then keep them on remand until they plead guilty to a lesser charge, then give them a full trial, where they start off as guilty, they then take the stand to tell the jury how they did it and then let a jury decide just how guilty they think said defendant is..... But that isn't what happened
My goodness.... you save such a lot of time.... and stop the pesky public asking questions they shouldn't ask.... It's great to ask questions, it's understanding the answers that seems to be the problem and you're applying criteria that is incorrect but not listening when it's pointed out.
I am speechless!!! I doubt it. &%54%
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/feb/01/presumed-guilty-ministry-justice-axes-criminal-trial-advice
This has all been explained but it seems to go in one ear and out the other - I gave up commenting on this thread for my own sanity.
-
This has all been explained but it seems to go in one ear and out the other - I gave up commenting on this thread for my own sanity.
Yes, I have read the responses and don't understand how/why it isn't being understood.
-
I kept freeze framing The bargain Booze video, because it's so glitchy... I wanted to see what i could find.....
This image is amongst the freeze frames..
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=14951;image)
It looks like a bloke with brown hair..... I have a bigger image but limits on the site restrict that...
-
Another image:
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=14953;image)
-
That has started me looking at the CCTV again...
I have noticed the way in which Joanna Yeates holds the Pizza, when she is at the checkout... part of her hand is closed and she uses a couple of fingers and her thumb to scan it....
When I looked closer, she had something in her hand....
I wondered if it was car keys.... I don't know... she is heavily ladened with bags... She has something in her left hand....
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=14955;image)
-
That has started me looking at the CCTV again...
I have noticed the way in which Joanna Yeates holds the Pizza, when she is at the checkout... part of her hand is closed and she uses a couple of fingers and her thumb to scan it....
When I looked closer, she had something in her hand....
I wondered if it was car keys.... I don't know... she is heavily ladened with bags... She has something in her left hand....
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=14955;image)
So what?
-
I'll reply in a mo... First i want to try establish, what is in Joanna Yeates hands, when she is shopping..
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=14957;image)
She appears to have 2 bags in her left hand, one that has a skull motif upon it... When she enters Bargain Booze...
-
Joaan Yeates outside Waitrose... You can see her rucksack on one shoulder, looks flat at the back....
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=14959;image)
-
Entering Waitrose, she just has what appears as one bag in her left hand, you cannot see any motif on it... in her right hand she appears to be holding something...
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=14961;image)
-
Nine... sorry this is getting way too creepy now
-
In Tesco's she has 2 bags in her hand, one black and one white, her rucksack appears to be full now....
When she went into Waitrose the bags in her hand were dark in colour..
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=14963;image)
-
Nine... sorry this is getting way too creepy now
I am coming to my point... In a Mo
-
This is supposed to be the last known image of Joanna Yeates... But I have pointed out before, it looks like something is in front of her... There is no way to tell if this is Joanna yeates...
Colin Port tells us at the Leveson that the last known image of Joanna Yeates was at The Hop house pub.... But was it of her walking or in a car??
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=14965;image)
I have wondered if that was the person with the pram.... The one Colin Port talks of being behind/ in fron t of Joanna Yeates at Nero Cafe...
-
So what?
We have vague images of Joanna Yeates outside the Hophouse Pub.... It might not even be her.. We know she walked to various shops...
Every image of her on her visits to various stores, she has various bags in her hand...
Looking at the different bags she is carrying, suggests she bought more than we know, and then we are to believe that she walked home....
Who said she walked home??
If she has car keys in her hand, did she drive home??
We never see Joanna Yeates on Canygne Road.... We never see her walking on any street apart from outside waitrose...
It extremely possible that she drove... Why would she walk home alone in the dark with shopping for over a mile?? Why give Greg her car, when he could have caught the train?? Or even used his own car....
We were told they car shared.... we have been told all sorts of things, But car sharing could be as simple as using each others car, not that they had one car between them....
Smoke and Mirrors.... We know they used that.... Was one of the cars they took away from Canygne Road a car that Joanna yeates drove... ??
They take 2 cars on one day.... And we have the excuse that CJ had access to both.... Well If a car on a road resembles a car of CJ's wouldn't they have seen the number plate??
So I am suggesting it may be possible that one of the cars taken away could have been driven by Joanna Yeates...
There is so much Missing from her Journey home.... We do not see her on any streets, and we should....
They fail to tell us what else she bought, other than the Pizza and Cider.... The Cider didn't even make it to trial!!
Did Joanna Yeates drive home, and that is the reason we do not see the private CCTV footage of Canygne Road??
The Police are insistent that she arrived home... Therefore they must have evidence of this and not just what was left in her home...
Now if her car keys are there when her parents arrive, and she isn't and her car is, then that would be a reason to worry where she went to... seeing as her bag etc was still there....
Another neighbour who saw Greg’s car parked outside his brother’s home that weekend said: “He must have been on top of the world seeing the twins for the first time. Then to be plunged into all this.
So the neighbour recognises the car as Greg's....
“On the Friday that Joanna went missing, Greg’s car would not start and so he asked Chris for some help.
Twice we are told early on that the car is Greg's.... It isn't till later we are told that it was Joanna Yeates car and they shared it.....
But where is the proof that it was Joanna Yeates car that he drove?? So he asked Chris for some help?? We have to presume they mean CJ... But is it?? He could have asked more than one person named Chris!
Mrs Yeates...
I have just had an image of her banging on car boots..... Why would she bang on car boots in THAT neighbourhood??
Who''s car was she looking for??
She has to know that there is more than one car connected to that Flat (imo) to make her bang on car boots in the local area.....
Did Joanna Yeates have a car that Mrs Yeates didn't recognise the number plate??.....
Is the talk of a Volvo and the importance of a Volvo, more to do with Joanna Yeates...
If Mrs Yeates knew that her daughter drove a silver car and couldn't remember make and model, then banging on various car boots, I could see....
It tells me she thought something else, It gives me the impression that she thought someone had put her daughter in her own car boot....
There doesn't seem another reason for her to behave in that way.... (imo) It is not the first thing a parent would do when looking for their daughter, whom they believe had been abducted...
If she has been abducted, then someone would have driven away with her in a car, and not put her in a car boot on the street.... So Mrs Yeates banging on car boots is significant.....
Did Joanna Yeates drive home???????
Therefore the importance of what Joanna Yeates has in her hands in Tesco's is of great significance.... (imo)
I'll reiterate.... Did Joanna Yeates drive home????
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/222649/Joanna-Yeates-boyfriend-s-torment-over-visit-to-newborn-nieces
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8232412/Joanna-Yeates-murder-suspect-Christopher-Jefferies-let-himself-into-tenants-flat.html
-
Sadly the car boot is the very place poor Jo was for part of the time!
-
Or was it The Megane that was Joanna Yeates car?? Then giving a reason for her DNA and a tiny spot of blood being on the rubber seal??
-
We have vague images of Joanna Yeates outside the Hophouse Pub.... It might not even be her.. We know she walked to various shops...
Every image of her on her visits to various stores, she has various bags in her hand...
Looking at the different bags she is carrying, suggests she bought more than we know, and then we are to believe that she walked home....
Who said she walked home??
If she has car keys in her hand, did she drive home??
We never see Joanna Yeates on Canygne Road.... We never see her walking on any street apart from outside waitrose...
It extremely possible that she drove... Why would she walk home alone in the dark with shopping for over a mile?? Why give Greg her car, when he could have caught the train?? Or even used his own car....
We were told they car shared.... we have been told all sorts of things, But car sharing could be as simple as using each others car, not that they had one car between them....
Smoke and Mirrors.... We know they used that.... Was one of the cars they took away from Canygne Road a car that Joanna yeates drove... ??
They take 2 cars on one day.... And we have the excuse that CJ had access to both.... Well If a car on a road resembles a car of CJ's wouldn't they have seen the number plate??
So I am suggesting it may be possible that one of the cars taken away could have been driven by Joanna Yeates...
There is so much Missing from her Journey home.... We do not see her on any streets, and we should....
They fail to tell us what else she bought, other than the Pizza and Cider.... The Cider didn't even make it to trial!!
Did Joanna Yeates drive home, and that is the reason we do not see the private CCTV footage of Canygne Road??
The Police are insistent that she arrived home... Therefore they must have evidence of this and not just what was left in her home...
Now if her car keys are there when her parents arrive, and she isn't and her car is, then that would be a reason to worry where she went to... seeing as her bag etc was still there....
So the neighbour recognises the car as Greg's....
Twice we are told early on that the car is Greg's.... It isn't till later we are told that it was Joanna Yeates car and they shared it.....
But where is the proof that it was Joanna Yeates car that he drove?? So he asked Chris for some help?? We have to presume they mean CJ... But is it?? He could have asked more than one person named Chris!
Mrs Yeates...
I have just had an image of her banging on car boots..... Why would she bang on car boots in THAT neighbourhood??
Who''s car was she looking for??
She has to know that there is more than one car connected to that Flat (imo) to make her bang on car boots in the local area.....
Did Joanna Yeates have a car that Mrs Yeates didn't recognise the number plate??.....
Is the talk of a Volvo and the importance of a Volvo, more to do with Joanna Yeates...
If Mrs Yeates knew that her daughter drove a silver car and couldn't remember make and model, then banging on various car boots, I could see....
It tells me she thought something else, It gives me the impression that she thought someone had put her daughter in her own car boot....
There doesn't seem another reason for her to behave in that way.... (imo) It is not the first thing a parent would do when looking for their daughter, whom they believe had been abducted...
If she has been abducted, then someone would have driven away with her in a car, and not put her in a car boot on the street.... So Mrs Yeates banging on car boots is significant.....
Did Joanna Yeates drive home???????
Therefore the importance of what Joanna Yeates has in her hands in Tesco's is of great significance.... (imo)
I'll reiterate.... Did Joanna Yeates drive home????
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/222649/Joanna-Yeates-boyfriend-s-torment-over-visit-to-newborn-nieces
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8232412/Joanna-Yeates-murder-suspect-Christopher-Jefferies-let-himself-into-tenants-flat.html
No she doesn't have various bags, you're trying to make sense of shadows on grainy pictures and are coming up with all sorts. There is no skull motif either - it's just shadows and highlights on the picture.
They know she walked home because they followed her through CCTV footage.
If there is no image of her in various streets, then it's possible that those streets didn't have CCTV
Car sharing means they had one car between them and as you have no evidence to suggest they had a car each, why are you even including the argument. We KNOW she walked and just over a mile, isn't very far.
Why should you see her on every street when every street doesn't have CCTV?
She obviously didn't buy anything else - why are you even latching onto this? She bought goods which were found in her home. She had to arrive there to put them there!
What kind of proof would you like in respect to the car? He said he drove her car and if there is no other car, then whose car do you think he drove?
Chris is CJ - there is no other Chris.
The remark about 'Banging on car boots' clearly is a reference to her believing her daughter had been abducted. Had she known there was another car she would have questioned where that car was. Your questions and inferences don't have any logic. Why would an abductor bundle the victim into the car and not the boot? It would seem that Tabak did use his car boot given that JY's blood was found there. How do you explain that?
How does someone react when there daughter has been abducted - is there a blue print? It tells me that she just wanted to do something to help find her daughter. Were there another car she would have asked 'where is Joanna's car or where is Gregs car. She also wants to bang on car 'boots' not a specific boot. Really Nine - this is just silly.
JY didn't drive home and as much as you suggest evidence is important, you derive your theories on the flimsiest of details and ignore the evidence provided such as the CCTV footage and anything linking Tabak to the crime - especially his confession.
-
No she doesn't have various bags, you're trying to make sense of shadows on grainy pictures and are coming up with all sorts. There is no skull motif either - it's just shadows and highlights on the picture.
They know she walked home because they followed her through CCTV footage.
If there is no image of her in various streets, then it's possible that those streets didn't have CCTV
Car sharing means they had one car between them and as you have no evidence to suggest they had a car each, why are you even including the argument. We KNOW she walked and just over a mile, isn't very far.
Why should you see her on every street when every street doesn't have CCTV?
She obviously didn't buy anything else - why are you even latching onto this? She bought goods which were found in her home. She had to arrive there to put them there!
What kind of proof would you like in respect to the car? He said he drove her car and if there is no other car, then whose car do you think he drove?
Chris is CJ - there is no other Chris.
The remark about 'Banging on car boots' clearly is a reference to her believing her daughter had been abducted. Had she known there was another car she would have questioned where that car was. Your questions and inferences don't have any logic. Why would an abductor bundle the victim into the car and not the boot? It would seem that Tabak did use his car boot given that JY's blood was found there. How do you explain that?
How does someone react when there daughter has been abducted - is there a blue print? It tells me that she just wanted to do something to help find her daughter. Were there another car she would have asked 'where is Joanna's car or where is Gregs car. She also wants to bang on car 'boots' not a specific boot. Really Nine - this is just silly.
JY didn't drive home and as much as you suggest evidence is important, you derive your theories on the flimsiest of details and ignore the evidence provided such as the CCTV footage and anything linking Tabak to the crime - especially his confession.
You may think my suggestions are off the wall..... I am questioning what may or may not be the case.... You talk of CCTV as if it proved she walked and reached home.....
Where is the CCTV footage from Canygne Road that DS Mark Saunders talks of, with cars in the street and people milling about???
They make and assumption that Joanna Yeates reached home based on her possessions being there.... and not on whether she physically reached home....
The Canygne Road CCTV should clarify that.... But alas she cannot be on it.... Or Colin Port would have informed the Leveson that Canygne Road was the last sighting of Joanna Yeates and not The HopHouse pub!!
So it is just as feasible that someone who knew her returned her possessions to the Flat.... Which has been suggested before.... maybe that was what took place, seeing as there is no evidence of Joanna Yeates being attacked in her Flat by Dr Vincent Tabak.... and no evidence of Joanna Yeates being in Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat....
Where is the CCTV footage of Canygne Road?????? What happened to the CCTV footage from Canygne Road showing cars and people milling about??? That DS Mark Saunders informed us of.....
That would put paid to many questions........
-
You may think my suggestions are off the wall..... I am questioning what may or may not be the case.... You talk of CCTV as if it proved she walked and reached home.....
Where is the CCTV footage from Canygne Road that DS Mark Saunders talks of, with cars in the street and people milling about???
They make and assumption that Joanna Yeates reached home based on her possessions being there.... and not on whether she physically reached home....
The Canygne Road CCTV should clarify that.... But alas she cannot be on it.... Or Colin Port would have informed the Leveson that Canygne Road was the last sighting of Joanna Yeates and not The HopHouse pub!!
So it is just as feasible that someone who knew her returned her possessions to the Flat.... Which has been suggested before.... maybe that was what took place, seeing as there is no evidence of Joanna Yeates being attacked in her Flat by Dr Vincent Tabak.... and no evidence of Joanna Yeates being in Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat....
Where is the CCTV footage of Canygne Road?????? What happened to the CCTV footage from Canygne Road showing cars and people milling about??? That DS Mark Saunders informed us of.....
That would put paid to many questions........
The CCTV footage which DS Saunders refers to, is private CCTV which means this come from the homes of people who lived on the same road and therefore will have had a limited view - it does not suggest this was CCTV from Joanna's end of the street or whether it is in a place she would have walked past. It was never claimed that Joanna featured on this footage at all.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-12061305
To say she never made it home and someone planted her belongings is unfounded - the police had reason to believe she did make it home. The open cider bottle will have been tested for her saliva etc.
Crimewatch also showed the last sighting of Joanna on CCTV. There is also CCTV available after she left the public house, which you very well know.
Why are you so dismissive of his confession? Do you know how false confessions occur? At the time of police interview where questioning is oppressive - not when a person freely speaks to someone acting as a prison chaplain!
You seem to think everything which was presented at trial should be freely available for you to view and if it is not then it must not have been raised - you are wrong! *&^^&
-
As a further point Nine - even if there was a car available to drive (which I do not think there was) why would she drive it after she had been drinking in a bar with friends? A few glasses of wine would have put her over the drink-drive limit.
-
You may think my suggestions are off the wall..... I am questioning what may or may not be the case.... You talk of CCTV as if it proved she walked and reached home.....
Where is the CCTV footage from Canygne Road that DS Mark Saunders talks of, with cars in the street and people milling about???
They make and assumption that Joanna Yeates reached home based on her possessions being there.... and not on whether she physically reached home....
The Canygne Road CCTV should clarify that.... But alas she cannot be on it.... Or Colin Port would have informed the Leveson that Canygne Road was the last sighting of Joanna Yeates and not The HopHouse pub!!
So it is just as feasible that someone who knew her returned her possessions to the Flat.... Which has been suggested before.... maybe that was what took place, seeing as there is no evidence of Joanna Yeates being attacked in her Flat by Dr Vincent Tabak.... and no evidence of Joanna Yeates being in Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat....
Where is the CCTV footage of Canygne Road?????? What happened to the CCTV footage from Canygne Road showing cars and people milling about??? That DS Mark Saunders informed us of.....
That would put paid to many questions........
For starters, the footage you're referring to is from a PRIVATE residence, so will not show the entire street. Saunders never stated that JY was on this footage, simply that he saw lots of people milling about on it and asked for those people to come forward as they may have seen something. Once again, you have put one and one together and come up with an incalculable sum. Just because the private footage didn't capture JY, does NOT mean that she wasn't there - simply that the CCTV camera wasn't aimed at the whole street. As it is a private CCTV it has to be aimed only at an area that is relevant to the residence in question.
There maybe no evidence of either being in each others flat but there is evidence that JY was in his car boot! She didn't get there by trying to borrow a cup of sugar and he isn't denying she was there.
-
The CCTV footage which DS Saunders refers to, is private CCTV which means this come from the homes of people who lived on the same road and therefore will have had a limited view - it does not suggest this was CCTV from Joanna's end of the street or whether it is in a place she would have walked past. It was never claimed that Joanna featured on this footage at all.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-12061305
To say she never made it home and someone planted her belongings is unfounded - the police had reason to believe she did make it home. The open cider bottle will have been tested for her saliva etc.
Crimewatch also showed the last sighting of Joanna on CCTV. There is also CCTV available after she left the public house, which you very well know.
Why are you so dismissive of his confession? Do you know how false confessions occur? At the time of police interview where questioning is oppressive - not when a person freely speaks to someone acting as a prison chaplain!
You seem to think everything which was presented at trial should be freely available for you to view and if it is not then it must not have been raised - you are wrong! *&^^&
You beat me to it 8(>((
-
As a further point Nine - even if there was a car available to drive (which I do not think there was) why would she drive it after she had been drinking in a bar with friends? A few glasses of wine would have put her over the drink-drive limit.
Which makes perfect sense for her to be walking!
-
Arrrggghhh!.... (imo)
(https://i.imgur.com/rBtgTiL.png)
-
Arrrggghhh!.... (imo)
(https://i.imgur.com/rBtgTiL.png)
Hee hee! @)(++(*
-
Arrrggghhh!.... (imo)
(https://i.imgur.com/rBtgTiL.png)
My thoughts exactly..... No matter where I go with this, nothing changes... just like the case, nothing changes....
The Yeates story that is inconsistent... CJ's story that is inconsistent.... All of the story's that change all the time, from the first reports....
I was waiting for the yearly story about the Yeates putting a headstone to mark Joanna Yeates grave... But this year it hasn't happened so far... and we do not know what it may say....
Dr Vincent Tabak.... who is he?? Joanna Yeates... who was she??
I swing from not knowing if Dr Vincent Tabak exists... or whether a crime actually took place....
It's like it is a story.... all made up.... It makes no sense....
Lets start with CJ..... The attorney general stated that CJ was wholly innocent.... Well if a crime hasn't taken place, then of course he is.....
My question.... Did a Dutch National go to prison for the Murder of Joanna Yeates??
Did Dr Vincent Tabak go to prison.....
It might sound ridiculous... but not as ridiculous as this case is....
I have pointed so many thing out, that if it was a different case, some of those whom have posted would agree with my findings...... But this case NO....
I am nobody.... I don't want anything from this...( apart from the truth)... I do not want fame or fortune... I want fair.... The simple pleasures in life.... That is why I do not need anyone to know whom I am.... It is not important....
But this case appears to be more important than most.... There is something about this case, that causes the heckles to stand up.... There is something about this case that causes silence....
Myster... I'll use your post as my avatar.... I feel like that sometimes... I feel great frustration at what should be seen and is clearly ignored....
What ever this case is I think something needs exposing.... It isn't right no matter how I look at it....
But my lack of education lets me down... I have failed miserably... I hope that someone will look into this case... And bring to the public, the truth that is "The Joanna Yeates Case!!"
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/872390/jo-yeates-mother-teresa-lay-headstone-grave-seven-years
-
My thoughts exactly..... No matter where I go with this, nothing changes... just like the case, nothing changes....
The Yeates story that is inconsistent... CJ's story that is inconsistent.... All of the story's that change all the time, from the first reports....
I was waiting for the yearly story about the Yeates putting a headstone to mark Joanna Yeates grave... But this year it hasn't happened so far... and we do not know what it may say....
Dr Vincent Tabak.... who is he?? Joanna Yeates... who was she??
I swing from not knowing if Dr Vincent Tabak exists... or whether a crime actually took place....
It's like it is a story.... all made up.... It makes no sense....
Lets start with CJ..... The attorney general stated that CJ was wholly innocent.... Well if a crime hasn't taken place, then of course he is.....
My question.... Did a Dutch National go to prison for the Murder of Joanna Yeates??
Did Dr Vincent Tabak go to prison.....
It might sound ridiculous... but not as ridiculous as this case is....
I have pointed so many thing out, that if it was a different case, some of those whom have posted would agree with my findings...... But this case NO....
I am nobody.... I don't want anything from this...( apart from the truth)... I do not want fame or fortune... I want fair.... The simple pleasures in life.... That is why I do not need anyone to know whom I am.... It is not important....
But this case appears to be more important than most.... There is something about this case, that causes the heckles to stand up.... There is something about this case that causes silence....
Myster... I'll use your post as my avatar.... I feel like that sometimes... I feel great frustration at what should be seen and is clearly ignored....
What ever this case is I think something needs exposing.... It isn't right no matter how I look at it....
But my lack of education lets me down... I have failed miserably... I hope that someone will look into this case... And bring to the public, the truth that is "The Joanna Yeates Case!!"
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/872390/jo-yeates-mother-teresa-lay-headstone-grave-seven-years
I don't think you're being serious - you can't be.
-
I don't think you're being serious - you can't be.
The scary part is that she is! @)(++(*
-
Lets start with CJ..... The attorney general stated that CJ was wholly innocent.... Well if a crime hasn't taken place, then of course he is.....
He did not suggest he was innocent because no crime had taken place, he is innocent because he did not commit the crime and someone else did!
-
The scary part is that she is! @)(++(*
Yep! That IS scary! &%%6
-
He did not suggest he was innocent because no crime had taken place, he is innocent because he did not commit the crime and someone else did!
Yes you are correct he did not say that.... This is what was stated....
The Context
The proceedings arise from the killing of a young woman, Joanna Yeates, in Bristol on 17th December 2010. Her landlord, Christopher Jefferies, was arrested on 30th December on suspicion of her murder. He was released from custody on unconditional police bail during the evening of 1st January 2011. On 22nd January another man, Vincent Tabak was charged with the murder of Miss Yeates. On 4th March Mr Jefferies was informed that he was released from police bail. On 5th May Tabak admitted that he was responsible for killing Miss Yeates when, at the Central Criminal Court, he pleaded guilty to her manslaughter. He denied murder on the basis of diminished responsibility. The trial of that issue will take place in the autumn.
There is therefore no doubt about the identity of the man who killed Miss Yeates or that Mr Jefferies is innocent of any involvement in it. By way of emphasis, he is not simply presumed in law to be innocent of the killing. As a matter of fact and reality he is innocent. He is not facing trial, and he will never face trial. However at the time when the articles complained of were published, he was under arrest. For the purposes of the Act proceedings against him were active. No one was to know that before very long he would be entirely exonerated. That feature makes this an unusual case. The articles complained of did not have and could not have had any impact whatever on a trial of Mr Jefferies, just because – as we now know - there will never be one. From the point of view of the defendants that was purely adventitious, and as we shall see, it is irrelevant to our decision. It is also irrelevant that the way in which some elements of the media may have treated Mr Jefferies may justify a substantial award of damages for defamation. This is a prosecution for contempt of court, not an analysis of any possible civil claim by him for compensation.
There is therefore no doubt about the identity of the man who killed Miss Yeates or that Mr Jefferies is innocent of any involvement in it.
My statement is based on not knowing what is accurate, anymore.....
How can that statement be made?? i am not saying CJ is not innocent, I am saying how can they use Dr Vincent Tabak's name as the person who is guilty of the Murder before a trial had taken place???
I keep saying at any time he could have changed his plea before trial.... (imo) There was no story on the 29th July 2011 bu Dr Vincent Tabak... No evidence supporting Dr Vincent Tabak being guilty, we don't get that until trial...
There are months away from trial... He could have changed his solicitor again... he could have done anything, but we get this..........
Whether it is CJ or anyone else.... They cannot say CJ is innocent because Dr Vincent Tabak is guilty..... THAT is ridiculous.... (imo)... CJ may well have been innocent.... But in July 2011, no-one had been convicted for The Murder of Joanna Yeates!!!!
This is why I say I do not know what is real or not...... No-one is Innocent because they say another is guilty, that cannot be right, especially when the purported guilty person hasn't faced trial.....
Thats why I say things like this case is ludicrous....... Evidence could and should have come forward.... All the evidence cannot have been collected by this time.... How in the eyes of the LAW was Dr Vincent Tabak guilty of killing Joanna Yeates before he had a trial!!!
The System is wrong!!
See looks like they didn't need a jury.... done and dusted by July 2011..... Complete set of idiots!
What is this case really about..... !!!
What actually happened at The Old Bailey??? For them to unequivocally state, even before a trial... before Dr Vincent Tabak had said he retracts his plea, are we saying that Dr Vincent Tabak is guilty of killing Joanna Yeates!!!
Has it something to do with that unique number he apparently had at The Old Bailey U20110387
How does anyone have 2 different case numbers for the same case??
http://iclr.co.uk/document/2011201901/%5B2011%5D%20EWHC%202074%20(Admin)/html?query=tabak&filter=content-available%3A%22Transcript%22&fullSearchFields=&page=1&sort=relevance&pageSize=10
-
The scary part is that she is! @)(++(*
Yep! That IS scary! &%%6
Thanks guys.... I love it when you take the pee out of me... Gives me a real sense of purpose, makes me feel a valuable member of the public....
I'll leave you lot to play tag, I'm off... I cannot do anything and nothing will change.... I would have said it's been a pleasure... But not really..... &^&*%
-
Nine its only because quite a few people have tried to explain stuff to you to help but you dont seem to take it on board. Its not to take anything just to try and help you see things more clearly.
-
I have been thinking for many years now!
I can't help thinking that VT was fitted up, despite the apparent confession, DNA, and blood, etc.
I only hope that, one day, we will know for sure, one way or another.
I cannot believe VT killed Joanna.
-
I have been thinking for many years now!
I can't help thinking that VT was fitted up, despite the apparent confession, DNA, and blood, etc.
I only hope that, one day, we will know for sure, one way or another.
I cannot believe VT killed Joanna.
8)><(
after all posts over the years, I really dont know how you can think this
-
That is the way the law works Nine - usually when someone pleads guilty to a crime, they are presumed guilty - it is just the case that his manslaughter plea was not accepted on the basis it was alleged the crime was murder.
Many people are sitting in our prisons on the basis they gave a guilty plea, many people were tried in the exact same way Tabak was, he is nothing special.
-
I have been thinking for many years now!
I can't help thinking that VT was fitted up, despite the apparent confession, DNA, and blood, etc.
I only hope that, one day, we will know for sure, one way or another.
I cannot believe VT killed Joanna.
&%%6
What changed your mind? You have claimed on this thread before that you do not suggest he is innocent...
-
That is the way the law works Nine - usually when someone pleads guilty to a crime, they are presumed guilty - it is just the case that his manslaughter plea was not accepted on the basis it was alleged the crime was murder.
Many people are sitting in our prisons on the basis they gave a guilty plea, many people were tried in the exact same way Tabak was, he is nothing special.
Well the law is wrong..... You cannot and should not start on the stand as a GUILTY PERSON......
I have made a complete fool of myself.... But it hasn't and will not change the fact that I believe that Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent... no matter what everyone thinks....
I am deflated... But I can only blame myself for that.....
I'm sure you guys know the law better than me,... and what ever you have said hasn't changed my mind....
No-one should go to prison based on a confession that has no supporting evidence....
Anyone could say that they killed Joanna Yeates.... doesn't make it true!
I had a Spartacus moment play in my head then.... Do we all start saying we did something we didn't... just to prove how crap our system is!!
8)><(
I do not know why this case bothers me so much... I keep saying.... But it does.....
And i will never change anyones mind on it... I have no connections to do anything about it....
So I will go with my belief that he is Innocent.... And stop annoying you all......
-
The law is not wrong Nine, you are! You may think it is unfair but that does not mean anyone is going to agree with you. I will repeat - plenty of people have been convicted in the same way, it is nothing new!
-
As a further point Nine, despite what yourself and Mrswah think, there was ample evidence to convict, with or without the confession. Just because you both do not believe it does not mean it is not true.
-
I have been thinking for many years now!
I can't help thinking that VT was fitted up, despite the apparent confession, DNA, and blood, etc.
I only hope that, one day, we will know for sure, one way or another.
I cannot believe VT killed Joanna.
What is 'apparent' about the confession?
Most of us do know for sure but there are people who even believe that Peter Sutcliffe is innocent. The FACT that Tabak isn't claiming he's innocent is surely evidence that he was involved?
-
Yes you are correct he did not say that.... This is what was stated....
There is therefore no doubt about the identity of the man who killed Miss Yeates or that Mr Jefferies is innocent of any involvement in it.
My statement is based on not knowing what is accurate, anymore.....
How can that statement be made?? i am not saying CJ is not innocent, I am saying how can they use Dr Vincent Tabak's name as the person who is guilty of the Murder before a trial had taken place???
I keep saying at any time he could have changed his plea before trial.... (imo) There was no story on the 29th July 2011 bu Dr Vincent Tabak... No evidence supporting Dr Vincent Tabak being guilty, we don't get that until trial...
There are months away from trial... He could have changed his solicitor again... he could have done anything, but we get this..........
Whether it is CJ or anyone else.... They cannot say CJ is innocent because Dr Vincent Tabak is guilty..... THAT is ridiculous.... (imo)... CJ may well have been innocent.... But in July 2011, no-one had been convicted for The Murder of Joanna Yeates!!!!
This is why I say I do not know what is real or not...... No-one is Innocent because they say another is guilty, that cannot be right, especially when the purported guilty person hasn't faced trial.....
Thats why I say things like this case is ludicrous....... Evidence could and should have come forward.... All the evidence cannot have been collected by this time.... How in the eyes of the LAW was Dr Vincent Tabak guilty of killing Joanna Yeates before he had a trial!!!
The System is wrong!!
See looks like they didn't need a jury.... done and dusted by July 2011..... Complete set of idiots!
What is this case really about..... !!!
What actually happened at The Old Bailey??? For them to unequivocally state, even before a trial... before Dr Vincent Tabak had said he retracts his plea, are we saying that Dr Vincent Tabak is guilty of killing Joanna Yeates!!!
Has it something to do with that unique number he apparently had at The Old Bailey U20110387
How does anyone have 2 different case numbers for the same case??
http://iclr.co.uk/document/2011201901/%5B2011%5D%20EWHC%202074%20(Admin)/html?query=tabak&filter=content-available%3A%22Transcript%22&fullSearchFields=&page=1&sort=relevance&pageSize=10
Of course they can say that VT is GUILTY of the killing because he ADMITTED IT! The only part that they were sure of, was his alleged 'diminished responsibility'. He wasn't 'innocent until proven guilty' of the killing but of whether he murdered her or not. Why can't you see this? It's simple!
-
Thanks guys.... I love it when you take the pee out of me... Gives me a real sense of purpose, makes me feel a valuable member of the public....
I'll leave you lot to play tag, I'm off... I cannot do anything and nothing will change.... I would have said it's been a pleasure... But not really..... &^&*%
It's not a case of taking the pee! You make a claim (such as the CCTV stuff yesterday) and when it's explained, you make no further comment and just move onto something else. Why even bother to debate if you're not prepared to take the replies into consideration?
-
Of course they can say that VT is GUILTY of the killing because he ADMITTED IT! The only part that they were sure of, was his alleged 'diminished responsibility'. He wasn't 'innocent until proven guilty' of the killing but of whether he murdered her or not. Why can't you see this? It's simple!
This could not have been made any clearer and has been explained many times on this thread, I do not think Nine would be convinced if Tabak confessed himself. Oh wait, he already has!
-
Well the law is wrong..... You cannot and should not start on the stand as a GUILTY PERSON......
I have made a complete fool of myself.... But it hasn't and will not change the fact that I believe that Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent... no matter what everyone thinks....
I am deflated... But I can only blame myself for that.....
I'm sure you guys know the law better than me,... and what ever you have said hasn't changed my mind....
No-one should go to prison based on a confession that has no supporting evidence....
Anyone could say that they killed Joanna Yeates.... doesn't make it true!
I had a Spartacus moment play in my head then.... Do we all start saying we did something we didn't... just to prove how crap our system is!!
8)><(
I do not know why this case bothers me so much... I keep saying.... But it does.....
And i will never change anyones mind on it... I have no connections to do anything about it....
So I will go with my belief that he is Innocent.... And stop annoying you all......
Why do you keeps saying there was no supporting evidence when .....
"Tabak’s DNA was later discovered on her chest, while police also uncovered clothing fibres and blood spots linking Miss Yeates to his silver Renault Megane car."
-
&%%6
What changed your mind? You have claimed on this thread before that you do not suggest he is innocent...
I have always suggested that he might be innocent, but, of course, I cannot know for sure. Of course he could be guilty-------------------
-
It's not a case of taking the pee! You make a claim (such as the CCTV stuff yesterday) and when it's explained, you make no further comment and just move onto something else. Why even bother to debate if you're not prepared to take the replies into consideration?
Nobody is really debating on this topic......
Of course they can say that VT is GUILTY of the killing because he ADMITTED IT! The only part that they were sure of, was his alleged 'diminished responsibility'. He wasn't 'innocent until proven guilty' of the killing but of whether he murdered her or not. Why can't you see this? It's simple!
Shouldn't he be innocent until proven guilty!!
This could not have been made any clearer and has been explained many times on this thread, I do not think Nine would be convinced if Tabak confessed himself. Oh wait, he already has!
Yes, you have told me I am wrong.......
Why do you keeps saying there was no supporting evidence when .....
"Tabak’s DNA was later discovered on her chest, while police also uncovered clothing fibres and blood spots linking Miss Yeates to his silver Renault Megane car."
That can be explained away as any good defence lawyer, who believes that his client is Innocent could do....
______________________________________________________________________________________
(https://legalhackette.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/underthewigcover.jpg?w=187&h=300)
After it became obvious that, with his day job, it would take a decade to write the book, a ghost writer was drafted in, in the form of the journalist John Troop, known as Troupy.
‘Troupy had been a fixture in Fleet Street for many years and had become the East Anglia correspondent of the Sun. He was caught up in Operation Elveden — the Metropolitan police’s campaign to stop journalists paying public officials for stories – and I was asked to defend him, having recently successfully defended the head of security of News International in the News of the World phone hacking trial’.
So I found who wrote the book........ Then I believe I have found my answer as to why I have no-one saying any different on this thread.....
You're all journalists, therefore cannot say anything on this subject that differs from the original narrative.... Even the journalist who wrote this book sticks to the narrative, I say that after he called me a wacko when I tried to point something out.....
So really I have still been talking to myself, because no-one will say anything anyway......
Again.... This is why I will never get anywhere... If no-one will say anything different from the narrative, for whatever reason, (gagged maybe), then I can get no further with this on here....
And it matters not what I think, because what ever I say everyone will deny it..... Shame its taken me so long to cotton on.... Could have saved myself all this time.... But hey ho....
https://legalhackette.com/2018/10/05/legal-hackette-lunches-with-william-clegg-qc/
-
Each and every day people enter a court room and have pleaded guilty. It is perfectly normal and acceptable.
The innocent til proven guilty applies when someone either IS innocent or decides to chance it and see what happens
We dont have to be Journos to see that Tabak decided to give the best version he could about what happened that night.
I seriously doubt he was invited in... what was on his mind, we will never know! Either way, in he went and now Jo is dead!
No mistreatment no broken rules just a guilty man who thought he could either get away with his tale and manslaughter be the result or he seriously believed what happened was an accident and that is the sentence he deserved
Sadly as there were only 2 people there and one is dead, Jo cannot tell us the full details of her death
You have blamed EVERYONE connected to this case, loosely or otherwise but never Tabak. Now i find that very strange!
-
We're all journalists? @)(++(*
-
I did always want to be a Journalist when I was at school and a drummer oh and a Police woman. So close @)(++(*
-
I did always want to be a Journalist when I was at school and a drummer oh and a Police woman. So close @)(++(*
I used to write a TV critique for a local web based magazine - does that count? Hardly Pulitzer Prize stuff @)(++(*
-
An' I'm more wino than journo... hic!!
-
I see I'm communicating with some interesting people then!!
I was a secondary school teacher (now somewhat happily retired) , for my sins!!
-
I know its the weekend so can we please avoid the usual conflicts. Posts should be constructive but above all amiable. TY
-
DCI Gareth Bevan appeals for Pizza
Em.. ok... I believe Joanna reached her home address in Friday evening and this would have been at some time shortly after 8:30pm in the evening. This is because we have found within the flat her coat, her mobile phone and keys.
Erm... I know that from CCTV she went to Tesco's in Clifton Village and she purchased a Pizza ...erm... I have here the pizza that is similar in all respects to the one we believe she purchased which is a Tesco's finest erm.. tomato and mozzerella ,basil and pesto pizza.
Within the flat we can find no evidence of this Pizza, or any of the wrappings and so, I would like to make an appeal, firstly for anyone who has any information where Joanna was is now, or any information to can indicate whats happened to her, but would also like to make an appeal for anyone who knows where this pizza is or where any of the wrappings are or where the box is.
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/missing-woman-joanna-yeates-press-conference-with-news-footage/691670164
This next clip has the news anchor reporting.... same image same clip,
From there an unlikely looking piece of evidence might emerge, discarded receipt reveals that she bought a Pizza just like this one,on her way home
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/detective-chief-inspector-gareth-bevan-press-conference-news-footage/659294182
The reason I started looking again was this clip, I wasn't sure if it was the same person.... looks similar in all respects but is it??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=de4f8OqwJPU
Ok.... back to the first 2 clips....
I know that from CCTV she went to Tesco's in Clifton Village and she purchased a Pizza
Why didn't you know from the receipt?? The two items are seperate (imo)... The CCTV is one and The Receipt is another and those to do not match (imo)
The information clearly comes from the CCTV, now they would have followed Joanna Yeates journey from The Ram and seen on CCTV which direction she went in.... Followed her movements and seen the clip of her on CCTV purchasing a pizza...
Within the flat we can find no evidence of this Pizza, or any of the wrappings
Is he saying what i believe he is saying???? No evidence means NOTHING... No Pizza, not wrappings no box and NO RECEIPT!
discarded receipt reveals that she bought a Pizza just like this one,on her way home
Now the comment about a discarded receipt is interesting, we have always presumed it was found in the Flat, but that might not be the case..... The reciept should indicate what type of Pizza she purchased, as there would be a code for said Pizza on the receipt... But DCI Gareth Bevan is unsure of the exact type of Pizza that Joanna Yeates purchased, he says: I have here the pizza that is similar in all respects to the one we believe she purchased
Why similar?? he should know.... We Believe she purchased?? They should know!!
So The discarded receipt shows that it is: Tesco's finest tomato and mozzerella ,basil and pesto pizza. But is it the type of Pizza that Joanna Yeates actually purchased.... It is like the actual receipt that Joanna Yeates should have had from buying the Pizza??
The idea that they found a discarded receipt has me thinking..... They searched tons of rubbish, we have all assumed that they were looking for the Pizza, which in itself would have been useless.... I think they were looking for the receipt...
It's the obvious answer (imo) why search for a pizza?? or box?? Searching for a receipt make much more sense...
We have had confusing info about this receipt, at trial I believe that it is The Police who find the receipt, yet on video we have Mrs Yeates telling us it was she who found the receipt in Joanna Yeates coat pocket....
I do not know what to make of those claims by either, to be honest... I just try and untangle what the reports and video have stated and come to another conclusion....
Is the receipt that Mrs Yeates found not the correct receipt?? Is that why at trial we are told it is the Police who find the receipt?
Just going back to the discarded receipt, if the receipt was discarded, where was it discarded, is that why the Police were searching Joanna Yeates route home to find the original receipt ??
Am I misinterpreting what DCI Gareth Bevan is stating?? when he says that there was NO evidence of the Pizza?? Because No evidence to me means absolutely nothing stating that Joanna Yeates bought a Pizza from Tesco's... is this why they take the Pizza apart for us, to make it appear that it is an actual pizza that they are looking for?
When in reality it was to point out that not even a receipt for the Pizza was at the flat.... Mr and Mrs Yeates have stated some odd things and I do not know what to make of them... Again, Mr Yeates and his recollection of a pile of washing we never heard of..... Mrs Yeates and the Receipt.... were they deliberately trying to let us know something??
Because if my understanding of what DCI Gareth Bevan is saying, then they were never looking for the Pizza itself, they were looking for the evidence that Joanna Yeates bought the Pizza and which actual Pizza she purchased and the receipt of purchase....
We wouldn't then be talking of similar in all respects to the one we believe she purchased.... (imo)
We know the Police reveal what the choose at these press conferences, and invariably there's a purpose behind this ... So was the real purpose about of this appeal about the RECEIPT" and not the actual Pizza??? Where they letting someone know that was what they were actually looking for??
One more point..... if at trial the Police state it was they whom found the receipt, was the actual receipt ever disclosed??
Taking someones word is all well and good , but evidence should back it up.... What was said on the receipt that should have been in evidence?? And was it the correct receipt?? Because if i am correct in my conclusions... there should be two receipts..... (imo)
Edit....
here's a thought.... Does the receipt that Mrs Yeates found and The CCTV footage at Tesco's time stamps match?? Or does the receipt that the Police possibly found match the time stamp with the CCTV footage at Tesco's??... We know that the CCTV footage time stamp has been edited.... (imo)
They have changed the time that she went to Tesco's on many occasions... We have had a range of times..
So does the receipt match???
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeW_Jwn43g0
-
From a retweet by Sandra lean:
https://twitter.com/Greghampikian/status/1025144111643340800
NIST Buries the Lead on its study of 108 Crime labs.
The real headlines, "65% of Crime Labs Wrongly Include a Suspect in DNA Mixture," and "DNA match statistics vary by more than a quintillion fold (1 with 18 zeroes)."
NIST Publishes Landmark MIX13 DNA Study
08/02/2018 - 1:25pm
Five years after an interlaboratory study showed that more than a hundred forensic laboratories could not agree on a single forensic riddle—and that a majority of them implicated an innocent person in a hypothetical felony, in error—the federal agency who produced the findings has officially published them in a peer-reviewed journal.
“NIST Interlaboratory Studies Involving DNA Mixtures (MIX05 and MIX13): Variation Observed and Lessons Learned” was published open-access online by Forensic Science International: Genetics this week—potentially making the problems with DNA mixture interpretation easier to cite by defense experts, and even prosecutors.
NIST’s scientists write that the MIX13 results in particular have already influenced the DNA forensics community to increasingly use probabilistic genotyping software programs such as TrueAllele and STRmix in their operations. But the peer-reviewed publication would highlight the need for further improvements, the agency added in a statement.
The publication comes after critics had blasted the agency’s wait to publish the paper, as reported by Forensic Magazine in April. The critics, including Greg Hampikian of Boise State University, have argued that though MIX13 may have been generally known in the forensic community, the results were not readily admitted into some courtrooms, because the PowerPoint slides had not been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal—and judges had thus discounted them for submission in some trials.
Hampikian and others spoke about some court cases which, they argue, could have been impacted by publication of the MIX05 and MIX13 studies over the last decade.
“Shouldn’t this have been an urgent matter, when it was discovered that the vast majority of laboratories are trying to answer questions that they will answer incorrectly?” said Hampikian.
The new paper shows the results of the two interlaboratory studies—which NIST says have been previously available on the agency’s website.
MIX05 was undertaken in 2005, and asked 69 laboratories to interpret DNA data from two-person mixtures from four hypothetical sex assaults.
MIX13, in 2013, posed five increasingly difficult mock crimes involving up to four contributors and related persons of interest to 108 laboratories.
“Case Five” from MIX13 was the flash point for most critics. A ski mask left behind after a mock bank robbery showed a mixture of touch DNA including four people, but due to its complexity, it initially appeared as a mixture of only two people. The labs were given two of the four likely contributors, along with a fifth person.
But that fifth person was not in the mixture, and had never touched the ski mask. The four-person mixture involving equal amounts of genetic material was made to be difficult. Seventy-four laboratories out of 108 got it wrong by including the fifth person in their interpretation. Most were using the method of combined probability of inclusion, otherwise known as CPI, an FBI-approved method of separating out mixtures.
Twenty-three labs deemed the results “inconclusive” in including the three suspects. Three additional labs found it inconclusive for the fifth, and innocent, person—while still including the other two correctly.
Only seven laboratories got the hard problem totally “right”—by correctly excluding the fifth and innocent person from the four-person mixture. But even the reasons they cited were different. Four of the laboratories cited a missing allele at a key location. Two more, using data from the Identifiler Plus (a ThermoFisher PCR amplification kit), showed that the fifth person could not fit.
John Butler, the special assistant to the director for forensic science in NIST’s Special Programs Office, told Forensic Magazine in an interview in April that “Case Five” and the other mock case histories were not only a way to gauge how labs were doing with their mixtures—they were also to provide a “teaching moment.”
“The mixture itself was designed to not show too many alleles,” Butler said. “People would be tricked into thinking there are only two or three people there, instead of the four people that were really there.
“The way that it was designed was on purpose, to kind of help people realize that CPI can falsely include people—that was its purpose,” he added. “And it demonstrated that really nicely.”
One cannot draw real-world conclusions from Case Five, Butler added in the interview earlier this year.
“We asked specific questions of labs, and part of it was a teaching moment,” he added. “It wasn’t to say, here’s your error rate—because that’s not what the purpose of that was. This was a teaching moment to realize you can falsely include somebody with CPI.”
Hampikian and the other critics took it differently, however.
“Out of the (labs) that got this wrong, don’t you think some of them over the past five years—or even before—were doing the same things with actual casework?” said Hampikian. “Is there any reason to believe they were not doing the same thing with casework?"
NIST writes that the study, although it does not show an error rate, has done its job in alerting the forensic community to shortcomings within many of the systems—and particularly with the CPI mixture-interpretation technique.
“The interlaboratory studies described in this paper were conceived and conducted with the goal of better understanding the ‘lay of the land’ regarding analysis of DNA mixtures at the time,” they write. “Findings from both studies have brought awareness of difference in approaches to DNA mixture interpretation and have highlighted the need for improved training and validation, which have hopefully led to improved protocols over the years.”
(https://abm-website-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/forensicmag.com/s3fs-public/styles/content_body_image/public/embedded_image/2018/08/mix-13-results-case-05-handwriting-power-point.PNG?itok=F3vou3Gs)
Credit courtesy of NIST
(https://abm-website-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/forensicmag.com/s3fs-public/styles/content_body_image/public/embedded_image/2018/08/mix13-results-nist-public-power-point.PNG?itok=7sy-zQFa)
So what would that say about the mixed DNA that the sample of Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA was apparently found?? does it beg the question..... Where the results incorrect?? How does this information have a baring on other cases were mixed DNA was used?
I don't know... But it would be interesting to see what would be the outcome of some of these samples....
Are UK Forensic Labs aware of this?? Are the using up to date info?? Would it mean that their could be many more challenges to trial conclusions??
Dr Vincent Tabak cannot appeal his conviction, I believe that this is because he plead guilty to Manslaughter...
The question has to be why would he risk so much by taking the stand and saying the tale he did?
Without the story on the stand that he told, he could have only been convicted of Manslaughter..(imo) The only person who put himself anywhere, was himself....
The evidence presented by The Prosecution doesn't prove anything, even with DNA, they cannot say where and when Joanna Yeates died or was put on Longwood Lane.....
Was Dr Vincent Tabak trying to protect someone??
If the DNA is not enough, nor a tiny spot of blood that could have been transferred at anytime, both having a possible explanation, why did he say he did it??
He's supposed to be super clever, cunning and the rest... He must have had an idea of what The Prosecution had, and how easy it would be to explain it all away, especially as they lived at the same address...
The DNA has always been an issue, with people looking at it from both sides.... How many profiles were in the DNA mix?? I know that they had 3.......Did they miss any??
NIST Buries the Lead on its study of 108 Crime labs.
The real headlines, "65% of Crime Labs Wrongly Include a Suspect in DNA Mixture," and "DNA match statistics vary by more than a quintillion fold (1 with 18 zeroes).
That is quite a statistic..... So it is possible for Labs to wrongly include a suspect... that I think is quite a concern....(imo)
https://www.forensicmag.com/news/2018/08/nist-publishes-landmark-mix13-dna-study#.W2NxjPxK1io.facebook
-
Tweets I find interesting...
UK Criminal Law Blog
@uk_criminal_law
Follow Follow @uk_criminal_law
More
Vincent Tabak sentenced to 10 months for indecent images. Why was he prosecuted though? http://ukcriminallawblog.com/2015/03/02/vincent-tabak-jailed-for-child-pornography/ …
9:16 AM - 3 Mar 2015
Click on the link and theres an error .... nothing available to read.... was so looking forward to seeing their take on what happened.
stefi
@stefiamico
3 Mar 2015
More
Replying to @uk_criminal_law
@uk_criminal_law would the children in the indecent images be able to pursue a civil claim against Tabak as a result of this conviction?
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet Like Direct message
UK Criminal Law Blog
@uk_criminal_law
3 Mar 2015
More
Vincent Tabak sentenced to 10 months for indecent images. Why was he prosecuted though? http://ukcriminallawblog.com/2015/03/02/vincent-tabak-jailed-for-child-pornography/ …
3 replies 3 retweets 0 likes
Reply 3 Retweet 3 Like Direct message
UK Criminal Law Blog
@uk_criminal_law
2 Mar 2015
More
Vincent Tabak sentenced to 10 months for indecent images. Why was he prosecuted though? http://ukcriminallawblog.com/2015/03/02/vincent-tabak-jailed-for-child-pornography/ …
2 replies 3 retweets 0 likes
Reply 2 Retweet 3 Like Direct message
Stefi asked a reasonable question, unfortunately she doesn't appear to have received a reply..
Why was he prosecuted though? Shame we cannot read what the blog was about....
Edit...
UK Criminal Law Blog
@uk_criminal_law
Explaining the criminal law. Promoting discussion, transparency and more accurate law reporting.
ukcriminallawblog.com
Joined September 2012
The discussion about Dr Vincent Tabak didn't occur, even though someone asked a question....
https://twitter.com/uk_criminal_law/status/572687002233139200
https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&q=%40uk_criminal_law%20%20tabak&src=typd
-
Jury chosen in Joanna Yates murder trial
By Rod Minchin
Tuesday 4 October 2011 17:05
The process to select a jury to try the neighbour accused of murdering landscape architect Joanna Yeates began today.
Vincent Tabak, 33, denies the premeditated killing of Miss Yeates, whose body was found on a snowy verge on Christmas morning.
The bespectacled Dutch engineer spoke just twice publicly to confirm his name and to confirm he understood the process of selecting the jury at Bristol Crown Court.
Wearing a dark grey suit, pale blue shirt and dark blue tie, he sat impassively in the dock of court room one to watch as a panel of 32 potential jurors was whittled down.
They had to answer a series of questions, which included whether they knew any of the witnesses due to give evidence in the trial or had links to the firms BDP, Buro Happold or Dyson.
Potential jurors were also asked whether they had any contact with the police during the investigation into the disappearance of Miss Yeates and to confirm they were available for the whole of the trial, which is expected to last four weeks.
A number were excluded and from those remaining, 12 were drawn at random with a further six chosen as reserves.
The trial judge, Mr Justice Field, told the selected six men and six women to consider overnight whether there were reasons, such as a hospital appointment, as to why they could not be one of the jurors.
The judge also warned the 18-strong panel not to carry out their own investigation into the disappearance of Miss Yeates or discuss the case with other people.
"You know who the defendant is and who the deceased is and I must instruct you to avoid undertaking any inquiries at all about the background of this case," the judge said.
"The position is that the defendant must be tried only on the evidence that is heard in this court room."
Mr Justice Field told the jury-in-waiting to return to court tomorrow morning to be sworn in.
Prosecutors will claim Tabak, who lived in a ground-floor flat adjoining her home in Clifton, Bristol, murdered the 25-year-old after she went for festive drinks with colleagues.
She was reported missing two days after disappearing when her boyfriend Greg Reardon returned to their shared flat after a weekend visiting family in Sheffield.
Following a string of appeals by relatives and police, her frozen corpse was found by dog walkers three miles from her home on a lane in Failand, north Somerset.
Mr Reardon and Miss Yeates' parents, David and Teresa, are expected to attend the trial, although none were present today.
Tabak, a trilingual engineer, is being represented by William Clegg QC. Nigel Lickley QC leads the case for the Crown.
The trial was adjourned until tomorrow.
Two interesting points I noticed in that article..... Why ask the potential jury if they had any connection to Dyson??
I can see possibly why BDP or Buro happold, seeing as Joanna Yeates worked for one and Dr Vincent Tabak worked for the other, but DYSON??? We were told in the media that was where Tanja Morson worked, but why is it relevant??
"You know who the defendant is and who the deceased is and I must instruct you to avoid undertaking any inquiries at all about the background of this case," the judge said.
I could be wrong.... would potential jurors be told before they are sworn in, what case they were about to preside over? In fact, would potential jurors be asked those questions??
I am not sure, someone with court experience, must know what takes place.. And why would the jury know who the defendant is?? Should they??
Potential jurors were also asked whether they had any contact with the police during the investigation into the disappearance of Miss Yeates and to confirm they were available for the whole of the trial, which is expected to last four weeks.
Now that is a tricky one.... Did that include social media?? Do they mean just about the disappearance and not when it became a Murder Inquiry??
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/jury-chosen-in-joanna-yates-murder-trial-2365469.html
-
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/SNATCHED+FEET+FROM+HER+DOOR%3B+JOANNA+YEATES+MURDER+INVESTIGATION.-a0245843218
According to the library.. This article appeared in the mirror on the 6th January 2011
I can't quote from this article, I need permission, but I do remember the article, and talk of Joanna Yeates going to the main house to collect her mail that evening.....
I suppose I can ask a question.....
Who was the person who was younger than CJ mentioned in the article??
Did this person give other interviews to the media??
Of all of the cameras at Clifton Suspension Bridge, we were told that the images were blurred, yet the article suggest that they must have had some success at looking at hundreds of cars trying to get their registration plate number...
These are the very articles that get removed, and really there shouldn't be a reason for it (imo)
It goes with the idea of the abduction that was spoken of by Joanna Yeates parents, so why remove said article??
I have just found a similar article, that was partly copied by the 'Daily Mail"
Joanna Yeates 'may have been snatched by her killer lying in wait as she went to check her post'
By ROB COOPER
UPDATED: 22:01, 6 January 2011
Police search old rifle range at Clifton College, opposite flats
Officers also dredge drains outside Joanna's home
Chris Jefferies expects to be cleared as suspect 'in days'
Landlord could sue police for wrongful arrest
Joanna Yeates may have been snatched as she walked round the side of her building to check to see if she had any post.
Detectives are looking into whether the 25-year-old's killer could have been lying in wait on the dark approach to the communal hall where the mail is kept.
The new theory could explain why the landscape architect's coat, mobile phone, and boots were all left in her flat on the night she disappeared - and there was no suggestion the killer had broken in.
A 39-year-old former tenant said he had told officers investigating the murder that he thinks that is what may have happened. Avon and Somerset Police confirmed it was 'one of many' lines of inquiry they were considering.
Alternatively the landscape architect may have left the door to her basement flat on the latch while she walked down to where the boxes are kept - allowing whoever murdered her to sneak in.
The new possibilities emerged today as a photo was released of Miss Yeates in her sixth form badminton team.
The blonde haired teenager, wearing a Nike top, was photographed with 13 over players in the picture taken in Southampton, Hampshire, in 2002.
Miss Yeates went on to become a landscape architect and lived in her flat with boyfriend Greg Reardon, 27 in Clifton, Bristol.
There was no sign of a struggle in the property on the night she disappeared. The flat did have a letter box in the door but the postman drops all mail off in the communal entrance in Clifton, Bristol.
To get there from her basement flat she would have had come up the stairs and then exit through the front door before walking round to the communal entrance.
Other residents, including landlord Christopher Jefferies, 65, use this door to get to their flats.
The ex-tenant, who lived in the flat next to Jo's but did not want to be named, told the Mirror: 'Jo could easily have popped out to get her post that night and I told the police this theory. My wife and I used to do it all the time at all times of day or night.
'If someone was hanging around they could have grabbed her, it's very dark. Alternatively, in the time it took Jo to leave her flat to reach the communal area, a prowler could have sneaked in her unlocked flat and laid in wait.'
Miss Yeates, who was last seen on December 17, was discovered dead three miles from her flat by a walker on Christmas morning.
This morning uniformed police officers were searching drains in the streets surrounding the flat in Canynge Road, Clifton, as they continue to hunt for clues.
An industrial drain cleaner was used to dredge up debris before police used sticks to work through the leaves and mud.
A police officer said they would be searching about 40 drains looking for any evidence that might help in the investigation.
Uniformed police officers were later seen checking an old rifle range in the grounds of Clifton College, which is next door to Miss Yeates' flat.
Joanna's landlord, former English master Chris Jefferies, has told friends he expects to be cleared of any involvement in the death 'within days' - and he may sue police for wrongful arrest.
The 65-year-old was questioned over the disappearance by detectives for three days before being released on bail.
Irving Steggles, a 65-year-old former university friend of the suspect who is a pastor in Johannesburg, South Africa, said Mr Jeffries expects to be eliminated from the investigation.
'Chris emailed me and said he was going to be eliminated from police enquiries in the next day or so,' he told the Daily Telegraph.
'He said: "The ordeal is almost over". He is preparing a case against the media and the police, I believe. This has completely shattered his life.
Yesterday officers revealed Joanna was missing a long thick grey ski sock which could have been removed by her killer as a 'trophy'.
As her coat and boots were found back at her flat, it reinforces the possibility that she was killed there.
Displaying a boxed example of a sock similar to the one they are desperately trying to find, Detective Chief Inspector Phil Jones said yesterday he was keeping an ‘open mind’ about whether it had been used to strangle her.
‘When Jo was found on Christmas Day she wasn’t wearing her jacket,’ he said. ‘She wasn’t wearing her boots and she was only wearing one sock.
‘The jacket and the boots have been found at her home address. That would indicate that Jo had returned home.
‘At this present time the sock has not been found. It is a ski-type sock and would fit a size five, which was Jo’s foot size.’
The number of officers involved in the investigation has increased to 80 after a further ten were brought in to work the case.
A police source added that officers were investigating a theory that Miss Yeates was assaulted on her doorstep in Clifton, Bristol, and the sock was ripped from her foot during an attempted sex attack.
A second line of inquiry is that the murderer could have begun to strip her body on the grass verge where she was found in Longwood Lane, three miles from her flat, and planned to throw it over a wall into a deep quarry below.
Officers believe that the killer might have been disturbed by a passing car and decided to flee the scene quicker than planned.
The source said: ‘Although it has not been ruled out that her sock was taken as a trophy, it is not seen as the most likely cause for it not being left on the body.
Landscape architect Miss Yeates was recorded by cameras at the Hophouse pub in Clifton, Bristol at 8.44pm on Friday, December 1.
She stopped off at Waitrose, an off licence and Tesco Express where she bought a pizza on the night she disappeared.
Landscape architect Miss Yeates was recorded by cameras at the Hophouse pub in Clifton, Bristol at 8.44pm on Friday, December 1.
Friday December 1st ?? error maybe or what??
But the difference between the two article, is the one from the library talks of the CCTV camera and number plates being checked and every motorist on the evening she disappeared on Clifton Suspension Bridge... So they must have been able to see the registration plates if the article is anything to go by....
But The Mail doesn't mention this important detail....
Just to clarify have I understood the permissions for the article from the library... How does one determine using any part of said article?? Does that mean I am not allowed to question of or refer to it??
I am not sure... so could a moderator check what I have posted with this post confirm that it is ok....
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1344610/Joanna-Yeates-snatched-killer-went-check-post.html
-
Sky News..... The date of the upload on youtube is the 2nd January 2011, but part of the footage has to been filmed before..
At 39 seconds, we can see a Forensic tent to the right in the footage, which is next to the entrance to the woods...
This footage date is important, it was on a foggy morning, the snow has cleared, we therefore have between the 25th December 2010 and the 27th December 2010, for the footage to be shot...
We have the Yeates family walking past the entrance to the woods , when the family visit Longwood Lane on the 27th December 2010, they are allowed past the crime scene tape...
The Sky footage shows the tent just in front of the crime scene tape, what could possibly be under this tent??
I say this footage has to be between the 25th December 2010 and the 27th December 2010, because, we know that the Yeates family have been allowed on said second scene of crime, and said forensic tent is no longer there...
But was it afterwards??
Making the footage even stranger...
On the footage that we see the Yeates walking over the second scene of crime, there is debris all over the road, what is it from? Is it significant? Was there any potential evidence amongst this debris??
Looking at the footage with the forensic tent there is also debris across the road,..
You would have imagined that they cleared all the debris off the road incase there was any thing there...
Is the footage of both taken on the same day??
I still do not understand why The Yeates are walking all over a crime scene, the Police were here over a number of days, we know that they enlisted the help of Avon and Somerset fire service between the 25th December 2010 and the 29th December 2010... So why is anyone walking over this crime scene???
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxnY6Orh2u0
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/family-of-joanna-yeates-visit-spot-where-her-body-was-news-footage/693154970
-
The question has to be why would he risk so much by taking the stand and saying the tale he did?
Without the story on the stand that he told, he could have only been convicted of Manslaughter..(imo) The only person who put himself anywhere, was himself....
That is true! He put himself in prison when he murdered JY.
-
Tricky when a non native English speaker comes up against the interview team trained in the Reid Technique. I must be mistaken but I thought we had banned that in the UK. All my very humble opinion of course, I deny ever seeing any paperwork relating to people, military or otherwise who were sent on courses to the USA.
-
Part 1...
Tricky when a non native English speaker comes up against the interview team trained in the Reid Technique. I must be mistaken but I thought we had banned that in the UK. All my very humble opinion of course, I deny ever seeing any paperwork relating to people, military or otherwise who were sent on courses to the USA.
You have mentioned this before AH... And really i should have picked up on it, but it wasn't until recently i found an article, and your mentioning of it that it has brought it back to the fore....
Firstly the article...
The North East detective behind some of the country's biggest investigations from Shannon Matthews to Joanne Yeates[/quote]
As police National Interview Advisor, Detective Gary Shaw helped interview some of the UK's most infamous criminals
ByHannah Graham
18:00, 4 NOV 2018
You might not have heard of Detective Gary Shaw, but his cases will certainly be familiar.
From the murder of Bristol architect Joanna Yeates to the suspicious disappearance of Yorkshire schoolgirl Shannon Matthews, Detective Shaw has been behind the scenes of some of the country's most infamous investigations.
Over the course of a 41-year career, he revolutionised the techniques used by police officers when interviewing those accused of the most heinous crimes.
After joining Northumbria Police in 1977, the police officer from from Ryhope in Sunderland, rose through the ranks to become the police's National Interview Advisor, travelling between forces to help them improve techniques to get the information investigators need from their suspects.
He explained: "It was about switching mind-sets from a confession-based form of interview to a more ethical technique by introducing the PEACE interview training programme."
The PEACE method emphasises information-gathering over aggressive demands for a confession, and guides detectives through a system of drawing out their interviewees to get the facts they need.
When it was rolled out across the country, it helped ensure police interviews could offer pivotal evidence in vital cases.
It was these skills which were vital when Detective Shaw, who holds an MBE for services to policing, was called in to help consult on interviewing in the investigation which eventually discovered nine-year-old Shannon Matthews had in fact been concealed by the uncle of her mothers' partner; or with the probe, one of the largest ever conducted in the Bristol area, which eventually found Vincent Tabak to be the the murderer of 25-year-old Joanna Yeates.
Now, he'll be helping produce the next generation of crime-solvers, after accepting a full-time post as Professor of Investigative Practice at the University of Sunderland. He'll be teaching students on the BA in Applied Investigation and MA in Investigative Management programmes.
He said: "At the end of the day, this is all about making detectives better at what they do, helping them solve crimes and arming them with the skills they need."
He added: "I believe in continuous development for investigators. We are in a very different world compared to 15, or even 10, years ago.
"I’m keen to develop the thinking of detectives so that when they go to crime scenes they are able to make informed decisions and take as much away as possible."
University of Sunderland’s head of work based learning, Hazel Rounthwaite, said: “The University has been working with Gary for the last 10 years, but to have him on board as our full-time Professor of Practice in Investigative Practice is an absolute honour.
“Gary not only has an international profile and a wealth of expertise in investigative practice, but he also brings with him innovative approaches to delivery of educational provision, truly embracing the concept of work-based learning by bringing together the academic and practical nature of investigation into both the classroom and working arenas."
* Peace Technique
* The Probe Technique
* Reid Technique
* Dutch Interrogation Techniques
Visual probe technique
Sample page: Visual probe technique
The visual probe technique (sometimes referred to as the dot-probe paradigm) was designed to assess selective attention. This means the technique is used to determine whether an individual is more or less prone to being influenced by certain stimuli. It is a commonly used neuropsychological technique to determine the presence and extent of anxiety type in an individual. The basis is to test reaction speed and assess whether other stimuli influence reaction speed. Macleod, Mathews and Tata introduced the technique in 1986 to assess attention in common mental disorders (MacLeod et al, 1986).
One example of the visual probe technique is where people are asked to read words as they appear one at a time on a screen. They are required to press a button as quickly as possible when a dot appears instead. This measures reaction speed (Kent & Turpin, 1999).
If a threatening word is displayed for people with an anxiety disorder, their reaction time is reduced, most likely because their attention shifts. People without an anxiety disorder do not have this delay in reaction time because they do not selectively attend to the threatening words (Kent & Turpin, 1999).
Other tasks can also elicit a delayed reaction time in people with anxiety. Using the dichotic listening task, threatening words in the unshadowed ear slowed responses to a visual task on a computer (Kent & Turpin, 1999).
Below is an example of the visual probe technique. Give it a try and see how your attentional bias is influenced.
Police Interrogation – Reid & PEACE Techniques
December 2, 2015 by Jeff Laskey
In 2003, while disembarking a GO Bus on his way home, Michael Dixon was arrested for a robbery he did not commit. Dixon, who is black, tall, and was wearing boots and socks that night. Eyewitness accounts of the robbery described a short, white man wearing sandals with no socks as the perpetrator. Despite this, and other clear evidence, Dixon was arrested and spent three-and-a-half-days in custody. While in custody, Hamilton police used the Reid Technique of police interrogation on Dixon, in the hopes of pressuring him to confess. Dixon was then subjected to strict bail conditions for nine months, before his charges were withdrawn.
Michael Dixon successfully sued the police for their conduct, and was awarded $46 000 by a Superior Court judge in 2011.
What is the Reid Technique of police interrogation?
The Reid Technique of police interrogation is a method of interviewing suspects used by law enforcement officials. It is comprised of three stages:
1. The factual analysis;
2. The behaviour analysis interview (BAI);
3. The interrogation.
The factual analysis phase is when the would-be interrogator gathers information about their suspect. When the would-be interrogator identifies their suspect, they conduct a behaviour analysis interview, or BAI, to pinpoint the suspect’s behavioural nuances and build trust with the suspect. In addition, the BAI is designed to identify whether or not the suspect is truthful based on their responses to questions in the interview. The third and final stage is the interrogation, a nine-step accusatory process designed to elicit a confession. Information gathered during the BAI is used against the suspect in the interrogation. During the interrogation, the suspect is informed that his or her guilt has already been confirmed. The suspect is convinced of this though a multitude of techniques, including: interrogators talking over the suspect, interrogators talking in monologues and not letting the suspect speak, and interrogators reminding the suspect that they will surely face a harsh punishment.
Critics have largely denounced the second and third stages of the Reid technique of police interrogation.
What are critics saying about the Reid Technique?
Though Canadian courts have identified the Reid Technique of police interrogation to be an acceptable form of interrogation, critics have decried this method for a variety of reasons. The main reason is that the Reid Technique is manipulative in such a manner that encourages accused individuals to confess to the allegations against them, even if such allegations are untrue. This is backed by studies that highlight that methods like the Reid Technique of police interrogation are actually linked to false confessions. Indeed, of the individuals exonerated by DNA evidence in the United States, 25% had provided a false confession. Furthermore, the assumptions that form the basis for drawing conclusions from the BAI lack scientific support.
A crucial part of the Reid Technique of police interrogation involves informing the suspect that the evidence against them is clear, and that such evidence will surely lead to a conviction, regardless of whether or not that evidence actually exists. The Reid Technique therefore encourages dishonesty on the part of interrogators. In Canada, judges and justices of the peace are the individuals who rule on whether an individual is guilty or not. By telling a suspect that they are guilty, users of the Reid Technique of police interrogation are overstepping the bounds of their authority.
In short, The Reid Technique assumes guilt. This is at odds with one of the principal bases of our justice system, which is that all individuals are presumed innocent until guilt is proven. The Reid Technique of police interrogation circumvents this assumption, and thereby truncates the accused’s right to fairness within judicial procedures by presenting a confession which may be false, or obtained via coercion.
What is the PEACE Technique?
The PEACE technique of police interrogation is a less coercive and less manipulative alternative to the Reid technique. PEACE stands for:
Participation and Planning
Engage and Explain
Account
Closure
Evaluate
In contrast to the Reid Technique of police interrogation, the PEACE of police interrogation model is non-accusatory, and is based on either proving or disproving theories through interrogation of the subject. The end goal of the PEACE technique is to obtain as much information as possible, rather than simply obtaining a confession. In addition, the PEACE technique of police interrogation does not automatically assume guilt, and therefore does not contribute to an environment of resentment during interrogation.
Sources:
John E. Reid & Associates
http://www.cbc.ca/thenational/includes/pdf/snook-2008.pdf
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/youre-guilty-now-confess-false-admissions-put-polices-favourite-interrogation-tactic-under-scrutiny
http://www.durhamcollege.ca/academic-schools/school-of-justice-emergency-services/centre-for-integrated-justice-studies/courses/peace-model-interviewinginterrogating
http://www.thespec.com/news-story/2205346-judge-rakes-cops-over-the-coals-for-wrongful-arrest/
https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/north-east-detective-behind-countrys-15366927
http://tron.rcpsych.ac.uk/abouttron/trontasters/samplepagevisualprobetech.aspx
https://smordinlaw.com/police-interrogation/
-
Part 2.... ( An example of Dutch Interrogation Techniques)
The complex relationship between interrogation techniques, suspects changing their statement and legal assistance. Evidence from a Dutch sample of police interviews
Received 03 Sep 2015, Accepted 18 Feb 2016, Published online: 09 Mar 2016
ABSTRACT
This study aims to provide more insight in the complex and dynamic relationships between interrogation techniques, changes in suspects’ statements and the presence of a lawyer. In doing so, it shows the importance of taking into account the conditions under which interrogation techniques can elicit statements from suspects. Based on a Dutch sample of 168 police interviews of suspects in homicide cases structural equation modelling is used to analyse (1) the extent to which interrogation techniques mediate suspects changing their statement and (2) the extent to which the presence of a lawyer moderates the relationship between interrogation techniques and suspects changing their statement. The results show that manipulative interrogation techniques mediate the changing statement of silent suspects compared to suspects who give a statement on personal matters or deny only during interviews without a lawyer. Based on the findings it can be concluded that the presence of a lawyer can change the dynamics of police interviews of suspects. This is an important conclusion given the European developments in strengthening the safeguards of the rights of suspects in police custody. The presence of a lawyer might contribute to reducing false confessions, avoid tunnel vision, and prevent miscarriages of justice.
KEYWORDS: Interrogation techniques, suspects changing statement, legal advice, presence of lawyer
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
The complex relationship between interrogation techniques, suspects changing their statement and legal assistance. Evidence from a Dutch sample of police interviews
Willem-Jan Verhoeven
https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2016.1157594
PUBLISHED ONLINE:
09 March 2016
Table 1 of 7
CI 1: ‘Now we know who the victim is. (Interrogator writes down the name of the victim and shows it to the suspect). Can you read who this is?’
Suspect: ‘I won't say anything.’
CI 1: ‘What should we tell his mother? She has a lot of questions. But you won't answer them [P9]. Can you imagine how frustrating that is?’
Suspect: (Smiles).
CI 1: ‘How would the family react when they hear you are laughing?’ [P9]
CI 1: ‘Can you say his name?’
Suspect: ‘I won't say anything.’
CI 1: ‘[Name of suspect]. Put yourself in the position of the family of [Name victim]. The autopsy on [Name victim] is today. We have to tell his mother that he will be cut open today. We can only say that the person who knows more about this: Laughs, bites his nails, wobbles his legs, and furthermore makes use of his right to silence. [P9] Would you like to say something? Express regrets? This will work in your advantage in court. [P15] But I don't see it and I don't hear it.’
CI 1: ‘[Name witness] told us that you are successful in theatre. That won't work with the line: “I won't say anything”. The victim will never speak again. And why? Why did this happen? We won't rule out the fact that you might have spoken with other people. Do you want them to decide over you? You don't want that. Tomorrow you will be brought before the prosecutor. Does it make sense to interrogate you before that?’
CI 2: ‘A mother has the right to know what happened to her child. Can you imagine how it feels to outlive your own child? The relation between mother and child is the strongest there is.’ [P9]
The complex relationship between interrogation techniques, suspects changing their statement and legal assistance. Evidence from a Dutch sample of police interviews
Willem-Jan Verhoeven
https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2016.1157594
PUBLISHED ONLINE:
09 March 2016
Interrogation techniques Description
[P4] Confrontation with (circumstantial) evidence This may concern: showing photographs, playing or reading fragments from telephone taps or MSN conversations, and discussing blood trails on clothes or walls.
[P5] Confrontation with statements of witnesses or other suspects Interrogators refer to witness statements or statements made by other suspects. For example: ‘They say the weapon is yours.’ ‘People say you did it.’ ‘You get it that people are pointing at you considerably. Your buddies are grassing on you, aren't they?!’ ‘Others say that you are involved somehow. We don't conjure it out of mid-air.’ ‘Your own girlfriend, even your own girlfriend saw the pictures and said it was you.’ ‘You do get it by now that we spoke with a lot of people who stated all sorts of things.’
[P6] Present hypothetical scenarios Interrogators present possible ways of how things might have happened, hoping suspects go into it. Examples are: ‘Suppose it's because you wanted something from the house or talk to someone then we get information about when it possibly happened.’ ‘Interrogator supposes that he doesn't want to say that the suspect wanted to kill the victim with the screwdriver but that he perhaps only wanted to stop him with it.’ ‘I don't know if the blood is from the victim, but if so, it's going to be hard.’ ‘If you are involved I would remain silent indeed, not if you are innocent.’
[P7] Leading questioning The remarks and questions posed by the interrogator give the impression that the suspect is involved or knows something. Examples are: ‘Are you afraid to tell it because it is incriminating?’ ‘You don't like someone. Then it's nice that the problem is solved now, isn't it?’ ‘Now the girl is dead so problem solved.’ ‘If you have nothing to do with it, why use your right to silence? You can't give wrong answers, can you?’ ‘Would the victim be seeing a stranger at midnight?’ ‘Because of everything, all you have been through, you want to hurt someone too.’
[P8] Make promises ‘If you give good information and specifically about who is responsible for what, than we can do something with it.’ ‘Then something will happen, if your information is true.’
[P9] Moral appeal Interrogators trifle with suspect's feelings of guilt and his conscience. In most cases they refer to suspect's parents, spouse, children, or friends. Examples are: ‘It concerns others as well. You are making it very easy for yourself now. Your mother, your girlfriend, your child. How will it affect them?’ ‘If you are close to your mother, your mother wouldn't say all these things if her son didn't do anything.’ ‘Your wife didn't sleep for one moment. You don't give that a moment's thought.’ ‘Who will read to the child now?’
[P11] Give moral justifications ‘I think that it is a mugging gone wrong. This wasn't supposed to happen.’
[P12] Challenge inconsistencies in suspect's statement This concerns suspects being inconsistent during the questioning. Interrogators use this in an attempt to corner suspects. Examples are: ‘First you say you are drunk and that you don't know it anymore because of that. And now you say that you know for sure that you were with [name victim].’ ‘So, there hasn't been a bed in that room ever? Why do you say it differently every time?’ ‘You are inconsistent. You want the offender being caught, but you won't cooperate.’ ‘Ah! So they did tell you!’ ‘You have been lying from the beginning. You are not open and you are dishonest. It is about time you start telling the truth.’ ‘All the time, you adjust your story! What should I believe?’
[P13] Interrupt suspect's statement Sometimes interrogator and suspect interrupt each other. Furthermore, interrogators don't let suspects finish by interrupting them in several ways: ‘Wait, this is important.’ ‘Yes okay, so nothing special.’ ‘Clear. We are going to put your story on paper now.’ ‘[ … ], we know all about those financial problems now. I don't think that is the most important part.’
[P14] Show impatience, frustration, and anger Interrogators raise their voices as well. Examples are: I am not dealing with a small child, am I?!’ ‘At least, you can say why not?!’ ‘Around 7pm the interrogator yells out again … ’ ‘ … shouts that she and the suspect are not retarded … ’ ‘You are here for murder! You are disrespectful and detached! Unbelievable!’ Interrogators also show their frustration by sighing repeatedly.
[P15] Stress consequences of non-cooperation Interrogators often refer to what the judge will think. For instance: ‘What will the judge say about this?’ ‘It is strange that you won't state where you are from, isn't it? Not even where you were born. I think you need to keep your credibility. In this way you will lose it.’ ‘Experience shows that silence does not work in your favour.’ ‘The judge doesn't have time to talk to you. You can tell it here so the judge can read it.’ ‘Because you are silent you don't put any effort into proving your innocence and you don't cooperate in finding the truth.’ ‘Do you realize that you don't prove your innocence by keeping silent? That you frustrate finding the truth?’ ‘As a consequence of that I will advise to prolong your stay here.’ ‘A judge can also watch this footage. What will he think of it?’ ‘The examining judge also isn't retarded. He will also wonder why you haven't said anything until then.’
[P16] Physical intimidation This concerns specifically physical movements towards the suspect. Examples are: ‘The interrogator gets up, takes the photo album, moves towards the suspect, and stands beside him. He opens the album on a page with a picture of the suspect. He raises his voice and points at the picture using a lot of gestures.’ ‘When the interrogator reconstructs the situation he attempts to persuade the suspect to tell more about what happened. Meanwhile the interrogator walks up and down the questioning room.’
2.1. Overarching categories of interviewing methods
In the literature, interrogation techniques are often divided into two overarching categories (Kelly et al. 2013 Kelly, C.E., et al., 2013. A taxonomy of interrogation methods. Psychology, public policy, and law, 19, 165–178. doi: 10.1037/a0030310
[Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
, Walsh et al. 2015 Walsh, D., et al., ed., 2015. International developments and practices in investigative interviewing and interrogation. Volume 2: suspects. London: Routledge.
[Google Scholar]
). On the one hand, there are the accusatorial, maximisation/minimisation, dominant and control-based methods. On the other hand, there are the information-gathering, humane and rapport-based methods (see, e.g. Holmberg and Christianson 2002 Holmberg, U. and Christianson, S.-Å., 2002. Murderers’ and sexual offenders’ experiences of police interviews and their inclinations to admit or deny crimes. Behavioral sciences and the law, 20, 31–45. doi: 10.1002/bsl.470
[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
, Vrij et al. 2006 Vrij, A., Mann, S., and Fisher, R.P., 2006. Information-gathering vs accusatory interview style: individual differences in respondents’ experiences. Personality and individual differences, 41, 589–599. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2006.02.014
[Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
, Häkkänen et al. 2009 Häkkänen, H., et al., 2009. Police officers’ views of effective interview tactics with suspects: the effects of weight of case evidence and discomfort with ambiguity. Applied cognitive psychology, 23, 468–481. doi: 10.1002/acp.1491
[Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
, Horgan et al. 2012 Horgan, A.J., et al., 2012. Minimization and maximization techniques: assessing the perceived consequences of confessing and confession diagnosticity. Psychology, crime, & law, 18, 65–78. doi: 10.1080/1068316X.2011.561801
[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
, Meissner et al. 2012 Meissner, C.A., et al., 2012. Interview and interrogation methods and their effects on true and false confessions. Campbell systematic reviews, 2012, 13.
[Google Scholar]
, Alison et al. 2014 Alison, L., et al., 2014. The efficacy of rapport-based techniques for minimizing counter-interrogation tactics amongst a field sample of terrorists. Psychology, public policy, & law, 20, 421–430. doi: 10.1037/law0000021
[Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
).6
6 For reasons of readability, ‘accusatory methods’ will henceforth be used to refer to the first category and ‘information-gathering methods’ will henceforth be used to refer to the second category.
View all notes
The methods in the two categories differ in terms of their primary goal. In general, the accusatorial methods are aimed at obtaining a confession from the suspect. The ‘Reid technique’ (Inbau et al. 2013 Inbau, F.E., et al., 2013. Criminal interrogation and confessions. 5th ed. Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
[Google Scholar]
) is the most familiar and most frequently used model in the accusatorial methods category. In short, this model consists of two phases. During the first phase, the criminal investigator takes a relatively neutral approach in an attempt to assess the guilt or extent to which the suspect is telling the truth/lies and to retrieve general information which can then be used against the suspect during the interrogation. The interrogation goes into its second phase if the criminal investigator is convinced that the suspect is lying/guilty. The interrogation consists of nine steps and is essentially based on three main elements: (1) custody and isolation from the outside world increase anxiety, nervousness and insecurity and the need to free oneself from the situation, (2) confrontation in which the suspect is accused of the crime and sometimes (manufactured) evidence is used to stress the certainty of the accusation and (3) minimisation means that the criminal investigator adopts a sympathetic attitude and morally justifies the crime, implying to the suspect that he/she may be treated leniently and a confession therefore seems the best way out (Kassin and Gudjonsson 2004 Kassin, S.M. and Gudjonsson, G.H., 2004. The psychology of confessions: a review of the literature and issues. Psychological science in the public interest, 5, 33–67. doi: 10.1111/j.1529-1006.2004.00016.x
[Crossref], [PubMed], [Google Scholar]
, p. 43).
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10439463.2016.1157594
-
Part3..
From Part 1 where Detective Gary Shaw, has allowed us to know that he was apart of this Investigation, to part 2 where examples of Dutch Interrogation techniques are used, we have a wide array of options:
* Peace Technique
* The Probe Technique
* Reid Technique
* Dutch Interrogation Techniques
Legally in the UK The Reid Technique isn't used.....
Detective Gary Shaw is an enigma, was he the colleague whom accompanied DC Karen Thomas to Holland?? Who accompanied her to Holland?? And why was it so desperately important that they interviewed Dr Vincent Tabak in Holland??? It cannot have been about a car changing position.... That has to be rubbish....
Ann Reddrop has told us how she was looking at Dr Vincent Tabak in Late December 2010...
Did they go to Holland so they could use whatever Technique they liked on Dr Vincent Tabak and no-one would know any different???
The Dutch have their own Interrogation methods, and they were on Dutch soil at the time..... So it is extremely possible that all of the fore mentioned techniques I have highlighted could have been used in a combination of ways...
Dr Vincent Tabak didn't have a lawyer present...
Dr Vincent Tabak's interview apparently lasted for 6 hours.... (Could it have been longer??)
We do not know what took place in Holland with the Interview that Dr Vincent Tabak attended, we have no concept of what techniques may or may not have been used upon him... False memories could have been planted when he was in Holland... we simply do not know... But there is no video evidence of this Interview, DC Karen Thomas makes out that alarm bells started to ring, and that was why she was suspicious... she forgot to tell us The head Of The Complex Case Unit already had Dr Vincent Tabak in her sights..... !!
There is no video evidence of any of Dr Vincent Tabak's Interviews with the Police.... they were not presented at trial as far as I am aware... We also have a man whom assumed the role of Chaplain, visiting Dr Vincent Tabak, who i believe to be a prison officer... Did this Chaplain use any Techniques on Dr Vincent Tabak on his visits to him whilst he was in prison?? We have no idea.... But anything is possible with this case...
Because everyone forgets that Dr Vincent Tabak is a Dutch National, most have no realised the importance of this... Most have only considered that the rules that apply in this country where applied to Dr Vincent Tabak, and have sadly forgotten that he was interviewed in his own country by British Police, whom could have used a variety of techniques on Dr Vincent Tabak, that are not allowed in this country...
The idea that Dr Vincent Tabak was somehow brain washed, therefore doesn't seem that far fetched, when you are applying the laws of the land of England and Holland at the same time... When a colleague that accompanies DC Karen Thomas isn't named, when they should be ..... And we do not know what experiences said colleague has or uses...
Even if it wasn't Detective Gary Shaw that accompanied DC Karen Thomas to Holland, it really doesn't matter, because it is possible for them to use virtually any Interrogation Technique on Dr Vincent Tabak , because they interviewed him in Holland!!
So did Detective Gary Shaw accompany DC Karen Thomas to Holland for the interview that she calls The Process with Dr Vincent Tabak?? If he didn't go what exactly was his role and when did they decide to use his assistance??
I have never been able to understand why Dr Vincent Tabak took the stand to state how he killed Joanna yeates, it has never made any sense to me.... If he was so clever , why did he just not stay quite....
But if these Interrogation techniques have and had been used on Dr Vincent Tabak, then he would say just about anything.....
And maybe he was only told the basics.... a story like I have said all along, and when it came to the other 80 questions, he simply didn't know the answer, because he hadn't been told!!
It's a theory... a plausible theory.... and one worth considering (imo)
In short, this model consists of two phases. During the first phase, the criminal investigator takes a relatively neutral approach in an attempt to assess the guilt or extent to which the suspect is telling the truth/lies and to retrieve general information which can then be used against the suspect during the interrogation. The interrogation goes into its second phase if the criminal investigator is convinced that the suspect is lying/guilty. The interrogation consists of nine steps and is essentially based on three main elements:
(1) custody and isolation from the outside world increase anxiety, nervousness and insecurity and the need to free oneself from the situation,
(2) confrontation in which the suspect is accused of the crime and sometimes (manufactured) evidence is used to stress the certainty of the accusation and
(3) minimisation means that the criminal investigator adopts a sympathetic attitude and morally justifies the crime, implying to the suspect that he/she may be treated leniently and a confession therefore seems the best way out
Looking at those three points from the Reid technique and Interrogation techniques in general, it is possible to see a fit or pattern in the way in which Dr Vincent Tabak was treated
(1): Dr Vincent Tabak was arrested on the 20th January 2011, where he was cut off from everyone he knew, he was
moved to 3 different prisons in 48 hours that being Bristol, to Gloucester then to Long Lartin.... Did not get
visited by his family or girlfriend until the 11th February 2011..
(2): The DNA evidence that Dr Vincent Tabak had originally stated was tampered with,
(3): His "Confession" or his "Guilty Plea at the Old Bailey, a guilty plea to manslaughter, a plea where everyone has
stated he did only because he wanted a more lenient sentence..
Just using these first 3 steps it is clear to she how using The reid technique or an Interrogation technique could be used on Dr Vincent Tabak, it would illicit a confession.... And having the ability and opportunity to use these techniques, in a country that has their own Interrogation Techniques, having no real boundaries in this "Holland" interview, And continuing with the same said techniques when they are back in England, as the 3 steps clearly indicate... (imo)
Every part of this case is unfair and in just (imo), Dr Vincent tabak stood no chance of ever having a fair trial... I have pointed to many issues, but this with thanks to AH reminding me about the Reid technique, which was discussed early in this thread, has brought back to the fore, how we can find an INNOCENT MAN... pleading guilty/ confessing, to a crime he diid not commit.... A crime I have never believed he was guilty of....
And how it was possible to use these techniques between countries.... Being England and Holland!
Where no-one would ever be aware that such techniques could possibly be used....
I think the 3 steps tell us differently.....(imo)
-
From this post of mine: http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg503630#msg503630
[P4] Confrontation with (circumstantial) evidence This may concern: showing photographs, playing or reading fragments from telephone taps or MSN conversations, and discussing blood trails on clothes or walls.
Does that not Ring any Bells...... !!!!
The court heard that blood stains on a wall where Yeates's body was found suggested Tabak had tried to lift her over the wall into a neighbouring quarry.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/11/joanna-yeates-slow-painful-death
From another post:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg503631#msg503631
(1) custody and isolation from the outside world increase anxiety, nervousness and insecurity and the need to free oneself from the situation,
(2) confrontation in which the suspect is accused of the crime and sometimes (manufactured) evidence is used to stress the certainty of the accusation and
(3) minimisation means that the criminal investigator adopts a sympathetic attitude and morally justifies the crime, implying to the suspect that he/she may be treated leniently and a confession therefore seems the best way out
Again:.... from the media ....
The court heard that Tabak first confessed to killing her during a conversation with a Salvation Army chaplain while he was in custody. He had previously disputed police evidence on a string of occasions after his arrest in January. But while in prison, he was said to have told the chaplain he was sorry.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/11/joanna-yeates-slow-painful-death
My Post: http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg503630#msg503630
You are here for murder! You are disrespectful and detached! Unbelievable!’
From the media report at trial:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/vincent-tabak-knew-joanna-yeates-would-die-2375747.html
Mr Lickley rejected Tabak's claims he panicked after killing Miss Yeates and suggested he was "cool", "calculating" and "detached".
From my post: as above....
‘The judge doesn't have time to talk to you. You can tell it here so the judge can read it.’ ‘Because you are silent you don't put any effort into proving your innocence and you don't cooperate in finding the truth.’ ‘Do you realize that you don't prove your innocence by keeping silent? That you frustrate finding the truth?’ ‘As a consequence of that I will advise to prolong your stay here.
Well Dr Vincent Tabak's stay was prolonged, his council never asked for bail and he never got bail....
Is it just coincidence that the evidence and responses coincide with the techniques that can be used to illicit a confession and plant false memories in an Innocent man's mind??
I believe we all should challenge what happened to Dr Vincent Tabak, and what took place when incarcerating this Dutch National known as Dr Vincent Tabak..... (imo)
-
The points regarding interview techniques are irrelevant on the basis Tabak did not confess whilst under interrogation. Tabak confessed to a person acting as a prison chaplain!
-
The points regarding interview techniques are irrelevant on the basis Tabak did not confess whilst under interrogation. Tabak confessed to a person acting as a prison chaplain!
just more clutching at straws in an attempt to make a guilty man innocent. Its never gonna happen! As for the comments about why should he have got charged for the indecent images, I find that totally disgusting
-
Tricky when a non native English speaker comes up against the interview team trained in the Reid Technique. I must be mistaken but I thought we had banned that in the UK. All my very humble opinion of course, I deny ever seeing any paperwork relating to people, military or otherwise who were sent on courses to the USA.
I think you need to remember he is a very intelligent man ... this has been stated over and over again. He had no problems with the language while interviewed and didnt need assistance. Head hunted for his job so im sure he was ok during the interview As Ok as anyone else in a murder investigation
As justsaying as highlighted, he didnt confess during this fake interrogation people are assuming took place!
-
just more clutching at straws in an attempt to make a guilty man innocent. Its never gonna happen! As for the comments about why should he have got charged for the indecent images, I find that totally disgusting
I was thinking about this yesterday oddly enough, in the middle of shopping....
When was Dr Vincent Tabak actually charged for the images??
Jo Yeates' murderer Vincent Tabak had child porn on his laptop
VINCENT Tabak had sick images on his laptop showing children being sexually abused, police have revealed.
ByMirror.Co.Uk
17:14, 1 NOV 2011UPDATED19:10, 12 MAR 2012
VINCENT Tabak had sick images on his laptop showing children being sexually abused, police have revealed.
The 33-year-old killer was jailed for life on Friday after a jury found him guilty of throttling 25-year-old architect Joanna Yeates in Bristol.
Following his conviction it was revealed that the Dutch engineer was obsessed with images of women being strangled during sex and had perversions for violent pornography and prostitutes.
It also came to light that Tabak faced further questioning by police relating to material discovered on the hard drives of computers he used.
It has now been reported that Avon and Somerset Police discovered 30 images of youngsters being sexually abused.
The 30 images I had also noticed the other day:
Mark Williams-Thomas
Verified account
@mwilliamsthomas
Following Following @mwilliamsthomas
More
Jo Yeates killer: 30 images of child sexually abused were found on Tabak’s computer 2 yrs ago- just investigated now http://mirr.im/1dH6glP
9:01 AM - 17 Nov 2013
The link that MWT has made doesn't exist.... strange....
Police find 30 sick images of child porn on murderer Vincent Tabak's laptop
All the images showed sexual activity between an adult and a child - the second worst kind of child porn
By LUKE SALKELD FOR THE DAILY MAIL
UPDATED: 00:03, 2 November 2011
Vincent Tabak kept a hoard of child pornography on his laptop, it emerged yesterday.
Joanna Yeates’s murderer was found to have a stash of up to 30 images of children being abused, according to a police source.
The 33-year-old Dutchman is already known to have been obsessed with pornographic images of women being strangled and abused.
So 3 sources saying 30 images... The Daily Mail having updated said article, which originally was published on the 1st November 2011 according to the google entry..
Vincent Tabak child porn: Police found 30 sick images on murderer's ...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Vincent-Tabak-child-porn-Police-30-sick-images-murder...
1 Nov 2011 - He said: 'During the examination of Vincent Tabak's computer, other material was found. We have referred this matter to the Crown Prosecution Service for initial ...
For years the amount of images has changed.... I originally believe I had read it was in the region of 40ish, then by the time he appeared at court it had jumped to around 140ish....
The problem I had yesterday, was I was trying to understand when they actually charged Dr Vincent Tabak... Did they charge him before the trial for instance??
Did they charge him immediately after the trial??
When was he actually charged??
If it was a live investigation, how on earth did the details appear in the media before a court case had taken place??
How did the media have the information and the type of images that apparently were on Dr Vincent Tabak's laptops??
I find it rather strange that MTW has the same amount of images in his tweet two years later, and that the link he provides no longer exists...
It still begs the question how they all were given this information... again.. MWT
Mark Williams-Thomas
Verified account
@mwilliamsthomas
Vincent Tabak should def be prosecuted for making child abuse images - It is in the publics interest & vital for future Risk Management
12:57 PM - 1 Nov 2011
He has published on the same day as the media, a tweet about Dr Vincent Tabak "making" child abuse images.... How have these 3 sources been given such information, before a thorough investigation into the welfare of these children has been established??
How does anyone know this information.... I thought that it was just the apparent porn that was not allowed at trial, the child images are a seperate issue and I cannot understand how within a couple of days of Dr Vincent Tabak being found guilty, this information has been made public....
Wouldn't such information stop people coming forward?? Wouldn't these apparent childrens parents not want a proper investigation to take place... Would the parents want to know that this info was going to be leaked??
It appears that it is only when someone is famous/infamous that their names are published in the media, before the facts have been established, before charges have been laid against said accused...
I'll go back to this from The Daily mail..
All the images showed sexual activity between an adult and a child - the second worst kind of child porn
That suggests that Dr Vincent Tabak photographed these images (imo) But we then look MTW's statement
Vincent Tabak should def be prosecuted for making child abuse images - It is in the publics interest & vital for future Risk Management
He states making images also..... But because The Daily Mail changed there time and date on the article, what time they posted said article online... Who is giving who information?? I have no idea...
But..... Vincent Tabak should def be prosecuted for making child abuse images - It is in the publics interest & vital for future Risk Management
12:57 PM - 1 Nov 2011
The tweet from MTW is posted at 12:57 pm on 1st November 2010
And... The Mirror's originally posted:
VINCENT Tabak had sick images on his laptop showing children being sexually abused, police have revealed.
ByMirror.Co.Uk
17:14, 1 NOV 2011UPDATED19:10, 12 MAR 2012
The Mirror originally posted at 17:14 1st November 2011
Leaving me not knowing the time The Daily Mails article was posted on the same day.... I have said many times before , who is the original source??
As I have stated... why has this info been released before any risk management of the children involved was assessed??
Was someone hoping that a barrage of people would come forward to accuse Dr Vincent Tabak of something untoward??
There has been many people who over the years have capitalised on making accusations, Dr Vincent Tabak would be an easy target for those who knew of his charges and apparent likes.... But we never heard of anyone coming forward in relation to Dr Vincent Tabak about anything.... Not even for his original trial in October 2011...
It takes the Police until 2015 to take Dr Vincent Tabak to court for these images.... and again we just get a guilty plea...
From The Guardian 2015:
Vincent Tabak admits possessing indecent images of children
Joanna Yeates’s killer pleads guilty to four charges at Bristol crown court over images found on his laptop
Press Association
Mon 2 Mar 2015 17.51 GMT Last modified on Wed 29 Nov 2017 22.31 GMT
Tabak, dressed in a black suit, white shirt and blue tie, was flanked by five security officers in the dock as he entered guilty pleas to the four charges. He admitted four counts of possessing indecent images of children on his laptop between January 2009 and 2011. The charges relate to 145 images, the majority of which are classed at the lowest category in terms of seriousness. Two counts of making indecent photographs between 2009 and 2011, relating to 23 images found on external hard drives, were ordered to lie on file.
Opening the case for the prosecution, David Bartlett said detectives discovered the images after examining Tabak’s laptop in 2011. “This case concerns 145 indecent images,” Bartlett said. “All of which were found on the laptop computer of this defendant which was seized on 20 January 2011. On that occasion he was arrested and cautioned and the Dell laptop was seized.”
Bartlett said the majority of images related to two teenage girls of “relative maturity” and were in the least serious category. “But some of the most serious category are not, they are of pre-pubescent girls,” he added.
Bartlett said Tabak had been interviewed in prison in March 2012 but refused to answer any questions. “He said there had been such serious leakages in information that he couldn’t have a fair trial and he couldn’t trust the security and integrity of information that he gave to the police,” Bartlett said.
This article states that Dr Vincent Tabak was not interviewed until March 2012 yet we have 3 sources giving us this information in November 2011
Again Dr Vincent Tabak has refused to answer any questions, we know nothing of how his laptop was processed, we know nothing of the chain of command.... we know nothing of whom analysed this laptop....
This is amongst the reasons I have questioned the validity of the purported images on Dr Vincent Tabak's laptop.... the dates are between 2009-2011... who had access to this laptop between this time....
Tanja Morson also used this laptop... did she not stumble across these images?? Who else could have had access in those years??
I will say Jixy, the charges for the child images have always struck me as odd... taking 4 years plus to actually take him to court for this crime, an unusual length of time for a man sat in prison doing nothing... And we not knowing the actual date of the original charge for this crime..
The amount of images changing also has struck me as odd.... But not as odd as the whole case against Dr Vincent Tabak...
Just looking again at The guardian article...
Temporary assistant chief constable Julian Moss, of Avon and Somerset police, said it was “crucial” that Tabak was brought to justice for possessing the images. “Vincent Tabak is a dangerous, calculating and manipulative offender who is already serving a life sentence for the murder of Joanna Yeates,” Moss said. “During the course of the investigation into Joanna’s murder, indecent images of children were found on Tabak’s laptop. These offences did not form part of the initial murder trial.
This has me again questioning how these 3 sources had the information about the apparent images on Dr Vincent Tabak's laptop?? If during the course of the Investigation these offences didn't form part of the initial trial...
Maybe the sources are the ones who need to answer questions about how they came across this information, before any questioning or charges were brought against Dr Vincent Tabak... (imo)
I have been confused as to how this had always unfolded in the media before any protection measures could be put in place for the children that had been exposed..
Just like the trial, I have questioned the validity of these charges... It's easy to make a monster out of someone after the fact and that secures in the public's mind the monster that everyone wants to believe Dr Vincent Tabak is ...
It sealed everyones belief after trial that the must have had the right man for the crime....
I will question and if I am proved wrong , so be it... But the original trial has never sat right with me, so the guilty plea to the child images has had the same effect on me...
And before fingers get pointed.. I do not condone anyone abusing children.... I am just trying to understand how the case against Dr Vincent Tabak came about...
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murderer-vincent-tabak-276472
https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/401998427921199104
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056041/Vincent-Tabak-child-porn-Police-30-sick-images-murderers-laptop.html
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/02/vincent-tabak-admits-possessing-indecent-images-of-children
https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/131354079879380992
-
Another interesting response from MTW
Mark Williams-Thomas
Verified account
@mwilliamsthomas
Following Following @mwilliamsthomas
More
Replying to @darshnasoni
@darshnasoni Thanks, is v strange - think a call needs to go into CPS press office to clarify if decision has been taken on charging #Tabak
1:24 PM - 1 Nov 2011
At 1:24pm he talks about whether or not a decision has been made about charging Dr Vincent Tabak....
Why on earth is he tweeting about Dr Vincent Tabak, having child images on his laptop, if nothing official has come from either The Police or the CPS??
Did someone in the CPS give him this information?? Or someone in the Police?? Is he the original source of this information that went across the media on 1st November 2011??
I'm just asking...........
https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/131361054365200384
-
Mark Williams-Thomas
Verified account
@mwilliamsthomas
Following Following @mwilliamsthomas
More
Can understand reason why the offences of making child abuse material not prosecuted yet- but CPS must prosecute now #Tabak now @smith[Name removed]62
1:00 PM - 1 Nov 2011
This tweet is before the tweet talking about CPS press office...... Why is he pushing for the CPS to prosecute NOW... when know one at that time had any indication as to what these images actually were and, if Dr Vincent Tabak had himself obtain/produced these images..... There is no evidence at this juncture....
https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/131354880827854848
-
Nine-brilliant, wish I had the time to put all that together. The very point that they interviewed Tabak in Holland is very relevant. The Reid technique is banned in the UK because of its fundamental structure backs someone into a corner they can’t see a way out of, even if they haven’t done anything wrong. Feeding Tabak the idea that pleading guilty to manslaughter would save him would be one of the get out routes fed to him along the way along with other options which are very much less palatable (IMHO). It’s all standard stuff. If you’re trained to deal with it be being taught to recognise individual elements you can counter by using other elements like apologising and asking for increasing clarification etc etc. If you have no idea of what is going on you are caught in a rat trap and the rats are in charge of it.
AH
-
Nine-brilliant, wish I had the time to put all that together. The very point that they interviewed Tabak in Holland is very relevant. The Reid technique is banned in the UK because of its fundamental structure backs someone into a corner they can’t see a way out of, even if they haven’t done anything wrong. Feeding Tabak the idea that pleading guilty to manslaughter would save him would be one of the get out routes fed to him along the way along with other options which are very much less palatable (IMHO). It’s all standard stuff. If you’re trained to deal with it be being taught to recognise individual elements you can counter by using other elements like apologising and asking for increasing clarification etc etc. If you have no idea of what is going on you are caught in a rat trap and the rats are in charge of it.
Bye Caroline.
AH
Does this technique also land HIS DNA on JY's chest? Would it secrete HER blood in his boot? AND if this technique is SO effective and VT so susceptible - how come he stood firm on the admission of manslaughter but wouldn't yield to murder?
The man isn't claiming innocence - perhaps you should TELL him he didn't do it! As other have already said, he didn't crack under interrogation, he gave the information from his own free will to a Chaplin!
-
Nine-brilliant, wish I had the time to put all that together. The very point that they interviewed Tabak in Holland is very relevant. The Reid technique is banned in the UK because of its fundamental structure backs someone into a corner they can’t see a way out of, even if they haven’t done anything wrong. Feeding Tabak the idea that pleading guilty to manslaughter would save him would be one of the get out routes fed to him along the way along with other options which are very much less palatable (IMHO). It’s all standard stuff. If you’re trained to deal with it be being taught to recognise individual elements you can counter by using other elements like apologising and asking for increasing clarification etc etc. If you have no idea of what is going on you are caught in a rat trap and the rats are in charge of it.
Bye Caroline.
AH
He brought himself to the attention of the authorities! Phoning them about movements of others while abroad! his over interest in the case. Not to mention his resistance to giving his DNA!
SO now you are claiming the idea to plead guilty to manslaughter was put to him Hey they did great there then. He googled that before even speaking to Police, just like he googled about Jo before anyone knew she was missing
My my Tabak really is as clever as people claim on here...oh just a minute? @)(++(*
-
Does this technique also land HIS DNA on JY's chest? Would it secrete HER blood in his boot? AND if this technique is SO effective and VT so susceptible - how come he stood firm on the admission of manslaughter but wouldn't yield to murder?
The man isn't claiming innocence - perhaps you should TELL him he didn't do it! As other have already said, he didn't crack under interrogation, he gave the information from his own free will to a Chaplin!
Perhaps you should hunt closer to ground!
Spot on 8@??)( and stayed silent ever since. Even when people get in touch, he doesnt reply because he doesnt need their help, Guilty as charged hence his silence!
-
Just a reminder------please treat other posters with respect, even if you don't agree with what they write. All views are welcome on here.
Thank you.
-
No one was being disrespectful... just a bit of fun after reading some outrageous things about the case. It seems to be ok for people to post badly about the case as long as we dont comment.
-
No one was being disrespectful... just a bit of fun after reading some outrageous things about the case. It seems to be ok for people to post badly about the case as long as we dont comment.
You know you are very welcome to comment, Jixy. Everyone knows they are welcome to comment. Nuff said!
-
And, there is nothing funny about this case, whether VT is innocent or not!
-
Nine-brilliant, wish I had the time to put all that together. The very point that they interviewed Tabak in Holland is very relevant. The Reid technique is banned in the UK because of its fundamental structure backs someone into a corner they can’t see a way out of, even if they haven’t done anything wrong. Feeding Tabak the idea that pleading guilty to manslaughter would save him would be one of the get out routes fed to him along the way along with other options which are very much less palatable (IMHO). It’s all standard stuff. If you’re trained to deal with it be being taught to recognise individual elements you can counter by using other elements like apologising and asking for increasing clarification etc etc. If you have no idea of what is going on you are caught in a rat trap and the rats are in charge of it.
AH
Tabak did not confess in interview - he confessed nothing to police at all, so it does not really matter what technique they used, if any! He made a confession freely to the prison chaplain after requesting to see him. He then went onto admit his crime in front of a jury *&^^&
-
And, there is nothing funny about this case, whether VT is innocent or not!
not its actually quite deranged people are fighting to tell us a murderer is innocent when he himself says no such thing.
You are so right, that is NOT funny!
-
Dont worry mrswah I wont post again. Anyone who can post on a forum saying a sex offender should not be charged over disgusting images of children really doesnt deserve my time. Just like slating everyone connected to the murder...just not the murderer!
-
He also admitted killing JY to his lawyers prior to his confession to the prison chaplain. What is funny is that people who post on this thread ignore all the evidence whilst putting together some bazaar theory that everyone from the trial judge to his own defence colluded to convict him!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/18/joanna-yeates-vincent-tabak-admission
-
People on this thread not only have a pretty warped view of how the law works but also a pretty warped view on how child sex offenders should be treated! *&^^&
-
Tabak did not confess in interview - he confessed nothing to police at all, so it does not really matter what technique they used, if any! He made a confession freely to the prison chaplain after requesting to see him. He then went onto admit his crime in front of a jury *&^^&
I don't agree---whether he is guilty or innocent, I think it does matter what technique was used.
-
Dont worry mrswah I wont post again. Anyone who can post on a forum saying a sex offender should not be charged over disgusting images of children really doesnt deserve my time. Just like slating everyone connected to the murder...just not the murderer!
Nobody on this forum would support a sex offender, Jixy. The only question is, was VT really one.
-
People on this thread not only have a pretty warped view of how the law works but also a pretty warped view on how child sex offenders should be treated! *&^^&
Wouldn't agree that I have a "warped view". i'm surprised that you are relying on media reports !
-
I don't agree---whether he is guilty or innocent, I think it does matter what technique was used.
It would only matter if the technique led him to confess! He did not confess anything in interview, under caution or otherwise. He asked to speak to the chaplain and then freely confessed to him, not that it mattered as he had already confessed to his lawyers prior to him speaking to the chaplain.
You do not even know if they used any technique, it is all just guess work on your behalf. The fact is he did not confess to police, in fact he tried to blame someone else!
-
Wouldn't agree that I have a "warped view". i'm surprised that you are relying on media reports !
Firstly, denying that such photographs exist is an insult to the poor victims who featured in those photographs!
Secondly, the guardian is a trusted newspaper, which I have said to you before!
-
Nobody on this forum would support a sex offender, Jixy. The only question is, was VT really one.
Yes he is one! He admitted his guilt on this charge also!
-
And, there is nothing funny about this case, whether VT is innocent or not!
Nothing funny about the case no, however, I find some of these theories laughable. It's how I feel or would you like me to lie about it and humour ridiculous comments? Plenty is made about some of the crazy stuff put forward on the Bamber site - this thread is no better - in fact it's worse because the guy isn't even claiming to be innocent. I was prepared to not comment at all however, the 'bye Caroline' Comment from the Fliegender Jäger was meant to goad.
There is also denial of pedophilic images found on Tabak'c computer - now THAT is bad tatse!
-
Nobody on this forum would support a sex offender, Jixy. The only question is, was VT really one.
Why would he have those images if he wasn't?
-
Nothing funny about the case no, however, I find some of these theories laughable. It's how I feel or would you like me to lie about it and humour ridiculous comments? Plenty is made about some of the crazy stuff put forward on the Bamber site - this thread is no better - in fact it's worse because the guy isn't even claiming to be innocent. I was prepared to not comment at all however, the 'bye Caroline' Comment from the Fliegender Jäger was meant to goad.
There is also denial of pedophilic images found on Tabak'c computer - now THAT is bad tatse!
Very bad taste.
-
It would only matter if the technique led him to confess! He did not confess anything in interview, under caution or otherwise. He asked to speak to the chaplain and then freely confessed to him, not that it mattered as he had already confessed to his lawyers prior to him speaking to the chaplain.
You do not even know if they used any technique, it is all just guess work on your behalf. The fact is he did not confess to police, in fact he tried to blame someone else!
Exasperating isn't it?
-
Exasperating isn't it?
But our posts get amended but theirs dont. What a joke!
-
Exasperating isn't it?
I read this thread and often think just what it would take for people to accept his guilt...
DNA - Nope!
Victims blood - Nope!
Fiber evidence - Nope!
Internet searches - Nope!
A sound confession - Nope!
Even denying the fact he is a paedophile when he has confessed to that too! The case against this vile man is one of the strongest I have ever come across.
-
But our posts get amended but theirs dont. What a joke!
Who are "they"?
-
One thing I don't understand: if VT had child porn on his computer, why wasn't he tried for this at the same time as he was tried for murdering Joanna Yeates? After all, possession of child porn is a crime; possession of other porn isnt.
-
Nothing funny about the case no, however, I find some of these theories laughable. It's how I feel or would you like me to lie about it and humour ridiculous comments? Plenty is made about some of the crazy stuff put forward on the Bamber site - this thread is no better - in fact it's worse because the guy isn't even claiming to be innocent. I was prepared to not comment at all however, the 'bye Caroline' Comment from the Fliegender Jäger was meant to goad.
There is also denial of pedophilic images found on Tabak'c computer - now THAT is bad tatse!
Yes, Caroline, I agree about the goading comment, which is why I have removed it.
-
One thing I don't understand: if VT had child porn on his computer, why wasn't he tried for this at the same time as he was tried for murdering Joanna Yeates? After all, possession of child porn is a crime; possession of other porn isnt.
To make sure the trial was fair. And, do you understand they would have had the difficult task of tracking down the victims who were photographed? He deserved punishment for those pictures and the victims deserved justice. I agree with MWT, he needs to be risk assessed for those images in the future, this would not have happened if he was not charged - he is a risk to children!
-
Also he pleaded guilty to possessing child porn, he was never tried for that charge on the basis his guilty plea was accepted and there was no alternative charge.
-
Yes, Caroline, I agree about the goading comment, which is why I have removed it.
Cheers.
-
I think I have found my Windmill...
-
............
It's just a bloke! No reason for you to know who he is and ITV were banned from the conference due to the following.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/jan/05/itv-news-joanna-yeates-investigation
-
Think it probably isn't relevant...........
-
Think it probably isn't relevant...........
I agree.
-
I think I have found my Windmill...
This one you mean... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEhS9Y9HYjU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEhS9Y9HYjU)
-
It's just a bloke! No reason for you to know who he is and ITV were banned from the conference due to the following.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/jan/05/itv-news-joanna-yeates-investigation
What bloke? Sorry, I'm not following------------------
-
To make sure the trial was fair. And, do you understand they would have had the difficult task of tracking down the victims who were photographed? He deserved punishment for those pictures and the victims deserved justice. I agree with MWT, he needs to be risk assessed for those images in the future, this would not have happened if he was not charged - he is a risk to children!
Did they ever track down the victims, do you know?
-
What bloke? Sorry, I'm not following------------------
The bloke in the video that Nine posted then deleted.
-
Always good to find more images..
I always thought that the vehicle that removed the car from Canygne Road was actually on Canygne Road and not on the drive...!!
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15000;image)
-
Just found out... that's the Volvo..... But I think that there were 3 cars moved outside at the same time on the same day.... I found this video.... link below....
* Chrysler
* The Volvo
* And The white car on a little flatbed truck....
But the most interesting thing of note is the two men whom appear from the back to the left when the Volvo is driven from the drive.... There is a very tall man in a white coat who goes into the main part of the house...
Could it be Dr Vincent Tabak?? I know he's supposed to be away, but none of the timings we get stay the same....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-12093117/forensics-remove-cars-from-the-home-of-jo-yeates
-
In Fact when you watch that video, have you seen the white vehicles that are two abreast outside 44, Canygne Road...
There are so many vehicles there, of the white variety, I believe no-one would have noticed, the removal of the white car....
-
In Fact when you watch that video, have you seen the white vehicles that are two abreast outside 44, Canygne Road...
There are so many vehicles there, of the white variety, I believe no-one would have noticed, the removal of the white car....
Who doing the filming from that angle?? Cannot be the media, I am more than sure that they would have better cameras..
-
Who doing the filming from that angle?? Cannot be the media, I am more than sure that they would have better cameras..
Why would that matter?
-
A BBC cameraman on a cherry-picker maybe, or more likely a CCTV camera on a tall pole attached to a vehicle, specially hired for the purpose, and seen in the background at 00:30.
But of course, it doesn't matter and is of no relevance whatsoever, just like the rest of this pointless section of the forum.
-
Why would that matter?
Well apparently not in this case..... Just about anyone with access to a camera appears to be able to film.... they film the filmers....
There's even a guy on that video stood on a step ladder, in the middle of the road.... The whole scene look like something out of tv production..
There are more cameras than soft mick, allowed to obstruct what is supposed to be a police operation to remove the vehicles...
This type of activity is one of the reasons I say that it is all staged.... It doesn't look real....
The fact that the lorry cannot negotiate leaving the drive is proof of that..(imo) why have all the cars in the way at that time.... Shouldn't someone be coordinating this removal of cars??
It is deliberately staged for some reason... I never know the reason.....
-
A BBC cameraman on a cherry-picker maybe, or more likely a CCTV camera on a tall pole attached to a vehicle, specially hired for the purpose, and seen in the background at 00:30.
But of course, it doesn't matter and is of no relevance whatsoever, just like the rest of this pointless section of the forum.
I wondered at first if it was a CCTV camera high up, but could not see where something that might be stationary, was situated there...
This morning it did cross my mind thats what it was.... But I cannot find any images to confirm that it is something tall enough on Canygne Road to mount a camera....
So if the camera is mounted on a vehicle, why have the press been given access to this house , getting so close they could touch the car in the drive...
Staged .. staged ...staged... That all I can see...
-
A BBC cameraman on a cherry-picker maybe, or more likely a CCTV camera on a tall pole attached to a vehicle, specially hired for the purpose, and seen in the background at 00:30.
But of course, it doesn't matter and is of no relevance whatsoever, just like the rest of this pointless section of the forum.
If you think it's pointless, why do you post on here?????????
-
If you think it's pointless, why do you post on here?????????
Because I'm astonished at someone's endless ludicrously paranoid views on a person who is quite obviously guilty!!!!!!!
-
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15011;image)
This was posted on twitter, not too long ago....
The tweet says:
David Lindsay
@davidaslindsay
15 minutes ago
Today is the fifty-fifth anniversary of the assassination of President #JohnFKennedy. Moments earlier, he is shown here. #JFK #JFK55
The image is of president Nixon and Not President Kennedy....
The point of me sharing said tweet, is to point out that just because someone tells you something, doesn't make it so....
Just because I was told that Dr Vincent Tabak plead guilty to manslaughter doesn't make it so.... Just because I am told that there are Police Officers outside Canygne Road, doesn't make it so.... Just because I am told that a trial took place, doesn't make it so.....
I desire proof....
Dr Vincent Tabak too may be a figment of someone imagination for all I know....
Edit... Is that the point of this.... is it all fake news?? Is the whole episode fake news??
I believing that I am helping someone who might not even be in prison.... May not exist,... may only be in the imagination of the person /persons who produced it all....
-
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15011;image)
This was posted on twitter, not too long ago....
The tweet says:
The image is of president Nixon and Not President Kennedy....
The point of me sharing said tweet, is to point out that just because someone tells you something, doesn't make it so....
Just because I was told that Dr Vincent Tabak plead guilty to manslaughter doesn't make it so.... Just because I am told that there are Police Officers outside Canygne Road, doesn't make it so.... Just because I am told that a trial took place, doesn't make it so.....
I desire proof....
Dr Vincent Tabak too may be a figment of someone imagination for all I know....
Edit... Is that the point of this.... is it all fake news?? Is the whole episode fake news??
I believing that I am helping someone who might not even be in prison.... May not exist,... may only be in the imagination of the person /persons who produced it all....
Ask Joanna's parents if the cold blooded murder of their daughter is fake!
I can't believe this is allowed to go on and when it's challenged, the challenger gets stick. How can anyone support the above?
-
Ditto:
This is beyond farcical, totally disrespectful of Joanna Yeates, her family and friends, and I'm surprised that this thread and indeed the whole topic has been allowed to continue.
-
Ditto:
This is beyond farcical, totally disrespectful of Joanna Yeates, her family and friends, and I'm surprised that this thread and indeed the whole topic has been allowed to continue.
To be honest.. remove it.... I don't know what is real or not anymore....
I am only being disrespectful if it is all real.... But as I do not know what is true/real in this whole travesty anymore, I do not know if I am being disrespectful or not....
-
To be honest.. remove it.... I don't know what is real or not anymore....
I am only being disrespectful if it is all real.... But as I do not know what is true/real in this whole travesty anymore, I do not know if I am being disrespectful or not....
I don't think there is anyone here who would find the above rational. How on earth can the case and those involved not be real?
-
I don't think there is anyone here who would find the above rational. How on earth can the case and those involved not be real?
It is going a bit far, I have to agree (IMO).
It's real.
-
Ask Joanna's parents if the cold blooded murder of their daughter is fake!
I can't believe this is allowed to go on and when it's challenged, the challenger gets stick. How can anyone support the above?
I wrote do gooders and it got deleted but Nine is ok to post whatever she wants no matter how offensive to the victim and her family! weird!
-
Ditto:
This is beyond farcical, totally disrespectful of Joanna Yeates, her family and friends, and I'm surprised that this thread and indeed the whole topic has been allowed to continue.
totally agree 8@??)(
-
Irrelevant again....
-
I think you are looking too hard, Nine !
Whether or not VT killed Joanna, is one thing, and , IMO, worthy of discussion. However, all the people connected to the case exist, no question about that, and Joanna certainly existed, and was killed. I think they all lived where we were told they lived, too.
-
I think you are looking too hard, Nine !
Whether or not VT killed Joanna, is one thing, and , IMO, worthy of discussion. However, all the people connected to the case exist, no question about that, and Joanna certainly existed, and was killed. I think they all lived where we were told they lived, too.
You're correct mrswah, I need to stay on track....
-
If I have caused offence I apologise, I have found the frustrations of this case has stopped me sometimes thinking rationally.. I have tried to work out what and why, nothing adds up...(imo) But I should go back....
I started with not understanding how Dr Vincent Tabak came to be charged with the Murder of Joanna Yeates and subsequently imprisoned for her Murder.... I having followed the case from when Joanna Yeates went Missing to CJ's arrest through to the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak and could not understand, without checking everyone whom may have been in contact with Joanna Yeates and what Joanna Yeates movements had been for a period of time, why the Police appeared to settle on that house..
What possible reason could there have been for them not to look seriously at anyone else, who may have known Joanna Yeates? Investigations take a long time, but within 34 days we have had 2 arrests and one person charged, neither of whom would have known Joanna Yeates very well.... Dr Vincent Tabak according to trial, did not know Joanna Yeates, and CJ, as far as I am aware, only meet Joanna Yeates and Greg when they came to look at the flats as tenants..
34 days.... that is no time at all in which to wrap this case up.... They were given tips left right and centre... there were appeals, many many people must have given them information, that should have been followed up... But for some strange reason, they did not stray from that building... As for Dr Vincent Tabak, he was away the majority of the time....
Did they ignore information from the public? Did they look at Joanna Yeates work colleagues, friends, family etc.. They ordinarily start with those closest to the victim , eliminate them then work outwards.. If that is the case, how did the come to the conclusion that CJ was responsible in 5 days of finding her body? And then have Dr Vincent Tabak in their sights?
A phone call was made from Holland, apparently, but Ann Reddrop, had him in her sight in late December 2010...how?? What possibly could have given Ann Reddrop cause to even think that Dr Vincent Tabak was guilty of killing Joanna Yeates? Because of a phone call?? No.... it had to be before..(imo)
We must remember that the Police were looking for information, and I think they were looking for anything anyone could remember about that weekend, CJ himself gave a second statement.. He was arrested... Dr Vincent Tabak has been rung by DC Karen Thomas whilst he is away in Cambridge.... Why....
What information was DC Karen Thomas wanting to illicit from Dr Vincent Tabak, whilst he is in Cambridge? They have bounced between CJ and Dr Vincent Tabak without probable cause as far as I can see... Completely ignoring the fact that there are many other people whom could have been in contact with Joanna Yeates, people who were aware that Greg was away for the weekend...
Why not harass Peter Stanley? I am not saying Peter Stanley has anything to do with this, I am pointing out that Peter Stanley, helped start Greg's car and would be aware that Greg was away... Peter Stanley whom also assisted Police on the 31st December 2010 I believe, and had item taken from his house by DC Jon Hook...
But nothing comes of Peter Stanley.... Or maybe they wanted something to come from that, especially as we have CJ in custody at that time...
We have no idea whether or not Peter Stanley had even met Joanna Yeates, we are aware he met Greg, obviously at least at the time he started his car...
So why are the Police entering Peter Stanleys house on the 31st December 2010??? The very same day that they are apparently interviewing Dr Vincent Tabak in Holland??
This interview we are told takes place because of a phone call, a phone call about a car that changes position.. a phone call that takes place whilst CJ is in custody.... But we still have Ann Reddrops statement after trial, where she says to camera that they had been looking at Dr Vincent Tabak since late December 2010... why?
Why would they be searching Peter Stanley's house and him attending the Police station voluntarily on that date, when Ann Reddrop, has Dr Vincent Tabak in her sights?
It is something I haven't really contemplated, but Peter Stanley and Dr Vincent Tabak... what is the connection??
Why would they be taking forensic bags out of Peter Stanleys house and Interviewing him when CJ is in custody and Dr Vincent Tabak is being interviewed in Holland on the same day.... It could even be at the same time... I do not know what time Dr Vincent Tabak was interviewed..
So 3 men, whom are connected to each other how?? neighbours and landlord...
Peter Stanley doesn't get mentioned at trial, he is referred to as a neighbour who helped start the car if I remember correctly.. But why are the Police at his home? What is the connection other than starting Greg's car?? Why did Jon Hook take forensic bags from Peter Stanleys home??
Joanna Yeates murder: police switch attention to second house
10:28PM GMT 31 Dec 2010
]Officers carrying forensics bags entered a £1.5 million detached house next door to the flat where the murdered landscape architect lived with her boyfriend, Greg Reardon.
They spent more than an hour speaking to the owner of the property, Peter Stanley, and his tenant, Laurence Penney, 41, and later left carrying a small number of items in a brown forensic bag.
Mr Penney, a design consultant, told The Daily Telegraph that he had been asked to account for his movements around the time of Miss Yeates’s disappearance. He said the questioning had been “routine” because he had only just returned home after a Christmas break in Europe.
Detectives took away for examination a maroon BMW car belonging to Mr Stanley, a 56-year-old mechanical engineer.
He drove the vehicle to a police station accompanied by a detective and was driven back about an hour later in a marked police car.
So we have Peter Stanley and Laurence Penney both being questioned by The Police and nothing of Laurence Penney is said any further... unless you were on the forum at the time and he was discussed.... But according to the article he is away at what must be the relevant times....
But why the forensic bags?
The Police need probable cause again to search a house and take away items that they believe to be linked to the Murder of Joanna Yeates... so why were they there?? Seriously, what possible items could be in Peter Stanleys house??
They never linked Dr Vincent Tabak to Peter Stanley, the man whom stood trial for the murder of Joanna Yeates... Did that little piece of information slip past the defences eyes?
I do not understand why The Defence didn't question Peter Stanley and ask why and what the Police were looking for in his home...
That brings us to 20 days....
20 days when they have done and dusted this case.... And apparently it was because of the Holland Interview... I don't believe it personally.... I am still stuck with what made them check Peter Stanleys home...
Did they believe Peter Stanley helped CJ?? were they wanting to arrest Peter Stanley?? Did they take a DNA sample from Peter Stanley?? is that why he went voluntarily to the Police station?? Did he go to the Police station to eliminate himself from the inquiry??
CJ was eliminated by his DNA, as far as I remember, and if they were talking killers, maybe they believed that CJ had help... And as Peter Stanley helped start Gregs car, I can see why they would want to eliminate him...
CJ is released on bail on the 1st January 2011 and we now have 19 days until they arrest Dr Vincent Tabak... We remember that at The Leveson DCI Phil Jones tells us about a trainer that was found under a kickboard behind a sink in that house with blood spots upon it... and that was the reason that they kept CJ on bail until march 2011...
They obviously still were pursuing CJ until they released him from bail.... according to the statement that DCI Phil Jones makes at the Leveson...
So how comes they arrested Dr Vincent Tabak? Were they convinced CJ had something to do with Joanna Yeates demise? Did they decide it had to be CJ because of his second witness statement and the fact he had the keys to the property?
Was Dr Vincent Tabak unfortunate because he had put himself in the middle of the investigation , by making the phone call from Holland??
They have absolutely no idea at this point , when Joanna Yeates was killed and when she went Missing... There is nothing pointing to the date and time... So why Dr Vincent Tabak?? He ends up with a small window of opportunity on the Friday 17th December 2010, to even commit this crime and nothing to support his arrest...
What happened to Peter Stanley?? What happened to the evidence they took from his home?? And why they took evidence from the home of someone who had no connection to the crime?
What possible evidence could be in Peter Stanleys home.. The jump leads are all I can think of.... The only thing that connects Peter Stanley to Greg and CJ and that house...
I can summise why this may be important... who touched the jump leads etc... But it doesn't connect Dr Vincent Tabak to Joanna Yeates or Peter Stanley... And it is only important if we have still got CJ in the mix....
A 19 day countdown, where Police must still have a huge number of people to Interview, yet they don't... Dr Vincent Tabak has moved out of the property due to all of the Police activity and what evidence have the Police got?
None... DNA... which as stated could be explained away..... It could have been planted as Dr Vincent Tabak suggested.... he is not at the property.... We have no idea whom had access to the properties over that period... we saw random builders going in and out, but who else gained access to Joanna Yeates property and Dr Vincent Tabak's property?
We have the Crime watch program being filmed, and 300 calls or lines of inquiry on the 17th/18th January 2011.. the Yeates next do another appeal... Straight away we have the sobbing girl ring because of The Yeates appeal and Dr Vincent Tabak is then arrested....
On what possible grounds did they arrest him on?
They haven't checked those lines of inquiries that came in after the Yeates appeal, they couldn't have had time. But out of nowhere, they arrest a man who didn't know Joanna Yeates , had been away working in America, when she moved in and had been at home a matter of days, before he apparently decided to kill her...
Doesn't make any sense... They haven't interviewed or checked out Joanna Yeates 200 Facebook friends by this time either..
Had they put all their eggs in one basket pursuing CJ and believed someone had to help him? Is this the reason that Dr Vincent Tabak was arrested?
To this day I cannot comprehend, how in such a short space of time without checking alibi's and friends etc of Joanna Yeates they arrested Dr Vincent Tabak... Especially as they had been busy checking Peter Stanley, whom as we know has no connection to Dr Vincent Tabak... he can't have or else we would have had a statement from him at trial...
The computer evidence I am not convinced of.... two of the searches I have all ready pointed out where done when Dr Vincent Tabak wasn't even at home... he went to collect Tanja... And the computer evidence wasn't scrutinized at trial...
I don't know or understand why Dr Vincent Tabak pled guilty to Manslaughter... I do not know why he stated nothing contrary to that at trial... But his story on the stand is just that.... It sort of fits with the newspaper reports of the time, but it doesn't convince me that it is true...
Will we ever know the truth about the murder of Joanna Yeates or will we forever be made to try and swallow a story told on the stand by a man whom couldn't answer over 80 questions put to him... A man who stood trial without all the evidence in this case being used, that should have connected him to Joanna Yeates and that Flat!!
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8234570/Joanna-Yeates-murder-neighbour-interviewed-by-police-over-boyfriends-flat-battery-incident.html
-
MTW... Just noticed this event he is doing.... Firstly he spell 'Yeates" incorrectly, but that is neither here nor there, or is it... i had seen Yeates spelt yates before and wondered which was the correct spelling....
I want to know what he did to cover this case?? There's a couple of clips to camera that I have posted before, but other than that I cannot find anything he has done with regards this case...
Was he the criminologist the Police used? He has tweeted some points on the case at the time, but unless he has deleted some tweets there really isn't a lot that he has stated on the case via twitter.. As I said, when it came to mentioning Greg Reardon , there is only one tweet about him...
Mark Williams-Thomas
Verified account
@mwilliamsthomas
RT @robcatherall: - expecting a statement on behalf of jo yeates' boyfriend greg reardon after 3 - we'll bring it in live #SkyNews1:41 PM - 1 Jan 2011
I would have imagined there to be many many more tweets in regard to Greg.... Where's the tweet about Greg being a witness and not a suspect?? Or the loving relationship Greg had with Joanna Yeates,
Why is he doing a talk about the case? Google MTW and Joanna Yeates and there are a couple of references to him...
I always hope that there is someone out there who can shed new light on the case, and take interest when anyone writes a book or says something publicly, in the vain hope that something I may have missed comes to light.
But I cannot see how MWT is going to be of use, if he had nothing to do with the case...
Mark Williams-Thomas
Verified account
@mwilliamsthomas
26 November: Come and hear me talk about some of my investigations - including exposing Jimmy Savile, interviewing Oscar Pistorius, interviewing killer Stuart Hazel and investigating the disappearance of Madeline McCann and the Alps murders.
8:26 AM - 26 Oct 2018
This Funzing Experience:
BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL!
WAS: £15
NOW: £12
What is like to be called into some of the most infamous cases in the world? How was Jimmy Savile finally exposed? Was Oscar Pistorius in-fact innocent? Join us for a gripping talk from one of the most sought after criminologists & investigative reporters, Mark Williams-Thomas, and get under the skin of some of the most high-profile cases the world has ever seen.
Multi award winning investigative reporter and Criminologist Mark Williams-Thomas has far-reaching experience of working at the centre of very high-profile investigations.
Mark’s ability to get exclusive access and interviews with key people is unprecedented, beating the world media to secure the only interview with Oscar Pistorius and finally exposing Jimmy Savile; which has since become the biggest media story of the decade.
Over the past 10 years Mark has covered nearly all the major criminal investigations in the media - from the abduction of Madeleine McCann, the faked abductions of Shannon Mathews to the murders of Tia Sharp and Joanna Yates to the family slayed in their car in the French Alps.
Mark’s determination to succeed is both empowering and captivating – failure is never an option. He is not scared to ask the difficult questions and put his body on the line to get to the truth. He is a master of detail and careful planning, with a unique able to think quickly on his feet. He is at his best when under pressure.
This talk will have you captivated and inspired – giving you the inside stories of the many cases Mark has covered and answering your biggest questions.
Venue: International Students House, Marylebone
Doors: 7pm / Talk starts: 7.30pm.
Earlybird Tickets: £12 (SOLD OUT) / Standard Tickets: £15
*Please see venue website for admission (age restrictions) or accessibility information. Our talks may be filmed for promotional purposes.
**************************************************************************************
Funzing Talks is a new concept which aims to re-invent your after work drinks. We've pulled together an impressive array of leading entrepreneurs, intellectuals, bright thinkers and incredible individuals to inspire your evenings.
Held in a hand picked range of bars across London, a Funzing Talks event makes the perfect after work activity.
Delve into a totally new subject and challenge your perspectives over a beer with like-minded Londoners. Funzing has always encouraged you to do something different with your free time, so we say do just that - you never know where it may lead you!
Experience includes:
One-off opportunity to hear fascinating insights from one of the UK's most high-profile investigators
Fascinating lecture
High profile speaker
Trendy London venue
Unique after-work event
I am now going back over his tweets...
Mark Williams-Thomas
Verified account
@mwilliamsthomas
@BrianCathcart: I've interviewed Chris Jefferies, the Bristol ex-teacher bulk-libelled in the Jo Yeates case. Quite a story. FT Sat mag
6:12 PM - 7 Oct 2011
I read that wrong... I thought MWT meant he had interviewed CJ.... But then I wondered if he did? It made me question the docu-drama's and wonder if MWT had a hand in making them??
Did MTW make the docu-drama's? or have involvement making the docu-dramas?? Or was he the Police Advisor??
MTW tweets about CJ... the date of the tweet is the 7th October 2011..... The FT article is the 8th October 2011
It reminded me of the interview of CJ on youtube, when across the screen flashes ...
"Murder at Christmas" Crime and Investigation Network.... But it was as if the title in the corner hadn't been finished... it was a temp title... I have posted about this before.... This interview was published on the 28th October 2011 on youtube, the day of sentencing for Dr Vincent Tabak... And the released date for TV is RealCrimeUK
Published on Nov 24, 2011
It has always stumped me how a production could have happened so quickly after the trial.... I thought these TV programs take time to produce, that was why when I had seen the 28th Oct 2011 interview with CJ, I couldn't understand why it said "Crime and Investigation"... " Murder at Christmas"
Joanna Yeates Landlord Christopher Jefferies's Living Hell after Being Wrongly Accused Of Murder
12,760 views
Bren Ryan
Published on Oct 28, 2011
This is weird... I have got to get this right.... It's important..... Because all of the Docu-dramas appear to have been made at the same time to me... They did not change.... The Count Down to Murder docu-dramas, which I have pointed out many times is wrong... i thought it had to be made before, but how could it?/
This is really confusing....
I do not remember ever seeing MWT at Bristol Crown Court when the trial is going on,I say that I mean from the images we have of this trial.... I do not see him doing any piece to camera..... But he says in his funzing blurb, that he's involved in the case.... Did he have involvement??
So how was he involved?? Or is he just saying that??
My heads spinning... I'm trying to remember what was stated in the video's... And why I keep finding what I believe to be new information that differs from trial.... 'The Washing Pile"... for instance...
Going back to the Leveson.....
Mr Christopher Jefferies
Yes, obviously I have no other experience of bringing defamation proceedings.
Mr Jay
No, I'm sure you haven't. I be sincerely hope you have no future experience of it either. Thank you.
You tell us in your witness statement that there was one interview you gave and that was to the Financial Times, Mr Brian Cathcart.
Mr Christopher Jefferies
Indeed, Professor Brian Cathcart.
Mr Jay
Pardon me, you're absolutely right. His article is in our bundle CJ1 at page 27.
Mr Christopher Jefferies
Yes.
Mr Jay
It was published in the Financial Times on 8 October 2011. This followed an interview with you; is that right, Mr Jefferies?
Then Mr Jay asks:
Mr Jay
Is that to date the only interview you've given, Mr Jefferies?
Mr Christopher Jefferies
No. I did give an interview for ITN News. One of the reasons that I gave that was that the interviewer happened to be somebody whom at one stage I taught.
Mr Jay
Thank you. In terms of the legal process, the contempt proceedings have been determined. There's ongoing litigation against the police.
May I deal with the issue of the Press Complaints Commission?
This date of this Leveson inquiry is 28th November 2011.... CJ clearly states he only did an interview for ITV news... When I look this is an ITV interview I find before November 2011..... This interview is posted on the 28th October 2011
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsZnfi5oM5o
But as I have stated in this post... the "Murder at Christmas" interview is posted on the 28th October 2011, making the statement that CJ gave to the Leveson incorrect.... (imo) As looking at both of the youtube videos CJ is wearing different clothing and appears to be at a different address in the 'Murder at Christmas" interview...
When was that interview done?
Mr Christopher Jefferies
No. I did give an interview for ITN News. One of the reasons that I gave that was that the interviewer happened to be somebody whom at one stage I taught.
ITV News
Published on Oct 28, 2011
Before Vincent Tabak became prime suspect, Jo's neighbour Christopher Jefferies was arrested by police.
Although innocent he was vilified by the press and portrayed as creepy and lewd.
Speaking exclusively to ITV News Mr Jefferies described it as the "most difficult time of my life".
"A lot of [police] time and attention was taken up with me...It's absolutely clear that the focus should have been elsewhere," he said.
On the way treated by the media, Mr Jefferies said "reading [reports about me] in such a concentrated and pointed form for the first time was very upsetting indeed."
"There was an entirely foreign personality that was being foisted on me."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsZnfi5oM5o
Who did he teach??
This is why the case confuses me, why the docu-dramas confuse me... Why doesn't Greg appear in the Docu-dramas??
The date and time stamps of those interviews on those docu-dramas needs verifying... I cannot see how CJ is interviewed about a case before the case has completed... And the ITV interview therefore cannot be exclusive.... If that is indeed the ITV interview that CJ is referring too....
Mark Williams-Thomas
Verified account
@mwilliamsthomas
What's Happened to the Landlord? & Why didn't police arrest Mr. Tabak earlier? Sky Crime Correspondent blog #joyeates http://bit.ly/gE8ijh
9:20 PM - 23 Jan 2011
This tweet got me when I first saw it...... Why would the Police arrest Dr Vincent Tabak earlier?? Why would he say such a thing... (Of course the link doesn't work)
There was nothing to indicate at any time before that Dr Vincent Tabak had any contact with Joanna Yeates, other than living next door.... His behaviour had not been reported... No-one knew of his whereabouts until his arrest and everything else was at trial....
Why is MTW is asking why Dr Vincent Tabak wasn't arrested sooner?? Why would he even know that he was a suspect? Just because Dr Vincent Tabak was charged, doesn't mean the case is done and dusted by then....
This is very disconcerting.... And people wonder why I question everything..... and why I make crazy statements....
Who is Dr Vincent Tabak?? Is he an Innocent victim in this crazy case?? Is he made up?? Or is he a scapegoat for this murder....
I cannot fathom how the TV interview and the other interview that is published on the 28th October 2011 is of the same time, if it is supposed to be interviews after a trial....
Did MWT have any involvement with the docu-drama's?? When were they actually filmed.?? Is that the reason Dr Vincent Tabak is always referred to as him/he in the docu- dramas, until we get the Count Down to Murder program, where they made before trial... ????
Which in itself it weird, as all of the info is incorrect basically in that program.....
I go around in circles trying to be rational about this, but I then find weird information, that basically shouldn't have happened before a trial has completed....
It appears I am still chasing a ghost....
I keep re-reading my post before I post t on the forum.... I have even gone and bought breakfast before i post it.... And i am getting more and more annoyed as I walk to get breakfast, when I go over in my mind this post....
I have spent a lot of time on this, thinking i was helping a man whom is in prison.... But i end up going back to is he even in prison??
I am not posting anymore.... let someone sort out this cack... I have had enough, It is not what it appeared in the beginning, when i joined the facebook forum and on here.... I am gullible.... I am an idiot.... I am stupid... I do not know why I post.... There is no need for me to do it, anymore....
Complete B******S.... rubbish, crap.... maybe somewhere in all this someone has committed a crime.... i don't know... i am might annoyed with myself, wasting my time on what i thought was trying to help someone in prison, who didn't have a voice.....
But I do not know if that is even true anymore!!! And enough is enough.... I have sent my family bonkers over this case... And myself.... Yesterday i felt willing to start again... But sod that for a game of soldiers....
What on earth is this case really about!!!!! Who is this case really about!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4X5I4eOKIBs
https://uk.funzing.com/funz/bf-savile-pistorius-mh370-meet-the-investigator-19716
https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/1055722250953986048
https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/21199405377921026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFgGbNtF0wA
https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/122358677175939073
https://leveson.sayit.mysociety.org/hearing-28-november-2011/mr-christopher-jefferies
https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/29287364438261760
-
MTW... Just noticed this event he is doing.... Firstly he spell 'Yeates" incorrectly, but that is neither here nor there, or is it... i had seen Yeates spelt yates before and wondered which was the correct spelling....
I want to know what he did to cover this case?? There's a couple of clips to camera that I have posted before, but other than that I cannot find anything he has done with regards this case...
Was he the criminologist the Police used? He has tweeted some points on the case at the time, but unless he has deleted some tweets there really isn't a lot that he has stated on the case via twitter.. As I said, when it came to mentioning Greg Reardon , there is only one tweet about him...
I would have imagined there to be many many more tweets in regard to Greg.... Where's the tweet about Greg being a witness and not a suspect?? Or the loving relationship Greg had with Joanna Yeates,
Why is he doing a talk about the case? Google MTW and Joanna Yeates and there are a couple of references to him...
I always hope that there is someone out there who can shed new light on the case, and take interest when anyone writes a book or says something publicly, in the vain hope that something I may have missed comes to light.
But I cannot see how MWT is going to be of use, if he had nothing to do with the case...
I am now going back over his tweets...
I read that wrong... I thought MWT meant he had interviewed CJ.... But then I wondered if he did? It made me question the docu-drama's and wonder if MWT had a hand in making them??
Did MTW make the docu-drama's? or have involvement making the docu-dramas?? Or was he the Police Advisor??
MTW tweets about CJ... the date of the tweet is the 7th October 2011..... The FT article is the 8th October 2011
It reminded me of the interview of CJ on youtube, when across the screen flashes ...
"Murder at Christmas" Crime and Investigation Network.... But it was as if the title in the corner hadn't been finished... it was a temp title... I have posted about this before.... This interview was published on the 28th October 2011 on youtube, the day of sentencing for Dr Vincent Tabak... And the released date for TV is RealCrimeUK
Published on Nov 24, 2011
It has always stumped me how a production could have happened so quickly after the trial.... I thought these TV programs take time to produce, that was why when I had seen the 28th Oct 2011 interview with CJ, I couldn't understand why it said "Crime and Investigation"... " Murder at Christmas"
This is weird... I have got to get this right.... It's important..... Because all of the Docu-dramas appear to have been made at the same time to me... They did not change.... The Count Down to Murder docu-dramas, which I have pointed out many times is wrong... i thought it had to be made before, but how could it?/
This is really confusing....
I do not remember ever seeing MWT at Bristol Crown Court when the trial is going on,I say that I mean from the images we have of this trial.... I do not see him doing any piece to camera..... But he says in his funzing blurb, that he's involved in the case.... Did he have involvement??
So how was he involved?? Or is he just saying that??
My heads spinning... I'm trying to remember what was stated in the video's... And why I keep finding what I believe to be new information that differs from trial.... 'The Washing Pile"... for instance...
Going back to the Leveson.....
Then Mr Jay asks:
This date of this Leveson inquiry is 28th November 2011.... CJ clearly states he only did an interview for ITV news... When I look this is an ITV interview I find before November 2011..... This interview is posted on the 28th October 2011
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsZnfi5oM5o
But as I have stated in this post... the "Murder at Christmas" interview is posted on the 28th October 2011, making the statement that CJ gave to the Leveson incorrect.... (imo) As looking at both of the youtube videos CJ is wearing different clothing and appears to be at a different address in the 'Murder at Christmas" interview...
When was that interview done?
Mr Christopher Jefferies
No. I did give an interview for ITN News. One of the reasons that I gave that was that the interviewer happened to be somebody whom at one stage I taught.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsZnfi5oM5o
Who did he teach??
This is why the case confuses me, why the docu-dramas confuse me... Why doesn't Greg appear in the Docu-dramas??
The date and time stamps of those interviews on those docu-dramas needs verifying... I cannot see how CJ is interviewed about a case before the case has completed... And the ITV interview therefore cannot be exclusive.... If that is indeed the ITV interview that CJ is referring too....
This tweet got me when I first saw it...... Why would the Police arrest Dr Vincent Tabak earlier?? Why would he say such a thing... (Of course the link doesn't work)
There was nothing to indicate at any time before that Dr Vincent Tabak had any contact with Joanna Yeates, other than living next door.... His behaviour had not been reported... No-one knew of his whereabouts until his arrest and everything else was at trial....
Why is MTW is asking why Dr Vincent Tabak wasn't arrested sooner?? Why would he even know that he was a suspect? Just because Dr Vincent Tabak was charged, doesn't mean the case is done and dusted by then....
This is very disconcerting.... And people wonder why I question everything..... and why I make crazy statements....
Who is Dr Vincent Tabak?? Is he an Innocent victim in this crazy case?? Is he made up?? Or is he a scapegoat for this murder....
I cannot fathom how the TV interview and the other interview that is published on the 28th October 2011 is of the same time, if it is supposed to be interviews after a trial....
Did MWT have any involvement with the docu-drama's?? When were they actually filmed.?? Is that the reason Dr Vincent Tabak is always referred to as him/he in the docu- dramas, until we get the Count Down to Murder program, where they made before trial... ????
Which in itself it weird, as all of the info is incorrect basically in that program.....
I go around in circles trying to be rational about this, but I then find weird information, that basically shouldn't have happened before a trial has completed....
It appears I am still chasing a ghost....
I keep re-reading my post before I post t on the forum.... I have even gone and bought breakfast before i post it.... And i am getting more and more annoyed as I walk to get breakfast, when I go over in my mind this post....
I have spent a lot of time on this, thinking i was helping a man whom is in prison.... But i end up going back to is he even in prison??
I am not posting anymore.... let someone sort out this cack... I have had enough, It is not what it appeared in the beginning, when i joined the facebook forum and on here.... I am gullible.... I am an idiot.... I am stupid... I do not know why I post.... There is no need for me to do it, anymore....
Complete B******S.... rubbish, crap.... maybe somewhere in all this someone has committed a crime.... i don't know... i am might annoyed with myself, wasting my time on what i thought was trying to help someone in prison, who didn't have a voice.....
But I do not know if that is even true anymore!!! And enough is enough.... I have sent my family bonkers over this case... And myself.... Yesterday i felt willing to start again... But sod that for a game of soldiers....
What on earth is this case really about!!!!! Who is this case really about!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4X5I4eOKIBs
https://uk.funzing.com/funz/bf-savile-pistorius-mh370-meet-the-investigator-19716
https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/1055722250953986048
https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/21199405377921026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFgGbNtF0wA
https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/122358677175939073
https://leveson.sayit.mysociety.org/hearing-28-november-2011/mr-christopher-jefferies
https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/29287364438261760
I have a similar quandary about you - do you really think these things are is this a wind up?
-
Vincent Tabak is a real person, and he is in prison serving a life sentence for the murder of Joanna Yeates !! I have no doubt about that. Whether or not he did murder her is another matter, but I have no doubt he exists and is serving a sentence.
-
Vincent Tabak is a real person, and he is in prison serving a life sentence for the murder of Joanna Yeates !! I have no doubt about that. Whether or not he did murder her is another matter, but I have no doubt he exists and is serving a sentence.
Again thank you mrswah... I have wondered many times why no-one speaks of this case.. And I try and put two and two together and make 5..
From the start of this case, everyone believed that the boyfriend did it... He was the obvious suspect, as it is the normal course of events in most violent crimes in the home... What information was leaked to the media at the time and discussed on forums lead everyone to believe he must be the suspect..
The finding of the rucksack on the dining table at 11:00pm, the phoning of his mother first... The time it took to ring the police because he believed something had happened to his girlfriend.. These were some of the reason that people had concentrated on Greg and questioned what happened in the flat... Not only that, there was talk of Joanna Yeates being talked of in the past tense and at this point she is a Missing person....
We have a young woman missing and The police are behaving as if there it is a Murder Investigation, the attention drawn to this case is huge....
We move forward, we have CJ arrested out of nowhere... we have media interest and stories of what type of person he is.. And I presume many thought the police must have the correct man, because they know what they are doing...
But on the forums, I think it wasn't as clear cut... many still believed it had to be Greg... They wanted to know how The Police had verified his story that he was in Sheffield, and as his family in Sheffield were not saying anything, I believe it only added to the speculation... Not just that, they questioned why Joanna Yeates had not gone to Sheffield with this boyfriend.... They had moved in together, they were besotted with each other, they were happy...
There appeared not to be a good reason for Joanna Yeates not to go to Sheffield... I think this gave to rumour that their relationship was not as solid as one might believe,... And talk of Joanna Yeates having another boyfriend started...
But in the event of CJ's arrest, it took the focus away, and i think some thought the Police had their man.... But within no time at all, CJ is released on bail.... A shadow still hangs over him as being on bail, isn't being cleared in some peoples eyes...
On forums posters had looked at the relationships of people on their Facebook pages that they could access, they were trying to see what others had to say...
Then from out of nowhere, Dr Vincent Tabak is arrested, and everyone is mightily surprised, they are wanting to know what is what... They go to his Facebook page to discover that his apparent friends are leaving his page like rats leaving a sinking ship....
Now I cannot remember if there had been 2 Facebook pages for Dr Vincent Tabak, but it had been commented on that it cannot be Dr Vincent Tabak's Facebook page , because it hadn't long been set up... So the information that was there for people to view was questioned...
Anyone can set up a Facebook page, anyone could add imaginary friends, there was nothing that emphatically proved that this was indeed Dr Vincent Tabak's Facebook page....
And the more I think about it, the more I believe that this Facebook page of Dr Vincent Tabak's may hold the key...
I have used the internet to try and shed light on this case... How images have been changed and how video's contradict each other.... I have tried too hard to find meaning in what people may have posted of reports in the media and it has clouded my judgement sometimes...
I have felt alone without having anyone really to bounce information off, in a constructive way... (no disrespect intended)... And I have feverishly looked at anything that may explain why this case is wrong....
I am not an investigator, or a researcher... I am just someone who has tried their best to fathom what this is all about.... And has been sent on a goose chase by some of the information....
But I suppose if i hadn't put the effort in to this i wouldn't have uncovered the discrepencies in the video's statements of people whom i would have expected to know the facts of what happened, and their role in this case...
I have taken stall in the number that was posted on a website, that in all honesty I do not know if that was really Dr Vincent Tabak's number at The Old Bailey... I spend time making sure i link the information and screenshot the information that I find.... So as to support what I have stated...
But there could be more going on about that number and The Old Bailey and honestly, someone could for whatever reason of their own printed this number for another purpose.... I keep talking about the origin of the information and I do not know the origin of that information, the closest I have come to is a certain Investigator whom tweeted on the 4th May 2011 that Dr Vincent Tabak was going to be at the Old Bailey, when everyone else was expecting him to be at Bristol Crown Court...
This person got their information from where?? How did they know before anyone else that this was the case?? The had to be close to the Investigation to see that was what was happening... I don't know if the Yeates had actually been informed of this before also, or they had been scouring the internet and had come across that information themselves....
Most of the time and certainly in the beginning of me posting was i believed so much information had been removed from the Internet.... And was suspicious of the intentions for this... I wanted to put back what i felt had been removed, and have as much information in one place, so if anyone really wanted to take a proper look at this case... The information was there for all to see....
I tried to understand why the defence didn't defend their client.... I didn't and don't know law, so it made that difficult.... I have been up against the fact i do not know law and have tried to support any arguments that I have put forward...
How did we have 3 suspects in this case, 3 suspects in 34 days.... 3 suspects whom needed checking and the information needed verifying as to what these peoples movements had been over the relevant time... And us not knowing what the relevant time actually was....
Not only did we have 3 suspects but we had volumes of information being given by the public about what they had seen or what they may have known.... Family friends and acquaintances of Joanna Yeates who all needed to be asked various questions in case they knew something of importance... It had been stated that Joanna Yeates may have been abducted, which brings everyone who knows Joanna Yeates into this inquiry... They may have vital information, which could lead to Joanna Yeates abductors... This doesn't appear to have been done....
That house was all that the Police concentrated on and for what reason I do not know....
3 suspects in a matter of a 34 days... It was like pass the hot potato.... Or more like someone was pointing the finger.... Out of the 3 of them Dr Vincent Tabak in the eyes of the public seemed the less likely person to have committed this crime... The boyfriend obviously if procedure is followed, is the obvious one, followed by CJ as they decided that he could gain access to the property and also knew that Greg was away....
But is that enough to arrest someone?? Should information be verified?? Shouldn't other lines of inquiry still be ongoing...??
With the circumstances of what was made available in the media, it seemed in all likely hood that Joanna Yeates knew her killer... she had either invited them in to her home or she had meet them somewhere... The fact that items were found in her home did not prove that she had reached her home.... Even though The Police told the media that they believed that this was the case....
Forums were rife with suggestions that they believed that the Police ignored, and knew of CCTV being available which would show Joanna Yeates last known movements...
Many were amazed when Dr Vincent Tabak had been arrested, and even more so when he was charged... They checked his Facebook page, me also.. And could see his friends disappearing which only added to the idea that he must have some involvement and the Police must have information to tie him to Joanna Yeates death as his friends appeared to have abandoned him....
But calming down and really thinking about this, that Facebook page of Dr Vincent Tabak's could have been fake... and all of the friends he apparently had could also have been fake... Once he's arrested and named people were drawn to check out his page... I cannot remember the date of his page being made, but I do not think it was that old...
You have everyone following this case through social media and anything that The Media printed online keeping up to date with what had been released.... I always felt that Dr Vincent Tabak was made a scapegoat... I could be wrong, there may have been an even more elaborate plan... I have no idea...
For Dr Vincent Tabak to have killed Joanna Yeates he needed access to her Flat, and I do not believe that a young woman who is scared and worried about being left on her own would open the door to a complete stranger, whether or not they are a neighbour... The facts at trial, are only what had been presented in the media, and nothing different came to trial... Anyone can make a scenario out of information given, as I have proved with my many wild and wonderful theories... And that is the point....
The trial should have put to bed any questions many people had, it should have had something more than what we were already aware of... Something other than a man saying he did it, without concrete evidence to support this...
If someone was trying make Dr Vincent Tabak a scapegoat, they had to be involved somewhere along the line.... and Dr Vincent Tabak's Facebook page may be the clue to this....
Social media has been key in this case....(imo) It was used against Dr Vincent Tabak and his texts were also used, as if we are to swallow the idea that he needed to text Tanja to create an alibi...
Asda's CCTV would prove that, and as he is a man that knows about buildings and the flow of people through building, he would also have been aware of CCTV being used in these buildings... He would therefore only need to be caught on CCTV, to show what he was doing at any one time...
But we are told it is the texts that he is using to create his alibi, which is nonsense to me....
So what happened to Dr Vincent Tabak's Facebook , why was that not used at trial?? why were we not privy to the posts that Dr Vincent Tabak must have sent at that time and right up until his arrest... Did his friends not talk to him on Facebook??
Now I really do not know whether or not he did have an original Facebook page.... I remember when I was on the Facebook Forum there was talk about his page and then someone pointed out, If memory serves me correctly that it couldn't be his page as the dates were to recent....
But I am trying to go back 7 years nearly 8 years and what I possibly viewed and what I read on the forum.... I could go and look at the posts.. mrswah has made available the information from that time... But I am at this moment in time writing from memory and maybe after I will use what was stated on the forum....
If someone was trying to lay the blame on someone else for this Murder, then creating Facebook pages and making suggestions that Joanna Yeates and Dr Vincent Tabak should know each other from functions to do with their work, it creates an idea in the minds of some that maybe they knew each other more intimately seeing as there was talk of Joanna Yeates maybe having a relationship outside the one with Greg... Fueling the fire as to what was really going on in Joanna Yeates life....
Who ever killed Joanna Yeates I believe had contacts who helped them.... And a lazy Police force who were not really looking at the facts, but taking someones word as to what was what and being pointed into a direction they were only too happy to go....
I maybe need to put more store in the Facebook page of Dr Vincent Tabak... And maybe this is where the truth lies... If it can be shown who set up his Facebook page, then maybe we get a little closer as to whom was trying to make Dr Vincent Tabak a scapegoat, taking the finger of suspicion away from the real culprit....
Facebook is the key... I believe that it must be.... And all of the names that are on the Facebook pages ie, groups or Facebook forums, should also show us that this is a reason for it....
The Facebook Missing group, was set up for more than one reason I believe, it is and had collected so much information, It will and does show that names from the Facebook Forum and The Missing group were similar....
I know I noticed that part of my name was used on the Facebook Missing group, and was surprised to see it there... I have talked about how the two groups had similar names and couldn't understand why this had happened...
But maybe the point of it was that someone was keeping an eye open, someone was trying to show us about all of the Fake Facebook names that were all over the groups at the time...
It is more simple, mrswah is correct.... I just got carried away with the idea, that there was a lot more to it than I thought... And couldn't understand why nothing made sense....
Isn't there a saying of give someone enough rope and they'll hang themselves...
I think that this is what this may partly be about... There has been someone plying the internet with false information, people making false names and trying to associate themselves with the case....
-
Continued......
In the sense that someone like me being unsuspecting has not until now really thought about this in that way... Because The Media didn't comment on this case I thought there must be a gagging order.... Well maybe they have just been waiting for the right time.... I do not know....
Dr Vincent Tabak could be in prison for a crime he didn't commit, I have always believed that based on what was lacking in this case and trial.... It is always easy to convict on a confession... But is it true....
What ever one believes about Dr Vincent Tabak, one should question this case, and why the Police ignored so many lines of inquiry and why everyone appeared to be happy that a man is in prison for a crime he could not have committed in the way that has been stated....
I suppose someone must have decided that no one would check or cross reference the information that is around the internet.. But I have... maybe not always coming to the correct conclusion, but you have to remember, I have no idea of law... I have never pretended that I have.... I have no education to speak of... But I have life skills and a strong belief that the judicial system need to be fair... And not fill our prisons with Innocent people just to get a conviction.....Allowing a person free to maybe kill again.....
My lack of experience and education , shows through my posts, but I wasn't trying to show whether I am clever or not... I have said many times it is not about me... I do not want fame or fortune and quite frankly have spent all this time writing for zero anything... I haven't asked for anything... I just want fair....
Why would I want of make money of the back of the death of a poor murdered girl?? What purpose would that serve?? It wouldn't reflect my beliefs.... It wouldn't reflect that my intentions are about what I have always stated.... And my only concern is that I like fair, and started writing about this case on this forum for that reason...
So no... I will not write a book... (or have a ghost writer) I will not say who I am... I do not need to.... I just want and always have wanted what is fair... Plain and simple....
Dr Vincent Tabak's conviction had never sat well with me.... Maybe it has with others, but myself no.... And the idea that at the end of trial we have suddenly an explosion of information about what his character was is even more suspicious to me... It plants clearly in the publics mind that he must have done it.... He's a monster and to boot we will show you just what a monster he is and inform the public that Child Pornographic images where found on his computer....
It closes down discussion, it make him an untouchable an undesirable in anyones eyes, who would want to associate themselves publicly with this type of man??
No-one...
It should have secured Dr Vincent Tabak's fate forever... It should have sealed his image in the minds of most as the monster who killed Joanna Yeates....
But the question has to be ... why would someone feel the need to monster a person after conviction, when none of this apparent evidence had been brought to trial... Where we have no foundation for these allegations other than talk in the papers.... Well talk is cheap as they say... Or costly... If it means that someone has lost their freedom because of it....
I am truly sorry for my out bursts... I have been consumed with this case , knowing something isn't right, but just not being able to put must finger on it... And the reasons that people did not really comment have frustrated me no end, but there has to be a greater reason for that.....
What is evident in society now and in the distant past , if someone labels you a paedophile, there is virtually no coming back from that, even if you are Innocent... The idea that this type of crime is associated with someone makes everyone stand well clear for fear of being labelled themselves.... It is the cherry on the cake in someones eyes... A slam dunk... To secure the gullible public into believing what ever they are told about a person... They will run for the hills.....
Everyone naturally would be fearful, to associate with such people or even put themselves out there as being some type of supporter of this person or that.... And I believe that is why telling us that Dr Vincent Tabak is such a person, it cemented in those peoples minds that he must have killed Joanna Yeates....
For me ... no... If he had indeed been involved in the images to do with children, then arrest and charge him for these images... I am no supporter of people who commit such acts... But I am a supporter of people being convicted for a crime that they did commit and not have them in prison for a crime they didn't... And any false allegations that are made in relation to this type of crime need to be addressed....
Proper supporting evidence is needed for arresting and charging people... Guilty pleas for what ever reason people may be doing this is not good enough... The guilty pleas has to be supported and Allegations of such a nature about children, need even more careful scrutiny... Peoples lives have been ruined because of allegations that are unfounded...
So I am at the beginning again... I have highlighted many things in this case in my strange way....
And just to clarify....I am connected to nobody.... I know nobody connected to this case... I am simply a woman ,who has never been happy with Dr Vincent Tabak's conviction.... It's as simple as that......
And I hope you can understand why I have been so frustrated.... Making outrageous statement sometimes.... No-one should be in prison for a crime they haven't committed... no-one....
And if my time I have spent on here has in some way assisted in questioning the conviction of Dr Vincent Tabak, then I hopefully have succeeded in a small way... And my contribution I hope will have someone look at this case again....
Last thought... Did someone plant the info about Greg across the internet to point the finger at him? It is a possibility..(imo)
Nine.....
-
The press and media can only print so much about a suspect during a trial for fear of influencing the jury and that is why after conviction you find all this stuff coming out.
-
Nine - Even without the child porn he is still an evil monster. He was convicted on more than confession!
It is a good job you well never write a book on this case because you would be sued for all your speculation, misinformation and conspiracy theories - it would definitely be filed under fiction for sure.
-
Nine - Even without the child porn he is still an evil monster. He was convicted on more than confession!
It is a good job you well never write a book on this case because you would be sued for all your speculation, misinformation and conspiracy theories - it would definitely be filed under fiction for sure.
Possibly in the comedy section!
-
Nine - Even without the child porn he is still an evil monster. He was convicted on more than confession!
It is a good job you well never write a book on this case because you would be sued for all your speculation, misinformation and conspiracy theories - it would definitely be filed under fiction for sure.
Possibly in the comedy section!
Fair enough guys....
Nine
-
Whether or not VT killed Joanna, is one thing, and , IMO, worthy of discussion. However, all the people connected to the case exist, no question about that, and Joanna certainly existed, and was killed. I think they all lived where we were told they lived, too.
Well spotted! 8((()*/
-
Possibly in the comedy section!
Hows about - "The Nine Lives of Doctor Vincent Van Tobacco"?
Myster.
-
MTW... Just noticed this event he is doing.... Firstly he spell 'Yeates" incorrectly, but that is neither here nor there, or is it... i had seen Yeates spelt yates before and wondered which was the correct spelling....
I want to know what he did to cover this case?? There's a couple of clips to camera that I have posted before, but other than that I cannot find anything he has done with regards this case...
Was he the criminologist the Police used? He has tweeted some points on the case at the time, but unless he has deleted some tweets there really isn't a lot that he has stated on the case via twitter.. As I said, when it came to mentioning Greg Reardon , there is only one tweet about him...
I would have imagined there to be many many more tweets in regard to Greg.... Where's the tweet about Greg being a witness and not a suspect?? Or the loving relationship Greg had with Joanna Yeates,
Why is he doing a talk about the case? Google MTW and Joanna Yeates and there are a couple of references to him...
I always hope that there is someone out there who can shed new light on the case, and take interest when anyone writes a book or says something publicly, in the vain hope that something I may have missed comes to light.
But I cannot see how MWT is going to be of use, if he had nothing to do with the case...
I am now going back over his tweets...
I read that wrong... I thought MWT meant he had interviewed CJ.... But then I wondered if he did? It made me question the docu-drama's and wonder if MWT had a hand in making them??
Did MTW make the docu-drama's? or have involvement making the docu-dramas?? Or was he the Police Advisor??
MTW tweets about CJ... the date of the tweet is the 7th October 2011..... The FT article is the 8th October 2011
It reminded me of the interview of CJ on youtube, when across the screen flashes ...
"Murder at Christmas" Crime and Investigation Network.... But it was as if the title in the corner hadn't been finished... it was a temp title... I have posted about this before.... This interview was published on the 28th October 2011 on youtube, the day of sentencing for Dr Vincent Tabak... And the released date for TV is RealCrimeUK
Published on Nov 24, 2011
It has always stumped me how a production could have happened so quickly after the trial.... I thought these TV programs take time to produce, that was why when I had seen the 28th Oct 2011 interview with CJ, I couldn't understand why it said "Crime and Investigation"... " Murder at Christmas"
This is weird... I have got to get this right.... It's important..... Because all of the Docu-dramas appear to have been made at the same time to me... They did not change.... The Count Down to Murder docu-dramas, which I have pointed out many times is wrong... i thought it had to be made before, but how could it?/
This is really confusing....
I do not remember ever seeing MWT at Bristol Crown Court when the trial is going on,I say that I mean from the images we have of this trial.... I do not see him doing any piece to camera..... But he says in his funzing blurb, that he's involved in the case.... Did he have involvement??
So how was he involved?? Or is he just saying that??
My heads spinning... I'm trying to remember what was stated in the video's... And why I keep finding what I believe to be new information that differs from trial.... 'The Washing Pile"... for instance...
Going back to the Leveson.....
Then Mr Jay asks:
This date of this Leveson inquiry is 28th November 2011.... CJ clearly states he only did an interview for ITV news... When I look this is an ITV interview I find before November 2011..... This interview is posted on the 28th October 2011
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsZnfi5oM5o
But as I have stated in this post... the "Murder at Christmas" interview is posted on the 28th October 2011, making the statement that CJ gave to the Leveson incorrect.... (imo) As looking at both of the youtube videos CJ is wearing different clothing and appears to be at a different address in the 'Murder at Christmas" interview...
When was that interview done?
Mr Christopher Jefferies
No. I did give an interview for ITN News. One of the reasons that I gave that was that the interviewer happened to be somebody whom at one stage I taught.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsZnfi5oM5o
Who did he teach??
This is why the case confuses me, why the docu-dramas confuse me... Why doesn't Greg appear in the Docu-dramas??
The date and time stamps of those interviews on those docu-dramas needs verifying... I cannot see how CJ is interviewed about a case before the case has completed... And the ITV interview therefore cannot be exclusive.... If that is indeed the ITV interview that CJ is referring too....
This tweet got me when I first saw it...... Why would the Police arrest Dr Vincent Tabak earlier?? Why would he say such a thing... (Of course the link doesn't work)
There was nothing to indicate at any time before that Dr Vincent Tabak had any contact with Joanna Yeates, other than living next door.... His behaviour had not been reported... No-one knew of his whereabouts until his arrest and everything else was at trial....
Why is MTW is asking why Dr Vincent Tabak wasn't arrested sooner?? Why would he even know that he was a suspect? Just because Dr Vincent Tabak was charged, doesn't mean the case is done and dusted by then....
This is very disconcerting.... And people wonder why I question everything..... and why I make crazy statements....
Who is Dr Vincent Tabak?? Is he an Innocent victim in this crazy case?? Is he made up?? Or is he a scapegoat for this murder....
I cannot fathom how the TV interview and the other interview that is published on the 28th October 2011 is of the same time, if it is supposed to be interviews after a trial....
Did MWT have any involvement with the docu-drama's?? When were they actually filmed.?? Is that the reason Dr Vincent Tabak is always referred to as him/he in the docu- dramas, until we get the Count Down to Murder program, where they made before trial... ????
Which in itself it weird, as all of the info is incorrect basically in that program.....
I go around in circles trying to be rational about this, but I then find weird information, that basically shouldn't have happened before a trial has completed....
It appears I am still chasing a ghost....
I keep re-reading my post before I post t on the forum.... I have even gone and bought breakfast before i post it.... And i am getting more and more annoyed as I walk to get breakfast, when I go over in my mind this post....
I have spent a lot of time on this, thinking i was helping a man whom is in prison.... But i end up going back to is he even in prison??
I am not posting anymore.... let someone sort out this cack... I have had enough, It is not what it appeared in the beginning, when i joined the facebook forum and on here.... I am gullible.... I am an idiot.... I am stupid... I do not know why I post.... There is no need for me to do it, anymore....
Complete B******S.... rubbish, crap.... maybe somewhere in all this someone has committed a crime.... i don't know... i am might annoyed with myself, wasting my time on what i thought was trying to help someone in prison, who didn't have a voice.....
But I do not know if that is even true anymore!!! And enough is enough.... I have sent my family bonkers over this case... And myself.... Yesterday i felt willing to start again... But sod that for a game of soldiers....
What on earth is this case really about!!!!! Who is this case really about!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4X5I4eOKIBs
https://uk.funzing.com/funz/bf-savile-pistorius-mh370-meet-the-investigator-19716
https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/1055722250953986048
https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/21199405377921026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFgGbNtF0wA
https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/122358677175939073
https://leveson.sayit.mysociety.org/hearing-28-november-2011/mr-christopher-jefferies
https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/29287364438261760
Why are you taking notice of MWT?
Mark Williams-Thomas
Twitter › mwilliamsthomas
Mr King @KingOfHits have spent my whole career investigating,exposing & helping authorities bring to justice offenders like u. I will continue doing what I do, even if u, & minority of others with agendas attack/abuse me. Just remember ‘You are a convicted child sex offender.’
https://mobile.twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/1065915937977712640?p=v
Jonathan Kng
http://www.kingofhits.co.uk/component/option,com_kunena/Itemid,65/func,view/catid,2/id,183092/
UK-Campaigner-Against-Injustice.
@Anti__injustice
Criminal injustice Campaigner, false Allegations. Worked Hard against all the odds to Work with David Rose Of The Mail On Sunday to Expose Mark Williams-Thomas.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Anti__injustice
-
Please keep on topic: I have removed several off topic posts!
Thank you.
-
Going back to the beginning, of this investigation, I wondered about the family dynamics.. The Yeates family may have been portrayed as a united family.. A married mother and father whom live together as man and wife.... A son and a daughter whom live away from home...
What the Police portray to the public, may not be the case.... I do not know for a fact if this is true., what I am about to post, it is an idea that has just come to me, so I thought I should bring it to the table.....
I was looking at other cases where there have been missing or murdered people, and I watched a documentary on Claudia Lawrence... It was this documentary that made me think again about Joanna Yeates....
We may see Mr and Mrs Yeates looking like a family who are together, but are they??
There is information that has been talked about and information we see in video's where we do not get a connection...
The timings are important... Who knew who and who saw who at any time....
Mr and Mrs Lawerence were divorced I believe... and I wondered what the status of the relation ship between The Yeates actually was? The Police keep information back... They portray a united front.... But what is portrayed and what is actually true, is two different things..
I until today had always looked at this as though the Yeates were together.... Yes they are Joanna's parents, but how together were they...??
I have always struggled with the reasoning for what appears to be slip ups by The Yeates in the video's... Where David has stated things and I have noticed Theresa looking somewhat surprised, even though she appears to try to hide this....
For instance... There was on one of the documentaries a point where, David said: One, two O'clock in the morning....
David talked of the washing Pile and Chris Yeates talked of the despair he felt on the 19th December 2010...
I have never understood the discrepancies, and I have tried to over complicate everything.... But no-one has ever questioned or talked of The relationship that Mr and Mrs Yeates had....
If we need to establish the facts of this case we need to know the facts and why I always come across, what I thought contradictory information.... But is it a case that Mr and Mrs Yeates no longer lived together,... Of course they have a common interest in the search for their daughter and would present a united front when it came to the media appeals....
But I appear to have been chasing information around the internet and not concentrating on simple questions first.....
The Police may have decided to portray this couple as people whom are together, it would not be the first time, especially when they initially appeal for information....
I have always referred to them as The Yeates, but should I refer to them as individual people? Maybe that is where the simplicity of this case lies... It became over complicated, for me, when I tried to decipher the information that didn't make sense, I tried to understand why, The Yeates said contradictory statements...
So did David and Theresa Yeates arrived at Canygne Road at the same time?? I am not sure.... But it would definitely explain what each appeared to notice....
mrswah is correct... It is far more simple... I just hadn't brought the idea that David and Theresa Yeates possibly lived seperately....
We have earlier statement's that David Yeates found one of the ear-rings, but at trial it is Greg... When David Yeates mentions The Washing Pile, , Theresa Yeates looks surprised....
I have tried to look at their body language, I have tried to understand why it appears odd... and why when making the documentaries, Theresa, and David sometimes speak at the same time....
I believe that David says that he last saw Joanna Yeates in the November, where as Theresa had stayed at Canygne Road more recently...
Theresa has said in an interview, about herself and Joanna Yeates and Joanna Yeates growing up, that they were at home alone because they were away a lot... I found the statement weird at the time,
At 11:35 of the video "Murder at Christmas " part 1 Theresa Yeates states...
The mobile phone went quite near midnight and Greg's name flashed up on it , which was quite unusual and he said is Jo with you and we said no.. why would she be with us
I presumed "WE" meant David and Theresa, but it doesn't have to mean that at all... I assumed like everyone has that it had to be the case.... But after all this time I want to question that the possibility of David and Theresa actually living apart, is actually the case....
When we see images that have been photoshopped of Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson, images we know for a fact this is the case, I wonder if it is a clue.... The Flat with 2 of everything... 2 cat trays, two settees, two bedroom furniture sets.... I had wondered why....
Theresa said that all of the furniture that Joanna Yeates had bought had been new.... Yet in the tour of Joanna Yeates Flat, the furniture is a mix of old and new....
When I have looked at this case simple things like that have sent me potty... I couldn't understand why David and Theresa Yeates contradicted themselves.... But they didn't ... They made statements as the individual people that they are... (imo)
So who arrived at Canygne Road first?? .... who rang who, I couldn't say... It's the times that David says that differ from Theresa, in the sense he says. one... two o'clock in the morning... I keep saying it like a script, but the script is what The Police have had them state in the beginning, showing this family as one, when I believe it is quite possible that they are seperate...
It all about the dynamics of a family.... any family , and a united family on TV should then concentrate the public's efforts on helping find The Missing person instead of pointing fingers early on in an investigation....
I keep looking for alternative reasoning as to why we have a change of command... Why it all appears to be so cloak and dagger.... Why there is different scenario's....
What is it that people won't talk about?? The case it's self... The Yeates , or Dr Vincent Tabak... If we do not know anything about David and Theresa Yeates and their family dynamics, then we cannot clearly look at this case properly.... That doesn't mean pointing fingers either, but it opens up a whole different approach to the investigation, a whole different approach and out look for people trying to understand it....
I have allowed what is stated in the media to control everything that I have believed about this case, but i have said that the video's hold the key.... And I think they do....
This is why I am so confused and cannot work out where one story starts and one story ends... Who lives in which flat and which Flat is Joanna Yeates....
Have we got two versions of events running parallel?? The confusion we see is 2 versions, not just the 1 it should be ... (imo)
Nobody tells me anything... I complain about it all the time, and wonder why they stay silent.... But what are they staying silent about?? I hoped to be pointed in the right direction , but I haven't had help that way, and it has frustrated me greatly, as my posts bare witness...
We saw a trial..... we have seen the documentaries, we have 2 versions of these events taking place running along side each other... I couldn't understand why... I couldn't understand why the events in one documentary should be so different from the events in another....
Have we got two different statements... is this why we do not see David or Theresa Yeates take the witness stand??
We have 2 FLO, officers, which confused me, to be honest... but it shouldn't if Theresa and David do not live together as man and wife..
Going back to what time Theresa states she was rung... near midnight.... why did it take Greg until 12:45am to ring The Police?? That threw me...
David has talked of his daughter as if he hadn't seen her grow up, and when I saw the documentary when Therea Yeates had spoken about them working away and it was just her and Jo, I assumed that David worked away a lot and didn't have much contact with Joanna...
But maybe this family is estranged.... maybe this is where everything lies... Well the beginning at least....
I have a receipt that Theresa Yeates says she found, yet at trial it is The Police that find the receipt... I have Greg going around to Dr Vincent Tabak's flat with the Police, but in an interview Theresa talks of going around to this Flat...
Part 2 of The Murder at Christmas at 1:39 of the video.. The narrator says:
Jo's parents were now visiting Vincent Tabak's flat....
Did they go around together?? well I don't know... David has told us how he met Tanja and Dr Vincent Tabak on the lawn and had spoken to Tanja... So why would Theresa need to go around there also??
Two individual people telling us similar information, but seperately ..... I believe it has to be the case.... but that is just my opinion... I cannot explain the contradictory statements in any other way....
Two different amounts of information, two next door neighbours being interviewed on the same day on the 31st December 2010... The same idea, but different people....
Ann Reddrop states she was looking at Dr Vincent Tabak in late December, well it never made sense.... Tanja on the one hand calling the Police from Holland and then on the other hand it was Dr Vincent Tabak....
So is that it..... Have I stumbled upon the correct idea.... We get two lots of everything.... Forensics... Police, SIO's media.....
The media have appeared contradictory also... But if we look at this as two sides of the same story, then what they say makes sense...
I do not know the answer.... But I am more and more convinced for myself, that Theresa Yeates and David Yeates were not man and wife as we believed.... It is the only conclusion I can come up with that would explain why we have the discrepancies we have , not only in the interviews, but in the different versions of events that are portrayed....
We know zero to nothing about this family, and the family really are where we should start, and ask questions to put in to context, The Case that is The Murder of Joanna Yeates.... If we do not have the correct information from the start, our perception of what is happening around us, is tainted, and we go on a wild goose chase like I have... Coming up with random theories, to try to make all the information fit.... But what if it is two lots of information , and in between the information the truth lies somewhere??
I need to look at those video's again... I need to look at what and why David and Theresa Yeates make contradictory statements and maybe why we have 2 lots of appeals early on... why the posters are so different, and why there are 2 SIO's in this Investigation....
The Police always look at The live in partner , husband first, followed by the family... And I have talked of a parallel investigation before... I just think I thought of it in the wrong context... I thought of it as "The Missing persons Inquiry and The Murder... where I should have thought about them running two seperate investigations in another light....
It is just what the Police do... One will look at family and friends, husband , boyfriends etc whilst one will be checking other lines of inquiry... I believe....
It this a eureka moment?? maybe... It would in my opinion, explain a great deal about the contradictory statements... It would explain why CJ made two statements..... It wasn't supplementary if I am to go with this theory.... Everyone made 2 statements.... Because there were 2 investigations going on (imo)... That is the only plausible explanation to the contradictory evidence... And what we get at trial... is one version of events, and why the documentaries have another version of events...
OMG... 2 sets of lawyers.... 2 different Crown Courts... 2 different Numbers for Dr Vincent Tabak.... It is making more and more sense in my eyes.... Have I been blinded by the idea that David and Theresa Yeates are a complete family unit.... Should we have seen them individually earlier on??
I keep saying someone is lying.... But who and what about.... Or did they??
CJ... for instance... I will go back to it..... Saw 2/3 people at the gate... Heard 2 or 3 people at the gate.... Well if his two witness statements say something differently, I can understand why DCI Phil Jones wanted to question him again.... Colin Port insists that CJ had told neighbours etc, that he saw people at The gate... Yet CJ's witness statement states hears... CJ is not exactly lying if he is referring to only one of his witness statements when he is at The Leveson... He maybe omits what was in the other statement....
This case has sent me bonkers because I know something doesn't add up..... Now I will question myself and my belief.... I have been convinced that Dr Vincent Tabak is innocent.... I have been confused by knowing that Dr Vincent Tabak admitted to Manslaughter and it wasn't accepted....
I have got confused frustrated as to how they could tell us that Dr Vincent Tabak was guilty before a trial.... But is that just one version of events?
2 versions of the same thing.... One Guilty of Manslaughter the other guilty of Murder.... Running side by side....
U20110387 The Old Bailey
T20117031 Bristol Crown Court
I thought the other day that I must have been on the wrong course with these numbers, but now I don't think so....
Dr Vincent Tabak did have 2 numbers if what I am proposing is correct.... And when mrswah has stated before that she believed that Dr Vincent Tabak could be Innocent, but was not sure , I now believe I understand why....
My posts have been based on one version of events.... But if there is 2 then where does Dr Vincent Tabak actually fit in to this crime?? Has he admitted to something he didn't do to stop the investigation?? Was that his crime?? Did he stop the real killer being brought to justice making him just as guilty as the real killer??
Is this the reason that when he is at trial he constantly apologises, because he is shown the full horror of what actually happened to Joanna Yeates....
We have the Prosecution version and The defences version.... No-one knows when Joanna Yeates died... i have different forensic officers saying different things over the years... and I didn't get it....
So what is the real version of events regards this case?? Why does Dr Kelly Sheridan talk of an ikea duvet she tested... ?? Where was all of the forensics?? I think I know where.....
All of the forensics has to lead to the real killer... I do not know who that is, but, I believe this is why we have no forensics of Dr Vincent Tabak's in Joanna Yeates flat.... he wasn't in there, he made a version of events up based on what was in the media... but for what reason I do not know....
I have made statements about people involved based on the idea that this family is solid, well in the sense that they are the average happily married family that have been together since year dot..... But that doesn't have to be the case...
I think a light has just come on.... Maybe the gagging part is that The media cannot say that David and Theresa Yeates are not together in the sense we believed... And this is why they do not speak... Because that simple order would stop everything in its tracks....
We have no idea what statements Dr Vincent Tabak made to the Police.... One version is he stated nothing.... But is that the only version?? DCI Phil Jones speaks of a mobile phone that Dr Vincent Tabak had answered questions about... So that proves somewhere along the line Dr Vincent Tabak made a statement.....
We are told that someone is leaking information... Well from where... from which investigation, if my belief that 2 investigations are going on at the same time.... So it is not leaking.... It's where it came from....
CJ.. states that The Police must have told the media that he had seen Joanna Yeates.... Well that could be perfectly true.... If the information he is talking of came from a different investigation.... We assume that everything is from the same source, but I don't think that is true...
The idea that the ikea men being spoken too again.... The Hophouse Pub, being visited more than once by the Police and it taking them days to collect the CCTV, long after they should have,.... I just assumed someone wasn't telling the truth... But if 2 investigations are running parallel, then this would account for that discrepancy....
I believe that someone still wants the truth to come out.... I cannot have been allowed to spout my crazy ideas for nothing.... And with a process of elimination i have come to this conclusion, which out of all of my crazy ideas. this is the simplest answer....
What was it that has been said to me.... very little to be honest, but:..
* Smoke and Mirrors
* Hiding in plain sight
* It's not complexed
* It's far more simpler
Yes... I believe that to be true... It is staring me in the face... I have just not considered it.... And quite honestly i should have knowing of a family whom had a tragedy and they were presented as being a complete unit when in fact I know they were not...
So do we start again?? Do we look at this case from a complete different angle... Do we look at everything again, from why the times are incorrect to the text messages from friend etc...
I think it is worth consideration... It makes the most sense out of everything I have looked at so far....
And the fact I have over complicated, what should be really a simple Murder case given the facts we have been told, then, I believe that is why we should question the whole case again.... (imo) Because this is the reason I believe the timings do not add up!
I do not know which version of events is true... all statements that were made need looking at again... And maybe the right questions need asking....
Was there 2 Investigations happening at the same time..... Is there 2 sets of evidence?? Where David and Theresa Yeates a unit as was portrayed?? Worth consideration (imo)....
I do not know where everyone fits into this case and how.... But they do, i just do not know the answer.....
Is Dr Vincent Tabak The Scapegoat I started off with??? I still do not know the answer to that question.... But I now need to question why I believe what I do.... Is this even more of a travesty than we thought at the start....
Is this why we had The facebook Forum and The facebook Missing group?? They both were collecting different information... They both had opposing idea... Had Dr Vincent Tabak tried to help the investigation, or had his actions hindered it??
Now the next question that springs to mind.... Is the information that has been removed from the internet, one version of events??? It's a thought.....
There is no finger pointing here... Because one would need to know the full facts.... I just now believe I have based everything I have posted about , more or less on a version of events that isn't strictly true.... Or is it a case of it being a mixed version of events?? I don't know..... But I have always said that something just doesn't add up.... I have just never been able to put my finger on it.... But maybe now I have....
Two versions of events.... What we need to know is which is the true version.... Or is it somewhere in between??
Which then bring into question Dr Vincent Tabak's conviction anyway..... (imo)....
Edit... Is the reason no-one speaks because this is still a live investigation???
-
Or do I say that they are a united family and have been trying to hint all this time at someone else having involvement??
I don't know there is still a lot of confusion with this case.....
-
Nine - their relationship is NONE of your business, nor does it have anything to do with the fact that Tabak murdred their daughter!
-
Last Post....
I wasn't going to post anymore, but I came across something on twitter, that made me look back at an old post
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8168.msg426128#msg426128
Jess Siggers, The girl I couldn't understand how she knew the week before that Joanna Yeates was "Missing"
It was a random twitter account that brought me back here....
findjoskiller
@joannayeatesrip
Follow Follow @joannayeatesrip
More
@BlackDogDays - nice of you to put some flowers there. Shame women can't walk in this country without fear. #failand
10:27 PM - 2 Jan 2011
There was only one photo I found a while ago from getty which showed an image of an unidentified woman laying flowers on a roadside verge.... The date of the image is 28th December 2010, I had always wondered how they had allowed an unidentified woman to go so close to this crime scene..
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/an-unidentified-woman-pauses-for-a-moment-after-placing-a-news-photo/808703482
@blackdogdays has had their account suspended, so i couldn't find anything about them...
Jamie Siggers
@JamieSiggers
Follow Follow @JamieSiggers
More
A very odd day! And to top it off the little one has taken my iPod and @BlackDogDays for a campover! So I'm left with a cruddy BlackBerry!
11:45 PM - 8 Feb 2013
https://twitter.com/JamieSiggers/status/300027586493415425
https://twitter.com/joannayeatesrip/status/21694216497270784
-
Continued...
I believe that Jamie Siggers is the husband of Jess Siggers
And i am wondering if @blackdogdays is actually jess Siggers, this tweet and another makes me believe that
@BlackDogDays @JamieSiggers Really lovely pic Jess. xx
8:17 PM - 20 Apr 2013
https://twitter.com/paulawhite_uk/status/325689624586485760
Jamie Siggers
@JamieSiggers
8 Feb 2013
More
@BlackDogDays I have cake awaiting, but am on a conference call at the moment!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply 1 Retweet Like Direct message
Paula White
@paulawhite_uk
Follow Follow @paulawhite_uk
More
Replying to @JamieSiggers
@jamiesiggers @BlackDogDays He's bringing you cake Jess? You should marry him ;-) xxx
4:16 PM - 8 Feb 2013
https://twitter.com/paulawhite_uk/status/299914526223114240
So I believe that I have established that Jess Siggers, whom tweeted the first facebook tweet about Joanna Yeates Missing the week before she was reported Missing.... Is either married or uses Jamie Siggers surname.
I also believe that Jess Siggers is indeed @blackdogdays (imo)
Jess Sigger(Milton) From The Missing Group on Facebook/ JOANNA YEATES, MISSING SINCE 17/12/10
Friday 24th December 2010 19:47
Jessica Siggers I was a close friend of Jen and the circumstances are v similar. It was October 98. Halloween. Would never forget the date. I live around the corner from Joanna & was in the Bristol Ram at the same time. Also walked home the same route but didn't see or hear anything strange. Feel so frustrated not being able to do anything, same as when the police were searching for Jen. But at least now we have the technology to be able to do things such as this to spread the word. All of my heart, thoughts & prayers go out to Joanna & her family x x
From The Missing Group on facebook...
Now Jess Siggers is a young woman (apparently)... Why is she talking of October 98?
I have talked of the origin.... So the origin has to be Jess Siggers... If Jess Siggers is older than we know.... But who is Jess Siggers, or who is posting as Jess Siggers, is more to the point....
Jen, whom Jess is referring too I believe is Jen King:
From The Guardian.... Geoffrey Gibbs
Thu 23 Mar 2000 02.11 GMT
Life for obscene caller who turned killer
Factory worker had made 80 threatening calls before going out on night he murdered woman walking home from nightclub
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/mar/23/geoffreygibbs
How would Jess Siggers talk about a case she should not be old enough to know about let alone be in the Ram!
That brought back to mind the 80 questions that Dr Vincent tabak couldn't answer, and the fact he only was asked questions around a mobile phone as DCI Jones stated..... (Coincidence again???)
Who are Jess and Jamie Siggers?
Jess Siggers??? lived around the corner from Joanna ????
Where abouts??
-
continued.....
Jamie Siggers
@JamieSiggers
Follow Follow @JamieSiggers
More
Today I achieved one of my career goals, becoming a Fellow of @ICE_engineers following in my grandfathers footsteps.
6:09 PM - 13 Oct 2017
https://twitter.com/JamieSiggers/status/918886457619767296
It gets weirder..
Jamie Siggers
Partner at CampbellReith
1y · Edited
Not many people know this and I don’t suppose it will matter much to most, but the greatest influence on my choice of career as a civil engineer was my maternal Grandfather, Ronald Stewart, also a civil engineer from shortly after the 2nd World War until his passing over 16 years ago.
He was a very proud member and Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers, introduced me to the career as a young teenager, took me to the HQ in London and always hoped I would follow in his footsteps.
After becoming a Chartered Member of ICE in 2001, I was at least part way there before he passed shortly before my certificate presentation.
I have today, received confirmation of my acceptance to Fellowship of the Institution Of Civil Engineers and I could not be happier and prouder.
Jamie Siggers is a Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers.
We have engineers, we have The Siggers and they somehow are connected to what has happened to Dr Vincent Tabak... How i do not know....
The main niggle I have ... Is how did Jess Siggers... Or whoever had made the jess Siggers account on Facebook, know that Joanna yeates was Missing The week before it happened.... Who informed this person a.k.a jess Siggers that Joanna Yeates was Missing??
From The Missing Group on facebook..... I have posted on this before.....
Jessica Siggers
27 December 2010
Travelling back to my home in Clifton today which will never feel the same again. Jo, I never knew you but our paths may have crossed many times. You, your family & Greg have not left my thoughts since last weekend when we received a message from BDP. I wanted to go out and search there & then. No-one should be taken the way you were. It's a cruel world but for what it's worth, you will get justice. RIP beautiful girl. X
So Jess says the message from BDP, the week before Joanna Yeates was reported Missing... How was that possible?? Last weekend is from "Friday 17th December to Sunday 19th December 2010
And how did a random woman get access to Longwood Lane to put flowers there??
Was Dr Vincent Tabak privvy to what Jess Siggers knew?? He too must have received the same message from BDP at the same time...
Why was this never brought to trial, if they have evidence of Dr Vincent Tabak's emails, he (imo) should have received the same email from BDP as Jess did...
Who at BDP received this email?? If Dr Vincent Tabak didn't know she was Missing, according to his email to Tanja, how did others, who appear to have received this info before, anyone was officially told.... And lets not forget the official version.....
Greg Reardon did not call The Police until Monday 20th December 2010 at 12:45am
So who are these people??
Who from BDP sent Jess Siggers an email telling her that Joanna Yeates was Missing??
Can't have been Dr Vincent Tabak as this would/should have been brought to his trial....
-
continued....
Jamie Siggers
@JamieSiggers
Follow Follow @JamieSiggers
More
Not being funny, @BBCNews, and there are more serious things to look at but Buro Happold are NOT an Architectural practice!!! Google it!
10:46 PM - 20 Jan 2011
https://twitter.com/JamieSiggers/status/28221860688691200
This is weird...... 20th January 2010 is when Dr Vincent Tabak was arrested, no-one at that point should have been aware of any connection to Buro Happold.... yet we have Jamie here telling us about them...... And more important things to look at??
What is he referring to?? What more serious things to look at at BDP.... What could be more serious than looking at a suspect in the Murder of Joanna Yeates?? What did the BBC tweet?? What did Jamie Siggers want people to know??
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/jamiesiggers
Summary
I am a Structural and Civil Engineer and Managing Partner in CampbellReith's Bristol office with extensive experience of managing all engineering disciplines to ensure a singular, coordinated response to design.
I have excellent communication skills, which enable and maintain reliable relationships with Clients and all team members leading to value gained throughout the design and construction process.
My experience covers every stage of procurement, design and development on a wide range of projects, from £1 million to £125 million in value, involving new build, refurbishment and sustainable design, in many sectors including commercial, retail, education, health, sports and leisure and tall buildings.
I have a particular interest in timber engineering, heritage building conservation and sustainable building design, which I have applied to my total eco-refurbishment of our Victorian townhouse to modern energy and water saving standards
My extra-curricular activities include involvement with several groups, colleges and Universities outside my day-to-day workload. These include:
- Director of Bristol Green Doors; a CIC set up to run events and generally promote retrofitting for a sustainable life. My specific Director-level responsibility is as Finance Director.
- Director and Trustee of Ambition Lawrence Weston; a community driven Regeneration Project for the Lawrence Weston community in North Bristol. I support the community lead board with particular focus on community led development of a housing scheme and community hub.
- Vice Chair of the fbe Great Western branch for 2018-19 after 4 years as a committee member and 5 years as a company director after previously establishing FFT in Bristol and other UK cities.
- Committee member of Constructing Excellence Bristol Club committee helping to set up and run Here To Learn Workshops and the Autumn seminar.
Experience
CampbellReith
Partner
CampbellReith
August 2015 – Present 3 years 4 months
Bristol, United Kingdom
Forum For the Built Environment (fbe)
Vice Chair of Great Western Branch 2018-19
Forum For the Built Environment (fbe)
March 2018 – Present 9 months
Great Western Branch
Constructing Excellence
Committee Member
Constructing Excellence
February 2011 – Present 7 years 10 months
Bristol, United Kingdom
University of Bath
Part-time Teaching Fellow in Department of Architecture and Civil
University of Bath
October 2011 – Present 7 years 2 months
Bath, United Kingdom
WSP
Associate Director (Structural Engineering)
WSP
February 2006 – January 2015 9 years
Bristol, United Kingdom
Forum For the Built Environment (fbe)
Regional Director for Western Region
Forum For the Built Environment (fbe)
April 2009 – March 2014 5 years
Bristol, United Kingdom
whitbybird
Senior Engineer
whitbybird
September 2004 – January 2006 1 year 5 months
Buro Happold
Graduate to Senior Engineer
Buro Happold
September 1997 – September 2004 7 years 1 month
Here we have an actual connection to Jamie and Buro Happold.....
I don't know what the connection are.... i just find information.... I put on here what anyone can find looking online....
But it is a strange coincidence that Jess Siggers posted that post on the facebook forum, before anyone knew that Joanna Yeates was Missing..... Even before Greg called the Police....
If Dr Vincent Tabak had been aware that Joanna yeates was Missing and had informed these people that she was Missing.... It would have been brought to trial.....
The emails should have stated this.....
So again I will ask, who informed Jess Siggers from BDP that Joanna Yeates was Missing....
I am not saying it was Jamie, as I do not know whether he still had access to anything to do with BDP.... according to his linkedIn he had left before....
But someone from BDP obviously told her..... and I cannot see that person being Dr Vincent Tabak...
Why didn't the Police look at this?? I thought that they were checking everything.....
Jamie Siggers
@JamieSiggers
Follow Follow @JamieSiggers
More Jamie Siggers Retweeted Jess Siggers
My amazing and beautiful wife who makes me so happy and who I can't wait to see after 4 days away!Jamie Siggers added,
Jess Siggers
@porthjess
Me, by the brilliant Lauren Jayne Hall. ❤️ (these are the ones I look least awkward in) (and I LOVE the one of all of us) @hayles @Sheandhem
2:52 PM - 17 Mar 2017 from Steenokkerzeel, België
https://twitter.com/jamiesiggers/status/842750566916902913
So they are married... Jess Siggers is Jamies wife....
We therefore need to know WHAT Jamie Siggers is referring too.... and who is Jess Siggers on the Missing facebook group.... all links for her is Jamie Siggers wife, but she is too young to know about Jen King's Murder in '98
Was someone feeding these two information?
Because they appear to know a lot more than they should do...(imo)
What was it about Dr Vincent Tabak that he found himself in the position he did?
Why does Jamie Siggers want the BBC to know something more serious is going on at BDP.....
As I have said... what could be more serious than arresting the man that Ann Reddrop had been looking at since late December 2010 for The Murder of Joanna Yeates??
i always thought that the taking of a life was pretty damn serious....
And finally I will go back to..... Who informed Jess Siggers from BDP, that Joanna Yeates was MISSING.... before anyone knew, even before, the POLICE had been informed???
I think that that is were the original source of all this lies..... And if it was Dr Vincent Tabak we would have heard so at trial that he had had communication about Joanna yeates being Missing... ....
How could Jess Siggers go looking for Joanna yeates before, her parents had even spoken to the Police at 44, Canygne Road... Lets not forget. the parents didn't arrive until the early hours of Monday 20th December 2010.... How could Jess Siggers have been informed before Greg had chance to Ring the Police.....
Is Dr Vincent Tabak the fall guy for something more elaborate going on??
Does everyone still believe what was said at trial on the stand?? Because that is the official version of events....
Someone else knew that Joanna yeates was apparently Missing.... But whom I do not know.....
-
Or should I ask who are these people...
findjoskiller
@joannayeatesrip
Replying to @ASPolice
@ASPolice - the online service for Operation Braid is very useful.
11:18 PM - 27 Dec 2010
https://twitter.com/joannayeatesrip/status/19532632291282944
Why is it very useful???
Who's account is that??
findjoskiller
@joannayeatesrip
Follow Follow @joannayeatesrip
More
Police are taking DNA samples from men leaving near Yeate's flat. #clifton
5:45 PM - 2 Jan 2011
https://twitter.com/joannayeatesrip/status/21623225595203584
How did they know that the Police were taking samples from people where Joanna Yeates lived??
Dr Vincent Tabak, having had his sample taken on 31st December 2010 in Holland..... Do they know about that??
Or are they referring to CJ?
But it does say men!!
findjoskiller
@joannayeatesrip
Follow Follow @joannayeatesrip
More
@spaghettiphant -yes, we haven't info on where the father was.
11:19 PM - 29 Dec 2010
https://twitter.com/joannayeatesrip/status/20257753075294209
What an odd question to ask?/ Sounds as if this person has something to do with the Police.... I could be wrong..
findjoskiller
@joannayeatesrip
Follow Follow @joannayeatesrip
More
Replying to @TimesONeill
@TimesCrime - there's a taxi company just by Tesco where she was spotted.
11:19 PM - 27 Dec 2010
https://twitter.com/joannayeatesrip/status/19532905218838528
This tweeter is letting The Times know about a Taxi rank...... Was this Taxi rank check at the time?? Seems more plausible Joanna yeates caught a taxi rather than walk home in the dark on her own....
Sara(h)
@maybirdsara
Follow Follow @maybirdsara
More
Cant believe hollyoaks ran this storyline after the recent joanna yeates news
6:46 PM - 27 Dec 2010
https://twitter.com/maybirdsara/status/19464108449464321
What story line??
findjoskiller
@joannayeatesrip
Follow Follow @joannayeatesrip
More
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/1223/1224286170792.html Dublin girl goes missing before Xmas
8:30 PM - 27 Dec 2010
https://twitter.com/joannayeatesrip/status/19490445860012032
I have mentioned this before about Bláthnaid Timothy....
findjoskiller
@joannayeatesrip
Follow Follow @joannayeatesrip
More
Who killed #joannayeates FBGroup http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Who-Killed-Joanna-Yeates-/122575154476787#clifton #bristol #operationbraid
https://twitter.com/joannayeatesrip/status/19381597966958592
Of course the facebook link doesn't work......
My next post will be the finale.....
-
Sky News Breaking
Verified account
@SkyNewsBreak
Follow Follow @SkyNewsBreak
More
Avon & Somerset Police: Cause of death of Joanna Yeates cannot be identified. http://bit.ly/fPNKfd
4:09 PM - 27 Dec 2010
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/19424624236298240
This strange tweet.... does it mean what it says??
How did we go from, not being able to find a Cause of Death, to being Strangled??
I thought something had been said on the 27th December 2010
And everyone wonders why I say it's a story....
Did Joanna Yeates go Missing before as has been suggested by Jess Siggers??
Why do Sky News have this info?? Why did the cause of death change..... What medical evidence proved that Joanna Yeates had been strangled???
And why is Dr Vincent Tabak spending 20 years in prison for a crime that hadn't taken place?? (imo)
Nothing other than Dr Vincent Tabak says that Joanna Yeates was strangled on the 17th December 2010.. And that was at his trial in October 2011...
Has a crime been made out of an accident?? What has been going on all this time???
If we remember Dr Delaney had finished the post mortem on the evening of the 27th December 2010
Joanna Yeates parents visit Longwood Lane to lay flowers on the 27th December 2010
The 27th is the date that DCI Phil Jones took over this investigation.....
What is the TRUTH, about the disappearance of Joanna Yeates?? Was she really Murdered??? Who knew that the cause of death couldn't be identified...???
Everything appears to have escalated.... I said there were themes running side by side.... The odd thing that springs to mind at the moment, is when David Yeates talks of Joanna Yeates lying in the cold somewhere, I thought about hypothermia... Why couldn't she have died from that....??
But we have a colossal amount of information on twitter .... Coming from many sources....
Why did we go from Jess Sigger, telling us that Joanna yeates is Missing, before anyone knew, and Sky News telling us that Joanna Yeates cause of death could not be identified??
To the hunt for a killer and CJ being arrested... and Dr Vincent Tabak being found guilty for a Murder, that according to that tweet, may not have happened.....
This is without doubt The Strangest Case Ever...!!
And I will leave it there....
Avon & Somerset Police: Cause of death of Joanna Yeates cannot be identified. http://bit.ly/fPNKfd
Nine
Edit...
26 December 2010
Freezing conditions
A spokesman for Avon and Somerset Police said: "While a formal identification procedure is yet to be completed, police are satisfied that the body is that of 25-year-old landscape architect Joanna Yeates, who went missing during the weekend before Christmas."
He added: "A post-mortem examination has been taking place in Bristol today. "However, because of the extreme freezing conditions in which Joanna's body was found, it is unlikely that any findings from this will be known until tomorrow at the earliest.
"Officers are, however, treating Joanna's death as suspicious at this stage but will not be able to discuss this further until the results of the post mortem are known."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-12080254
It was the freezing condition that her body was found in,.... not that her body was frozen...!! Maybe that was why Andrew Mott was trying to stop a body from thawing.....
-
Or was that the reason that DCI Phil Jones took over as SOI on the 27th December 2010 because the Official story was going to be that:
Avon & Somerset Police: Cause of death of Joanna Yeates cannot be identified
An interesting proposition..... Just a thought!
Edit.... It's not before time that the "Truth Be Told"!!
-
Last Post....
I wasn't going to post anymore, but I came across something on twitter, that made me look back at an old post
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8168.msg426128#msg426128
Jess Siggers, The girl I couldn't understand how she knew the week before that Joanna Yeates was "Missing"
It was a random twitter account that brought me back here....
There was only one photo I found a while ago from getty which showed an image of an unidentified woman laying flowers on a roadside verge.... The date of the image is 28th December 2010, I had always wondered how they had allowed an unidentified woman to go so close to this crime scene..
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/an-unidentified-woman-pauses-for-a-moment-after-placing-a-news-photo/808703482
@blackdogdays has had their account suspended, so i couldn't find anything about them...
https://twitter.com/JamieSiggers/status/300027586493415425
https://twitter.com/joannayeatesrip/status/21694216497270784
Reading your old post - where does it say that this woman knew JY was missing the week before? She simply states that JY had been missing since 17th Dec.
-
Or was that the reason that DCI Phil Jones took over as SOI on the 27th December 2010 because the Official story was going to be that:
Avon & Somerset Police: Cause of death of Joanna Yeates cannot be identified
An interesting proposition..... Just a thought!
Edit.... It's not before time that the "Truth Be Told"!!
The truth has been told you just don't want to accept it - rather than accept the truth you have gone so far as to suggest that none of these people even exist. Rational?
-
Reading your old post - where does it say that this woman knew JY was missing the week before? She simply states that JY had been missing since 17th Dec.
She doesn't have to say... just read what she says and WHEN she says it........
From Jess Siggers on the 27th December 2010 at 12:05
You, your family & Greg have not left my thoughts since last weekend when we received a message from BDP.
In full from the post on facebook..
Jessica Siggers
27 December 2010
Travelling back to my home in Clifton today which will never feel the same again. Jo, I never knew you but our paths may have crossed many times. You, your family & Greg have not left my thoughts since last weekend when we received a message from BDP. I wanted to go out and search there & then. No-one should be taken the way you were. It's a cruel world but for what it's worth, you will get justice. RIP beautiful girl. X
It's a simple case of mathematics.....
If she meant the weekend of the 25th December / 26th December 2010... why would she be wanting to go out looking for her.... There is a full on Police Investigation and search teams at this point and not to forget Joanna Yeates was found on the 25th December 2010
So therefore she has to mean the weekend of the 17th December to the 19th December 2010, which is a bit of a problem seeing as the Yeates hadn't been rung and the Police hadn't been informed until 00:45 am on Monday 20th December 2010
Are you following what I am saying??
So who at BDP informed Jess Siggers that Joanna Yeates was Missing before the Police were Officially informed??
It's quite easy to follow to be honest...
Edit..... And who was she travelling back with?? and from where??
-
The truth has been told you just don't want to accept it - rather than accept the truth you have gone so far as to suggest that none of these people even exist. Rational?
That is a case of 'Fake identities.... I believe.....
-
Jessica Siggers
27 December 2010
Travelling back to my home in Clifton today which will never feel the same again. Jo, I never knew you but our paths may have crossed many times. You, your family & Greg have not left my thoughts since last weekend when we received a message from BDP. I wanted to go out and search there & then. No-one should be taken the way you were. It's a cruel world but for what it's worth, you will get justice. RIP beautiful girl. X
* Travelling back from where?
* Who are we??
* Who is the Jess Sigger profile??
* Why might there paths have crossed many times??
* Why would she feel the need to go and search for a stranger??
* And how does she know that Joanna Yeates will get "JUSTICE"?!!
* How does she know which way Joanna Yeates was taken?? Nobody knows that!!
* RIP beautiful girl? sounds like she is talking about a child!
What was contained in the message that was sent to Jess Siggers??
And WHO sent the message from BDP??
The links are the same person from facebook..... Missing group.....
https://www.facebook.com/groups/169097479794933/search/?query=siggers&epa=SEARCH_BOX
https://www.facebook.com/jess.milton.7?fref=gs&__tn__=%2CdC-R-R&eid=ARBkkFUojFhXNETnleFmT6bQbpV1-H4fGaDmfMyRPsaNP3txIuwpraapGEuJan4nkCqn895fJ5KSk8Os&hc_ref=ARRopjPeLc3_CUnnqI4pygUPP5QsBvjyhwNTWrboyMnHsNwts_-00bcKA-ShMH6XSVc&dti=169097479794933&hc_location=group
Edit... Looks like Jess is a bit of a Campanologist....
-
Groan ......
-
30th December 2010 at 09:54am
Steve Chambers
Some of us have been here from day one and have sent our condolences along time ago. Now we are turning out directional energy into bringing this nasty business to a close. Consider other uses that have feelings and have spoken with members of the family and to have been a shoulder to cry on. Viewers of this page also need a closure to this monstrous crime by way of person/s being caught and punished. So consider our feelings to please.
Reply by Jess Siggers on 30th December 2010 at 9:56am
Jessica Siggers
Steve, try sodding off to the Joanna Yeates - Discussion of the Case group then, a vile collaberation of people such as yourselves who can play Cluedo to your hearts content without hurting or upsetting any members of her family, who have been checking this page. Have some bloody respect.
Why is Jess Siggers attacking this poster...... The Guardian have told us : Steven Morris
@stevenmorris20
Thu 30 Dec 2010 08.47 GMT First published on Thu 30 Dec 2010 08.47 GMT
This article is over 7 years old
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/dec/30/joanna-yeates-police-arrest-landlord
Why is she calling The Facebook Forum a vile collaberation of people???
Joanna Yeates - Discussion of the Case group... It might have still been a forum at that time I can't remember, mrswah may know....
Well Jess.... I was on that forum/group... And I am not vile.... you may think so and you are entitled to your opinion, just as I am now entitled to my opinion.....
For a person who claims not to know Joanna Yeates she is getting mighty upset...... She isn't supposed to know anything.... But we know differently, because someone sent Jess that Message from BDP, before The Police or virtually anyone was aware that Joanna Yeates was Missing....
CJ.... We know nothing he is released.... without charge..... And nothing is stated in The Guardian at that time untoward about CJ...
What had been said on the forum about CJ at that time?? Did someone suggest not jumping the gun??
I have no idea what this person( Jessica Siggers) knows... Or who this person really is.... Or if this person allowed someone else to use her facebook account.....
But she is the one whom has directed people to the facebook forum I was part of..... And unless she herself had read what had been said on The Facebook Forum I was part of, then she wouldn't be able to make a judgement on what the forum was about or what people on there had said at the time......
Or what the character of these people were.....
I am not interesting in her being rude.... I am interested as to how she was made aware that Joanna Yeates was Missing before The Police knew....
I am Interested if it was someone else using her account at the time.... Or does she want to put her hand up and tell us why she knows about Jen King in '98 ?? When she would not be old enough??
Is it the real Jess Siggers making the comments on facebook.... If so.... who told her about Jen King??
It gives me the impression that either it was someone else using her account, or someone was standing over her shoulder as she typed...
But that is just my opinion...
Just a reminder from before.... Darragh Bellew, The friend of Joanna Yeates who worked at BDP and in this moment in time doesn't have Jess Siggers as a friend, was one of the earliest to post about Joanna Yeates Missing....
He posted on the 20th December 2010 this:
Darragh Harry Bellew
20 December 2010 19:05
All,
Most of you on my friends list will not know Jo Yeates but some of you do. Jo has been missing and the last time she was seen was on Friday night; she made it home but was not there when Greg(her boyfriend) returned home from a weekend away late last night. Her belongings however were there including her house key, mobile phone and purse.
Although there is little we can do apart from help the police we c
AVONANDSOMERSET.POLICE.UK
Avon and Somerset Constabulary - Missing woman - have you seen her? (Bristol)
Contains a news story
That bottom part of his post is to a link.....
This is the man whom was having a drink at the Ram pub with Joanna Yeates on Friday 17th December 2010 and took to the stand at trial to tell us what he knew of that time.....
Again how does Jess Siggers know before anyone else?? Before Darragh Bellew has let anyone know... Before The Police has been told....
Jess Siggers who are they? How did she/they know?? That is where people need to start looking first.... Because this poster know more than anyone else knew, and she apparently didn't even know Joanna Yeates....
If thats not strange I don't know what is.....
-
The Joanna Yeates Discussion of the Case group, had been told to take down that page in 2012 i think... i do not know as I explained before I wasn't on it at that time....
It has been easy for anyone to undermined what ever Leonora and Noel O'Gara have posted since the group was closed, and portray them as crack pots.... Especially as anyone whom had either been on the Missing group or the Facebook Forum/group "Joanna Yeates Discussion of the Case would have known what there opinion had been at the time, it was easy to point fingers at these two individuals... And ridicule them....
They found it easy to call Noel a fantasist, because of what he has written on other subjects... It was easy to convince people he was a conspiracy theorist.... And as Leonora has made himself known, they would also have been aware that Phil too was on the Joanna Yeates Discussion of the Case.... So that too made it easy to undermine what ever these two people had to say about the case..... When they both wrote blogs...
But none of those people whom tried to undermine Phil and Noel, knew that I was on the Original Facebook Forum.... So haven't been able to point out anything about what I have stated, as Facebook is something I am not really interested in.... And I have explained what happened to my original Facebook Account....
I am the random factor in this.... Everyone else on that forum I do not know who they were... I do not know what was said to them.... By the time it was closed down I was no longer there....
(Quick recap).... I had a facebook account, whilst I was on the Facebook forum discussion, I left... closed down my account....( for my own reasons) opened a new one, and when I joined the discussion group.....They( The New Joanna Yeates Discussion of The Case..).... I'm presuming didn't know I had been part of the original forum , as the date of my Facebook account was new.... Therefore I wasn't allowed to stay...... Understandable....
But I had never forgotten about this case and the Facebook Forum.... and here I am....
The random one that no-one will remember..... Because why should they... I had been and gone before anyone realised what I was a part of.... ( Being the Facebook Forum)...
This is why I know certain statement made, and remember certain names of the time... And why I feel I need to question everything....
Because it doesn't add up.... it never has..... And Jess Siggers should never have known what she did... (imo)
And I shall leave it there.....
Nine
Edit... Noel O'Garas blog about Joanna Yeates has been removed from the internet, I noticed this a little while ago.....
Now that I find weird.... especially as Leonora's is still there.....
-
Jess Siggers.... The name that appears on The Missing Group of Joanna Yeates....
Her user name may have been different at the time of the post in December 2010... as we know many of us changed our user names at various times on the internet....
So what name did that account originally have at the time of posting??
And is Jess Siggers actually aware that her account has been used and is on The Joanna Yeates Missing Forum?? And she/person apparently was informed before anyone via BDP that Joanna Yeates was "Missing"??
Maybe someone needs to tell her!
Nine
-
She doesn't have to say... just read what she says and WHEN she says it........
From Jess Siggers on the 27th December 2010 at 12:05
In full from the post on facebook..
It's a simple case of mathematics.....
If she meant the weekend of the 25th December / 26th December 2010... why would she be wanting to go out looking for her.... There is a full on Police Investigation and search teams at this point and not to forget Joanna Yeates was found on the 25th December 2010
So therefore she has to mean the weekend of the 17th December to the 19th December 2010, which is a bit of a problem seeing as the Yeates hadn't been rung and the Police hadn't been informed until 00:45 am on Monday 20th December 2010
Are you following what I am saying??
So who at BDP informed Jess Siggers that Joanna Yeates was Missing before the Police were Officially informed??
It's quite easy to follow to be honest...
Edit..... And who was she travelling back with?? and from where??
The answer is even simpler to follow; She was reported missing on 19th (which was the weekend), as a matter of course the police would have contacted her work (DPB). There is no mystery and I can't understand why you are intent on trying to make one? Whi cares who she was travelling back with? It's immaterial!
-
The answer is even simpler to follow; She was reported missing on 19th (which was the weekend), as a matter of course the police would have contacted her work (DPB). There is no mystery and I can't understand why you are intent on trying to make one? Whi cares who she was travelling back with? It's immaterial!
Not so......
At 11:35 of the video "Murder at Christmas " part 1 Theresa Yeates states...
The mobile phone went quite near midnight and Greg's name flashed up on it , which was quite unusual and he said is Jo with you and we said no.. why would she be with us
The weekend that Jess is talking about is:... 17th December to 19th December 2010
Jessica Siggers
27 December 2010
Travelling back to my home in Clifton today which will never feel the same again. Jo, I never knew you but our paths may have crossed many times. You, your family & Greg have not left my thoughts since last weekend when we received a message from BDP. I wanted to go out and search there & then. No-one should be taken the way you were. It's a cruel world but for what it's worth, you will get justice. RIP beautiful girl. X
Therefore if Theresa didn't receive the phone call till quite near midnight, when she had spoken to Greg it has to be after midnight that this phone call stopped..
Meaning , Jess shouldn't know about Joanna Yeates Missing.... Before Greg rings the Police at 00:45am Monday 20th December 2010
So I have a process of elimination..
Jess Siggers was messaged by Greg possibly
Jess Siggers was messaged by the killer, trying to create a story
Jess Siggers was paid to say what she did
Jess Siggers knew what had happened
Jess Siggers was covering for someone
I am not stating this as fact, just trying to work out what options are available for Jess Siggers to know before The Police had been rung..
Rebecca Scott.....
(Big Pause).. She phoned me on the Friday ... erm.. I travelled home for Christmas on the Sunday..(gulp).. Erm... It was about 4 O'clock in the morning I woke up. Erm.. (licks lips) And saw that there was a message, on my phone from the police... Er... Informing me that she had gone missing...
Er... Obviously they'd seen on the phone that she'd phoned me. And.. obviously wanted me to get in touch... Erm.... I immediately sort of panicked and phoned Jo...
And Greg... Greg answered the phone.... I knew something was wrong... er I think, we all did.
Erm.. (pause)(licks lips) As soon as I found out her possesions were in the flat, you know , that was it.. I knew that hadn't left the house of her own intention.
And saw that there was a message, on my phone from the police... Er... Informing me that she had gone missing...
That has always annoyed me.... Since when to the Police message people??
What type of message? SMS?? Facebook??
What stated that it was from the Police? The person who messaged her was a Policeman/woman??
And Greg... Greg answered the phone.... I knew something was wrong... er I think, we all did.
Erm.. (pause)(licks lips) As soon as I found out her possesions were in the flat, you know , that was it.. I knew that hadn't left the house of her own intention.
Erm (Deep Breath)... Then it was just a case really of whether she was aliv (I believe she was about to say alive!)...... still alive.... Whether she was being kept alive by someone or if she was dead really. And erm... (licks lips... looks thoughtful)... I think we all were ver.... In denial about the situation as much as we could be , but i think everybody, deep down everyone knew something was wrong... And sh... We all knew Jo and clearly she hadn't left the house of her own accord.
And Greg... Greg answered the phone.... I knew something was wrong
It shouldn't be an issue Greg answering her phone..., Rebecca Scott is reacting at that fact Greg is answering the phone not that.... The content of the message must explain a great deal.... Did Rebecca Scott received the same message as Jess Siggers did??
Brings you back to why Greg just answering the phone would make her believe that there was something untoward happening at time....
As soon as I found out her possesions were in the flat, you know , that was it.. I knew that hadn't left the house of her own intention.
That statement... I believe that information had to be in the message, but i believe the message contained more info...
Then it was just a case really of whether she was aliv (I believe she was about to say alive!)...... still alive.... Whether she was being kept alive by someone or if she was dead really. And erm... (licks lips... looks thoughtful)... I think we all were ver.... In denial about the situation as much as we could be , but i think everybody, deep down everyone knew something was wrong... And sh... We all knew Jo and clearly she hadn't left the house of her own accord.
I am summising that the message that Rebecca Scott received, suggested that Joanna Yeates had been forcibly removed from her home... She had been abducted.. kidnapped... She shouldn't be reacting in the way she does...
In the sense that just because Greg answers the phone , she knew something was wrong......
My natural conclusion I would jump too from those statements by Rebecca Scott, was that Greg shouldn't have answered the phone.... That even though we have been told they lived together , I get the feeling that they didn't, the fact that they were a loving couple, makes me wonder what their relationship was really like... Or maybe Greg didn't actually live there and even though he worked for BDP, he maybe worked in another office... And he should have been away for a lot longer, and him answering the phone call made her realise that something far more serious had happened.
We have The Police messaging her, Rebecca shouldn't know anything... Yet she's aware at an early stage what is missing from Joanna Yeates flat.... The Police shouldn't be telling her in a message.... She shouldn't be reacting to the fact that her adult friend is not there... Just because her purse, mobile phone and keys are there, doesn't mean that something untoward has taken place...
Rebecca has never been to Canygne Road, Rebecca doesn't know what items that Joanna Yeates owns... She may have had more than one bank card... she may have just forgotten her keys or had a spare set, she may have had more than one phone... work phone and a personal phone....
We are told that Greg rang around Joanna's friends... So why didn't he ring Rebecca Scott... why had it taken so long for him to even speak to her.... I have an image, of what I believe is Rebecca Scott and in the background you can see Greg, it's an outdoor event/ party (I will attach) Greg must have known Rebecca Scott if the image is anything to go by.... (and hasn't been messed with)
It is important what and when Rebecca Scott received the message, just as it is important when the Police were rung...
Who sent Rebecca Scott the message, and what did it say on it??
If I believe that this happened, because to be honest , I have swung like a pendulum trying to decipher the information that is around the net... I have on more than one occasion, thought that this was all made up... I have wondered whether or not these people are real.... The information has been so confusing....
So if I stay with the idea that this is real, then the conclusion I come to is someone has been trying to set people up?
What was on the message that surprised Rebecca so much? That she believed her friend had been abducted and who knew those people in that house??
Did the message come from Joanna Yeates phone? Or did it come from a BDP phone that Joanna Yeates had? Did she have a works phone?
Back to Greg a minute... Was he supposed to be away longer? Was he supposed to be away for a week for instance, making that the reason that Joanna Yeates didn't accompany him?
If they were the close couple they were, why hadn't she gone with him??
Back to the call to the Police..... On the Jo wordpress page, it does suggest that the Police were rung on the Sunday 19th December 2010, as Chris Yeates was in a hole of despair... on that date.... The early reports in the media too stated that the Police were rung on the 19th December 2010... CJ also says at The Leveson that Joanna Yeates was reported Missing on the 19th December 2010....
It is only the video where Theresa Yeates speaks that confirms what was stated at trial and the Police where rung on Monday the 20th December 2010..
Rebecca Scott doesn't notice the message until 4:00am on Monday morning......
It was about 4 O'clock in the morning I woke up. Erm.. (licks lips) And saw that there was a message, on my phone from the police...
So she wakes at 4:00am on Monday 20th December 2010 and decides to check her phone,??? What sort of phone did Rebecca Scott have?? What notifications went across her screen, to notice that the Police had sent a message??
I still can't get my head around why the Police would message her.... They wouldn't.. it doesn't make sense..
That message must have had so much detail in it for Rebecca Scott to come to the conclusion she did when she rang Joanna Yeates phone and Greg answered...
Ok.... we have 3 people whom received messages that we know of... I say 3... I am assuming that Darragh bellew also received a message for him to know that Joanna Yeates was Missing... And for him to also know what had been left at her flat.....
Darragh Bellew's message to ALL... on his Facebook page...
Darragh Harry Bellew
20 December 2010 19:05
All,
Most of you on my friends list will not know Jo Yeates but some of you do. Jo has been missing and the last time she was seen was on Friday night; she made it home but was not there when Greg(her boyfriend) returned home from a weekend away late last night. Her belongings however were there including her house key, mobile phone and purse.
Although there is little we can do apart from help the police we c
AVONANDSOMERSET.POLICE.UK
Avon and Somerset Constabulary - Missing woman - have you seen her? (Bristol)
Contains a news story
she made it home but was not there when Greg(her boyfriend) returned home from a weekend away late last night. Her belongings however were there including her house key, mobile phone and purse.
Rebecca Scott know her purse, mobile phone and keys were at her home...... Darragh Bellew, knows that her purse, mobile phone and keys were at her home.... He even knows at this point that she was last seen on Friday night....
He can only know that information if he had been messaged... There is no way that anyone at that point would have any idea when Joanna Yeates was last seen.... seeing as the Police have not had the time to check anything...
So I conclude that Darragh Bellew had received a message with this information in it, just as Rebecca Scott had.... But what message did Jess Siggers receive from apparently BDP??
Jess Siggers reacts to a message about a person she knows nothing about, she has to have more information in her possession for her to want to go out looking for a grown woman, who could quite simply have been staying with a friend that weekend... Or decided to go visiting someone some where else...
Did the message that Jess Siggers received have the same content as the messages that Rebecca Scott and Darragh Bellew must have received??
ALL.... To ALL...... Maybe that is the clue.....
Whoever sent the message that everyone appears to have received must have been included in a single message and they ALL received the same message.... Which then brings an idea to mind....
If Greg was supposed to be away for longer than just the weekend.... Had he also received this message?? Is that what made him come back??
Is this why the Police state that he is a witness and NOT a suspect??
How was this message presented?? In the sense was it an email?? a text message or a facebook message??
Who else received this message??
Was it on a group chat?? on facebook for instance where only a certain amount of people were included...
How long was this message? what else did it contain if anything??
Did Tanja Morson also get this message??
I haven't thought about that before, but Tanja is concerned immediately, when she sees David Yeates and Theresa Yeates, she responds as if she is aware of something....
-
continued.........
I'll go back a mo... Tanja's name is mentioned she has been identified, she is a potential witness, and if she received a message also, it would be understandable her reaction...
Dr Vincent Tabak doesn't react to the fact that his adult neighbour is Missing... and why should he.... He didn't know her... He hadn't seen her... and after all she is an adult... she can come and go as she pleases.... So for him to be less than interested is a fair response....
But Tanja acts extremely concerned and the video's were David Yeates and Theresa Yeates are interviewed, they tell us about Tanja's reaction... And go as far as to tell us about "HIS" reaction... whom I presume they must mean Dr Vincent Tabak....
But should Tanja react that way... after all the Police are apparently there... You wouldn't be talking to just anyone about what you may or may not think has happened to there daughter, seems a little odd to me... But that is me... They didn't go and see CJ that morning... So why go around to Tanja and Dr Vincent Tabak's home, that early in the morning??
Did Tanja also receive the message?? Was she a friend or a social media friend of Joanna Yeates??
Because it is the only reason I feel that her reaction and wanting to assist so early on makes sense....
This is a mine field... I sift through the information available and try to make sense of what is going on.... Because it hasn't added up so far....
The key or clue has to be the message that was sent, the message that everyone appears to have received at the same time..... For Rebecca Scott and Darragh Bellew to know certain information that no-one should have been privy too at that early stage....
Darragh doesn't say he tried to ring Joanna Yeates.... I'm sure they hadn't worked together for too long either.... But whoever sent the message would not be aware that ,if that was the case....
Head Spin.... always... I keep thinking I am getting closure to something, but what exactly I do not know...
I'm thinking now about this forum and how when I have had messages I have gone off trying to incorporate or look at or find an alternative for this case... And what "The Landlord" for instance meant.... I have written reams of rubbish in messages, that quite frankly, people must have thought i was off my head... I have tried to untangle this puzzel, and at various times come to the conclusion that most did early on.... But until I re-look at the information i know, and try to be rational, I have to discount a lot of what I had said in these messages.....
Sometimes when I get a message, I wonder who it is... I am supposed to know because their name is there... But the content is wrong in my eyes... It's like someone else has written the message, in that persons name.... And this has frustrated me greatly....
But then I wondered if the information that everyone received was from a message on a forum.... And even though they didn't know each other persay... They were ALL included in the same message, and that is the connection...
That is why they all knew the same information.... And the information they received was the same including the idea that Joanna Yeates had been abducted.... And what was left behind...
I have taken to including myself in most of the messages I send, so I know what I have said and can easily refer back to it, incase I am no longer allowed on the forum, as I had at one point been excluded and rejoined.
Ann Redropp talking of someone close to the investigation... Maybe she was referring to a Police officer, or someone whom had contact and was helping the police..??
The reason I say this is 'The Jo Page" that was on Avon and Somerset's website, that has been removed.... Darragh Bellew pointing us to it on the 20th December 2010...
Did all of the people who received the message get a link to the Polices website??
Was the reason that everyone with information did it via he online forms?? Where people could be weeded out if they too had received this message?? Did Vincent Tabak receive this message or know of its existence because of Tanja??
The online form would be a perfect way in which to know who knew what and at what stage....
And what this Jo page on the Polices website actually stated I do not know....
I've been called a conspiracy theorist... Which if I am writing something alternative I can see why.... I have a twitter account where I follow certain people, who I thought may have input or knowledge, and whom appeared to follow each other.... So without really thinking i followed, them....
But I do not know who these people are either.... I do not know what they claim on twitter is true.... I do not know why someone suggested to me to change my name to Tabak********* and have a header and use red writing.... I followed like a lamb, and did what they suggested, but got more and more unsure as to what the reason was and why they too hadn't done this.... If they were of the same opinion as me about Dr Vincent Tabak being in prison....
I speak to them on twitter as if I know them and they are helping.... why I do this I cannot say.... I suppose it's because I want to believe that they really care about this case.... i have someone try to stroke my ego, in the sense that I should write a book, and ask what I did for a living, as if the way I write is good enough to go to print... I just said I'd need a ghost writer... But I coud have written a book as to how this whole case has sent me mad... i could have made sure that I did not profit and all of the money for the book went to a good cause....
But I never have seriously thought of writing a book, if I was able to I would have written one long ago and not about this.....
I do not know any of them on twitter... just like on here I know none of you....
I have felt like an experiment at times, because of things that have been stated.... I have tried to find a connection between everyone... And everyone being connected looked at it as if they were of the same idea, and were looking for Justice... But everyone being connected, could simply mean that they are connected, because they all use this site.... Something as simple as that, but I have tried to find another meaning....
I keep coming to the same conclusion, that everything is made up.... I hope that i have helped, but helped who?? If every day I change my mind as to what is going on....
Twitter I wonder why these random people have chosen to follow me, and do not leave me when I change my name.... They should really.... I am of no importance... I am no-one... Some follow leave me then pop up again following me.... Odd... I think I will remove them all... I cannot see the point, maybe leaving only those whom have messaged me... out of those who have messaged me there are a few who have asked for confirmation as to who I am... So I may leave those as my followers...
I need to stop imagining things... I need to get back on track, I need to understand everyones position in this case...
I have nothing more to add... If the Police are really looking into this they would have all of the information I have and more.... I am no expert... just someone who never understood how Dr Vincent Tabak pled guilty, and no-one came to court to be a witness who should have....
What is real and what is not real in this case I have no idea..... But I feel I have been taken on a ride... And have allowed myself to do that.... Sharing photo's via private message on twitter where if I think about that, they can find out who I am from the information one the photo....
So this is the end for me.... I have spouted enough over 2 years... And i am no further forward really from when I started, only to say that I shouldn't believe everything I read in blogs, or everything I read on the net....
I should not make any more of a fool of myself than I already have..... I am no-one... no-one of importance.... I am just me...
Who will forever be in two minds as to what this is about and whether or not it is real or not.....
I was going to go over my post to see if I had made any error's, but I am not even going to bother with that.... I write as I am thinking, it's a true representation of how I have done that throughout my posts....
Nine &^&*%
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8056.msg456179#msg456179
-
We live in hope...
(https://i.imgur.com/C29LYdk.png)
... until the next post.
-
Not so......
At 11:35 of the video "Murder at Christmas " part 1 Theresa Yeates states...
The weekend that Jess is talking about is:... 17th December to 19th December 2010
Therefore if Theresa didn't receive the phone call till quite near midnight, when she had spoken to Greg it has to be after midnight that this phone call stopped..
Meaning , Jess shouldn't know about Joanna Yeates Missing.... Before Greg rings the Police at 00:45am Monday 20th December 2010
So I have a process of elimination..
Jess Siggers was messaged by Greg possibly
Jess Siggers was messaged by the killer, trying to create a story
Jess Siggers was paid to say what she did
Jess Siggers knew what had happened
Jess Siggers was covering for someone
I am not stating this as fact, just trying to work out what options are available for Jess Siggers to know before The Police had been rung..
The police state that they were called on Sunday EVENING, which mean Greg called the police prior to calling Jo's mum and dad. Wheels were obviously in motion before he called her parents. No doubt he didn't want to worry them until he had no alternative but to make that call.
-
The police state that they were called on Sunday EVENING, which mean Greg called the police prior to calling Jo's mum and dad. Wheels were obviously in motion before he called her parents. No doubt he didn't want to worry them until he had no alternative but to make that call.
Not so, he did call Joanna's parents first (assuming one can trust the Daily Mirror's reporting)
www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-trial-boyfriend-tells-86312
-
Not so, he did call Joanna's parents first (assuming one can trust the Daily Mirror's reporting)
www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-trial-boyfriend-tells-86312
If Greg called the police after midnight, then he called the police on 20th and not 19th but so what? A few dates are sketchy - this mean Tabak is innocent? That's IF he exists at all?
-
We live in hope...
(https://i.imgur.com/C29LYdk.png)
... until the next post.
Ok Myster.... I'm here again.... Things keep niggling at me.... And I believe the media's information came from 2 possible sources, maybe 3 but 2 I can think of....
Firstly social media, What was Missing I have already explained where that information has come in to the media's domain... But other information, that becomes part of the story, I believe that comes from CCTV
At 12.45am Greg made a 999 call to police. He told the court how he thought Jo had been wearing a pair of new teardrop amethyst earrings when he last saw her.
Information was feed to the media, but I do not know who did that, or whether they actually had a better version of the CCTV footage, and put out some of the information themselves....
But.... The teardrop amethyst earring can be seen in the Bargain Booze footage... (image attached)
It's a detail to far, for me.... Why would Greg notice what earrings Joanna Yeates was wearing that day?? How did he know that they were new?? I cannot see it myself, I believe that that information came straight from that bargain Booze footage.... But the new part of his statement.. I don't know where that info came from...
Men are hopeless at noticing what women wear, or whether they have had a haircut, got a new jumper, whatever it is...
Earrings, NO...
I cannot see how a detail such as that he would mention.... His detail as to what happened at the flat and what the furniture arrangement was appears to be lacking.... But out of everything, he remembers that she was wearing amethyst earrings... The CCTV at BB shows them, did she have one of them in when she was found?? Don't think that was ever mentioned, not only that what happened to the other??
And whoever gave that information to the media, had to have a clearer view of that CCTV footage.... (imo)
As far as I can tell, this whole case and "Missing" etc, comes from either what has been stated on social media, images from social media, or images from CCTV....
I just edited one of my posts.... It has always concerned me how the media apparently got access to the back of Canygne Road which shows Dr Vincent Tabak's glass door, before anyone had at that time was even aware that a crime had taken place.... From the video link I have attached at the bottom of this post I will attach an image, and another image of the same at a later time of the year, and a shift in angle.....
They are roughly from the same area in the garden, and I will go as far as suggesting that the images we see of the builders putting up scaffolding are from the same camera's.... (imo)
I believe that this is CCTV footage, I had thought that CJ may have installed CCTV in the garden , but that doesn't have to be the case... But someone I believe had installed CCTV in the garden of Canygne Road and that is where I believe that the images come from...
It surprised me how the media had access to that area when a Missing Person/Murder Inquiry is taking place.... I don't believe they did....
So I will go as far as suggesting that the CCTV that DS Mark Saunders had viewed and spoke of is also situated at 44, Canygne Road... He has to have seen something, he has to have another reason to state that Joanna Yeates reached home....
Another reason I have difficulty in believing Greg noticed the Amethyst earring and remembered them, was he apparently forgot that the dinning room table virtually blocked the entrance to the front room on his way past the kitchen door, the very same dining table that Joanna yeates rucksack was sat upon... The very same dining table that too 3 hours after arriving home to notice that her rucksack was there ...
At 11pm, Greg’s feelings of insecurity deepened dramatically when he noticed Jo’s rucksack on the dining room table. He said: “I rummaged through it and found her specs in a case, her sunglasses in a case, her wallet and keys within the depths of the bag and the striped multi-coloured top she had worn on Friday.
So how on earth would he remember what earrings she wore that day, if he couldn't remember seeing a dining table with a rucksack upon it for 3 hours... It was right in front of him....
Striped top... I'm not having that either... no images of Joanna Yeates in a striped top that evening, he didn't remember that...(imo) If Joanna Yeates wore a striped top where is it?? Not at trial, or in the forensics that we never saw.... Only image I have ever seen of Joanna Yeates in a striped top comes from social media...
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/joanna-yeates-murder-trial-defendant-vincent-tabak-gives-news-footage/656385638
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-trial-boyfriend-tells-86312
-
These two images I have attached, are from Joanna Yeates graduation, they look different, but they are the start....
One of the images Joanna Yeates looks like a different person... her eyes.... If they're supposed to be from the graduation then why do they differ??
Her nose is different also... But that is not the reason i have posted them... my next post will add to this post, I need to post twice because of limitations on the amount of images I can attach..
Looking at the two photos it like spot the difference....
-
The images of Joanna Yeates graduation...... It's her hair... It looks like it is tided back.... It always has to me...
I am attaching images from Bargain Booze again.... The footage I believe has been edited shall we say... But I believe when Joanna Yeates is at the counter, you can see that her hair is tided back... The edges to the video have been merged... (imo), to make it look like she has short hair, but I do not believe that she has..... We have areas that have been darkened and areas that have been lightened to make it difficult to see clearly, but I do believe her hair is tided back as you can see on one of the images.... (imo)
And that brings me back to this post on the Missing facebook group which never sat well with me....
Greg Beardon
21 December 2010
Hi everyone, Thanks for the overwhelming messages of support and the noble efforts of certain individuals to publicise Jo's disappearance.
Can I just ask people to only post photos that match (or come close) her description when she was declared missing.
That is with a short, styled and dyed blond haircut and be at least from 2010 onwards. This is so no misleading photographs make their way into the media and are published that show Jo not as she would look if found.
Thank you.
That statement I have mentioned before.... The date of the post is 21st December 2010, making that a Tuesday....
That is the day after apparently Greg called the Police....
Can I just ask people to only post photos that match (or come close) her description when she was declared missing.
That is with a short, styled and dyed blond haircut and be at least from 2010 onwards
This is the part of the statement that has always peaked my interest...
Why would Greg be asking for photo's that come close to the description when she was declared Missing??
On not one of the Missing posters do we get a description of Joanna Yeates, not one... It always surprised me that there wasn't one to be honest... The only thing we have on the Missing posters is an image of Joanna Yeates in Waitrose.... Where it appears that she has short blond hair....
But I want to draw your attention to this part of the statement...
That is with a short, styled and dyed blond haircut and be at least from 2010 onwards
When looking at the BB CCTV, her hair is not easily seen, the bottom part of her hair shows it being tided back, if anyone noticed, but what it appears to show is that the lower part of her hairline is dark, making her dying her hair blonde appear accurate, but that would only come from someone who had seen the BB CCTV... (imo)... And had not realised that the image has been edited...(imo)
From at least 2010??
That is a whole 12 months.... 12 months that any image of Joanna Yeates being put on someones facebook showing her with a blonde bob, could have been seen....
But are the images of her with a short blonde bob from 2010?? I don't know.... They may not be .... (imo) But someone has seen the infamous image of Joanna Yeates at a wedding with a short blonde bob....
But hair grows, and woman do change their hairstyles especially young woman... (imo)
Greg Reardon/Beardon, is he a figment of someones imagination?? I might sound cruel, but he should know what his girlfriends hair looks like... He should know, what her hair looked like when she went to work that day....
I keep saying he should have oodles of photo's of his beloved on his own phone, and not be asking people to put images of Joanna Yeates.. What happened to all of his happy snaps on facebook of her?? Even if the Police apparently took his mobile phone and laptop, he still had access to his facebook account ,as the post clearly shows.... (apparently)
Can I just ask people to only post photos that match (or come close) her description when she was declared missing.
That is with a short, styled and dyed blond haircut and be at least from 2010 onwards
I know that I have said before who is Dr Vincent Tabak..... But maybe my question should have been.... Who is Greg Reardon?? Or should I say who is The Greg Reardon/Beardon profile on facebook??
This is so no misleading photographs make their way into the media and are published that show Jo not as she would look if found.
Thank you.
If found????? shouldn't that be when found.... Where they not expecting her to be found??? she is just Missing at this point.... She's not dead.... She could be but no-one apparently knew that at this time.... We are supposed to be looking for a LIVE woman whom has gone Missing from home.....
Did someone cut her hair?? Did the killer cut her hair?? I always thought Joanna Yeates was dead when the Police were at that address from day dot....
Did Glenis Caruther also have her hair cut?? There is always information that the Police withhold from the public... And I am beginning to wonder why the Glenis Caruthers case and The Joanna Yeates case were supposed to be so similar.... It has to be more than being found on a grass verge... And as far as I know Glenis Caruthers didn't buy Pizza.... So it has to be something significant...(imo)
Something no-one but the killer would know.......
I have touched on the idea that people use different profiles on facebook, twitter etc... And there is nothing that tells me 100% that "JOANNA YEATES, MISSING SINCE 17/12/10" group was set up by Jackie Yeates... Nothing!!
What another profile and some images on facebook tells me that I should believe that this is true..... Well I don't, but that is me....
Everything about this case is either from social media or from CCTV.... (imo) Nothing concrete is from any other source.... The witness statements we have at trial, I believe have to come from social media.... (imo)
That is why the people concerned do not take the stand... They don't need them to or want them to ... (imo) As there social media statements could be seen as proof of what they witnessed or said.... ( But as we know, anyone can be behind a social media profile)....
Whilst re-reading what I have written is another idea that popped into my head..... Greg Reardon...
Rebecca Scott tells us how devoted they were to each other.... I have posted an image of Rebecca Scott with Greg... So she should know... But I now go back to the statement that DCI Phil Jones made....
That Greg Reardon is a witness... and not a suspect.....
Who actually posted The Greg Beardon/ Reardon posts?? People have said before that the Police were trying to hide the truth... Well which truth is that exactly??
If they had Greg's laptop, I presume they also had his passwords... For all of his social media..... At this early stage he is a suspect... I am sure they wouldn't want him on social media at that point... they would be watching everything he wrote... private messages included....
He doesn't need to ask for help and assistance.... (imo) The Police have this in hand at this time and are supposed to be looking for a Missing Joanna Yeates.... The have reacted immediately to a phone call and are around at Canygne Road asap... They are treating it as if a murder has already taken place, yet we have Greg apparently posting on social media.... Greg the first suspect in this case..... So I don't think it was him who wrote that... (imo)
It brings me to this..... Again from the Missing group....
Greg Beardon
24 December 2010
Teresa & I had to go to Bristol today and we were totally moved by the number of posters placed in the windows of shops and pubs around Clifton, near Jo's flat. Unfortunately we were not able to meet up with you at Cabots Circus. We cannot find the words to express our appreciation of the effort you have given in an attempt to bring my little girl back. The sight of her face in each of the posters brought home the unreal situation we find ourselves in.
Mistakenly it appears that David Yeates has accidently used Greg Reardons facebook profile..... But is it really David yeates?? we do not know that for a fact do we!!
David Yeates
24 December 2010
The comment below is from me, not Greg. I was mistakenly logged into his facebook Id. Applogies
How on earth would David Yeates be logged into Gregs facebook account?? by accident or whatever?? i can't see that myself.... It would mean that they were together all the time and I do not believe that to be the case.....
So is the David Yeates profile made up?? Did someone within the investigation have access to Greg Reardons passwords??
This to me would be evidence of Greg reardon being a witness... if he hadn't got access to his social media.... And someone either made a fake account or had access to his passwords.... (imo)
What exactly did Greg Reardon witness?? he witnessed something.... But I do not believe it has been revealed...(imo)
The posts I do are my interpretation of what I believe is the evidence i find on the net... And as everything in this case appears to be based on what we have already seen on the net including social media, my interpretation is no different really... only that it is just my opinion....
They are just my observations... That is all...
-
And then I come to the Tesco's CCTV..... I believe it's a complete work of fiction....
I do not believe that the Pizza came from Tesco's... I think it came from Waitrose.... but that is my opinion..... Or it is the wrong Tesco's???
We has DCI Gareth Bevan tell us about the Pizza, he states "Similar in all respects...
Doesn't mean it is the same... A Margeretta maybe ... But that is where the similarities stop...(imo).... None of the CCTV clearly shows Joanna Yeates... all CCTV appears to have been edited.... And The Tesco's CCTV more than most.....
The Police could have issued that CCTV.... It doesn't mean it is from the 17th December 2010, just because of the text upon this video... I am sure Joanna Yeates has been in Tesco before.....
We know that the Police and Mrs Yeates both found a receipt.... but there could be two receipts as I have said previous.....
Certain things are popping in my head as I think about this....... The Countdown to Murder program and The Crime Watch program....
Countdown to Murder, shows a different version of events, which I have stated before, and Crime Watch, a program that was supposed to be aired , but mysteriously we ended up with Dr Vincent Tabak being arrested before that could happen....
On the program early on we have an image of a woman whom is supposed to be Joanna Yeates... It well could be Joanna Yeates, at the checkout on the self service tills.... But what we need to remember is when this CCTV footage of Tesco's was released......
I believe it was n the 24th December 2010 this CCTV was released......
This is where I need to back track and go through events..... I keep saying 2 of everything, and why is that? Twice we have a DCI Gareth Bevan ask for assistance about the Pizza, once on the link below and once on the the news report by Rhianna Mills, which is also on the 23rd December,... well it was uploaded then....
But the interesting one I believe is the Getty video..... This is where DCI Gareth Bevan says "Similar in all Respects to the one he has here"....... on the 23rd December 2010
But on the Sky news one he doesn't say that, But what I did notice on the sky news video, was across the screen it says what was found in Joanna Yeates Flat, that being... Reciept , bag and keys.. on the 23rd December 2010
But on the Getty vid... DCI Gareth Bevan states that they found within the Flat, they found her coat, her keys and phone... The receipt is not mentioned.....
I keep thinking about this receipt, and DS Mark Saunders, who first mention Tescos and shopping....
Transcript of video... First TV appeal
(Det Supt Mark Saunders)
Well we've got a professional young lady called Jo Yeates who is an architect, works for a local Office in in Bristol.. erm.. she basically, she's gone missing over the weekend We know that she went out with some friends on Friday night, they went for some drinks, in The Ram public house on Park Street. She left there about 8 o'clock in the evening..erm.. We believe she made a purchase of some items from Tesco Metro on Regent Street at around 8:40 on Friday and made her way home from there. Um..(smacks lips) And we've seen nothing of her since.. um so we're really concerned for her welfare.. Her family are down from Southampton helping us look for her.
But he says Tesco's Metro.... on Regent street.... well is that Regent street London??
The receipts and talking of receipts or showing an image about a receipt, is interesting... well for me anyway....
Mrs Yeates finds a receipt and the police find a receipt.... In which order?? One receipt could say Tesco's Express in Clifton and the other could say Tesco's Metro.....
And I believe that this is it.....
I don't believe she even bought a Pizza, or if she did it was from Waitrose.... She goes to Waitrose and then gets home for 8:30pm on the 17th December 2010, is my belief....
I keep saying how do we know she reached home?? What time, who's there to say so.... A Coat a purse a reciept and a mobile phone....???
Those items do not prove that Joanna Yeates reached home... They only prove that her belonging were in her home, but by who's hand is really the question....
I think the Tesco's CCTV is a production, I do not believe it to be correct.... But as I keep saying that is my opinion, using the information that is available on the internet and a process of elimination....
That is also why I believe the talk and us seeing this apparent CCTV is important.... DS Mark Saunders has already made us aware of the Tesco's CCTV... So it needs producing at some point, everyone will want to see it.... and that is why I think it has been made up... it could be from any TV program that has props and uses such sets... (imo) or footage of Joanna Yeates shopping at Tesco's at another date and time...
When I took screen shots from the Countdown to Murder program, the Pizza was not like the one DCI Gareth Bevan has in his hand, it was a similar... I remarked upon this..... I believe that this is the clue also.... The Pizza in the countdown to Murder program, I think has to be the Pizza that was on the receipt that the Police found.... Or Police had... and the receipt that Mrs Yeates found was planted.....(imo) It's the only explanation I can think of.....
DS Mark Saunders has already told us the receipt was from Tesco's express... And I believe that is true.... So the only possibility I can find is a receipt had been planted....
Or is Mrs Yeates just letting us know about the receipt?? I don't know....
But I still think the receipt had been left behind, and not by Joanna Yeates....
Did Joanna Yeates even buy a Pizza???? I do not know if that is true either to be honest...... Maybe that is why the Pizza and its wrapping and everything else to do with this Pizza has been mentioned.... And NO evidence of this Pizza was found in the Flat.....
Well there wouldn't be if the receipt was from somewhere else at a Tesco's Metro, and in Clifton it's a Tesco Express...
Back to the crime watch program.... at 3:38 of the video, the presenter says:
The receipt had been left in the living room
Well Mrs Yeates states she found it in Joanna Yeates coat pocket, and apparently Greg hears Joanna Yeates mobile phone ringing in Joanna Yeates coat pocket in the hall...
Therefore the Police found the receipt in the living room, and how Mrs Yeates came across the one in Joanna Yeates coat pocket, is anyones guess...
These are the reasons I say the receipt was planted... Or maybe that was what was left behind???? Most of that Crimewatch was made before trial, I have said this before... well that is my belief....
So the fuss about the Pizza is just that.... A Pizza I believe that Joanna yeates never purchased... but that is just my opinion, based on what I have viewed from the videos in this case....
As Mrs Yeates invited Amateur Sleuths on one of her appeals, I am doing just that..... Putting together the information available and coming up with a different scenario....
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/missing-woman-joanna-yeates-press-conference-with-news-footage/691670164
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8056.msg462679#msg462679
-
There is definitely a Tesco on Regent Street in Clifton !
I don't think it's worth speculating on where Joanna bought her pizza----there is no reason why she should not have bought it in Tesco, and there is no reason to suppose the CCTV is not from Friday 17th December !
However, the fact that the times are missing from the CCTV (and from the one of VT in Asda) has always niggled me. IMO, it is suspicious.
The earrings are interesting too-----it does look as if she is wearing the amethyst earrings in the CCTV, yet these were found at her home after she went missing. I'm sure I recall reading somewhere that, when her body was discovered, she was wearing earrings. So, she either changed them, or , like me, she had two lots of ear piercings.
-
There is definitely a Tesco on Regent Street in Clifton !
I don't think it's worth speculating on where Joanna bought her pizza----there is no reason why she should not have bought it in Tesco, and there is no reason to suppose the CCTV is not from Friday 17th December !
However, the fact that the times are missing from the CCTV (and from the one of VT in Asda) has always niggled me. IMO, it is suspicious.
The earrings are interesting too-----it does look as if she is wearing the amethyst earrings in the CCTV, yet these were found at her home after she went missing. I'm sure I recall reading somewhere that, when her body was discovered, she was wearing earrings. So, she either changed them, or , like me, she had two lots of ear piercings.
She had more than one set of piercings mrswah... There are images of her with multiple piercings, but... The Amethyst earring being the largest would have been at the lowest hole in my opinion.....
But I have discovered something else, I will post soon.....
-
Now whilst looking for footage for the last post i came across something else that I believe is a little more than interesting.....
I keep talking of Facebbok, and the origin of things.....
Who set up the Missing facebook page.... Or should I say the Facebook Missing group that i have used all this time....
I came across something today by accident, and quite often it is accidental when I find some information.....
What make the Missing group stating the date that Joanna yeates has gone Missing... when it is set up it is impossible for anyone to know when she went Missing... unless like I stated earlier, the 3 people I mentioned were amongst people who all received a message... JS included...
I established that the Missing Facebook group was set up by Jaquie Yeates, well at least that is the name upon admin.... But i have just found something else... Now either the Missing Group had it's name changed or Jaquie Yeates didn't set up that page..... Or there was another page which i do not think so.... But it is still possible.....
It is from this Channel 4 news clip.....
I think that there actually was another facebook group.... maybe this is actually Joanna Yeates Facebook.... That's the idea that i am getting, but you have to remember these are conclusion i came too based on what I find....
When Darragh Bellew received his message on the 20th December 2010, he addressed it to all....
Now I have found another group on Facebook courtesy of Channel 4... The name of this Facebook gropu is:
Jo Yeates: Missing Persons appeal for information
To the left it has 167 people attending, The most interesting part is whom set up the page....
Rebecca Scott, Stuart Meale, and Jaquie Yeates + 5 others
Time Wednesday 22nd December 3:30am- December 31st till 6:30 am
Now those dates and times are significant..... Why did they stop at 6:30am on the 31st December 2010, were they privy to the fact that CJ was being arrest?? seems a little coincidental to me, but I do not know how they knew that as the other 5 people are not visible and anyone of those could have been privy to such info...
It then goes on to say
More Info : Hi all, I'm sorry but I am emailing everyone I know on facebook, who lives in the UK, my dear friend (Joanna yeates) some of you will know her, has gone Missing from the Clifton area of Bristol. She was last seen leaving the Ram pub in Bristol at 8:00pm on Friday 17th December. She popped by at her local Tesco's store, Tesco's Express on Regent Street in Clifton and Waitrose on her way home, she must have made it back to the house as h
To the left of this facebook group is an image of a Missing Poster, with Operation Briad being mentioned....
Who's facebook page is that?? It may say Rebecca Scott created, but doesn't mean it is her who set the page up, maybe she did... I do not know I just bring information...
3:00am on the Tuesday Morning, that could be as early as Monday the 20th December when that page was thought up....
Why is there this group?? Who are the 167 members? not too far off 200,... the amount of friends Joanna yeates had.... i do not know if this was Joanna Yeates facebook page that someone used, it could be.... But I couldn't say that for certain.... It just seems odd that Jaquie Yeates is part of 2 groups when really she should have just been admin on the Missing Facebook group.....
Is the Missing facebook Group Joanna Yeates actual facebook page?? And is that the reason that The Missing group have issues with who is admin and who has control of the page??
These ideas are coming to me as I type....
From The Missing Group that Jacquie Yeates is supposed to be admin....
Victoria Toogood
31 December 2010 at 18:35
RIP Joanna - Out of respect I am now leaving this group as I feel that it has got out of hand and find it disrespectful how Joannas family have been removed from admin and now have no power to close the group down. My thoughts and prayers go out to all of her family and Greg and I hope that someday you will all be able to move on. Gone but never forgotten! xxxx
And
Jacquie Yeates
31 December 2010
Ill repeat that someone has been able to remove all family as admin, (including me, the creator) and obviously whoever is admin at the moment will not own up. I would appreciate that no one else comment on the group needing to be closed. For the last 3 days I, and others have been trying to delete it, but without any priveleges, we cannot find a way to yet. Stop assuming that we are being disrespectful please, and read posts that have been made before you make assumptions.
165 Comments
How on earth could ADMIN loose control?? It isn't possible, The name Jacquie Yeates may be there, but it doesn't really have to be Jacquie Yeates.... the date as well... 31st December 2010 at 12:43
So the facebook Group that is shown on channel 4 is up until the 31st December 2010, but the name of the group differs.... But anyone can change the name of a group.....
Is this page actually Joanna Yeates facebook page, or was Joanna Yeates facebook used to set up the group/group??
Is that why Jacquie yeates loses control, because she didn't have it to start with.....
Or...... And it is a big Or..... Is this facebook page / account someones from BDP?? Is this where the origin of the message everyone received was made.....
167 people, who all receive a message at the same time... It's possible seeing as we have 167 attending... attending what exactly?? (It says attending at the side)....
Therefore I could summise the online appeal was to find these 167 facebook people who received the same message.... Did the message on this page go as far as to say she had been abducted??
Another poster or member of that group that channel 4 show is Jo Mcnab... now I have clicked on her name on facebook and she is a singer.....
on the facebook page on Channel 4
Jo McNab
My heart goes out to you all, I'm spreading the word, I hope and prey she's ok and will do every day until she's found. Lots of Love Jo Clifton
From the Missing Page...
Jo McNab
28 December 2010
I wish there was something I could do to help find out what happened and to help give the Jo's close ones some closure. I've never met her but I live just round the corner and think about Jo every day, My love to everyone affected and condolences to jo's family and friends.
Around the Corner.... where have I heard that before???? Oh yes Jess S... said that in one of her posts on this group...
Jo McNab I'll keep spreading the word and asking everyone I know. I'm so so sorry for what's happened.x
Why is Jo Mcnab sorry?
So another person who has never meet Joanna Yeates, but appears to be on the Channel 4 image of the facebook group.... And is also on the Missing Facebook group.....
What was the original name of that group?? has it got something to do with bands??/ I say this because of the @Blackdogdays, who were musicians I believe.... Well thats what i find when looking for them.... Are they all local bands....
I wish there was something I could do to help find out what happened and to help give the Jo's close ones some closure.
Why is she wanting to find out what happened??? Does she know something or someone?? Shes a complete stranger... yet she is getting very involved in my opinion.... is she the sobbing girl?? Did she in fact find out something?? (It's a theory)
A year later...
Jo McNab
18 December 2011
My thoughts are with all of Joanna's family & friends this week.xxx
Why ?? She didn't know her..... Why the 18th December?? She hasn't contributed much on the Missing facebook page yet she feels she needs to make this post a year later.... And she didn't know Joanna Yeates ..... Why is Jo McNab on both The Missing group and on the Jo Yeates: Missing Persons appeal for information Is that the date 'ALL" received the message"??
Random people who have been given information before they should (imo)... She cannot be part of the 2 groups that early on, she didn't know Joanna yeates.... Even though she calls her Jo.....
Was Joanna Yeates part of that original facebook group??? (It's a thought....) Was Jo McNab on Joanna yeates facebook friends list?? People follow bands on facebook etc, all kinds of people, she simply could have been in Joanna yeates contact / friends list on facebook, the same with Jess S....
They ALL were included in the original message.... that is why they respond, and react as they do, when they shouldn't....
There is something really strange about that Missing Facebook page, something I cannot put my finger on quite, but
I wondered if the Jo Yeates: Missing Persons appeal for information and the JOANNA YEATES, MISSING SINCE 17/12/10 were one in the same page..... Who's Facebook page is it??? Is this the Facebook page that ALL recieved the message, is this why Jess S, wanted to go out looking for Joanna yeates on that weekend of the 17th December 2010 to the 19th December 2010... ....(imo) It makes sense to me..... 167 people ALL receiving the same message on the same day, when in reality they shouldn't...(imo) especially as they didn't know her.....
This is just my thoughts and ideas based on what I have found.... I do not know the true status of that page , but on conclusion that is the scenario I have come up with.... And as Mrs Yeates stated, she wanted scenarios.... This is one of mine....
https://www.channel4.com/news/boyfriend-desperately-wants-missing-bristol-woman-back
-
Was that Facebook something to do with a gathering for instance..... BDP and say Buro Happold??
Did Dr Vincent Tabak receive that message also.... Is that why he was interested in the case.... Did he not want to play ball... And that why he ended up in the prodiciment he did??
We have no idea what was contained in that message.... we have no idea who's searches that were used at trial..... But was Longwood Lane mentioned in that message, is that why the search of Longwood Lane happened so early on... Was Longwood lane the party that Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to be attending, was he part of that group message???
Was Longwood Lane somewhere a band or performer was taking place?? And Dr Vincent Tabak was attending, did someone who received the message check Longwood Lane??
But not for the reasons we have been lead to believe.....
Did Joanna Yeates sing, play an instrument?? was she supposed to be performing??
The facebook page is significant.... And the origin of that page is significant (imo)....
Did Dr Vincent Tabak notice something about that facebook page??? or was it Tanja that was a member of that facebook group????
I keep trying to come up with scenarios , like Mrs yeates asked for....
And that facebook group and it's origins is key.... Was there an event that people from BDP and Buro Happold attended, seeing as Buro Happold was a client of BDP.....
Maybe that is the connection.... The facebook page may have something to do with events mangement for the likes of BDP... etc.... There is definitley something about that facebook, page.... I just can't work out what!!
I'm sure someone could with all this information.....
-
By providing these scenario's I could simply be helping someone to remove the outstanding information from the net... I do not know.... either way I should stop...
I cannot really do anymore...... Nine 8)--))
Edit... The only other thing I can think of that.. that group had in common, was possibly something to do with the local area, littering etc anything to that local area...... All appear to live extremely close and around the corner for a few.... Is the connection that facebook page.... And is that Facebook page actually a locally based facebook page..... Is that why Peter Stanley was interviewed?? Did he too receive a message???
Was the phone call Dr Vincent Tabak received to do with that facebook page?? and whom HE maybe rang???? Is that why DCI Phil Jones tells us that Dr Vincent Tabak would only talk around an issue with a mobile phone and nothing else??
Who actually rang who when he was in Holland???
Is that the other reason that they stay at that street.... ?? And around the local area???
It's an idea..... just like all of my other ideas........
We only ever get locals to that area and that house being interviewed by the Police, did those people actually write something on that facebook page?? Is this where all the info comes from??... well a lot of it anyway and thats how the media appear to know???
Scenario again, Mrs Yeates....
-
By providing these scenario's I could simply be helping someone to remove the outstanding information from the net... I do not know.... either way I should stop...
I cannot really do anymore...... Nine 8)--))
Edit... The only other thing I can think of that.. that group had in common, was possibly something to do with the local area, littering etc anything to that local area...... All appear to live extremely close and around the corner for a few.... Is the connection that facebook page.... And is that Facebook page actually a locally based facebook page..... Is that why Peter Stanley was interviewed?? Did he too receive a message???
Was the phone call Dr Vincent Tabak received to do with that facebook page?? and whom HE maybe rang???? Is that why DCI Phil Jones tells us that Dr Vincent Tabak would only talk around an issue with a mobile phone and nothing else??
Who actually rang who when he was in Holland???
Is that the other reason that they stay at that street.... ?? And around the local area???
It's an idea..... just like all of my other ideas........
We only ever get locals to that area and that house being interviewed by the Police, did those people actually write something on that facebook page?? Is this where all the info comes from??... well a lot of it anyway and thats how the media appear to know???
Scenario again, Mrs Yeates....
FACEBOOK? Seriously? @)(++(*
-
"She suffered 43 injuries fighting for her life. Tabak, now 39, was jailed for life in October 2011 for the murder with the recommendation he serve at least 20 years."
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/872390/jo-yeates-mother-teresa-lay-headstone-grave-seven-years
I find it incredible that Vincent Tabak had no injuries on his own person if this was the case?
-
FACEBOOK? Seriously? @)(++(*
Yes.... I was actually thinking it was for a gathering, originally set up for say a birthday, or anniversary of some type... The people who are the admin, or who organised it, appear to be family and friends... (unless the names have been changed and someone is pretending to be them???)
I thought perhaps that the people who I believe band members were added to that facebook page... That was why they didn't know Joanna Yeates.... And when she went Missing, that page was used to send the Missing info, The info I believe had to be sent to everyone who was on that facebook page, this is why we have random people like Jess S and Jo ending up with the message...
Tanja too could have easily have ended up with the message, making her react to the talk of her Missing, when the Yeates went around to her home...
I then think what happened was they needed to locate everyone who received the message on the group chat... Maybe as I stated, Dr Vincent Tabak wouldn't play ball.... There has to be a reason....
CJ, had to see someone at the gate.... I think that was maybe why he was arrested, unless he too was invited to the party/gathering/event..
Maybe he did see Joanna Yeates leave with 2 people....
I think this is why we get the performance... The talk of serial killers ... seeds planted firmly in peoples minds, therefore jess mentions the Jen King murder.... maybe she was asked to do this I don't know....
Maybe Dr Vincent Tabak isn't a game player, he wouldn't cooperate in this game, to put out there false information... maybe he's a bit like me in that way... Not a game player... I like straight forward, it makes me know where I stand....
I believe the only thing that was changed on that facebook page was the title... And that was why everyone knew by the 19th December 2010 that Joanna Yeates was Missing, even abducted... Even before that date, as Jess wants to go looking straight away for Joanna Yeates if only she had been around to help....
Everyone got the message, Maybe this is why Greg came back home... I don't think that he was in Sheffield for the weekend, maybe it was supposed to be longer.... I do not know....
The next point has to be who was on that list.... Were any Police officers on the list?? I would say so.... If it was a family gathering, then Peter Yeates Joanna Yeates godfather had to be on that list... Or was it an event for locals in that area and the Police should have attended?
Therefore the Police knew very early on that she was Missing, and they had already started putting in Place what they were planning to do....
How early on I do not know.... but Chris Yeates reacting to the fact that his sister is Missing possibly dead or abducted, would put him in a hole of despair by the 19th December 2010...
Who ever decided to let everyone know via the facebook page, must have been in a panic and not thinking... That is why I believe random people also received the message... They did not know Joanna Yeates, but the content of that message, must have been quite shocking, for the reaction they have to a stranger, not being at her home..
I believe the back tracking was probably contacting anyone whom may have been on Canygne Road at that weekend, specifically Friday 17th December 2010... And anyone who had received the message who shouldn't have....
There has also been another idea I have had.... was Joanna Yeates and Greg going to get engaged?? maybe it was a party for that... I don't know...
So if it was a surprise party, then friends and family would have received the message, did either Theresa or David know of this party/event?? is that why Theresa Yeates reacts immediately to Greg's phone call?? Telling him to call the Police straight away....
And comes to the conclusion that she is dead.... Had messages been going back and forth all weekend??
Rebecca Scott says she received a MESSAGE from The Police..... Well maybe she did.... maybe they had been added to this facebook group so they could see what was going on.. and gather information....
Or was Joanna Yeates also on this facebook page also, and had herself been messaged several times?? And that is what she hadn't responded too... It that what caused suspicion...
Was Joanna Yeates talking to the group on that message board and that is why we know who said what in a text?? And when the responses from her stopped, they realised something was wrong?? Or they knew that was the last time anyone had heard from her....
If it was a family / friends group chat... did Mrs Yeates receive the message?? Is that why......
She's banging on cars.... when she arrives at Canygne Road, something I always thought strange, but if she was in receipt of the information because she was added to this group, then the message could have stated something about abduction...
I keep trying to think where Dr Vincent Tabak fits into this..... There are 2 possibilities that he may have witnessed something that evening.... Or maybe 3....
Asda.... He goes in and out of ADSA twice, we do not know if these are two seperate visits or he forgot his wallet and went back to the car.... He could have left Canygne Road twice, to go to Asda, we do not know as the time stamps are Missing from the ASDA CCTV..... So what ever time he left Canygne Road he may have seen something and then when he went to take photographs, did he snap an image he shouldn't.....
I keep going back to what DCI Phil Jones stated, and the mobile phone.... Did Dr Vincent Tabak find a mobile phone in the vicinity of that building.... He is asked about this phone, which I have always thought has to be of great importance, If he has answered the question relating to the mobile phone, maybe it wasn't until a bit later, that he too remembered his trip to ASDA and like CJ, rang the Police with the information....
It is always a case of who knows who and people gossiping... BDP and Buro Happold did events together Buro Happold I believe was a client of BDP, the staff at these business's must have had contact with each other, and maybe talked of what they knew or shared the message that so many people appear to have received....
Darragh Bellew.... His message on the 20th December 2010... I believe that this is the message that was shared between everyone... A generic message that had been passed around, many people... Just because Darragh has the message doesn't mean he authored it....
Darragh Harry Bellew
20 December 2010 19:05
All,
Most of you on my friends list will not know Jo Yeates but some of you do. Jo has been missing and the last time she was seen was on Friday night; she made it home but was not there when Greg(her boyfriend) returned home from a weekend away late last night. Her belongings however were there including her house key, mobile phone and purse.
Although there is little we can do apart from help the police we c
AVONANDSOMERSET.POLICE.UK
Avon and Somerset Constabulary - Missing woman - have you seen her? (Bristol)
Contains a news story
So, whom ever received this message had the Police contact information within the message also....
I couldn't understand why Darragh out of everyone at The Ram would go to court..... He went to court because he received the message, I believe and had also been with Joanna Yeates in The Ram that evening....( Or maybe he knew she hadn't been in The Ram) They weren't great friends, Darragh hadn't worked for BDP, for that long..... According to the information that Darragh himself appears to have put around the internet....
So he received this message, just like others..... And the Police had to already be aware of what had happened....
Darragh shared the message with ALL.... on his facebook page....
Did Dr Vincent Tabak receive this message?? I have wondered that... The online form for people to fill in, a most unusual manor in which to conduct a Missing persons/ Murder Inquiry....
Kingdon.... what he heard? I don't know if it was relevant because they knew something had happened on the Friday 17th December 2010.... Was Greg actually around?? maybe , maybe he was already helping the Police and had reported her Missing... It normally takes at least 48 hrs for a Missing persons inquiry to take shape unless an adult is vulnerable I believe...
Where Zoe and Florian Lehman attending this gathering or were on the message list?? Did they witness something on Canygne Road?? Zoe Lehman appeared extremely upset when she left Bristol Crown Court and i aways thought it slightly odd.... Was she a cousin???
I believe I have posted an image of one of the cousins at Bristol Crown Court, she was one of the people whom started asking for help on twitter....
Dr Vincent Tabak could just be a fly in the ointment..... He maybe didn't do what was required as everyone else appears to have done.... Leaving himself vulnerable and easy to pass the buck on to....
Was the message sent as early as the 17th December 2010? or was it from the 16th December 2010 and this is why we have him charged between dates....
But if the dates are correct on the Ram footage, then it's the 17th December 2010 unless it too has been edited....
The conspiracy theorists, were they plyed with false information, knowing that they would blow everything out of proporation... Giving wild and crazy ideas about Joanna Yeates that was unfounded, taking away the truth that was in plain sight...
Did Dr Vincent Tabak act in this way... had he foolishly helped spread untruths... but as time passed realised what was happening??
I believe Dr Vincent Tabak knew something.... But he's a foreign national, not knowing anything about English law...
Did he agree to the interview in Holland knowing Dutch Law, and also knowing that they couldn't question him for more than 6 hours... Had he decided to help... But they twisted what he had said, and it was used against him....
The facebook page is the start of the information and an event that was taking place.... This is why the message directs people to the Police website, it was sorted well in advance, weeding out potential people whom they too had received this message..(imo)
Maybe Joanna Yeates was abducted... But that would have nothing to do with Dr Vincent Tabak, if so it should have been the motive for him committing such an act...
The Police have been privy to a lot of information, information that the public, do not know, but I believe that someone in The Police was trying to let people know, by arranging the ridiculous scenarios, with all the Fire Engines, that obviously were not needed...
From the Yeates to strangers, people were aware, that something was a foot.... And as the media extravaganzer happened immediately, the public were made aware how serious this was straight away....
The appeal by The Yeates, so early on... Would have people ringing in immediately if they had received the message.... I still wonder if Dr Vincent Tabak was in Holland on the 19th December 2010 as Marcel had stated...
Maybe he went over leaving Tanja and she had another person accompanying her... I do not know... Someone said that Dr Vincent Tabak was with Tanja, but who I cannot say, she doesn't go to trial she says nothing... Maybe she is the vulnerable adult...
Dr Vincent Tabak could easily have received the message, and was concerned for Tanja's well fair.. That was more of a reason to move out of that building... I don't know...
But what I do believe is that that original facebook group that has Rebecca Scott and 7 others including cousins etc of Joanna Yeates is the start of all this.... And everything that came after was just mis-information to confuse everyone....
The spreading of her Missing all over facebook and twitter, so much information that contradicted itself... 2 opposing facebook groups, with similar names to try to confuse people who maybe just wanted to know what was going on....
The origin has to be that facebook page.... how when where and why we have been hoodwinked I cannot say... But I believe that many know the truth.... Or have since worked it out......
It's a big thing to contain, so many people knowing the same information.... And hoping that not one of them will ever question this case ever.....
So maybe that was why the porn came into it..... Maybe the child images also..... Just to cement in anyones mind if they ever had doubts as to what they believed about that time....
Who would question a man who's into hard core porn and children.... who would look twice at him?? No-one... unless you are me... Because it never sat well with me, and I have to say it is difficult putting oneself out there trying to defend someone you know nothing about, who has had all those things said about him...
But I had to try to put the obvious aside, so that I could concentrate on what happened at that time, so I could try to discover why I believed this case against him did not add up.... And why I believed that an innocent man had been imprisoned for something he didn't do... I couldn't see how giving the contradictory information...
So who's guilty?? I do not know.... Do they really not know the cause of death as was suggested by the sky tweet?? I do not know that either...
It's been tough me doing this... I want to believe the Justice system is just that.... Fair and honest, but I have come to find that that is not true...
It's been a lonely journey getting to this point, for what I have hoped for, a fair playing field, and evidence to support someones conviction and not just an apparent confession.....
And I always say I hoped I have helped.... Justice will be enough for me... The right Justice, and the right person facing Justice, whoever they may be.....
It has to be someone who has connections to the Police, and not just that BDP also... Their name could have been mud, and someone appears to have informed them that Joanna Yeates body was found, and that was why they put up the statement on the 24th December 2010....
Did someone orchestrate the whole episode?? I don't know... but the crisis possibly was in the message that ALL received, (imo) And that was the importance of mentioning the word....
So after trying to ignore been sent in all directions with information that hasn't made sense, have I nearly got there?
I don't know.... I hope so.... I hope my time have been valuable... I hope I have assisted even just a little... I hope the justice system isn't all bad, as I have now come to the conclusion it can't be trusted....
There needs to be light at the end of the tunnel, this cannot have all been for nothing.... I cannot see that being the case... I hope that isn't the case....
Only time may tell....
I keep thinking of that message, it has to be from someone who knew what had happened to her....
All,
Most of you on my friends list will not know Jo Yeates but some of you do. Jo has been missing and the last time she was seen was on Friday night; she made it home but was not there when Greg(her boyfriend) returned home from a weekend away late last night. Her belongings however were there including her house key, mobile phone and purse.
It's the bit about the belongings.... The message is sent to ALL.... if as I believe it was sent before the Sunday, then whoever sent the message has to know what what was left behind.... Being
* Her house key
* mobile phone
* Purse....
The Police have to know who sent the message, who addressed it to ALL.... But why are they not saying anything? That really should be the question..... (imo)
Detective Superintendent Mark Saunders said: “The thing for me is that you can see lots of people walking up and down and vehicles driving up and down on Friday night and the early hours of Saturday morning.
“We’d really like to get hold of any of those people because if anyone was in that street, even if you didn’t think you saw anything, please contact us as we’d really like to speak to you. You might be able to help us.”
“The thing for me is that you can see lots of people walking up and down and vehicles driving up and down on Friday night and the early hours of Saturday morning
Is that DS Mark Saunders questioning that Joanna Yeates cannot have reached home, did someone return her things?? There are too many people about for anyone to abduct Joanna Yeates without witness's... So did she ever reach home? I don't think so...
You see ALL these witness's should have seen Dr Vincent Tabak coming and going... someone in the neighbourhood must have known him....
So I believe the origin is facebook and the messages ....the message that was sent to ALL.... But who sent it to ALL, is the question... That I do not know the answer too.....
I do not know if I am correct about what the event was... But who ever set up the page and messaged everyone in a panic, therefore knows more than we have been told... The messenger maybe shouldn't be shot if someone else had asked them to do it.... Just a thought.... And just my theory as to what has taken place.... As Mrs Yeates had asked for help and assistance... on TV all that time ago....
Is the author of that message someone with connection within the Police, I only say that as if I believe the message is the origin, then it already had the Police contact details.... Did someone assume the role of Policeman??
Either that or I am again on the complete wrong track..... But I cannot help but believe that THAT Message is the origin.... (imo)
Edit... I think it has to be someone who knows Joanna Yeates, someone possibly really close, or someone she would trust.... I cannot see a random stranger attacking her in her own home.... But that is just my opinion...
https://www.channel4.com/news/boyfriend-desperately-wants-missing-bristol-woman-back
-
From: JOANNA YEATES, MISSING SINCE 17/12/10 group on facebook.....
People putting there names to information... Or changing there profiles to confuse everyone.... Is that what this is???
Rebecca Scott
24 December 2010
Quick update..........Jo's face is spreading round bristol (in pubs, shops, peoples houses/cars, on all the local buses, taxis and trains) fast....which is absoblutely fantastic!!!!! I know press are contacting lots of you but I urge only those closest to Jo to speak purely to appeal for information....(NO INFORMATION OR DETAILS NOT ALREADY RELEASED BY HER FAMILY/POLICE IN THE MEDIA ARE TO BE RELEASED), if anyone is unsure as to what to say then please contact me first and NO INTERVIEWS as her parents, boyfriend and police are covering all that side of things.
Thanks for your continued support, and please keep updating this page with most recent links etc.....and of course spread her photo (great if people can put this as the mising poster as thier status!)
WE ARE TOTALLY DESPERATE TO FIND HER.......................WORDS CAN NOT EVEN BEGIN TO DESCRIBE HOW MUCH WE WANT HER BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Also anyone keen to put up posters please print of those on this website (e.g. the one pictured as my profile picture!)
Becky
Now is that Rebecca Scott, someone else or Rebecca Brookes, who has written that??
This is on the 24th December 2010, I believe that the Police already know that she is dead, Have they allowed this charade to continue, in the hope someone will reveal something??
WORDS CAN NOT EVEN BEGIN TO DESCRIBE HOW MUCH WE WANT HER BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Who is she talking too?? Nothing showed us that Joanna Yeates was abducted, no forced entry, apparently Dr Vincent Tabak was invited in.... So what does this poster know??
Is this just one person having multiple profiles?? is that why there is nothing on anyones facebook profiles for that date??
Or did someone orchestrate multiple profiles?? making everyone believe that the family and friends were actually making appeals online....
(NO INFORMATION OR DETAILS NOT ALREADY RELEASED BY HER FAMILY/POLICE IN THE MEDIA ARE TO BE RELEASED), if anyone is unsure as to what to say then please contact me first and NO INTERVIEWS as her parents, boyfriend and police are covering all that side of things.
Contact me first, is this really Rebecca Scott?? why should people be contacting her first, out of everyone at this point in time.... Is she the author of the original message to ALL?? Or did someone put her name to that??
I have the feeling someone made multiple accounts, well at least of the people who were connected directly to Joanna Yeates... maybe that is why this poster is confused.....
Greg Beardon
24 December 2010
Teresa & I had to go to Bristol today and we were totally moved by the number of posters placed in the windows of shops and pubs around Clifton, near Jo's flat. Unfortunately we were not able to meet up with you at Cabots Circus. We cannot find the words to express our appreciation of the effort you have given in an attempt to bring my little girl back. The sight of her face in each of the posters brought home the unreal situation we find ourselves in.
Is that really David Yeates, who mistakenly for a reason I cannot see is using Greg's facebook profile??
Did they add more facebook profiles to confuse... Those being others from The Facebook Forum, who's names were similar on the Missing group....
I do not see why Rebecca Scott would be telling people by the 24th December 2010 what to do.... Shouldn't the Police be doing that???
and of course spread her photo (great if people can put this as the mising poster as thier status!) I do not know which poster that Rebecca Scott or the person impersonating Rebecca Scott is talking of... which poster... there were many...
I'd have to try work that one out..... But I believe it has to be one where she has short hair..... The one where she is holding That imposter who is supposed to be Bernard..... People maybe noticed the Cat and asked questions... I don't know, but I believe that it is the same image that is on the side og the original facebook page, that the event was based around where people had to let someone know that they were attending by clciking on a button at the top of the page, as to whether or not they were going...
A refresh of what was stated on the Facebook group that let everyone know Joanna yeates was Missing..
More Info : Hi all, I'm sorry but I am emailing everyone I know on facebook, who lives in the UK, my dear friend (Joanna yeates) some of you will know her, has gone Missing from the Clifton area of Bristol. She was last seen leaving the Ram pub in Bristol at 8:00pm on Friday 17th December. She popped by at her local Tesco's store, Tesco's Express on Regent Street in Clifton and Waitrose on her way home, she must have made it back to the house as h
If I am thinking Darragh's was the message sent to ALL, I think again I am mistaken... That too could have been a profile made by someone.... Or he made a message, to get information out there...
If this is the original message... Then how did the person know that she went to Tesco's or that she was in Waitrose.... Did they accompany her??
We have a choice of the two messages..... This one or Darragh Bellews message.... This message may be at the top of this facebook page, but it adds information that someone close to the investigation has to know....
Tesco's and Waitrose.... The helpfindJo wordpress page is already set up and is on the information of the poster... Operation Braid, too is there, but it was on one of the handmade posters before with a number to call CID....
So I do not know which Missing Poster came first.....
Just looking at the information on the Missing poster and The facebook group it has listed on it gives us this page.... So it cannot be the Missing Group.... Yet everyone is already aware...
https://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=169097479794933
Is this The Joanna Yeates: Discussion of the Case?? what is this facebook page, it doesn't lead to JOANNA YEATES, MISSING SINCE 17/12/10 and that address above has been removed.... Or is that the Helpfindjo page the Police used??
Ok... we then have what.... A facebook page that tells everyone that Joanna Yeates is Missing, maybe abducted... A facebook page that knows more than anyone at that stage.....
A Facebook page that was inviting people to join some event, and say whether they could or couldn't go.... and an address on the Missing poster to facebook that is different from The JOANNA YEATES, MISSING SINCE 17/12/10 facebook page, that is supposed to be The original facebook page the family set up.... But I am now even more confused....
What is the facebook page that is on the channel 4 website that I posted about, where an event was taking place....
Did I go looking for the group to join having information from somewhere on my own facebook page.... Was I just being nosey?? You see I would have choosen the Forum over the Missing group, because I was on a forum at the time, and even though it wasn't completely a forum, it did have each subject to click on and read.... And as I didn't really know how to use facebook at the time, I wouldn't have gone to The Missing group, because there would have been to much information to sift through, and new messages would have been added all the time....
I think that is why I ended up at the forum.... It makes sense to me because, I don't do facebook... Well I can find things now, but back then I didn't really use it.... And I don't use it now....
That is the only logical conclusion I can come up with.... Then when it changed to a group, I had to find the correct group.... I remembered Milly Millwood.... And also Alexander Alvarez, because of her avatar that was all.... That was why when i went looking for the discussion of the case I recognised Alexanders avatar.... It hasn't changed all these years later....
So The JOANNA YEATES, MISSING SINCE 17/12/10 I knew at that time was not the group/forum I had been on.....
So who set up the forum?? I still do not know.... I have no idea...... I just remember being on it... and apparently locals were also on it.....
I have to settle in my own mind why i think things, and me joining a facebook group,.... Especially seeing as I didn't really do facebook... Was i just being nosey.... I can't say.... But I can reason why I chose the forum....
Was someone in charge of both groups?? I am now wondering.... Was Dr Vincent Tabak the forum creator?
Whoever was on the Jo Yeates Missing Person appeal for information Has to know what has happened.... Did Joanna yeates really get called Jo by her friends....
More Info : Hi all, I'm sorry but I am emailing everyone I know on facebook, who lives in the UK, my dear friend (Joanna yeates) some of you will know her, has gone Missing from the Clifton area of Bristol. She was last seen leaving the Ram pub in Bristol at 8:00pm on Friday 17th December. She popped by at her local Tesco's store, Tesco's Express on Regent Street in Clifton and Waitrose on her way home, she must have made it back to the house as h
The tile of the group and the message suggest differently.... But now I am wondering how many characters were allowed to make a title on Facebook.... As I have never made a group i do not know if there s a restriction....
Did Jo, just get called that as a family name, or just friends or both....
Because if it really was a family member or a close friend who sent that message, they wouldn't have used her full name.... that being Joanna Yeates... It should have been just Jo...
The person who sent that message on that group cannot have been a close friend.... more like an acquaintance... (imo), looking at the content of that message....
Darragh Harry Bellew
20 December 2010 ·
All,
Most of you on my friends list will not know Jo Yeates but some of you do. Jo has been missing and the last time she was seen was on Friday night; she made it home but was not there when Greg(her boyfriend) returned home from a weekend away late last night. Her belongings however were there including her house key, mobile phone and purse.
Although there is little we can do apart from help the police we c
Is Darragh just sending to ALL because of a message he received and he just used the name Jo... making it look like they were friends?? i don't know...
But The Facebook events page or what ever it was, whoever sent the message from there, cannot have been a friend of Joanna yeates (imo) If all of Joanna yeates friends called her Jo....
So what was that page.... It is no longer available on facebook.... Is it the discussion forum / group, or another facebook page altogther... maybe it leads to the Polices website, where that page has been taken down... But it is stamped across the CCTV footage of Joanna Yeates..
Someone must be able to work through this information.... Someone must know....
I keep thinking what brought me to look about Joanna Yeates... I cannot remember if it was when she was Missing or when she was found or what... I do not know the exact date I joined the forum and the information I remember was me reading the forum posts at the time I joined... probably skimming through what was stated....
I cannot honestly say why I joined the forum, I mean look for a group that was talking about the case... Or what made me go looking for information with that case.... I really do not know...
Facebook and twitter appear to have been bombarded at the time with information, and something could have been on my facebook page, I didn't really have much going on it at the time on facebook, as I have explained, I really wasn't into facebook, and I still aren't....
So something about it had to get me interested, but I cannot remember what it was.... But can understand why the forum was more appealing for me, to join....
So were the people on the forum family and friends, or people who were local.... Was it the address that is above in my post....
Is the information Missing now because of the case at trial?? I don't know when it was taken down.... Someone has said 2012, but that may be incorrect, as i really do not know and there is plenty of mis-information about....
But if I remember correctly I was apart of it when the trial took place, I remember that much as I stated before.... The Waitrose video, it was released as the trial happened and was commented on... That someone saw a man that looked like he was watching Joanna Yeates in Waitrose.... Within minutes if memory serves me correctly that video was taken down and edited....
But I cannot remember if there was a link to the video, or someone on the group added the video....
So who was The Group/Forum admin that was Joanna Yeates: The discussion of the case??
I type as I am thinking half the time and I was trying to work out which was the first Missing Poster.... We have this one that is on the event facebook page... This one below therfore has to be The original poster..
(http://images2.corriereobjects.it/methode_image/2017/08/04/Interni/Foto%20Gallery/4%20joanna-yeates-poster_MGTHUMB-INTERNA.jpg)(https://scontent.fman2-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/162797_10150364451085437_5644156_n.jpg?_nc_cat=109&_nc_ht=scontent.fman2-2.fna&oh=f16d95b45e26772bff1a6db1284d35e8&oe=5CA93805)
All of the others have an 0845 456 7000 number to ring, but this one hasn't.... It has CID.... or was it put out to confuse also....
Did this Missing Poster come before all were contacted, I mean before the message was sent... Or is Darragh Bellews the message that was the original and the events page, was set up to confuse?
Darraghs message leads to The Polices website.... The poster I have put on my post shows Joanna Yeates with layered hair... Who made that Poster? is that the poster everyone saw when they clicked on the link the Police had made??
Someone has gone to a lot of trouble to put out a lot of disinformation.... And that doesn't work if it is supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabak who killed her on a whim.....
Nothing tells us Dr Vincent Tabak is connected to The Police.... maybe he was??? I do not know or think so...
So who has spent all this time crating various fake ID's spreading disinformation between facebook groups.... Who reported her Missing?? Who made the Joanna Yeates poster with the CID info upon it??
I can't answer that... But it doesn't lead to Dr Vincent Tabak as far as I can tell.... And if he had created all those facebook pages and posts, wouldn't that have come to trial, to prove what he had been up to??
Here's a question, The larger of the two posters is the one on The Events page on facebook..... (I say that, but cannot see the address clearly on the channel4 image) But they look the same...
Why would people put that facebook page address up on a poster on facebook "Missing Group", If the web address didn't lead to The JOANNA YEATES, MISSING SINCE 17/12/10
Is this why everyone puts that poster as there profile picture? pointing some people to the different Facebook page...
There's still a little confusion, but something is breaking through... Did Dr Vincent Tabak realise about that facebook page address, had he worked something out about it?
He was supposed to be following every twist and turn of this Investigation.... So where did that web address lead to??
Is that it.... Dr Vincent Tabak wasn't confused by the two main groups at the time on facebook, even though similar names were used on both, had he realised that the web address lead to the wrong group...
He has to know something.... (imo) There has to be a reason that he is in someones sights by late December...
Was it just that simple... He noticed the web address didn't match the right facebook group.....
There may be more to what Dr Vincent Tabak witnessed or knew... I just don't know....
But Facebook and the events page must be the origin.... (imo) Or am I barking up the wrong tree again???
-
That Missing Poster with the webpage.... Is that what I clicked on and ended up on The Facebook Forum??
If many people were using that and there was a live link... Is it possible that is how I ended up on the Forum...
Just a thought.....
If that is where that web address leads too????
Where exactly does this web page lead too?
https://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=169097479794933
edit...
This is the link below to the JOANNA YEATES, MISSING SINCE 17/12/10 group on facebook
https://www.facebook.com/groups/169097479794933/
They are similar... but not the same..... Am I mistaken here with what i have theorised about??
-
I have found this on a wiki of all places..
Facebook CC Integration/Facebook Group
If you saw the new ToS (point 12.3 see http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=67758697570&topic=7569 ) 7000 people is the magic number to gain the possibility of change almost anything. (If we have the chance to change the ToS with 7000 people, then we also have the possibility to include CC)
Building a Strong Movement
The group grew to be the second most biggest CC group on FB. That exciting piece of news also leads to a not so good situation:
The lack of country CC groups and people inside each one.
We have only a little more than 20 regional groups, with the notorious absent of countries like Brazil, Mexico, Germany.. well a lot of really big and not so big countries
And that's a problem, why? there's a lot of CC people there waiting to take part on something that they believe, but they don't know the existence of a local group to do that.. and because of that, they also don't know about this effort that we are making here.
So I would like to propose the following: make your country group if it isn't created yet or join your local CC group.
So we can help us to connect with us. that's really important.
We hope that in the following week instead of 20 groups we will have 100 groups of CC commons and that also will bring attention to Zuckerberg an his people.
What do you say?
These are the CC groups already on FB: please join them
If you want to make one for your country, please check that haven't been made and also I suggest two things: Put the name of the country in the title and make the group 'global' (available to all facebook), so communications among groups can exist.
and last: making a group does not mean you have to lead it :-) but a group can gather people and that's the first step.
CC Australia: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5123568444
CC Canada: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=16219732053
CC Chile: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=63074824186
CC China mainland: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=7074870796
CC France: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5241169780
CC Greece: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6334614941
CC Guatemala: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=40897231354
CC Hong Kong: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=4339016509
CC India: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=28944518565
CC Israel: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=7103310956
CC Italia: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=35550172381
CC Japan: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19661267292
CC Jordan: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=76228837413
CC Malaysia: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=11652195153
CC Philippines: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=10086136135
CC Puerto Rico: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=4699403995
CC Singapore: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=4994205766
CC Spain: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=55280137723
CC Sverige (Sweden): http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=20287004904
CC Switzerland: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=33161445872
CC Turkey: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=7439050476
So does that make a difference?? I have no idea.....
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Facebook_CC_Integration/Facebook_Group
-
"She suffered 43 injuries fighting for her life. Tabak, now 39, was jailed for life in October 2011 for the murder with the recommendation he serve at least 20 years."
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/872390/jo-yeates-mother-teresa-lay-headstone-grave-seven-years (https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/872390/jo-yeates-mother-teresa-lay-headstone-grave-seven-years)
I find it incredible that Vincent Tabak had no injuries on his own person if this was the case?
Tabak* was a good foot taller than Jo Yeates, and of course more muscular and heavily built, so not surprising that she suffered 43 injuries to various parts of her body, including 12 to head and neck, 2 to her trunk, 21 to her arms and 4 to her legs, many of which were probably bruises. If she was wrestled to the floor first and Tabak straddled her chest / abdomen, then he would have had little problem pinning down both her arms with his knees whilst inflicting punching injuries to her face and eventually strangling her. If he was medically examined for injuries at all, then it was only weeks later after being arrested, by which time any bruising and / or lacerations would have disappeared.
-
*if he exists.
-
Sorry you had to scroll down past all the other nonsense to read this.
-
Tabak* was a good foot taller than Jo Yeates, and of course more muscular and heavily built, so not surprising that she suffered 43 injuries to various parts of her body, including 12 to head and neck, 2 to her trunk, 21 to her arms and 4 to her legs, many of which were probably bruises. If she was wrestled to the floor first and Tabak straddled her chest / abdomen, then he would have had little problem pinning down both her arms with his knees whilst inflicting punching injuries to her face and eventually strangling her. If he was medically examined for injuries at all, then it was only weeks later after being arrested, by which time any bruising and / or lacerations would have disappeared.
Myster.... As I stated I do not know who Dr Vincent Tabak is..... I do not know if he had an alternative name.... I know nothing of him.. But I do know that what too place back then didn't add up... And doesn't add up today...
The description there sounds like what a Police Officer or someone who has had training of that type could do... But it is not in that article.... That article and several like it has always concerned me.... Why after all this time has Joanna Yeates not received a headstone??
This is the only year that the article hasn't been written.... But the description you have given, says that Joanna Yeates sustained a violent attack.... But it originally was nothing significant... As DCI Phil Jones stated on the Police Conference...
I try settle things in my mind.... And I try to understand who is who.....
For instance... Leonora.... sounds female, but is male apparently.... The names on the Missing group sounded similar to the names on the forum..... So did they swop gender?
Is that what has happened... I did say earlier I thought a woman could have killed Joanna Yeates.... Which woman I couldn't say....
So if I apply my idea to the forum, everyone switched names and gender..... apart from me of course...
Therefore was it Tanja that set up the forum?? Was it Tanja who would be in great trouble for interfering with the case?
Was it the family/friends of Joanna Yeates who set up the forum?? I don't know... But it put out lots of information..
Which forum/group was which??
Thinking about it, a lot of the information that the media wrote, I saw on the forum.... I didn't check closely at the time... I didn't think I needed too.... Well to be honest, I didn't think anything was untoward in the very beginning....
Only as time went on did I wonder what happened.... It didn't make sense... As at trial I expected witnesses to be there, and couldn't understand why the story told on the stand, was what had appeared in the media.... Nothing more....
Who knew what... I mean the Police?? Who knew about each group/forum??
Is that what this is about... Dr Vincent Tabak made the forum... or Tanja pretending to be Dr Vincent Tabak.... It sounds confusing... But I have to question everything.....
Is the reason Dr Vincent Tabak made a plea was because Tanja would have been in great trouble for the forum? And wanted to protect her, so said he had killed Joanna Yeates, or pled guilty to Manslaughter at his interview??
If AH is correct, that a plead would stop this Investigation in its tracks, then that could be a reason....
Or did someone ask him to plead guilty.... And it wasn't until trial that he saw the full horror of what had taken place with regards the injuries to Joanna Yeates and that was why he apologised...
I never know what is real or not.... The amount of information is confusing, but I suppose it is meant to be confusing....
Did the family or friends of Joanna Yeates set up both facebook groups/forums?? Or was it people who had lived at that address before who set it up?
The house had to be the reason, the Police never left it.... You don't conduct a Murder investigation just at one location.....
I am thinking Longwood Lane at the moment.... And when it was first mentioned.... If the forum was a group that was what the appeal had been set up for, then I am now coming to an idea....
Ok... everyone is chatting on the forum/group... for how long this forum/ group has been around I do not know.... But I am coming to an idea... A conclusion as to where the information came from....
Had the talk of Longwood lane and a party been mentioned on that forum/group that is on the poster of Joanna Yeates Missing??
Was the original web address, the event ./gathering/party, that was being attended by at least 167 people?
Was that event supposed to be on Longwood Lane??
Did Joanna Yeates actually attend the event? Did she end up on Longwood Lane because, she was supposed to be at a party somewhere... Is Longwood Lane The first scene of Crime??
Was she over the wall.... is that why they needed the fire services assistance, Was she hidden somewhere in the quarry site?
And then her belongings were therefore returned to Canygne Road so as to make it appear that she had gone home...
But the private CCTV doesn't show her upon it....
Had whoever killed her just gathered her things and accidently picked up the receipt?? Or did they not realise that she had been in Tescos....
Everything appears to be the opposite of what is what....
No forced entry..... Well maybe there was..... No sexual assault... maybe that happened too..... No significant Injuries.... Well if the description Myster has given is anything to go by then she was beaten to a pulp....
Stranger killed her..... that has to be someone who knew her.....
I keep coming back to who is Dr Vincent Tabak?? Did he even live at that address?? Does he exist?? Maybe he did I have no idea... But something about him doesn't add up either....
Did Dr Vincent Tabak have his named changed? is he known by another name?? Is he in prison or did he walk free??
Is he a he or a she??
Did Joanna Yeates get killed by accident, or did someone else get killed by accident.... Was it Tanja that was killed?? Is that why she didn't attend court.....
Everything is the opposite way around.... So trying to untangle it is difficult.....
Now if it was Tanja that this happened to, was that why Dr Vincent Tabak went straight home by the 19th December 2010??
This could be pie in the sky....
Or has a full blown Murder investigation happened when there wasn't a Murder??
Are the people in the video actually the Yeates family? I don't know... I do not know who is who to be honest....
They say that Dr Vincent Tabak towered over Joanna Yeates.... So if i think the opposite, the person was shorter....
They say male... If I think the opposite, it has to be female...... They say a stranger.... So the opposite is a family member or friend....
They say no sexual assault.... So there has to have been..... No forced entry.... someone barged there way in....
The blind was up all the time... the blind was down.....
The picture in my mind that I am getting, is that Joanna Yeates was killed by someone she knew.... She was killed by a female, who had barged there way into the Flat or house , Or it happened in a car, was she dragged int o a car?? Has she stormed off after an argument??
They maybe argued with her, attacked her , subdued her by grabbing her at the right point on her neck.... Held her till she was dead... Then made it look like a sexual assault... The ikea blanket that Dr Sheridan tested, was maybe from a car, that was in the back seat or boot, maybe she was then put into the boot of the car, I do not know, or transported else where....
Did Joanna Yeates have a girlfriend?? I have often wondered this? I maybe be wrong, but it has crossed my mind more than once....
See I go around in circles.... Forever in circles, because there is so many possibilities with this still...
The scenario would then be... Joanna Yeates was killed by a girlfriend, who was jealous and Joanna Yeates relationship with this girlfriend, wasn't great... They were jealous of her, they were controlling, they tried to make it look like an abduction , to buy themselves time.... They even tried to make it look like she was sexually assaulted...
They had help... and either hide Joanna Yeates body inside the quarry, or they kept her in a freezer, or maybe she was found a lot sooner, and the Police just held on to her....
The scenarios are endless..... But did Joanna Yeates just die? Had she been ill?? Did someone make a mount out of a mole hill??
I couldn't say.... I always think I am getting somewhere, then there's a stumbling block....
The facebook group were set up to confuse... I believe that is true.... well one of them at the very least.....
Did Dr Vincent Tabak make the Missing group? I don't know... there is definitely something off with both the forum and the group, I just cannot say... I don't know.....
Was that his crime??
He made on either the forum or the group, giving information out that was contradictory, messing with this Investigation....
So is Dr Vincent Tabak related to Joanna Yeates? I don't know that ether....
All I can say for sure... Is I believe that what happened at trial that was reported, was only what had already been released either via the papers or the Facebook group/forum and twitter.... What really took place at crown Court I have no idea....
Dr Vincent Tabak may have even been in another country and this was done via video link.... I can't say... he could have actually walked free.... I don't know that either....
I am constantly flummoxed by the disinformation.... So have I been trying to get people to look at this to free a man that is free?? Or a woman that is free?? I have no idea....
Just like I have no idea if a crime took place, or a violent crime took place, or if it is all make believe.... No idea at all....
But I believe that I have discovered that the web address on the Missing Poster is the forum.... As I realised when I was searching for this site this morning and looked up at the address...
Below is this sites forum:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?PHPSESSID=mt2830ppa0ia4kjpmccongq0e4&topic=8060.3075
And here: https://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=169097479794933 (must be the facebook forum)
The web address that is not working now , but appeared on the Missing Poster and on the channel 4 bulletin....
So maybe I have solved one puzzle at least.... But I still do not know who made the forum.... I still do not know if it was from that webpage that the event had taken place, because to be honest... I didn't search every post on the forum.... Just like on here, I stick with this topic.... So other information could have been on the forum....
But one thing that has popped into my head is the window cleaner.... The window cleaner that cleaned windows at that address.... He commented on the forum I believe.... And I'm sure neighbour etc... people who lives around there also did....
So the forum had to be set up before.... It had to be called something else.... And probably certain topics were removed.... It had to be a locally based forum, where residents or some residents made comments.... I actually cannot remember how many people were members of that forum... I didn't take any notice..... Or when it was set up....
All of the information that is out there could be false..... And that is why I keep coming across staging of things....
I still do not understand or know what this case is about.... I just knew it didn't make sense.... And that is why i have found myself here....
Or is here the original forum that was transferred??
What is here?? I have never been able to work that one out.... Was the original facebook forum about local murders etc?? Or Murders in general.... I am thinking on my feet....
Am I back from where I started?? Is this an updated version of the forum?... So who have I been talking too??
Or have I completely lost the plot?? And I am sure someone will comment on that....
Is that why i have joined twice... Just like the forum I was on about the case?? And no-one will say anything about it because they have already said it on the forum.... Therefore the gagging order was about The Forum and thats why no-one will speak....
But refers to all of the original media coverage instead.... maybe the word 'facebook" was in the title of the gagging order, but this isn't facebook....
And no-one except me talks about what happened, and I have been allowed to talk to myself, virtually forever...
I have no idea who is who or what.... But what is stated when someone disagrees i believe has to be what was stated at the time on either the forum or the group....
But does it get me any closer to an answer?? I do not know...
So mrswah saying she wasn't sure whether Dr Vincent Tabak was guilty or not may be true, in the sense of what his involvement actually was.... If the information in the forum/group was there to confuse everyone...
So the connection is the forum, if I am correct... But other than that I cannot say..... My mind changes on a regular basis.....
I still don't know what to believe anymore... Is the staring me in the face, that this is the forum?
I can't say.... But it's just an idea like all of my other ideas.....
I don't know why i bother.... I go around and around and around.....
-
Why after all this time has Joanna Yeates not received a headstone?? Here's why... https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/872390/jo-yeates-mother-teresa-lay-headstone-grave-seven-years (https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/872390/jo-yeates-mother-teresa-lay-headstone-grave-seven-years)
Is he in prison or did he walk free?? In Wakefield keeping Bamber company at the last count.
Is he a he or a she?? LOL!!!!!
Or have I completely lost the plot?? And I am sure someone will comment on that.... ABSOLUTELY!
I don't know why i bother.... I go around and around and around..... like a circle in a spiral, like a wheel within a wheel, never ending, etc, etc, etc...
-
I don't know why i bother.... I go around and around and around..... like a circle in a spiral, like a wheel within a wheel, never ending, etc, etc, etc...
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEhS9Y9HYjU
Exactly Myster... It is all in my head... that is all.... I see that now.... I was just about to post... and I will after this.... My chasing Windmills... Is me... Chasing myself.... 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
Oh well... At least I learnt something about myself.....
I am gullible, @)(++(* @)(++(* I have a vivid imagination @)(++(*
-
I have been on here far too long.... I write and for what reason?? I think that something happened, but i do not even know that either....
Facebook/ Twitter/ forums.... I do not know who is behind the usernames... I am not supposed to.... I am not asking either...
This whole case that I have spent all this time posting about is what?? True?? False?? Fake news??
I am no expert on anything , which i have proved time and time again... I have looked at this and today i cannot say why anymore....
I know what I thought, but if everything on the net about this case is from fake news then i am following an imaginary person around....
Twitter, where you can change your name at the drop of a hat.... You can change location, time zone, language, anything..... So the information on there could have been put there at anytime... i cannot say I do not know.... You cannot rely on twitter, as a form of information to be honest.... maybe look at jokes on there, but thats about it.....
The origin, I have said all along.... I haven't a clue.... I have come up with theories and scenario's based on what information is available... But if that information is fake, then I have just been making more fake news....
The people identified in the media, at trial or in Canygne Road or even Longwood lane..... Well I only know who they are because I have been told on the net in one form or another..... I do not know for a fact that what has been stated is true....
William Clegg for instance.... Yes he may have gone into Bristol Crown Court, but for what reason??? I am only being told that it is the case against Dr vincent Tabak, and the book that he has written apparently is written by a ghost writer.....
Thousands upon thousand of pieces of information, that everyone on twitter has retweeted or tweeted about... The same with facebook..... All of it could be complete crap.....
I do not or cannot remember whether or not I watch reports on the TV, or was it just via the net???
The stories in the media these days I don't know whether to believe half the time.... i don't really bother with newspapers or news reports anymore, and may only know what is happening because I am listening to the radio.... But are those reports accurate and true....
I know NOTHING..... I KNOW NOTHING.... And that is the point.... I have helped create even more crap.... I do not know what is true or not anymore, and am at the point of do I care.....
I have allowed myself to be come obsessed with this... but obsessed with what?? Fake news... untruths spread via social media.... Believing opinions of people I know nothing about..... Why, why would I do that....
I cannot say.... I have been hoodwinked.... by my own doing I admit... nobody made me write on here.... All of the contradictory information is what?? More fake News??
One thing I could say from this that could be of use somewhere... Is social media and courts.... That the origin of the social media communications, needs to be established, the IP address that it was sent from, who sent it, what was the date , time and location or country of origin.....
That would be extremely difficult to do..... Not understanding the full exchange between people and in what context this exchange take form, is also important.....
I was thinking about when woman say that they were raped... Then evidence of texts apparently proves it isn't so, because someone consented apparently.... But woman who have been married for years have been raped, they may have consented at one point, but after No... they may have sent a text that makes it appear that they have consented.... So are texts etc.... social media proof or evidence of something taking place??
Not always... Social media based evidence like other evidence is open to interpretation.... And what the person reading such information is maybe feeling themselves at the time, or their beliefs etc....
So my lesson learnt.... Keep of the net.... just look for recipes.... Jokes, inane rubbish, do not believe what you read? maybe read a book.... maybe take up a hobby.... or just play a computer game....
I apologise for adding to all the information out there.... It might as well be removed.... It means nothing (imo) if it is all a lie that I chose for an odd reason to believe.....
As I say.... I know none of you... i know no-one who is connected to the case.... i know no-one who is on twitter either.... They could be made up accounts for all I know, collecting followers so that they support what ever cause they believe in and say what ever they want, and people believe what they say.....
What I do know is me.... And that is it... and I have spent a long time adding to something i probably didn't need too...
If all this information i imagine I have found wasn't found by the Police before... how could I have found it... It wasn't Missing.....
It is an exercise in understand the net, that is all.... I have no information that is not already out there.... i know no more than anyone else does....
What ever this is about i honestly do not know... or give a damn anymore.... It appears to only support not using digital formats for courts, that being social media, video links etc..... Everything that happens at trial needs to be paper based.... (EVIDENCE BASED!!) Real evidence....Proper forensics.... And not the rubbish I have believed.... !!!
Anyone can pretend to be anyone on the internet, as has been proven to me, by doing this,.....
So The Justice system , needs proper checks and balances, it needs a proper chain of command, a chain of command that isn't broken and validation of the person who appears via any link.... Better still have them actually appear in court....
The only thing to add is everything I have screenshot or written needs binning.... I have found nothing... I have understood NOTHING either.... All I have managed to do is waste my time it appears.....
Please refer to the above post, for that answer....
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Just because it is on the internet does not make it true... &^^&* &^^&* &^^&*
Round like a circle in a spiral, like a wheel within a wheel
Never ending or beginning on an ever spinning reel
Like a snowball down a mountain, or a carnival balloon
Like a carousel that's turning running rings around the moon
Like a clock whose hands are sweeping past the minutes of its face
And the world is like an apple whirling silently in space
Like the circles that you find in the windmills of your mind
Like a tunnel that you follow to a tunnel of its own
Down a hollow to a cavern where the sun has never shone
Like a door that keeps revolving in a half forgotten dream
Or the ripples from a pebble someone tosses in a stream
Like a clock whose hands are sweeping past the minutes of its face
And the world is like an apple whirling silently in space
Like the circles that you find in the windmills of your mind
Keys that jingle in your pocket, words that jangle in your head
Why did summer go so quickly, was it something that you said?
Lovers walking along a shore and leave their footprints in the sand
Is the sound of distant drumming just the fingers of your hand?
Pictures hanging in a hallway and the fragment of a song
Half remembered names and faces, but to whom do they belong?
When you knew that it was over you were suddenly aware
That the autumn leaves were turning to the color of her hair!
Like a circle in a spiral, like a wheel within a wheel
Never ending or beginning on an ever spinning reel[/]
As the images unwind, like the circles that you find
In the windmills of your mind
Says it all really doesn't it........ 8(>((
Edit.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEhS9Y9HYjU
As the images unwind, like the circles that I find....In the windmills of "MY" mind.... @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
*%87
-
*%87
Caroline, please, there is no need for this!
Simple Simon, you are going too far. Nobody is pretending to be anybody. I have doubts as to the guilt of Vincent Tabak, but I cannot go with conspiracy theories, sorry!
My opinion, of course.
-
For the most part, I agree with what you say.
-
For the most part, I agree with what you say.
With who? Myster or Nine?
-
With who? Myster or Nine?
Myster. Sorry, couldn't get the quote to print!
-
Myster. Sorry, couldn't get the quote to print!
By the way, I used the emoticon above because it was the only one which kind of represented confusion. I have no idea how Nine comes to such conclusions as is documented here. I think he/she has an unhealthy interest bt they will NEVER find any answers from social media.
-
By the way, I used the emoticon above because it was the only one which kind of represented confusion. I have no idea how Nine comes to such conclusions as is documented here. I think he/she has an unhealthy interest bt they will NEVER find any answers from social media.
Maybe so Caroline... But Twitter appears to be the source of a lot of information....
The idea that anyone from the media can tweet this case has always seemed wrong to me.... If you look at the tweet of people from the media, the reports of the information they bring forth raise questions always...
How can anything be believed or accepted...
Rupert Evelyn for instance, a twitter account that hasn't been confirmed, why I have no idea... But the information that he reveals is interesting... He adds information that only sets in the minds of the public what has happened or maybe happened.... For instance....
Rupert Evelyn
@rupertevelyn
Follow Follow @rupertevelyn
More
For info there is a light with a motion sensor above the entrance to #joyeates flat. "it was already on" as Zoe walked past
7:01 AM - 13 Oct 2011
Was this mentioned at trial by Zoe Lehman?? that would suggest that someone was already outside the flat at that point...
What direction had they come from? It almost sound like they walked past Joanna Yeates door... Where they the people at the gate, I have asked this before???
Zoe and Florian Lehman, two witness's whom appear at court, we have seen them leaving with the photo's from Getty... That is if we are to accept that that is they.... Anyway... the real issue has to be what has been tweeted about the Lehmans from trial and Rosie and The Browns...
Rupert Evelyn
@rupertevelyn
Follow Follow @rupertevelyn
More
Flo Lehman's wife Zoe is now in the witness box. She says they left home that night at 8.34
6:53 AM - 13 Oct 2011
Left home at 8:34... where did she live?? didn't she go to Bargain Booze also??
@rupertevelyn
Follow Follow @rupertevelyn
More
Zoe "we were on the road" as we passed 44. "I noticed that the outside light was on.... It was very bright"
7:00 AM - 13 Oct 2011
0 replies 1 retweet 0 likes
Which light??
Rupert Evelyn
@rupertevelyn
Follow Follow @rupertevelyn
More
Zoe "I heard quite a loud scream, I turned round to have a look" was it quite a loud scream? "yeah" "it seemed to come from house behind me"
7:03 AM - 13 Oct 2011
We direction was she facing??
Rupert Evelyn
@rupertevelyn
Follow Follow @rupertevelyn
More
Zoe "the first scream was loud... The second scream started loud then went quieter"
7:05 AM - 13 Oct 2011
These screams where apparently Joanna Yeates, the jury believed them to be Joanna Yeates, the timing of the screams supported the apparent time of the attack...
Rupert Evelyn
@rupertevelyn
Follow Follow @rupertevelyn
More
Zoe "as I went through the door I mentioned it to Rosie. We just thought it was students" #joyeates
7:08 AM - 13 Oct 2011
Who is Rosie??
Rupert Evelyn
@rupertevelynFollow Follow @rupertevelyn
More
Defence now asking questions of Zoe Lehman about the screams. #joyeates
7:10 AM - 13 Oct 2011
Rupert Evelyn
@rupertevelyn
Follow Follow @rupertevelyn
More
Zoe agrees she heard a scream, turns to look back down the path, sees a man walking towards the downs and then she goes into the party
7:14 AM - 13 Oct 2011
What man walking towards the down?? Is it possible to see the downs from there, I don't know, but a local should be able to say...
That should have raised a few eyebrows.... But the next tweet make even less sense..
Rupert Evelyn
@rupertevelyn
Follow Follow @rupertevelyn
More
Zoe Lehman texted Maria Brown on 22nd Dec to ask what time she'd arrived at the party because she'd heard 2 screams. #yeates
2:11 AM - 18 Oct 2011
22nd December 2010.... Is the day that CJ made his second witness statement, a coincidence that Zoe lehman, then texts Maria Brown to ask her what time she had arrived at the party???
And that is the point.... She should know what time she arrived at the party... she should know what time, she left home and how long it took her to get there... Maria Brown should not be telling Zoe Lehman anything.... Two witness's cooperating with each other to establish a time that may or may nor be relevant....
How was this testimony allowed if they had to check with each other as to the time someone arrived at a party??
Marie Brown who wasn't at trial as far as we know, with the information that is available...
This tweet astounds me... How can you have one witness who doesn't attend trial corroborating another witness who does attend trial... timelines?
How did no-one pick up this point? How can Zoe text someone else on a particular day that shouldn't be relevant, other than we know that this was the day that CJ made his second witness statement...
You have a man being seen.... walking towards the downs... You have friends agreeing what the time may or may not have been after the fact, and you have a defence and prosecution who have let that colluding, (for use of a better word) as to the time they believe that someone had arrived at a party...
The CCTV should show that.... The CCTV that DS Mark Saunders viewed....
Not only does she text Marie but....
Rupert Evelyn
@rupertevelyn
Follow Follow @rupertevelyn
More
Peter Brown was able to let Zoe know that she'd arrived at the party between 8.45 and 9pm. #yeates
2:11 AM - 18 Oct 2011
Peter Brown, also helps in the timing of when Zoe arrived at said party.....
2 people who have not attended trial, telling a trial witness what time she arrived at a party where she may or may not have heard screams coming from 44, Canygne Road...
Why was her testimony used at trial?? why was Zoe Lehmans testimony used, when she hadn't a clue as to the time she arrived at a party?? We had Kingdon telling us he heard screams mid-morning on the 18th December 2010, but what he heard was dismissed...
How ?? Why?
Up until Dr Vincent Tabak takes the stand and states that he killed Joanna Yeates on the 17th December 2010 and the approx time, does anyone know that this is when she was killed.... NOTHING else supports this....
Rupert Evelyn
@rupertevelyn
Follow Follow @rupertevelyn
More
Peter Brown written statement now being read to the court. #yeates
2:12 AM - 18 Oct 2011
Didn't attend.....
Rupert Evelyn
@rupertevelyn
Follow Follow @rupertevelyn
More
Peter Brown "nothing unusual happened during the evening. There was no mention of a scream outside". #yeates
2:14 AM - 18 Oct 2011
Nothing that evening was apparently amiss.... No mention of screams that had aroused anyones suspicion....
I do not know what this case is about.... I do not understand it at all.... It has always had me in two minds... And that was the reason I have asked if it was even real or true....
What took place inside Bristol crown Court, we only have the tweets and media reports to go off.... And they paint and interesting picture....
Marie Brown and Peter Browns statements corroborate what??
That Zoe and Florian attended a party??
That they may or may not have heard screams??
Statements accepted into a trial without anyone questioning why Zoe texted Marie... what was in said text, and why was she enquiring on that particular day??
No-one in the judicary questioning this case and the shambles it appears to be....
Why everyone stay silent I do not know.... But the only conclusion I keep coming to is it cannot be real and true....
Nothing will ever make sense with this case..... What I do not understand, if the tweets are accurate and that is what was stated at trial, is why neither the prosecution or the defence, speaking up... Why would they be happy to accept what Zoe and Florian state, if they had no idea what time they arrived at a party.... and realistically the time should not have been important on the 22nd December 2010....
I keep wondering where Zoe and Florian lived?? And why that day was important enough for her to need to confirm when she arrived at a party? The gossip mongers where around at that time... CJ had told his neighbours about making his statement to the Police about seeing /hearing someone at the gate....
But we the public didn't know until the Leveson that it was the 22nd December 2010, if memory serves me correctly, that CJ made his secondary witness statement......
I will always be unsure what this is about.... I do not believe that anything would or could change... I will never understand why everyone had been silent about this ....
What I do not understand is why Rosie brown was not at trial, or Peter Brown for that matter..... Why are we finding out via twitter that Zoe Lehmans recollection of that evening may not be relied upon... If she had to check with the Browns when she apparently arrived at their party....
How was their testimony allowed??
N.B I am not signed into twitter, so I do not know if the times that appear on the tweets are accurate...
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/124484995342544897
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/124484751846412289
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/124482944608907264
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/124485347760549888
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/124486017741893633
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/124485347760549888
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/124486760590884864
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/124487211902185474
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/124488126503731200
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/126223775082614784
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/126223945740464128
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/126224157196300288
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/126224585728335872
-
Twitter a volume of info on this case.....
Rupert has a wealth of information, I didn't follow twitter at the time really and i appear to have missed a great deal....
Rupert Evelyn
@rupertevelyn
Follow Follow @rupertevelyn
More
questions about dinner party on the 15th December. Tabak described as acting quite normally
8:11 AM - 20 Oct 2011
Now said dinner party cannot be a problem if it happened before the apparent event...!!!
I could never understand why Sally Ramage's dates appeared incorrect, but this tweet goes with what she has written before...
Has all of Sally Ramages info come from what has been stated on twitter?
I have been looking for something for ages that had this date in relation to the trial, and came across this by accident... I find it interesting, but do not understand why RE would tweet this....
So if the dinner party is before the disappearance of Joanna Yeates.. The dinner party was supposed to be in January 2011
Maybe an error was made, would have hoped to have seen a retraction of error....
Now here is where thing confuse me.... It is the times i have stated before....
Sally Ramage.....
At Line 118 of the prosecution chart
Tabak accessed the Internet and performed some Google searches. On 18 Dec 2010, Tabak searched at 1.26 am-
„BBC news‟ and „weather forecast‟
1.46 am- „weather forecast‟
1.47 am- „BBC Bristol news‟
Those times have always concerned me:
RE tweets..
Rupert Evelyn
@rupertevelyn
Follow Follow @rupertevelyn
More
1.38 am Sat 18th Dec Tabak leaves to collect Tanja from the coach
3:36 AM - 20 Oct 2011
And:...
Rupert Evelyn
@rupertevelyn
Follow Follow @rupertevelyn
More
1:48 Tanja calls Vincent to give him directions of where to collect her. He confirms he collected her
3:39 AM - 20 Oct 2011
How can he do the searches??
Rupert Evelyn
@rupertevelyn
Follow Follow @rupertevelyn
More
on the way home. Tanja suggested buying a burger she wanted something to eat after the party. They took the food home
3:40 AM - 20 Oct 2011
I thought they ate it in the car??
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/127039182068649984
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/126970726233288704
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/126970960506126336
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/73-CLN-NOV-2014-Online-full.pdf
-
More tweets:
Rupert Evelyn
@rupertevelyn
Follow Follow @rupertevelyn
More
Tanja told a friend that Jo & Greg were quieter than their predecessors
4:37 AM - 13 Oct 2011
Now i do not understand why Tanja is mentioned here...
Which friend??
Which neighbours??
How could they hear them??
Because in another tweet we have :
Rupert Evelyn
@rupertevelyn
Follow Follow @rupertevelyn
More
tabak says he could 'hardly' hear noises from the other flats in his building. #yeates
2:17 AM - 20 Oct 2011
Odd... Tanja a person who didn't appear at trial, who made no statement to the court apparently telling us how noisy the neighbours were via a friend....
If the jury are following this trial via twitter and especially RE's tweets then they have information apparently from Tanja contradicting the information that Dr Vincent Tabak has stated on the stand.... Therefore they would concluded (imo) that Dr Vincent Tabak was lying....
Here is a list of searches...
Rupert Evelyn
@rupertevelyn
19 Oct 2011
More
Tabak searched "definition sexual conduct" and then "definition of sexual assault". #yeates
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes
Reply 1 Retweet 1 Like
Rupert Evelyn
@rupertevelyn
19 Oct 2011
More
Tabak searched for "rubbish collection time York place Clifton bristol". #yeates
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes
Reply 1 Retweet 1 Like
Rupert Evelyn
@rupertevelyn
19 Oct 2011
More
Tabak searched for "hophouse bristol" which is where CCTV evidence was gathered from. #yeates
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes
Reply 1 Retweet 1 Like
Why would the Hophouse Pub be relevant to Dr Vincent Tabak??
Rupert Evelyn
@rupertevelyn
10 Oct 2011
More
Tabak searched google for "body decomposition..... he looked at what appears to be a time lapse video of body decomposition"
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply 1 Retweet Like
Rupert Evelyn
@rupertevelyn
10 Oct 2011
More
After killing Yeates' and with police talking about missing pizza and sock, Tabak searched web for times of refuse collections in area
0 replies 1 retweet 1 like
Reply Retweet 1 Like 1
Rupert Evelyn
@rupertevelyn
31 Jan 2011
More
Yeates murder. Vincent Tabak's brother Marcel 'he told us the whole house was searched even his apartment. So that disturbed his life a lot'
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet Like
The wealth of information as I say is huge.....
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/124448595360485376
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/126950217751855104
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/126607029530935296
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/126605309472030720
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/126604495256956930
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/123398298802470912
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/123335120471064576
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/32117045382348800
-
It gets stranger:...
Rupert Evelyn
@rupertevelyn
Follow Follow @rupertevelyn
More
When Tabak got home he used his girlfriend's profile on their computer. Accessed the dyson.com webmail. Tanja worked at Dyson
4:33 AM - 10 Oct 2011
Now Harriet tweets..
Harriet Tolputt
@HarrietTolputt
Follow Follow @HarrietTolputt
More
Tabak logged in to the laptop he shared with his girlfriend Tanja and accessed the webmail address at Dyson - where she worked.
4:31 AM - 10 Oct 2011
Was it mentioned at trial that Dr Vincent Tabak logged into Tanja's account??
If you think about it he could have sent himself all those apparent emails.... thats what I would take from that tweet of RE's
How could it be proven that Dr Vincent Tabak had logged into Tanja's account??
That detail, should have anyone questioning who , how ,when and where was this computer accessed... Was it remote access?
We then get even more confusing information...
Jon Kay
Verified account
@jonkay01
Follow Follow @jonkay01
More
Jury hears Tabak accessed Google maps of Longwood Lane (where Jo's body was later found) at 2230 on 18 Dec - before Jo reported missing
2:58 AM - 19 Oct 2011
We have google maps being accessed, at 22:30pm on the 18th December 2010, as stated before Jo was Missing....
I thought Dr Vincent Tabak didn't know where Longwood Lane was??
I thought that Dr Vincent Tabak was in ASDA at the time.....
You see, this gem of a tweet should show premeditation.... A planning as to where to dispose of Joanna Yeates body, An awareness of what he had decided to do and where he had decided to dispose of the body of Joanna Yeates.....
So my question again has to be.... DID THE JURY READ TWITTER????
Because according to the defence Dr Vincent Tabak drove aimlessly around and just ended up on Longwood lane !!
From the Sally Ramage papers..
He then went to get his car, placed the body in the boot of his car, went to Asda, a trip he formerly
planned, and drove aimlessly around whilst deciding what to do.
From tweets
Rupert Evelyn
@rupertevelyn
Follow Follow @rupertevelyn
More
'i drove away from home, drove in direction of bristol airport and i ended up in Longwood lane' did you know longwood lane before then 'no'
3:18 AM - 20 Oct 2011
'i drove away from home, drove in direction of bristol airport and i ended up in Longwood lane' did you know longwood lane before then 'no'
Jury hears Tabak accessed Google maps of Longwood Lane (where Jo's body was later found) at 2230 on 18 Dec - before Jo reported missing
So he either accessed google to find where to dump Joanna Yeates, or he drove around aimlessly?? Which one is it??
Seriously... did the jury read twitter??
I cannot for the life in me understand why this trial was tweeted in such detail, so much so it in itself was prejudicial to the trial in itself (imo)
These again are reason why I am always in two minds.... As to whether this is real or not...
Did the jury come to there decision based on what they read on twitter??
https://twitter.com/HarrietTolputt/status/123360009508753408
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/123360394558455808
https://twitter.com/jonkay01/status/126598011458555904
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/73-CLN-NOV-2014-Online-full.pdf
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/126965456249688064
-
CJ had told the Leveson he left the car on the road when he arrived home from the gym on Friday 17th December 2010 around 9:00pm...
I have shown how I believe that they had conversed.... With links etc....
Which makes this tweet odd to me....
Rupert Evelyn
@rupertevelyn
Follow Follow @rupertevelyn
More
Following Jefferies arrest Tabak told police he'd seen his car parked nose into drive on night of 17th Dec. Next morning other way round
6:53 AM - 17 Oct 2011
Why didn't Dr Vincent Tabak notice CJ's car on the road when he left either to collect his car to park it on the drive to put Joanna yeates body into it, or when he left to drive to ASDA??
That statement cunjurs up all sorts....
Maybe I read it incorrect the first time.....
he'd seen his car parked nose into drive on night of 17th Dec.
I had first imagined that the car was parked in the drive.... But thats not what he is saying (imo)....
Therefore.. If the NOSE of the car was parked into the drive.. ie... blocking the drive... How on earth did Dr Vincent Tabak manage to take his own car off the road and park it outside his own flat??
How did he manage to put a body into the boot of the Megane if he couldn't get the Megane up close and personal to his own flat??
We have people Milling about... We have the Lehmens and such around and abouts.... And many people attending parties.... DS Mark Saunders confirms this....
So... Lets say Dr Vincent Tabak goes to get his car off the road... This therefore has to be before CJ arrives home at 9:00pm... Then we have another problem... Because Dr vincent Tabak would therefore need to ask CJ to move his car so he could leave the property.... But he doesn't... Or CJ would have told the court and been called as a witness..
And him noticing the car facing the opposite way around wouldn't be an issue, as he'd have needed CJ's cooperation to move his car.....
So the car is blocking the drive... he noticed it when he left and he noticed it the next morning...
So was CJ's car at 44, Canygne Road??
I don't understand how he tried to implicate CJ... We know from CJ that his car was parked on the drive on Saturday 18th December 2010, he has said so.... We know he parked his car on the road according to his leveson statement....
So if his car is blocking the drive, how did Dr Vincent Tabak remove a heavy body from his Flat to his car without being detected by anybody??
Always, nothing makes sense.....
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/125932406510338048
-
Caroline.. This whole case appears pointless to me.... An entire case based on tweets, then reports in media made after.....(it appears)
I could find tweets forever.... And what is the point.... I keep saying, I do not understand this case.... It makes no sense to me whatsoever....
It could be about anything..... there is no more to say..... That hasn't already been said, and people somewhere must know what it's all about because I certainly do not....
It is a case built on tweets as far as I can see..... So why was a thread even started on this case, ?? i don't know..
Everyones entitled to their opinion...
My opinion is just that (mo).... means nothing, I say nothing ... I have come up with nothing.... thousands of posts based on nothing..... opinions based on nothing... scenarios based on nothing... theories based on nothing.....
I have found Nothing..... No one is guilty of anything...... nothing about this appears real to me....
Pointless.... completely pointless......
And that is it..... Years of nothing based on nothing....
-
Because, I believe that we all just fall for what is reported and do not take notice really....
Remember this image: (https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/12/article-0-0E57C11900000578-74_634x536.jpg)
The image that demonstrates how each of the two basement flats were seperated......
Then there was the actual floor layout....
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/01/18/article-1348132-0CCD1F7A000005DC-597_306x630.jpg)
Those images bothered me....
Now the drawn layout is in the daily mail on the 18th January 2011... Thats a puzzler to be honest... how would they get hold of this floor plan that easily..... especially just showing the basement flats.... Cooperation would be needed for them to be able to get that (imo).... Or is it possible that anyone can just ask for the floor layout of any building???
Now I wouldn't have come back to this other than today I found the floor plan layout on twitter.....
@Rupertevelyn
Here's a floor plan of Flat 1 & 2, 44 Canynge Rd. Joanna & Greg's flat is on the right
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/AbnfBmbCIAA-575.jpg)
11:47 PM - 12 Oct 2011
Now if you look at the full floor plan above, it cannot be Joanna Yeates Flat.... Yes someone has drawn around an area in blue to make us think that this is Joanna Yeates Flat....
We have
* 1 Bedroom
* 1 Hallway
* 1 Bathroom
*1 Kitchen
* 1 Living Room
And if you look to the left it shows what is supposed to be Dr Vincent tabaks Flat....
We have
* 2 Bedrooms
* 1 bathroom
* 1 Living Room
* 1 Kitchen
* 1 Store
* 1 Hallway
Now it's a case of spot the difference, or should I say spot the obvious..... Up until now I only had the half plan and a digital drawing to go from to see the layout, but the whole drawing tells us a different story all together.....
Looking at the blue mark that seperates the two apparent dwellings...... Look at the kitchen of Joanna Yeates Flat, you will notice how the area where the window is juts out and is visible as the window..... Then next to it is the hall..
Again the area juts out....... And that is my point... it is marked in the same way as a window on the plan and not a doorway, because if you look at the Flat that is supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat, the door way to the Flat is clearly marked with a diagonal line opening into the hall... Yet we do not have the same on the plan of what is supposed to be Joanna Yeates Flat....
It clearly look like all the other windows marked on the plan..... Rather than a doorway leading into a Hall....
The only thing that makes them into two Flats is the blue line, which has clearly been added to this, but we have what appears to be a copy of the original with a yellow sticker added with a barcode.....
No date appears on this plan.... No address appears on this plan..... So who says it is 44, Canygne Road??
Another observation is the bottom right hand side of the Flat that is supposed to be Joanna Yeates at 44, Canygne Road.. Again the blue line there juts out, at first I thought it was an alcove, but I do not believe it is, because the alcove in the bedroom isn't marked in the same way.... So that too has to be a window of sorts, meaning that this plan is not 44, Canygne Road, even though we have been lead to believe that it is.....
I repeat, looking at the plan all door openings are marked with a line.... And there isn't a line for what is supposed to be the doorway of Flat 1 44,Canygne Road...
The Flat that is supposed to be Flat 2 has the doorway entrance to the hall marked with a line....
So that cannot be 44,Canygne Road as we have been lead to believe (imo)....
So what did the Flat/Flats really look like ?? And why the deception??
Again I can only come up with the answer that its fake news.... nothing else makes sense to me....
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/124375683312001024
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348132/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Greg-Reardon-joins-family-plea-shielding-murderer.html
-
Hello change the name and do the same. Both plans are the same as well. 8((()*/
-
.............
Why delete your post, and why the interest in Chris. Jefferies' flat?
It was directly above Vincent Tabak's, but you probably already know that, see graphic... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1363708/Joanna-Yeatess-landlord-Chris-Jefferies-released-charge-puts-Bristol-flat-sale.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1363708/Joanna-Yeatess-landlord-Chris-Jefferies-released-charge-puts-Bristol-flat-sale.html)
-
Why delete your post, and why the interest in Chris. Jefferies' flat?
It was directly above Vincent Tabak's, but you probably already know that, see graphic... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1363708/Joanna-Yeatess-landlord-Chris-Jefferies-released-charge-puts-Bristol-flat-sale.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1363708/Joanna-Yeatess-landlord-Chris-Jefferies-released-charge-puts-Bristol-flat-sale.html)
Thanks Myster.....
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/03/07/article-1363708-0D82262A000005DC-687_306x673.jpg)
That shows it above the bay window... which I would call the hallway flat..... But it only shows half of it in that image ...
But I have since found this.....
Key features
A stunning, light and particularly spacious hall floor apartment, on the outskirts of Clifton Village Large kitchen / breakfast room Use of a stunning communal garden to the front and a further communal garden to the rear Off street parking for one car
Full description
An absolutely stunning, light and particularly spacious hall floor apartment, the likes of which very rarely come to the market in this sought after location, within a quiet residential area close to Clifton Village.
Canynge Road is one of the most desired roads and areas within Clifton due to it's quiet but convenient location and the sense of community within the area. The subject flat offers superbly spacious accommodation within what would have been the original reception rooms of this imposing detached Victorian townhouse. There is a large living room with an attractive south west facing bay window, over looking a very well kept communal garden to the front, and a very spacious kitchen/dining room offering the same outlook and aspect. There are three bedrooms all of which offer more than enough room for a double bed, the master bedroom being particularly spacious. The bedrooms are served by a beautifully appointed bathroom and a further shower room.
Outside the property offers off street parking for one car and use of a stunning communal garden to the front and a further communal garden to the rear.
Other Information - Tenure - We understand to be the remainder of a 999 year lease from 1st January 1989
Service charge - We understand to be £45 per per calendar month
Local authority - Bristol City Council - 0117922 2000
Council tax band - E
Viewings - With sole agents Hydes of Bristol - 01179731516 or post@hydes.co.uk
Location - Canynge Road is a residential location held in particularly high regard as a place to live within Clifton. The immediate environment is rich in tree lined streets and beautiful Georgian and Victorian architecture. Clifton Village, with its shops, boutiques and restaurants, is a short walk across Christchurch Green. Convenient bus routes provide easy access to the city centre which is only one and a half miles away as is the M32 and Bristol Temple Meads railway station. Also nearby, are the open spaces of Clifton Downs, Bristol Zoo and the suspension bridge, which allows easy access to North Somerset. The area is particularly well served by schools in both state and private sectors with Clifton College, Clifton High School and Christchurch Primary School all within easy walking distance of the property.
Flat 3 44, Canygne Road... so which floor is that on?? I say that because of the Hallway Flat, but logic tells us which Flat it is.....
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-67561261.html
(https://www.zoopla.co.uk/property/44-canynge-road/clifton/bristol/bs8-3lq/2693071)
Which looks like it goes off the main entrance.... But then we have the 'Hallway Flat'
https://www.zoopla.co.uk/property/hall-floor-flat/44-canynge-road/clifton/bristol/bs8-3lq/27161157
Property details for
Hall Floor Flat, 44 Canynge Road, Clifton, Bristol BS8 3LQ
Then we have the 2 bed flat
https://www.zoopla.co.uk/property/44-canynge-road/clifton/bristol/bs8-3lq/2693071
So from your link, CJ's Flat looks small.... ( I never understood how it went on the market at that time to be honest, as he is away from the flat apparently)...
But this advertisement for Flat 3 44, Canygne Road clearly shows is covers an entire floor of that building.... That why I want to know where The hallway Flat is?? as this advertisement clearly shows it has to be the flat with the bay window above the flat that is supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabak's with a bay window...
The only other flat with a bay window that goes through to the back of the building.... no other flat in that building has a bay window, and a bay window front and back.....
(https://media.rightmove.co.uk/dir/73k/72658/67561261/72658_28201298_FLP_01_0000_max_600x600.jpg)
This image clearly demonstrates that Flat 3 is directly above the basement flat/flats., which CJ was supposed to live in.... But the link you have provided for CJ's Flat make it look small, and therefore which Flat did CJ live in??
Because this advert is clearly showing us that Flat 3 is enormous.... Also this Flat doesn't have a designated car parking space like the basement Flats.... Both gardens are clearly communal.....
So which Flats had a designated car parking space??
We have talked about CJ's car being parked on the road..... well if Flat 3 is supposed to be his Flat he cannot have had a designated car park space, and that was why he parked on the road.... But if Flat 3 wasn't CJ's Flat which one was?? And what became of the Hallway Flat??
And was the Hallway Flat, the Flat that Dr Vincent Tabak lived in, therefore having to gain entrance to said flat via the main entrance??
The layout of these flats is important in assertaining who lived where..... This Flat 3 44, Canygne Road just adds to the confusion....
But if you look at the layout image I have put on here and the look at the photographs from the inside of the Flat they don't add up....
The layout plan image shows square rooms, yet the images inside the flat show odd angles..... so which is correct??
The images I have looked at again... They are clearly the flat above the basement.... But the plan...(imo), has to be of the basement..... (imo)
The image of the kitchen, the wall to the left is on an angle , which is understandable when there is an outside hallway to consider.... But that is not shown on the plan, as I have stated.... The Kitchen is completely square....
The plan and the images do not match!! Go figure......
Check out the images from the advert.... The bedroom that is bedroom 2 has the orange blind that we see at the back of the house from the images from years ago.... Going slightly of post... The odd thing I noticed was the snowboarding photograph on the wall... Didn't Joanna Yeates snowboard... ( There's a lot of people snowboarding in that house...) Anyway the images establish it is the flat above the basement...
But who's Flat is it and what happened to the Hallway Flat?
Check out the pdf also... as well as the images on the advert...
https://www.vebra.com/details/property/28201298, then click on the pdf
https://www.vebra.com/details/property/floorplan/28201298
From the pdf
An absolutely stunning, spacious 3 bed hall floor flat. There
is a large living room with an attractive SW facing bay
window, a spacious kitchen/dining room, 3 bedrooms all of
which offer more than enough room for a double bed. The
bedrooms are served by a beautifully appointed bathroom
and a further shower room. Outside the property offers off
street parking for one car and use of a stunning communal
garden to the front and a further communal garden to the
rear.
The floor plan clearly shows front to back and side to side, but the room shapes appear wrong.... The pdf says Hall Floor flat.... so when did it change it's number to Flat 3? As The Hallway Flat has a different advert previously...
So Myster I am completely confused here....
We have the for rent advert also of Flat 2;
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/detailMatching.html?prop=65287373&sale=31580664&country=england
But when we look at the image of the kitchen, the kitchen is clearly not on the basement level....
(https://media.rightmove.co.uk/dir/73k/72658/65287373/72658_26852903_IMG_03_0000_max_656x437.jpg)
Not only that it makes the Flat even higher up on the building if Flat 3 has the entire ground floor at hallway main entrance level.., therefore possibly meaning the numbers of the flats start from the top in that case.... when viewing the front room of Flat 2, you can determine it is above Flat 3....
But that therefore is who's Flat??
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/03/07/article-1363708-0D80E942000005DC-884_634x364.jpg)
This image of CJ's Flat has to be on the 3rd floor... to the left of the building 2 floors up from what is supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabaks Flat.... But Flat 2 is also higher up... meaning the basement has to be just one flat..... And Dr Vincent Tabak didn't live in the basement..... Making the basement a singular flat... with which occupants I do not know...
All I know Myster... Is that building makes no sense... just like everything else.... You could do this until the cows come home.... Nothing changes.... And nothing still makes sense....
And you wonder why I say its all made up.... Makes no sense... end of.....
Again click on the slide show of Flat 3... the image of the kitchen clearly shows an angled room.....
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-67561261.html
So Myster, where does all of this information lead us too?? too many flats of similar numbers in one house... Odd that... No sense... No sense at all.....
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg438674#msg438674
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg439071#msg439071
Edit..
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-32871173.html (Cj's)
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-27696067.html ( Flat 1)
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-29859883.html ( Flat 2??)
or is what I believed to be Flat 2 actually Flat 1?? or flat 4, 5 ,6 or ,7
How many flats in that building seriously??
Full description
We are pleased to offer this newly refurbished lower ground floor flat in this imposing period property located on one of Clifton s most sought after residential roads. The flat offers two well proportioned double bedrooms, a very spacious living/dining room with a bay window and feature fireplace, a newly installed bathroom with a shower over the bath, galley style kicthen and an adjoining utility room with the appliances. The flat is newly carpeted and decorated throughout, is offered on an unfurnished basis and further benefits from use of the rear garden and an allocated off street parking space.
That quote is from Flat 2... So where was the utility room in Dr Vincent Tabaks Flat?? not shown on the Floor plan I posted earlier today...
-
Nothing Makes sense..... Completely pointless... As I have said .....
-
Here we go......
Flat 1: Joanna Yeates Flat https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-27696067.html
Flat 2 :Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat ???
This is CJ's Flat: https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-32871173.html
This is the 2 bed flat https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/detailMatching.html?prop=65287373&sale=31580664&country=england
And this is Flat 3: https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-67561261.html
That gives us 5 flats.... not much left really.... try fitting them into that house, there a puzzle for you....!
Edit... Not forgetting The Hall Flat... https://www.zoopla.co.uk/property/hall-floor-flat/44-canynge-road/clifton/bristol/bs8-3lq/27161157
Which one is that??
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8056.msg418454#msg418454
This from Nina http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8056.msg418450#msg418450
Chris Jefferies lived and owned and sold Flat 3 and had nothing to do with Mrs Clark, flatwise, apart from the Management Company.
-
Here we go......
Flat 1: Joanna Yeates Flat https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-27696067.html (https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-27696067.html)
Flat 2 :Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat ??? This flat is the same as.......
This is CJ's Flat: https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-32871173.html (https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-32871173.html)
This is the 2* bed flat https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/detailMatching.html?prop=65287373&sale=31580664&country=england (https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/detailMatching.html?prop=65287373&sale=31580664&country=england)
..... this one, and it only has 1 bedroom, not 2* Read the advert again.
And this is Flat 3: https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-67561261.html (https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-67561261.html)
That gives us 5 flats.... not much left really.... try fitting them into that house, there a puzzle for you....!
Edit... Not forgetting The Hall Flat... https://www.zoopla.co.uk/property/hall-floor-flat/44-canynge-road/clifton/bristol/bs8-3lq/27161157 (https://www.zoopla.co.uk/property/hall-floor-flat/44-canynge-road/clifton/bristol/bs8-3lq/27161157)
Which one is that?? Probably the same as one of the above!
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8056.msg418454#msg418454 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8056.msg418454#msg418454)
This from Nina http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8056.msg418450#msg418450 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8056.msg418450#msg418450)
The rooms are not funny shapes, it's just that the photographer has used a wide-angle lens to get as much of each room in the frame as possible, which has resulted in distortion.
-
Nine... forget about all the above, you're not only confusing yourself but others too.
The only thing that matters in this case is the fact that Jo Yeates lived in basement flat 1 and Vincent Tabak in basement flat 2, as in the original plan and graphic. Clear your mind of all the other flats in that block because your clearly driving yourself insane.... and wasting web space in the process..
-
The rooms are not funny shapes, it's just that the photographer has used a wide-angle lens to get as much of each room in the frame as possible, which has resulted in distortion.
Here we go......
Flat 1: Joanna Yeates Flat https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-27696067.html
Flat 2 :Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat ??? This flat is the same as.......
This is CJ's Flat: https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-32871173.html
This is the 2* bed flat https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/detailMatching.html?prop=65287373&sale=31580664&country=england
..... this one, and it only has 1 bedroom, not 2* Read the advert again.
Here we go......
Flat 1: Joanna Yeates Flat https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-27696067.html
Flat 2 :Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat ??? This flat is the same as.......
This is CJ's Flat: https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-32871173.html
This is the 2* bed flat https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/detailMatching.html?prop=65287373&sale=31580664&country=england
..... this one, and it only has 1 bedroom, not 2* Read the advert again.
And this is Flat 3: https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-67561261.html
That gives us 5 flats.... not much left really.... try fitting them into that house, there a puzzle for you....!
Edit... Not forgetting The Hall Flat... https://www.zoopla.co.uk/property/hall-floor-flat/44-canynge-road/clifton/bristol/bs8-3lq/27161157
Which one is that?? Probably the same as one of the above!
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8056.msg418454#msg418454
This from Nina http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8056.msg418450#msg418450
I have highlighted your response to my post in bold myster..... And.....Flat 2 was supposed to have 2 bedrooms...... Dr Vincent Tabak apparently put Joanna yeates down in the second bedroom .... we have always been lead to believe that the glass panelled door at the back was Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat, but that cannot be so looking at the adverts....
So which Flat is that one listed here???
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/detailMatching.html?prop=65287373&sale=31580664&country=england
And why does it have England in the description of the listing??
The other listings don't.... Therefore the listing has to be what we believed to be Flat 1 ... But it's listing tells us it is actually Flat 2
Land Registry sold prices
Basement Flat 2, 44 Canynge Road, Bristol, City Of Bristol BS8 3LQ
Sale Date Property Price Paid Source
05 Mar 1999 Flat, Leasehold £97,500 Land Registry
17 Nov 1995 Flat, Leasehold £73,500 Land Registry Previously listed on Rightmove on May 2017
1 bedroom property
Flat 2 which we have been told is where Dr Vincent Tabak lived is supposed to have the bay window to the front room.... we have seen it many times...... But the image below of Flat 2's front room doesn't have a bay window....
(https://media.rightmove.co.uk/dir/73k/72658/65287373/72658_26852903_IMG_02_0000_max_656x437.jpg)
This hasn't.......
So the Flat we know as Joanna Yeates Flat has to be Flat 2....
And the bathroom has to be around the back because it has a window.... And is next to the bedroom...
(https://media.rightmove.co.uk/dir/73k/72658/65287373/72658_26852903_IMG_05_0000_max_656x437.jpg)
And the bedroom is also around the back, it has a sink in the corner, which makes sense, as before I pointed out the pipes in that corner... Not only that the chimney breast is to the right, making Flat 2 Joanna yeates Flat....
(https://media.rightmove.co.uk/dir/73k/72658/65287373/72658_26852903_IMG_04_0000_max_656x437.jpg)
So Joanna Yeates Flat that we know as Flat 1 is actually Flat 2, where Dr Vincent Tabak apparently lived...
Therefore Joanna Yeates has to be the Flat with the glass panelled door at the back...Because that should be Flat 1.. meaning that if Dr Vincent Tabak walked passed the kitchen window she wouldn't have seen him as the height of that window and the gradient of the pavement means she would be looking at his legs..... NO WAVING!!
(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/view-of-the-drive-leading-from-the-front-of-44-canynge-road-bristol-picture-id129068908?s=612x612)
This is why the Flats and were they are in the house is important, if all this is apparently true....
If it is fake news... not real... then it doesn't matter....
Myster... something with these Flats has gotta give..... They make no sense.... Which is problematic If Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to walk from the glass panelled door of his apparent flat, across the back of the building, turning right onto Joanna Yeates pavement, and passing Flat 1's kitchen and arriving at the door...
then.... apparently killing her in said flat and carrying her back to the Flat with the glass panelled door...
The logistics cannot work.....
So which Flat is which is massively important........ seeing as Dr Vincent Tabak took the stand and explained what he apparently did....
The advert says basement Flat ( Flat 2)... So a one bedroom basement flat with a bedroom to the rear and the bathroom to the rear, making Flat 1 which was supposed to be the flat that Joanna Yeates lived in even more staged.... (imo)
As this advert shows us: https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-27696067.html
Don't forget the tour of Joanna Yeates Flat.... Well was it her Flat??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLcJWjTQ0bc
It's all a load of rubbish Myster.... I have said I have been chasing a ghost.... Do not know what is real or not anymore.... But I can honestly say it doesn't add up....
Nothing Makes Sense....... It has Never Made sense...... It's all barking....
Edit... Just to fuddle our minds a little further.... How could Dr Vincent tabak walk down the path of flat we have been told is Joanna yeates Flat... which in fact has to be flat 2... to the little gate apparently passing Joanna yeates kitchen window.... ??
If he lived in Flat 2 and not the glass panelled door flat... then the light came on as he was leaving to go to ASDA!! And Zoe Lehman must have seen him... also how does CJ account for seeing people at the little gate...
It reminds me of an episode from "SOAP" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSaNWYHmUvI
Double Edit.. So Dr Vincent Tabak went out of Flat 2 which we see in the advert, and didn't have a glass panelled door to the road to get his car to start... And unless he parked his car on the drive he wouldn't have passed Joanna yeates kitchen window next to the drive where you cannot see anyone because of the gradient....
I'm now getting images of The Lost Honour of CJ.... has to be a work of fiction, if he has Dr Vincent Tabak at the glass panelled door... (imo)
-
The back of Canygne Road
(https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article274653.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/yoyeates-image-2-28888825.jpg)
Glass panelled door and bay window belong to same Flat... That has to be Flat 1....
windows to the left... first window has to be the bathroom of Flat 2 and second window has to be the bedroom of Flat 2 as the advert tells us:
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/detailMatching.html?prop=65287373&sale=31580664&country=england
Someones been pulling my dangler.... !!
Argg... It's mental.... It makes no sense....
The windmills of someones bloody mind....!!!!
-
Chris Jefferies lived and owned and sold Flat 3 and had nothing to do with Mrs Clark, flatwise, apart from the Management Company.
Live owned and sold.... Then I wondered did he live at Flat 3 44, Canygne Road in December 2010, more importantly between 17th December 2010 and April 2011, when he says he moved back...
He's arrested and removed from his Flat without anyone seeing him, even though the Police and media are camped outside...
Well if all cameras are pointing to 44,Canygne Road and he lives elsewhere on that street, I can see how they managed to get him away un-noticed..
I remember him saying he was accosted outside his home by the media.... These clips of him have always shown him leaving 2 different address's on the street..
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/christopher-jefferies-as-speaks-to-press-news-footage/659112550
On this video he goes from outside 44 Canygne Road across to the opposite side of the road...
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/christopher-jefferies-wins-libel-damages-from-eight-news-footage/655156308
So is this image of his Flat for sale a flat on the opposite side of the road from 44 Canygne Road looking at the video's of CJ and the house sales at 44, Canygne Road.. ???
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/03/07/article-1363708-0D80E942000005DC-884_634x364.jpg)
A case that couldn't get any weirder....
I could never understand how the people at 44, Canygne Road were harrassed daily by the Police... But was it empty that building when the Police were there??
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/report-published-victims-of-media-intrusion-england-news-footage/652792404
That clip showing him leaving the main entrance of the house could be because he's just checking the properties as its a management company.. That would be one way of explaining it...
this image;
(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/1234866.main_image.jpg?strip=all)
It has to be on the opposite side of the road, look at the fence.... So this is Flat 2, ... Was this where Dr Vincent Tabak lived??
Everything I see with this case is opposite to what we believe, there is 2 of everything.. So where did Joanna yeates actually live??
(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/1234867.main_image.jpg?strip=all)
This picture of Dr Vincent Tabak in the garden..... which Garden??
Did everything happen across the road?? Who lived where??
Adjacent, rings in my ears... it was mentioned early.... so that must mean that Dr Vincent Tabak lived on the opposite side of the road, then why would he go past Joanna yeates kitchen window?
I have even less idea whats going on....
Chris Jefferies to my knowledge has never lived in any flat but Flat 3. It was only when he inherited from his mother or aunt that he bought the basements as they became available. It was a tad before my time so I don't know whether he bought them together or one at a time.
Chris Jefferies lived in Flat 3 the one with the large bay window by the front door. So logic says that the window to the right of the door is Flat 4. I've always had the impression that the top floor was all one flat. Flat 6 is above Flat 3. Those two have been sold since 2010 but both parties still remain active directors of the management company for no.44.
You can put whatever number or letter on your door so long as the house remains no.44 on the outside. So how it is numbered you can only guess. I'm certainly not walking up and taking a look at the door plate!!
And Flat 3 of 44, Canygne Road is huge... He may have lived there at some point, but I get the impression that he didn't at the time... As we know Flat 4 has to be on a different level in that building, seeing as Flat 3 takes up the entire floor...
There an image on here somewhere of the door panel to 44, and i cannot remember the numbers upon it...
Smoke and Mirrors.... I will never have any idea what this case is about... It will never make sense..
Nine you need to stop investigating people who have lived at no.44, what do they have to do with the murder of Joanna Yeates, nothing IMO.
I thought that this was all about the murder of Joanna and that VT was innocent, not about people who have lived at the address and then putting the data you have found online. These people and their flats have nothing to do with the murder IMO and you are invading their privacy.
See Nina, you are correct there, what has 44, Canygne Road to do with anything?? Or the people who lived there... If there is a doubt as to where people could have actually lived , then there is a doubt about 44, Canygne Road.... And my apologises to the people at 44, Canygne Road..
If the Flat for sale back in 2011 in the media was CJ's Flat then I cannot see how that Flat was in the building of 44, Canygne Road, it appears impossible...
CJ would not have witnessed anything if he was going inside a house on the opposite side of the street, and maybe the people he heard were people attending a party?? Or did he see from the opposite side of the road?
This is crazy... no sense is made ever..... I'm always in two minds..... I will always wonder if this is fake or not and which house or flat that anyone really lived in ..... If its fake it makes no difference... I have chased a ghost.... But no more......
Anyway Merry Christmas people ?{)(**
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/christopher-jefferies-wins-libel-damages-from-eight-news-footage/657035358
-
Whom are they referring too?
Sometimes events transpire that you do
4 actually bump into the real criminal, just through
5 accident. In relation to the Jo Yeates trial, we were
6 doing some investigations around that area and myself
7 and a colleague came across a gentleman who we thought
8 was actually a little bit suspiciously near the scene of
9 Jo Yeates' property. That gentleman was arrested three
10 days later and is now serving life for murder, and the
11 police were very interested in how we bumped into him.
12 It was pure accident that we came across him. We
13 thought he was a bit unusual and we asked him a few
14 questions and engaged with him. There was no sort of
15 attempt to solve the crime or play detective. It was
16 a sequence of events. But when the police said they
17 wanted to speak to us, we were more than happy to speak
18 to them and we co-operated fully with them.
19 Q. You, I think, were here this morning when Mr Harrison
20 gave evidence --
21 A. Yes.
Very confusing..... No talk at trial of anyone bumping into Dr Vincent Tabak, or him hanging around a property he was supposed to lived at..... Who are they referring too??
https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121205170059/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-19-March-2012.pdf
-
So did it take place in July??
Thank you. You tell us in paragraph 4 of your statement
12 that you own three flats within one building in Bristol.
13 You live in one of them and rent the remaining two flats
14 to tenants.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. We, of course, know about the horrific murder of Joanna
17 Yeates which led to the conviction for murder of Vincent
18 Tabak in July this year. Joanna Yeates disappeared, so
19 we have our bearings, on 17 December of last year; is
20 that right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Equally, so we have our bearings in terms of the
23 chronology, you were arrested by the police on
24 30 December?
25 A. I was.
https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121205190854/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-28-November-20111.txt
-
Hello change the name and do the same. Both plans are the same as well. 8((()*/
And that is the point Myster..... Anyone can change their name.... at any time... anyone can edit anything, there is no control... On here for instance, my posts have been edited, some have been removed, I don't question it... I find it pointless questioning someone elses reasons for an action they may do...
Early on when I had posts edited or removed, I thought it was because i found something, but I do not believe that true anymore.... I have got excited when I believed that i may have stumbled across something, but stumbled across what??
I remember the day when the site on this thread rained emojis of this sobbing face 8)><(, where through out my posts all I could see every couple of words was this: 8)><(.. How that happened I have no idea, but it did... So whoever controls different aspects of any forum can change whatever is stated by a poster..(imo) I had not put the emojis in my posts... At first i thought someone was trying to give me a clue, but I don't believe that anymore....
The internet is littered with posting on various websites from unknown people, who may or may not have good intentions...
So I will keep saying, I have been chasing a ghost, I do not know what is real or not anymore and my assumption of Dr vincent Tabak has come from what I do not understand...
I do not understand how a Criminal Trial can be tweeted, how incorrect information from Journalists appears to have been tweeted, or is the fact that they mention names no-one has heard of part of the truth...
All I can reiterate is I know nothing, this case is what?? strange to say the least... And what I have posted has been based purely on what I have found on the internet , which I have linked my sources from...
What ever the truth about this is, I don't think anyone will ever know.... And my initial concern, may be about a completely fictitious character my concern that I felt someone hadn't received a fair trial and all lines of inquiry were not followed up..
I am a foolish person, I stupidly believed that I could help someone whom had no way in which they could help themselves.. I thought I was doing an honourable thing...
It's like this site I am on and found, I do not know anything about it I believed it to be about Miscarriages of Justice... I believed it to be here to assist people... But again , I do not know what this site is about... I do not know what the people here are about... You all may have good intentions, but I cannot quantify that based on posts..
So this thread.... is it just another pointless exercise that I have helped create, wanting to believe that people care...
But what is there to care about if it is untrue, if everything I have sourced comes from untruths...
I will stick with my belief that nothing makes sense and my time appears to be wasted.... I can keep adding to this story, but if it is only a story why do I need to add to it??
I have embarrassed myself no end on here, I have made a fool of myself, I have chased an apparition...... A none entity that I cannot substantiate and no-one else appears to be able to do so either.
The information I have posted about, only goes to show that nothing adds up...
And I am saddened by my own gullibility, I am as gullible as anyone else, to have spent time doing nothing, proving nothing and coming up with nothing... It only goes to show that I know nothing...
-
Maybe so Caroline... But Twitter appears to be the source of a lot of information....
The idea that anyone from the media can tweet this case has always seemed wrong to me.... If you look at the tweet of people from the media, the reports of the information they bring forth raise questions always...
How can anything be believed or accepted...
Rupert Evelyn for instance, a twitter account that hasn't been confirmed, why I have no idea... But the information that he reveals is interesting... He adds information that only sets in the minds of the public what has happened or maybe happened.... For instance....
Was this mentioned at trial by Zoe Lehman?? that would suggest that someone was already outside the flat at that point...
What direction had they come from? It almost sound like they walked past Joanna Yeates door... Where they the people at the gate, I have asked this before???
Zoe and Florian Lehman, two witness's whom appear at court, we have seen them leaving with the photo's from Getty... That is if we are to accept that that is they.... Anyway... the real issue has to be what has been tweeted about the Lehmans from trial and Rosie and The Browns...
Left home at 8:34... where did she live?? didn't she go to Bargain Booze also??
Which light??
We direction was she facing??
These screams where apparently Joanna Yeates, the jury believed them to be Joanna Yeates, the timing of the screams supported the apparent time of the attack...
Who is Rosie??
What man walking towards the down?? Is it possible to see the downs from there, I don't know, but a local should be able to say...
That should have raised a few eyebrows.... But the next tweet make even less sense..
22nd December 2010.... Is the day that CJ made his second witness statement, a coincidence that Zoe lehman, then texts Maria Brown to ask her what time she had arrived at the party???
And that is the point.... She should know what time she arrived at the party... she should know what time, she left home and how long it took her to get there... Maria Brown should not be telling Zoe Lehman anything.... Two witness's cooperating with each other to establish a time that may or may nor be relevant....
How was this testimony allowed if they had to check with each other as to the time someone arrived at a party??
Marie Brown who wasn't at trial as far as we know, with the information that is available...
This tweet astounds me... How can you have one witness who doesn't attend trial corroborating another witness who does attend trial... timelines?
How did no-one pick up this point? How can Zoe text someone else on a particular day that shouldn't be relevant, other than we know that this was the day that CJ made his second witness statement...
You have a man being seen.... walking towards the downs... You have friends agreeing what the time may or may not have been after the fact, and you have a defence and prosecution who have let that colluding, (for use of a better word) as to the time they believe that someone had arrived at a party...
The CCTV should show that.... The CCTV that DS Mark Saunders viewed....
Not only does she text Marie but....
Peter Brown, also helps in the timing of when Zoe arrived at said party.....
2 people who have not attended trial, telling a trial witness what time she arrived at a party where she may or may not have heard screams coming from 44, Canygne Road...
Why was her testimony used at trial?? why was Zoe Lehmans testimony used, when she hadn't a clue as to the time she arrived at a party?? We had Kingdon telling us he heard screams mid-morning on the 18th December 2010, but what he heard was dismissed...
How ?? Why?
Up until Dr Vincent Tabak takes the stand and states that he killed Joanna Yeates on the 17th December 2010 and the approx time, does anyone know that this is when she was killed.... NOTHING else supports this....
Didn't attend.....
Nothing that evening was apparently amiss.... No mention of screams that had aroused anyones suspicion....
I do not know what this case is about.... I do not understand it at all.... It has always had me in two minds... And that was the reason I have asked if it was even real or true....
What took place inside Bristol crown Court, we only have the tweets and media reports to go off.... And they paint and interesting picture....
Marie Brown and Peter Browns statements corroborate what??
That Zoe and Florian attended a party??
That they may or may not have heard screams??
Statements accepted into a trial without anyone questioning why Zoe texted Marie... what was in said text, and why was she enquiring on that particular day??
No-one in the judicary questioning this case and the shambles it appears to be....
Why everyone stay silent I do not know.... But the only conclusion I keep coming to is it cannot be real and true....
Nothing will ever make sense with this case..... What I do not understand, if the tweets are accurate and that is what was stated at trial, is why neither the prosecution or the defence, speaking up... Why would they be happy to accept what Zoe and Florian state, if they had no idea what time they arrived at a party.... and realistically the time should not have been important on the 22nd December 2010....
I keep wondering where Zoe and Florian lived?? And why that day was important enough for her to need to confirm when she arrived at a party? The gossip mongers where around at that time... CJ had told his neighbours about making his statement to the Police about seeing /hearing someone at the gate....
But we the public didn't know until the Leveson that it was the 22nd December 2010, if memory serves me correctly, that CJ made his secondary witness statement......
I will always be unsure what this is about.... I do not believe that anything would or could change... I will never understand why everyone had been silent about this ....
What I do not understand is why Rosie brown was not at trial, or Peter Brown for that matter..... Why are we finding out via twitter that Zoe Lehmans recollection of that evening may not be relied upon... If she had to check with the Browns when she apparently arrived at their party....
How was their testimony allowed??
N.B I am not signed into twitter, so I do not know if the times that appear on the tweets are accurate...
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/124484995342544897
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/124484751846412289
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/124482944608907264
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/124485347760549888
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/124486017741893633
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/124485347760549888
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/124486760590884864
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/124487211902185474
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/124488126503731200
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/126223775082614784
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/126223945740464128
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/126224157196300288
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/126224585728335872
Twitter is a source of 'misinformation'
-
This case is a source of misinformation... Staged rubbish, made up codswallop, making no sense whatsoever.... (imo) of course!!
Edit.. where I have stated before, we have actors... where Canygne Road has Digs for theatre professionals, where the theatre is just around the corner....
Where Tabak could mean Tobacco and the source of another known theatre...
https://www.tobaccofactorytheatres.com/whats-on/
Every scene is played out twice, two different versions, 2 sets of everything, 2 parts to the story.... And of course the script!!
Double Edit...
It's The Lost Honour of CJ..... Information within it that no-one should know unless they read the script... (imo)
Now Joanna Yeates is and has always been Missing since 17th December 2010... never moved from that even when it shouldn't be possible to set a time or date... Yet 2 interesting aspects from The Lost Honour of CJ...
(1): When CJ (actor) talks to an actor playing Greg on the doorstep, it looks like the flat is next door at 42, Canygne Road.... It is not 44, Canygne Road... it maybe a different number , but noway is it 44.Canygne Road..
(2): At 36:10 of the program.. "The Lost Honour of CJ" whilst CJ is in the interview room the Police Officer says...
" Did you clean the inside of either the Volvo or the Chryslar since teatime 6:00pm December the 17th.."
That would suggest that Joanna Yeates had been in either car and was probably dead before 6:00pm on December 17th....(imo) or should I say the programs opinion....
There has never been any timestamps, there has never been any evidence of anything.....
An interesting comment from said recreation in a program of a crime....
https://www.smokeandmirrorsbar.co.uk/
https://www.theatredigsbooker.com/digs/home-away-from-home-49-canynge-road-bristol?
https://en-gb.facebook.com/braidfilmtheatre/lat=51.45478&lng=-2.59825&theatre_id=305
http://thewardrobetheatre.com/about/
http://longwoodaos.co.uk/
https://www.skiddle.com/whats-on/Newquay/Lane-Theatre/
http://flyingpizza.net/
https://www.tobaccofactorytheatres.com/whats-on/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIz5Cu-ZnH3wIVBJzVCh1NfwN-EAAYASAAEgJXMvD_BwE
https://pastinthepresent.net/2017/06/29/up-in-smoke-tracing-the-rise-and-fall-of-bristols-tobacco-industry-as-seen-through-its-buildings/
https://www.theatredigsbooker.com/digs/home-away-from-home-49-canynge-road-bristol?lat=51.45478&lng=-2.59825&theatre_id=305
-
I received a copy of William Clegg's book "Under the Wig" for Christmas ("sad", I know!), and thought I would relay to you what he says about the Joanna Yeates case.
Firstly, how he came to be Vincent Tabak's defence barrister:
"Tabak was being represented by Kelsey and Hall, whose senior partner Ian Kelsey, a well-known solicitor in the West Country, also knew one of the barristers in my chambers, Dean Armstrong. Since I had done some high-profile murder cases, I was engaged to act for Tabak, with Dean as my junior."
Mr Clegg says that it was "unusual to have such an intelligent defendant charged with murder" and that Tabak "spoke better English than most of my English clients".
A few points at odds with the newspaper reports, etc.
"By the time Mr Reardon returned to their flat on 19th December, he was already worried: Miss Yeates had not been responding to his texts and calls".
The "official" versions state that, at first, Greg was not worried, and that he was used to Joanna not returning his texts and calls.
He says that detectives found two bottles of cider in the flat, one of which had been partially drunk. In fact, Greg admitted to having finished the bottle when he returned home.
Clegg says that the police were already suspicious of Tabak before he went to Holland, and that they needed an excuse to visit him there. Tabak provided them with one by phoning the police and "claiming to have seen his neighbour using his car on the night Miss Yeates disappeared."
In fact, he didn't say that; he said that the car had changed position during the night.
According to Clegg, VT "confided to a chaplain that he had killed Miss Yeates but said that her death had been an accident."
He didn't-----he told the chaplain that he was going to plead guilty.
Clegg says that he himself asked the judge to rule as inadmissible the fact that Tabak had a collection of "extreme and violent pornography".
He says that although the prosecution maintained that VT had strangled Joanna for "sexual gratification", this was "purely theoretical" and that VT had "nothing in his past to indicate any predilection for that sort of conduct."
This post is getting rather long, so I will continue it in reply to any comments/questions posters might have.
Happy New Year to you all!!
-
I received a copy of William Clegg's book "Under the Wig" for Christmas ("sad", I know!), and thought I would relay to you what he says about the Joanna Yeates case.
Firstly, how he came to be Vincent Tabak's defence barrister:
"Tabak was being represented by Kelsey and Hall, whose senior partner Ian Kelsey, a well-known solicitor in the West Country, also knew one of the barristers in my chambers, Dean Armstrong. Since I had done some high-profile murder cases, I was engaged to act for Tabak, with Dean as my junior."
Mr Clegg says that it was "unusual to have such an intelligent defendant charged with murder" and that Tabak "spoke better English than most of my English clients".
A few points at odds with the newspaper reports, etc.
"By the time Mr Reardon returned to their flat on 19th December, he was already worried: Miss Yeates had not been responding to his texts and calls".
The "official" versions state that, at first, Greg was not worried, and that he was used to Joanna not returning his texts and calls.
He says that detectives found two bottles of cider in the flat, one of which had been partially drunk. In fact, Greg admitted to having finished the bottle when he returned home.
Clegg says that the police were already suspicious of Tabak before he went to Holland, and that they needed an excuse to visit him there. Tabak provided them with one by phoning the police and "claiming to have seen his neighbour using his car on the night Miss Yeates disappeared."
In fact, he didn't say that; he said that the car had changed position during the night.
According to Clegg, VT "confided to a chaplain that he had killed Miss Yeates but said that her death had been an accident."
He didn't-----he told the chaplain that he was going to plead guilty.
Clegg says that he himself asked the judge to rule as inadmissible the fact that Tabak had a collection of "extreme and violent pornography".
He says that although the prosecution maintained that VT had strangled Joanna for "sexual gratification", this was "purely theoretical" and that VT had "nothing in his past to indicate any predilection for that sort of conduct."
This post is getting rather long, so I will continue it in reply to any comments/questions posters might have.
Happy New Year to you all!!
(1): Did he indicate why bail wasn't applied for??
(2): Or which witness's he thought he may or may not use?
(3): Did he say why Dr Vincent Tabak pled guilty to manslaughter?
Happy New Year also 8(>((
Edit.. Is it an in depth analysis of the case??
Please tell us more mrswah.....
-
(1): Did he indicate why bail wasn't applied for??
(2): Or which witness's he thought he may or may not use?
(3): Did he say why Dr Vincent Tabak pled guilty to manslaughter?
Happy New Year also 8(>((
Edit.. Is it an in depth analysis of the case??
Please tell us more mrswah.....
No, I wouldn't say it is an in depth analysis of the case, but I thought it was worth a read, as nobody can say Mr Clegg wasn't there (at the trial, I mean)!
He doesn't mention bail, or say much about witnesses.
He does say that, before the trial, he went to Canynge Road with a colleague and "the police" to try to ascertain whether screams could be heard from Joanna's flat . He went to the flat where the party had been held, and his colleague screamed from no 44. Nothing was heard. This actually doesn't surprise me at all, as I am sure CJ or another tenant would have heard if Joanna had screamed.
He also says that he thought VT gave "quite compelling evidence", and that "nobody could say his explanation for Miss Yeates' death was impossible."
VT was very willing to give evidence, apparently.
-
No, I wouldn't say it is an in depth analysis of the case, but I thought it was worth a read, as nobody can say Mr Clegg wasn't there (at the trial, I mean)!
He doesn't mention bail, or say much about witnesses.
He does say that, before the trial, he went to Canynge Road with a colleague and "the police" to try to ascertain whether screams could be heard from Joanna's flat . He went to the flat where the party had been held, and his colleague screamed from no 44. Nothing was heard. This actually doesn't surprise me at all, as I am sure CJ or another tenant would have heard if Joanna had screamed.
He also says that he thought VT gave "quite compelling evidence", and that "nobody could say his explanation for Miss Yeates' death was impossible."
VT was very willing to give evidence, apparently.
For what it's worth, I think it probably was an accident - what he did (or didn't do) after that is why he is where he is today.
-
For what it's worth, I think it probably was an accident - what he did (or didn't do) after that is why he is where he is today.
Well, if I ever decide that he is guilty (always possible!), I would certainly believe he is guilty of manslaughter, not murder.
-
Well, if I ever decide that he is guilty (always possible!), I would certainly believe he is guilty of manslaughter, not murder.
How can he not be guilty?
-
Possibly because he's a figment of someone's imagination.
-
He's not a figment of anyone's imagination, and he might be guilty. I'm not into conspiracy theories, but I AM cynical and mistrushut upl, certainly of the media, also of juries, police officers and lawyers (well, sometimes, anyway). For example why would I trust the detectives who worked on the Joanna Yeates case one hundred per cent, when they messed up so badly by accusing Christopher Jefferies?
As a result, I am one of those strange people who believes Vincent Tabak (and also a number of other people discussed on this forum) might not be guilty. People do plead guilty to crimes they haven't done, and forensic evidence is not always reliable (see New Year Day's copy of the Times,and there is an article in there saying just that).
I could be wrong though--------it's my stock phrase!
-
He's not a figment of anyone's imagination, and he might be guilty. I'm not into conspiracy theories, but I AM cynical and mistrushut upl, certainly of the media, also of juries, police officers and lawyers (well, sometimes, anyway). For example why would I trust the detectives who worked on the Joanna Yeates case one hundred per cent, when they messed up so badly by accusing Christopher Jefferies?
As a result, I am one of those strange people who believes Vincent Tabak (and also a number of other people discussed on this forum) might not be guilty. People do plead guilty to crimes they haven't done, and forensic evidence is not always reliable (see New Year Day's copy of the Times,and there is an article in there saying just that).
I could be wrong though--------it's my stock phrase!
Yes, they do plead guilty BUT they retract it later. Many cases start off with a particular suspect only to change later - that's what an investigation is. Are you saying 'get it right first time or not at all'?
-
Yes, they do plead guilty BUT they retract it later. Many cases start off with a particular suspect only to change later - that's what an investigation is. Are you saying 'get it right first time or not at all'?
No, of course not! It's a bit hard on the first innocent suspect though----although I realise that, in CJ's case, it was the media who did the damage, rather than the police.
I'm suspicious though------just my opinion------first, they arrest the (unconventional looking) landlord, who lives at 44 Canynge Road, then, when they can't find any reason to charge him, they keep him on bail for ages, while they make a case against the "geeky" foreigner from next door, who just happens to be young, tall and strong enough to have "dunnit".
CJ admitted to having found it difficult to cope with being in custody, and enduring relentless questioning. I wonder how difficult VT found it? Did he collapse (mentally) under the strain?
We don't actually know, do we?
-
No, of course not! It's a bit hard on the first innocent suspect though----although I realise that, in CJ's case, it was the media who did the damage, rather than the police.
I'm suspicious though------just my opinion------first, they arrest the (unconventional looking) landlord, who lives at 44 Canynge Road, then, when they can't find any reason to charge him, they keep him on bail for ages, while they make a case against the "geeky" foreigner from next door, who just happens to be young, tall and strong enough to have "dunnit".
CJ admitted to having found it difficult to cope with being in custody, and enduring relentless questioning. I wonder how difficult VT found it? Did he collapse (mentally) under the strain?
We don't actually know, do we?
There are an infinite amount of things we don't know that we could apply for the sake of it. What we DO know, is that he confessed to manslaughter not murder and as the police wanted a murder conviction, had they had the power to badger him into a confession, he's have confessed to murder and there would have been no trial. As it was, not only did he admit to manslaughter, he has a whole story of how that happened - which was at odds with the police/prosecution because they argued on murder and won. Did he collapse under the strain? No, he stuck to his guns!
-
There are an infinite amount of things we don't know that we could apply for the sake of it. What we DO know, is that he confessed to manslaughter not murder and as the police wanted a murder conviction, had they had the power to badger him into a confession, he's have confessed to murder and there would have been no trial. As it was, not only did he admit to manslaughter, he has a whole story of how that happened - which was at odds with the police/prosecution because they argued on murder and won. Did he collapse under the strain? No, he stuck to his guns!
Yes, he stuck to his guns, but failed to answer a lot of questions, saying that he could not remember. Was this because he was actually guilty, or because he really wasn't there, and did not know what to say?
Why would he necessarily have confessed to murder?
IMO, we don't know, and I don't think anyone is going to tell us, either.
-
Yes, he stuck to his guns, but failed to answer a lot of questions, saying that he could not remember. Was this because he was actually guilty, or because he really wasn't there, and did not know what to say?
Why would he necessarily have confessed to murder?
IMO, we don't know, and I don't think anyone is going to tell us, either.
Your premise is that they might have broken him down and that's why he admitted to the crime. However, they were accusing him of murder NOT manslaughter - IF as you suggest, they 'broke' him, then how come he didn't give them what they wanted? That isn't a broken person, it's someone still in full control - he was happy to go through a trial and pretty happy (as your previous post suggests) to take the stand - not really sounding much like a broken man.
Lots of guilty people state that 'they can't remember' because to tell what they know would incriminate them further. Had he been innocent, don't you think he'd have wanted to appeal on those very grounds?
Some of us know because logic prevails.
-
Your premise is that they might have broken him down and that's why he admitted to the crime. However, they were accusing him of murder NOT manslaughter - IF as you suggest, they 'broke' him, then how come he didn't give them what they wanted? That isn't a broken person, it's someone still in full control - he was happy to go through a trial and pretty happy (as your previous post suggests) to take the stand - not really sounding much like a broken man.
Lots of guilty people state that 'they can't remember' because to tell what they know would incriminate them further. Had he been innocent, don't you think he'd have wanted to appeal on those very grounds?
Some of us know because logic prevails.
You don't know, Caroline, and neither do the rest of us.
It does seem, to me, and, from what I read, a number of others, that if VT did kill Joanna, it was an accident. So, I wonder why he hasn't appealed against the murder conviction? Who knows.
I don't know whether he was happy to take the stand or not. I'm just going by what William Clegg QC says. He is a QC, he was VT's defence counsel, so who am I to disbelieve him? I wouldn't dare!!!!
-
An accident?!!! With 43 separate cuts, bruises, a fractured nose and strangulation 'till the life was sucked out her!!! You've certainly got a strange set of priorities, mrswah, and should start living in the real world !
-
An accident?!!! With 43 separate cuts, bruises, a fractured nose and strangulation 'till the life was sucked out her!!! You've certainly got a strange set of priorities, mrswah, and should start living in the real world !
I bet you wouldn't say that to William Clegg QC !
I live very much in the real world, thank you! Cleaned the whole house today, cooked dinner for Mr Wah, and went shopping. Oh, and was up at 6am, taking the dog out. That's the real world, and I'm sure you know that as well as I do. As for having strange priorities, I don't have a lot of time for them!
On a more serious point, many of Joanna's injuries may have been caused by all that equipment that was used to retrieve her body from Longwood Lane.
-
You don't know, Caroline, and neither do the rest of us.
It does seem, to me, and, from what I read, a number of others, that if VT did kill Joanna, it was an accident. So, I wonder why he hasn't appealed against the murder conviction? Who knows.
I don't know whether he was happy to take the stand or not. I'm just going by what William Clegg QC says. He is a QC, he was VT's defence counsel, so who am I to disbelieve him? I wouldn't dare!!!!
I don't know for sure that tomorrow the sun will come up, there is a slim possibility that some catastrophic event could prevent it. I'm pretty certain that won't happen - I would lay odds on VT killing JY higher.
-
I don't know for sure that tomorrow the sun will come up, there is a slim possibility that some catastrophic event could prevent it. I'm pretty certain that won't happen - I would lay odds on VT killing JY higher.
So would I.
Of course the sun will come up-----whether or not it will shine is another matter!
-
So would I.
Of course the sun will come up-----whether or not it will shine is another matter!
That should have said 'lower' - you don't know the sun will come up, but the odds of VT being guilty are much the same. He isn't arguing about it!
-
Smoke and Mirrors or Mirrored truth??
Sherlock Holmes... If the first letter of the message is a consonant, then what follows is the mirrored truth...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NI4trhYnsSg
Is that what the media have been doing?? The mirrored truth??
I keep saying everything is opposite ......
So is it crack the code to find the truth?? Or everything is the opposite of what we have been told!!
-
Smoke and Mirrors or Mirrored truth??
Sherlock Holmes... If the first letter of the message is a consonant, then what follows is the mirrored truth...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NI4trhYnsSg
Is that what the media have been doing?? The mirrored truth??
I keep saying everything is opposite ......
So is it crack the code to find the truth?? Or everything is the opposite of what we have been told!!
What?
-
Exactly..... Makes as much sense as this case &^^&*
-
It's totally logical.
-
So what is The Joanna Yeates case?? Is it what we believe it to be ??
Is the case a real case?? Is Dr Vincent Tabak in prison??
Did Joanna Yeates exist, did she die?? Or is Operation Braid, The Joanna Yeates Case one and the same as Operation Braid the fraud and tax inquiry??
And have I wasted all this time chasing an imaginary man called Dr Vincent Tabak whom I felt had been unfairly treated??
And if he didn't exist and was part of a sting operation, then what of the trial??
Or is he in prison for a none existent crime?
I don't know anymore... I always say none of this makes any sense.... And it doesn't....(imo)
-
So what is The Joanna Yeates case?? Is it what we believe it to be ??
Is the case a real case?? Is Dr Vincent Tabak in prison??
Did Joanna Yeates exist, did she die?? Or is Operation Braid, The Joanna Yeates Case one and the same as Operation Braid the fraud and tax inquiry??
And have I wasted all this time chasing an imaginary man called Dr Vincent Tabak whom I felt had been unfairly treated??
And if he didn't exist and was part of a sting operation, then what of the trial??
Or is he in prison for a none existent crime?
I don't know anymore... I always say none of this makes any sense.... And it doesn't....(imo)
Why are you doing this?
-
Why are you doing this?
I don't know to be honest Carolyn, nothing makes sense....
I'll do one more post after this one, and see if you can answer the question I pose at the end of the post...
-
(44): Dc Jon Hook................
DC Jon Hook.... ??
NEW YEAR'S HONOURS FOR TWO OFFICERS FROM AVON AND SOMERSET POLICE
“Community cop” PC Adrian Secker and detective Jon Hook have received awards in the New Year’s Honours.
Fifty three-year-old Adrian – affectionately known as “Adge” by work colleagues and the local community in Bath – has been awarded the British Empire Medal (BEM), while DC John Hook, also aged 53, of the force’s Major Crime Investigation Team, has been awarded the Queen’s Police Medal for his work helping and supporting the families of murder victims.
From the Polices website..
(https://www.avonandsomerset-pcc.gov.uk/CachedImage.axd?ImageName=%2fImage-Library%2fPress-Release-Images%2fComposite-Jon-and-Adge-NYH-758x426.jpg&ImageWidth=400&ImageHeight=400)
From Canygne Road
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15186;image)
I have attached an image of Jon Hook on Canygne Road at the time of the investigation and compared it to the above image.... I cannot say for sure if they are the same person... But I thought I'd post it anyway.... (I have added said image.. compare the two above images)..
Here we have confirmation of Jon's involvement with the Joanna Yeates case, even though, I hadn't heard him mentioned at all, but had discovered who he was because of another TV program he had been on..
Jon discarded his uniform when he moved to central Bristol district CID and then onto the Major Crime Investigation Team (MCIT).
He said that there had been many highs and lows during his police career – working with the families of murder victims is always tragic but if the help and assistance he had provided was of some comfort he was extremely honoured.
The murders of Evon Berry, Nicholas Robinson, Joanna Yeates, Jama Powell and Becky Watts were among some high profile cases in which Jon has been involved but he said that every case was equally as important to him and helping the families of the victims.
Jon said: “I was privileged to be able to contribute to the making of “The Murder Detectvies” which showcased the work we do and portrayed Avon and Somerset Police in such a positive light.
Which family did he work with in the Joanna Yeates Case???
Turning to DC Jon Hook, the Chief Constable said: “I’ve known Jon for more than 20 years and if there was one person you would want in your team it is Jon.
“The consummate professional, he has played a key role in many of the major murder investigations undertaken in Avon and Somerset – and also in neighbouring Gloucestershire and Wiltshire – as a family liaison officer.
“This is a specialist role, which can at times be traumatic and demanding. It requires a very understanding individual to take on this difficult role, working closely with the families of victims, consoling, supporting and reassuring them at what is often the worst period of their lives. Jon has demonstrated the skill to carry out the role with real compassion and humility.
“Through fulfilling this role, Jon has also built trust in policing among communities where that trust did not previously exist. Jon is a tireless champion for fairness and justice in society.
“I congratulate both Adge and Jon on the announcement of their respective awards,” said the Chief Constable.
Posted on Wednesday 2nd January 2019
So he is a Family Liaison Officer.... So why was he taking Peter Stanley to Avon and Somersets Police station on the 31st December 2010??
Nothing makes sense or adds up..... ever....!!
“I would like to take the opportunity to thank all the people within the organisation – past and present -who have supported me over the years and continue to do so.
“I have worked for the police for 27 years and I have had the privilege of working with fantastic people within the community and with Avon and Somerset Police. I am shocked that I have been honoured in this way. It is truly humbling – there are more deserving people than me.
“I gratefully accept the award on behalf of the organisation, my colleagues, the Major Crime Investigation Team and all the families of the murder victims across the Brunel Collaboration,” said Jon.
Jon tells us what you did in The Joanna Yeates Murder case please... I keep trying to work it out.....
We know have 3 Family Liaison Officers
* DC Jon Hook.... Who for??
* DC Russ Jones (Yeates)
* DC Emma Davies (Yeates? Reardon)
Thank you for your thoughts. We would like to thank the police liaison officers, Emma and Russ, for their consideration towards us, and as far as they could keeping us informed of developments. We would also like to express our appreciation to the members of Operation Braid for giving up their time, especially over the festive period, and their efforts in apprehending Jo’s killer.
So what happened to DC Jon Hook??
Joanna Yeates murder: Christopher Jefferies questioned / new witness
Joanna Yeates murder: Christopher Jefferies questioned / new witness; Joanna Yeates murder: Christopher Jefferies questioned / new witness; ENGLAND: Somerset: Bristol: EXT Peter Stanley (Neighbour of murder victim Joanna Yeates and Chris Jefferies, who has been arrested on suspicion of her murder) from building where he lives with a police officer and to car (numberplate obscured) Stanley sitting in car Car being driven away
Credit: ITN
Clip #: 665467820 SD
Collection: ITN
Date created: 31 December, 2010
video....
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/christopher-jefferies-questioned-new-witness-joanna-news-footage/665467820
Why is DC Jon Hook getting into Peter Stanleys car?? And what connection does PS have to the case other than helping starting the car of Greg Reardon??.... Why would PS need a Family Liason Officer???
So many questions... It's never ending...... The article states that DC Jon Hook was involved with The Joanna Yeates case.... He's role through his career appears to be an Family Liaison Officer
DC Jon Hook is a member of the Major Crime Investigation Team, providing support to the regional and collaborative services.
His citation confirms he has been given the award for “distinguished service” to the police.
He has given almost three decades service to the police, including much of the time spent in his specialist role as a family liaison officer. This can be at times traumatic and demanding and requires a very special person to work with the families of victims, giving them support and reassurance when they need it most.
So who's family Liaison Officer was DC Jon Hook??? Seeing as it''s his specialist role???
I'm sure he deserves his award... I just want to clarify his role in The Joanna Yeates Murder Investigation....
Who's Family Liaison Officer was he?? If not what did he actually do?? We saw him collect forensic bags... But they could have sent a forensic Officer to do that....
You see Carolyn nothing is as it seems, so many people on scene at Canygne Road....
Edit.. A Bristol policeman who has helped the families of some of the city's most shocking and brutal murders has been named in the Queen's New Year's Honours list.
Many will remember the tragic stories of the likes of Joanna Yeates, Jama Powell and Becky Watts .
It was Det Con Jon Hook who worked with the victim's families during the truly heartbreaking period of losing a loved one in the most awful of circumstances.
As a member of Avon and Somerset Constabulary's Major Crime Investigation Team, his job is to help and support the families of those victims of serious crime.
Double Edit.. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8194.msg434516;topicseen#msg434516
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/meet-police-officer-one-hardest-2371200
https://www.avonandsomerset-pcc.gov.uk/News-and-Events/News-Archive/2019/January/New-Year's-Honours-for-two-officers-from-Avon-and-Somerset-Police.aspx
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8856277/Joanna-Yeates-family-statement-in-full.html
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3178118
-
I don't know to be honest Carolyn, nothing makes sense....
I'll do one more post after this one, and see if you can answer the question I pose at the end of the post...
Caroline.
-
(44): Dc Jon Hook................
DC Jon Hook.... ??
From the Polices website..
(https://www.avonandsomerset-pcc.gov.uk/CachedImage.axd?ImageName=%2fImage-Library%2fPress-Release-Images%2fComposite-Jon-and-Adge-NYH-758x426.jpg&ImageWidth=400&ImageHeight=400)
From Canygne Road
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15186;image)
I have attached an image of Jon Hook on Canygne Road at the time of the investigation and compared it to the above image.... I cannot say for sure if they are the same person... But I thought I'd post it anyway.... (I have added said image.. compare the two above images)..
Here we have confirmation of Jon's involvement with the Joanna Yeates case, even though, I hadn't heard him mentioned at all, but had discovered who he was because of another TV program he had been on..
Which family did he work with in the Joanna Yeates Case???
So he is a Family Liaison Officer.... So why was he taking Peter Stanley to Avon and Somersets Police station on the 31st December 2010??
Nothing makes sense or adds up..... ever....!!
Jon tells us what you did in The Joanna Yeates Murder case please... I keep trying to work it out.....
We know have 3 Family Liaison Officers
* DC Jon Hook.... Who for??
* DC Russ Jones (Yeates)
* DC Emma Davies (Yeates? Reardon)
So what happened to DC Jon Hook??
video....
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/christopher-jefferies-questioned-new-witness-joanna-news-footage/665467820
Why is DC Jon Hook getting into Peter Stanleys car?? And what connection does PS have to the case other than helping starting the car of Greg Reardon??.... Why would PS need a Family Liason Officer???
So many questions... It's never ending...... The article states that DC Jon Hook was involved with The Joanna Yeates case.... He's role through his career appears to be an Family Liaison Officer
So who's family Liaison Officer was DC Jon Hook??? Seeing as it''s his specialist role???
I'm sure he deserves his award... I just want to clarify his role in The Joanna Yeates Murder Investigation....
Who's Family Liaison Officer was he?? If not what did he actually do?? We saw him collect forensic bags... But they could have sent a forensic Officer to do that....
You see Carolyn nothing is as it seems, so many people on scene at Canygne Road....
Edit.. Double Edit.. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8194.msg434516;topicseen#msg434516
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/meet-police-officer-one-hardest-2371200
https://www.avonandsomerset-pcc.gov.uk/News-and-Events/News-Archive/2019/January/New-Year's-Honours-for-two-officers-from-Avon-and-Somerset-Police.aspx
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8856277/Joanna-Yeates-family-statement-in-full.html
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3178118
More than one FLO can be assigned to a case to support the family, I found this out simply by searching what that role entailed.
http://library.college.police.uk/docs/acpo/Family-Liaison-Strategy-Manual-2003.pdf
Hook is getting into the car because he is accompanying him to give a statement - why is that a problem?
FLO is one of his roles but as a detective, he will have others - why is THAT a problem?
My name is CAROLINE and everything seems as it should be.
-
apologies for getting your name incorrect caroline ?{)(**
-
The Facebook Campaign that was launched I think on the 4th January 2011 ( I may be wrong)..
But I have found this ITN clip from back then and it shows the actual ad campaign, I think it must be the ad campaign...
I am trying to understand how the campaign was set up, and also was wondering if this was the news report that lead to ITV being banned..
At 1:26 of the clip...
It shows an image of the Facebook page, it is a separate page to the Avon and Somerset Constabulary's FB page, for this page you need to sign up to it.... (I will add images)
The top of the page says:
Avon and Somerset Constabulary is on Facebook
Sign up for Facebook to connect with Avon and Somerset Constabulary
To the left near the top of the page is a big green Sign up button..
It has on its wall what is already on Avon and Somersets Facebook page, but it must be aimed at someone.... (possibly)
The only app that comes close that I can find now is an app called mail chimp, it allows you to target people who may have unsubscribed to your list of contacts or just add your list of contacts to it.... But Mail Chimp wasn't around back then so I do not know what was used at that time..
detectives have been contacting Miss Yeates friends on Facebook and they have also posted an appeal on the social networking site.
I wondered if it was actually Joanna Yeates Facebook page that they used?? Or maybe it was their own I don't really know.
But looking at that page the only appeal that is visible is about Ballooning??
Avon and Somerset Constabulary _ Police appeal for witnesses and information following ballooning in
That appeal was on the 3rd January 2011, I cannot find any information about the Ballooning, but if this is the dedicated page for information about Joanna Yeates, then what has ballooning got to do with Joanna Yeates?
This is all I can find of the dedicated page and facebook campaign, it may be all that is left of it....
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xggxsv
The big green button is for signing up to Facebook, not the constabulary page. You can't view the constabulary page unless you're a FB member. The big green button is still on FB.
-
Why are you doing this?
I have no idea anymore, I think its time everything I have written was removed...
-
I have no idea anymore, I think its time everything I have written was removed...
You have put a lot of effort into this, maybe concentrate on someone (or something) that deserves your attention.
-
I have no idea anymore, I think its time everything I have written was removed...
I think you have made a valiant attempt to justify the unjustifiable. The moment Vincent Tabak agreed to plead guilty to manslaughter was the moment it was all over for him. IMO the only possible redress he may have had was to appeal the murder conviction and have it replaced with one of involuntary manslaughter. Involuntary manslaughter occurs when the agent has no intention (mens rea) of committing murder, but caused the death of another through recklessness or criminal negligence.
-
I think you have made a valiant attempt to justify the unjustifiable. The moment Vincent Tabak agreed to plead guilty to manslaughter was the moment it was all over for him. IMO the only possible redress he may have had was to appeal the murder conviction and have it replaced with one of involuntary manslaughter. Involuntary manslaughter occurs when the agent has no intention (mens rea) of committing murder, but caused the death of another through recklessness or criminal negligence.
Hm, yes, I wonder why he didn't appeal the murder conviction.
-
Hm, yes, I wonder why he didn't appeal the murder conviction.
I wondered that too, I don't think he set out to murder Joanna Yeates, it has never been suggested that he was under the influence of drink or drugs at the time or was acting in a state of temporary insanity. I believe he was infatuated with Joanna and tried it on with her with devastating consequences. Involuntary manslaughter would have been the appropriate charge IMO with anything up to a life sentence still applied.
-
I wondered that too, I don't think he set out to murder Joanna Yeates, it has never been suggested that he was under the influence of drink or drugs at the time or was acting in a state of temporary insanity. I believe he was infatuated with Joanna and tried it on with her with devastating consequences. Involuntary manslaughter would have been the appropriate charge IMO with anything up to a life sentence still applied.
I find it difficult to believe he was infatuated with Joanna, when he had only known her for a few days------unless, of course, he had met her before. That's what we don't know!
He appears to have been very close to his partner, Tanja.
-
As was Joanna Yeates to Greg Reardon.
But Tabak was much closer to the violent pornography on his computer and was determined to follow it through only hours later!
-
Can someone explain what an Utter Barrister is....
-
Can someone explain what an Utter Barrister is....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junior_barrister (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junior_barrister)
-
As was Joanna Yeates to Greg Reardon.
But Tabak was much closer to the violent pornography on his computer and was determined to follow it through only hours later!
Speculation, Myster !! Speculation-------------
BTW, I mean about the porn, not about Joanna and Greg.
-
I find it difficult to believe he was infatuated with Joanna, when he had only known her for a few days------unless, of course, he had met her before. That's what we don't know!
He appears to have been very close to his partner, Tanja.
Isn't that also speculation?
However .....
His computer history showed that
"on the morning of 7 January - weeks after JY's body had been found - Tabak searched for "Jo Yeates" on Google, minutes before moving on to the violent pornographic sites
"Some of those films contained images of a woman again being held by the throat," Mr Lickley told Bristol Crown Court.
And some recovered images showed a petite blonde woman with her top pulled up in a similar fashion to how Miss Yeates was found.
"That suggests he derived sexual pleasure from them," said Mr Lickley.
"He received a text message from his girlfriend but continued watching the pornography."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-14904647
-
Speculation, Myster !! Speculation-------------
BTW, I mean about the porn, not about Joanna and Greg.
As I stated, hours before the murder Tabak viewed pornography on his laptop and / or PC, as evidenced by police who seized them.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8847951/Vincent-Tabak-developed-sexual-fetish-after-watching-violent-porn-films.html (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8847951/Vincent-Tabak-developed-sexual-fetish-after-watching-violent-porn-films.html)
'Experts were also able to show that Tabak logged onto a pornographic website on the morning of December 17, the day he murdered Miss Yeates.'
-
Isn't that also speculation?
However .....
His computer history showed that
"on the morning of 7 January - weeks after JY's body had been found - Tabak searched for "Jo Yeates" on Google, minutes before moving on to the violent pornographic sites
"Some of those films contained images of a woman again being held by the throat," Mr Lickley told Bristol Crown Court.
And some recovered images showed a petite blonde woman with her top pulled up in a similar fashion to how Miss Yeates was found.
"That suggests he derived sexual pleasure from them," said Mr Lickley.
"He received a text message from his girlfriend but continued watching the pornography."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-14904647 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-14904647)
That mean-eyed stare is enough to make any woman's blood run cold.
-
That mean-eyed stare is enough to make any woman's blood run cold.
Well, he certainly isn't my type! %56&
-
Well, he certainly isn't my type! %56&
If you were there, you might not be here. *%87
-
If you were there, you might not be here. *%87
There is that 8(8-))
-
B-roll
Contents
1 Film and video production
2 History
2.1 16 mm film splices
2.2 Telecine transfer
2.3 Linear video tape editing
3 See also
4 References
Film and video production
Films and videos may cut away from the main story to show related scenery or action. Establishing shots may be used to show the audience the context of the story. These secondary images are often presented without sound, as the sound from the primary footage is expected to continue while the other images are shown. The various shots presented without sound are called B-roll.[3]
B-roll may be shot by smaller second unit crews, since there is no need for sound. In film, smaller MOS cameras may be used for greater portability and ease of setup.[3] In electronic news-gathering (ENG) and documentary film projects, B-roll footage is often shot after the main interview is shot, to provide supporting scenes for what was said by the interview subject.[2] In a docudrama project, B-roll may refer to dramatic re-enactment scenes staged by the producer and performed by actors, to be used as cutaway shots.[4]
B-roll footage may be added to or drawn from a stock footage library.[1][4]
History
16 mm film splices
The term B-roll originates from a particular solution to the problem of visible splices in the narrow film stock used in 16 mm film. 35 mm film was wide enough to hide splices, but 16 mm film revealed the splices as flaws in the picture. To avoid this problem, the intended shots were spliced to opaque black leader, with the black leader hiding the splice. Two sequences of shots were assembled, the odd-numbered shots on the A-roll, and the even-numbered shots on the B-roll, such that all of the shots on one roll were matched by black leader on the other roll, in a checkerboard pattern (an alternate name for the process was "checkerboard printing".) Unexposed 16 mm raw print stock was exposed twice, once to the A-roll, then it was exposed again to the B-roll.[5][6][7]
Telecine transfer
Until the mid-1970s, ENG teams shot both main A-roll and secondary B-roll footage on 16 mm film. Sound was integrated onto the film by way of a magnetic stripe at the edge of the film. The A-roll and B-roll scenes, shot at 24 frames per second, were converted to the television frame rate of 30 fps using a telecine system consisting of two film projectors, one showing the main A-roll footage and the other showing the B-roll. The sound from the A-roll footage was used, or sound from narration or voiceover, while MOS images from the B-roll were intercut as desired.[2]
Linear video tape editing
In the 1980s, the term B-roll was adopted for linear video editing using at least two video tape machines. Traditionally, the tape decks in an edit suite were labeled by letter, with the 'A' deck being the one containing the main tape upon which the main action material was shot. The 'B' deck was used to run tapes that held additional footage such as establishing shots, cutaway shots, and any other supporting footage. The sound was usually taken from the A deck alone, so that the B deck provided video without sound.[3] As linear editing systems were unable to dissolve between clips on the same tape, an edit decision list (EDL) was used to mark clips as "A-roll" and "B-roll" to indicate source machines.
431
Joanna Yeates Videos and B-Roll Footage
Who therefore has the A-Roll?
And when was the B-Roll made... And I do not mean uploaded to Getty...
Looking at the Getty website, they all appear to be even numbered, one odd number is this clip.... The tour of Joanna Yeates Flat..
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/exterior-interior-point-of-view-shots-walking-into-news-footage/129277951
B-roll may be shot by smaller second unit crews, since there is no need for sound. In film, smaller MOS cameras may be used for greater portability and ease of setup.[3] In electronic news-gathering (ENG) and documentary film projects, B-roll footage is often shot after the main interview is shot, to provide supporting scenes for what was said by the interview subject.[2] In a docudrama project, B-roll may refer to dramatic re-enactment scenes staged by the producer and performed by actors, to be used as cutaway shots.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-roll
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/videos/joanna-yeates?offlinecontent=include&phrase=joanna%20yeates&sort=mostpopular
List of odd numbered clips below...
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/exterior-shots-police-officers-forensic-officers-outside-news-footage/456732171
That clip was shot on the 29th September 2011.. How close to trial is that??
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/interior-shots-around-the-bedroom-belonging-to-murdered-news-footage/129277929
The next Clip apparently was shot on the 29th Sept 2011 also.... But how??
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/exterior-shot-floral-tribute-for-joanna-yeates-with-news-footage/456732169
Getty states that is the 29th September 2011, That should be in 2010.... It's an A-Roll clip...
Credit: Sky News/Film Image Partner
Clip #: 456732169 HD
Collection: Sky News
Date created: 29 September, 2011
Licence type: Rights-ready
Release info: Not released. More information
Clip length: 00:01:00
Location: Bristol, England, United Kingdom
Mastered to: QuickTime 8-bit Photo-JPEG HD 1920x1080 25i More information
Originally shot on: DVCPRO HD 1080 50i
Source: Sky News
Object name: 1195521_127755975-060
Another created on the 29th September 2011
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/exterior-shots-forensic-police-officers-removing-a-news-footage/456732197
Again it has the date of 29th September 2011
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/exterior-shots-man-handing-a-police-officer-grey-sock-man-news-footage/456732193
20th October 2011
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/exterior-shots-greg-reardon-boyfriend-of-murdered-woman-news-footage/130017809
This from 2nd Jan 2011
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/police-in-bristol-have-renewed-their-call-for-help-from-news-footage/107853537
Collection: Sky News
Date created: 29 December, 2010
Licence type: Rights-ready
Release info: Not released. More information
Clip length: 00:00:50
Location: Bristol, England, United Kingdom
Mastered to: QuickTime 8-bit Photo-JPEG HD 1920x1080 25i More information
Originally shot on: DVCPRO HD 1080 50i
Source: Sky News
Object name: 6321_101590071-U07514
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/exterior-night-shots-forensic-van-parked-outside-jo-news-footage/107830935
Another two from 29th September 2011
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/exterior-shots-police-searching-for-evidence-in-drains-news-footage/456732181
Police Searching Through Drains For Evidence
CLEAN: Exterior shots police searching for evidence in drains looking through leaves. Police Searching Through Drains For Evidence on September 29, 2011 in Bristol, England (Footage by Sky News/Getty Images)
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/exterior-shots-police-searching-for-evidence-in-drains-news-footage/456732183
Then we have Ann Reddropp outside Bristol Crown Court.. 28th October 2011
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/exterior-shot-ann-reddrop-crown-prosecution-service-makes-news-footage/131193037
14th October 2011
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/exterior-shots-country-lane-stone-wall-with-bouquet-of-news-footage/129623835
17th October 2011
Parents of Joanna Yeates Arrive at Court
CLEAN: Exterior shots David & Theresa Yeates walking into Bristol Crown Court with their son Chris Parents of Joanna Yeates Arrive at Court on October 17, 2011 in Bristol, England (Footage by Sky News/Getty Images)
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/exterior-shots-david-theresa-yeates-walking-into-bristol-news-footage/129713913
The odd numbered clips are shot in HD... The rest are SD..
When ever I post , I always think I am Missing something.... It's like an itch that needs scratching.... Everything apparently is in plain sight... So what am I Missing about this??
I got the information about B-Roll from wiki... now yes, you should laugh, wiki the font of all knowledge... But it's confusing... something about the clips and the dates doesn't add up! (imo)
B-roll footage may be added to or drawn from a stock footage library.[1][4]
Now think about that..
-
B-roll footage may be added to or drawn from a stock footage library.[1][4]
So I went to look for "Stock Footage".....
And found this....
Source:This clip is available for licensing from our partners at Getty Images Collection ITN Title Joanna Yeates murder trial: defendant Vincent Tabak gives evidence Details Joanna Yeates murder trial: defendant Vincent Tabak gives evidence; 10.10.2011 TRACKING SHOT allong passageway alongside Joanna Yeates's flat License Type rightsready Asset ID 656486708
Now on the getty website this is the information for this clip..
Details
Restrictions: No use by regional TV or radio in UK and Ireland until 3 days after date of creation. Prior approval required if clip features ITN newsreader or reporter, please contact your local Getty Images representative.No use by regional TV or radio in UK and Ireland until 3 days after date of creation. Prior approval required if clip features ITN newsreader or reporter, please contact your local Getty Images representative.
Credit: ITN
Clip #: 656486708 SD
Collection: ITN
Date created: 19 October, 2011
Licence type: Rights-ready
Release info: Not released. More information
Clip length: 00:00:04:19
Location: United Kingdom
Mastered to: QuickTime 8-bit Photo-JPEG SD 720x576 25i More information
Originally shot on: 576 25i
Source: ITN
Object name: t19101107_725.mov
Yet at the bottom of the clip we have .....
Joanna Yeates murder trial: defendant Vincent Tabak gives evidence
Joanna Yeates murder trial: defendant Vincent Tabak gives evidence; 10.10.2011 TRACKING SHOT allong passageway alongside Joanna Yeates's flat
So when was the clip actually made??
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/joanna-yeates-murder-trial-defendant-vincent-tabak-gives-news-footage/656486708
You see, they shouldn't be at the Flat before the jury visited, they say that Dr Vincent Tabak gives evidence, but how can he have given evidence on the 10/10/2011 ?? He didn't take the stand till days later...
The clip finishes inside Joanna Yeates Flat, so how did they have footage before the jury visit??
http://www.footage.net/Search
This is something I don't understand
Joanna Yeates murder: Vincent Tabak found guilty of murder
Joanna Yeates murder: Vincent Tabak found guilty of murder; R29121006 (TX 29.12.2010) Christopher Jefferies (Landlord who was arrested on suspicion of murder) along
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/vincent-tabak-found-guilty-of-murder-r29121006-news-footage/656462706
It's this number R29121006..
When I search that number in google it gives me loads of vids for Joanna Yeates.. and videos of other murders and Missing People... What does it signify??
Is it an identifying number for something/someone? Does anyone know??
Or is it still about fake news?? What is it really all about??
I will never know... and no-one else will either...
-
So I went to look for "Stock Footage".....
And found this....
Now on the getty website this is the information for this clip..
Yet at the bottom of the clip we have .....
So when was the clip actually made??
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/joanna-yeates-murder-trial-defendant-vincent-tabak-gives-news-footage/656486708
You see, they shouldn't be at the Flat before the jury visited, they say that Dr Vincent Tabak gives evidence, but how can he have given evidence on the 10/10/2011 ?? He didn't take the stand till days later...
The clip finishes inside Joanna Yeates Flat, so how did they have footage before the jury visit??
http://www.footage.net/Search
This is something I don't understand
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/vincent-tabak-found-guilty-of-murder-r29121006-news-footage/656462706
It's this number R29121006..
When I search that number in google it gives me loads of vids for Joanna Yeates.. and videos of other murders and Missing People... What does it signify??
Is it an identifying number for something/someone? Does anyone know??
Or is it still about fake news?? What is it really all about??
I will never know... and no-one else will either...
I have no idea what point you are trying to make?
-
As I stated, hours before the murder Tabak viewed pornography on his laptop and / or PC, as evidenced by police who seized them.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8847951/Vincent-Tabak-developed-sexual-fetish-after-watching-violent-porn-films.html (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8847951/Vincent-Tabak-developed-sexual-fetish-after-watching-violent-porn-films.html)
'Experts were also able to show that Tabak logged onto a pornographic website on the morning of December 17, the day he murdered Miss Yeates.'
Myster... This is why it is confusing....
It can now be revealed that his regular routine also included maintaining his interest in pornography.
Mr Lickley said: “On the 7th January, the first Friday he was at home after the killing, he was home alone and when alone he spent some time looking at websites related to Joanna Yeates.
“He was monitoring the investigation. But from looking at images of her he then moved to porn.
He began looking at images of Joanna Yeates, having Googled her name at 7.37am. Less than two minutes later, at 7.38am, he started looking at redtube.com [a pornographic website] and looked at a number of films.
“Some of these films contained images of women being held by the throat. He received a text message from his girlfriend, then continued watching porn. At 8.04 he returned his girlfriend’s call.”
Home is not defined.... Do they mean ,were he was staying at Aberdeen Road, or do they mean that he was at Canygne Road??
By stating home, to me I see that as Canygne Road, because that is where his home is.... But he was supposed to have moved out of Canygne Road before the 7th January 2011
This is why it confuses, nothing is made clear as to were events took place.... Then I being to wonder if they are talking about someone else.... How did they know for sure that it was Dr Vincent Tabak on that computer on that day?, how did they support this was true??...
But we have this from Sally's page ..
I didn’t take any photos- the snow was dirty.
At 7.25 – after I had returned, I accessed my bank account via Internet until 7.37pm.
Defence Counsel: Can we just put the timeline to one side? What did you do after 7.37pm?
Tabak: I drank a beer. I watched TV- I cannot remember what. I had supper- a readymade pizza. Then I decided to go out again
We have a set of times that stay the same ,( morning or night) but the date appear to change... If Dr Vincent Tabak was apparently looking at porn on the 17th December 2010 after 7:37 pm, then the watching TV is the apparent porn watching....
But... the article has the porn watching on the 7th January 2011 at 7:37am.... Morning or night appear more than once... (i'll post)
Going back to the tweets..I posted before...
Rupert Evelyn
@rupertevelyn
When Tabak got home he used his girlfriend's profile on their computer. Accessed the dyson.com webmail. Tanja worked at Dyson
What proof was there that he did this? Who are they talking about??
Accessed the dyson.com webmail. Tanja worked at Dyson
Then we have ..
While he was there he sent a text message to his girlfriend Tanja Morson, who was at an office Christmas party in Wiltshire, telling her he was “bored”.
From Sally's paper
Dr Tabak is alleged to have strangled Joanna Yeates on Friday evening on 17
December 2010, after she returned from the public house, the Bristol Ram, and whilst his
girlfriend Miss Tanja Morson was attending her firm’s annual Christmas party that
evening. She was a financial analyst at Dyson Ltd, Head Office, Tetbury Hill,
Malmesbury, SN16 0RP, England.
Timeline 29- there was a much longer telephone call at 4.23pm.
Timeline 30- Internet use at home- Tanja used the laptop – The Defendant was still at
work. Timeline 31- Vincent Tabak texted girlfriend Tanja: ‘How are you? Getting ready for
party?’
Then..
Timeline 45- Vincent Tabak’s journey home- 6.54 at Constitution Hill. Home just after
7pm by which time Tanja had already left. Text message to Tanja- ‘Just got home’.
By looking at the timelines, I cannot see how Tanja went to work that day, she may have left the premises in the morning, but nothing says when she arrived back home....
Did she work from home? If Tanja logged onto the home computer at timeline 30, she should have been at home... meaning why come home from work if there's an Office party? It's a decent journey to Dyson , Why not just take your party clothes to work and get changed there?? Why travel from Malmesbury all the way home to Bristol, only to have not a lot of time to get changed... She is not home when Dr Vincent Tabak arrived around 7:00pm...
She was a financial analyst at Dyson Ltd.... she could have easily worked from home.... (imo)
Where's the CCTV of Tanja arriving home or leaving home??
Another oddity... From The Mirror 28th October 2011
CALCULATING killer Vincent Tabak cruelly duped his loyal girlfriend Tanja into feeling sorry for him after he murdered Jo.
A friend told how the engineer spent Christmas pretending to be worried about the woman he had cold-heartedly murdered.
Caring Tanja Morson was so concerned she left work early one day so he would not be alone while a murderer was on the loose.
Why would.... Caring Tanja Morson be so concerned she left work early one day so he would not be alone while a murderer was on the loose???
Why would Dr Vincent Tabak be afraid of being on his own???
It is always 2 options... which way the story will go..... But I have found something else which I will post about.. I keep saying it is like its a production... Two different version, or even more than that, a story line..
Countdown to Murder's story line is different from the CrimeWatch version/ Killers version... and it shouldn't be, it is after a trial, the information should be from the evidence at trial, the statement that Dr Vincent Tabak makes, the version of events that Dr Vincent Tabak gives, whether you believe that version or not...!!
The B-Roll is important, the CCTV is important, they are connected in some way.... I keep looking at the B-Roll
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg507742#msg507742
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murderer-vincent-tabaks-88441
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/123360394558455808
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8847771/Vincent-Tabak-carried-on-as-if-nothing-happened-after-murder-of-Joanna-Yeates.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8847951/Vincent-Tabak-developed-sexual-fetish-after-watching-violent-porn-films.html
-
How many takes does it take to do the reconstruction at Tesco's Express in Clifton?
This clip is filmed in the day:
(1): Joanna Yeates murder: man arrested
Joanna Yeates murder: man arrested; 18.1.2011 ENGLAND: Bristol: EXT / INT Filming of 'Crimewatch' programme featuring RECONSTRUCTION of Joanna Yeates (played by actress) arriving at Tesco store / camera operator inside store / actress in store (filmed through window)
Info of date of creation..
Details
Restrictions: No use by regional TV or radio in UK and Ireland until 3 days after date of creation. Prior approval required if clip features ITN newsreader or reporter, please contact your local Getty Images representative.No use by regional TV or radio in UK and Ireland until 3 days after date of creation. Prior approval required if clip features ITN newsreader or reporter, please contact your local Getty Images representative.
Credit: ITN
Clip #: 655516666 SD
Collection: ITN
Date created: 20 January, 2011
Licence type: Rights-ready
Release info: Not released. More information
Clip length: 00:00:10:21
Location: United Kingdom
Mastered to: QuickTime 8-bit Photo-JPEG SD 720x576 25i More information
Originally shot on: 576 25i
Source: ITN
Object name: t20011102_1512.mov
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/man-arrested-18-1-2011-england-bristol-ext-int-filming-of-news-footage/655516666
(2):Joanna Yeates murder: police stage reconstruction
Joanna Yeates murder: police stage reconstruction; ENGLAND: Bristol: EXT / NIGHT Filming of 'Crimewatch' programme featuring RECONSTRUCTION of Joanna Yeates (murdered landscape architect) buying pizza from Tesco store and leaving store
Date of creation..
Details
Restrictions: No use by regional TV or radio in UK and Ireland until 3 days after date of creation. Prior approval required if clip features ITN newsreader or reporter, please contact your local Getty Images representative.No use by regional TV or radio in UK and Ireland until 3 days after date of creation. Prior approval required if clip features ITN newsreader or reporter, please contact your local Getty Images representative.
Credit: ITN
Clip #: 655327448 SD
Collection: ITN
Date created: 18 January, 2011
Licence type: Rights-ready
Release info: Not released. More information
Clip length: 00:00:19:18
Location: United Kingdom
Mastered to: QuickTime 8-bit Photo-JPEG SD 720x576 25i More information
Originally shot on: 576 25i
Source: ITN
Object name:
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/police-stage-reconstruction-england-bristol-ext-night-news-footage/655327448
(3): Joanna Yeates murder: police stage reconstruction
Joanna Yeates murder: police stage reconstruction; Bristol: INT Various shots of RECONSTRUCTION being filmed for BBC 'Crimewatch' programme, showing 'Joanna' (played by actress) buying a pizza in Tesco Express store (seen through windows) EXT / NIGHT Reporter to camera INT Various shots of RECONSTRUCTION being filmed for BBC 'Crimewatch' programme, showing 'Joanna' (played by actress) buying a pizza in Tesco Express store (seen through windows) EXT / NIGHT Cameramen gathered outside Tesco Express store INT Various shots of RECONSTRUCTION being filmed for BBC 'Crimewatch' programme, showing 'Joanna' (played by actress) buying a pizza in Tesco Express store (seen through windows)
Created details....
Details
Restrictions: No use by regional TV or radio in UK and Ireland until 3 days after date of creation. Prior approval required if clip features ITN newsreader or reporter, please contact your local Getty Images representative.No use by regional TV or radio in UK and Ireland until 3 days after date of creation. Prior approval required if clip features ITN newsreader or reporter, please contact your local Getty Images representative.
Credit: ITN
Clip #: 655347000 SD
Collection: ITN
Date created: 18 January, 2011
Licence type: Rights-ready
Release info: Not released. More information
Clip length: 00:00:45:23
Location: United Kingdom
Mastered to: QuickTime 8-bit Photo-JPEG SD 720x576 25i More information
Originally shot on: 576 25i
Source: ITN
Object name: t18011120_1346.mov
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/police-stage-reconstruction-bristol-int-various-shots-of-news-footage/655347000
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Looking at those 3 clips there are definite differences...
(1): Clearly it is day light when the actress playing Joanna Yeates arrives and enters the Tesco store... The time that the Polices CCTV footage they have at the Tesco's store is 20:36pm,.. I have commentated on that video before...
The date of creation is also of interest... 20th January 2011.. This being the date that Dr Vincent Tabak was arrested..
Another observation is she is accompanied to the store with someone who waits outside, I don't know if they are crew or are supposed to be someone who went to the store with her?
When the actress is about to enter the store, you can see a plum/ dark pink T-shirt it appears to be V necked, but in the Ram CCTV footage it is round necked.. and is light in colour..(just an observation)
The Filming Company camera's come from [films@59], so which ever production made this may have rented the camera's to film the reconstruction... at 7 seconds of the video, you can see the company name films@59 label on a camera used in the filming...
(2): First observation it is dark, there are Police Officers standing outside the store... the date of creation is the 18th January 2011... There are no media pressed up close and personal to the Tesco's window pane.... When the actress leaves the store, they have very few media people visible, but you can see the Christmas lights are still up in the street.
(3): First observation, media up close and personal to the window, the date of creation is the 18th January 2011, it is still light outside.... Police lacking at the door... The reporter in the piece is Darshna Soni, but I did notice another reporter there.. Martin Brunt, I don't know which news agency he works for... The image I have attached shows it is still light outside.....
If Joanna Yeates did not got to Tesco's till after she had left The Ram pub at 8:00pm on Friday 17th December 2010, explain to me why we have 3 productions of what should be a simple reconstruction, showing the apparent reconstruction at different times in the day and they are created on different dates??
It may be useful to film at the actual time of the event, seeing as people have routines, and maybe the killer was hanging about to see what the Police actually knew....
Are the date of creation and the date of filming different..(imo).. ( they should be)you should try to get the footage to be as close to the actual event.... And a killer maybe being interested, may want to know if anything was different...
The fact that when the actress playing Joanna Yeates is at the checkout we have the man with the dark hat and black coat MISSING from the reconstruction... They could have used an actor for that part, but oddly he is MISSING...
On the original footage, when the man moves after he has bought his produce, we never see his face, which is fair enough, he appears to have a strap on his right shoulder and a motif of something white....
But then when watching the clip with Darshna Soni, at 39 seconds of the clip, as we see Martin Brunt, a man walks past wearing a coat with a similar motif... At first I thought it was the actor who would play the man next to Joanna Yeates in Tesco's, but it may just be that it is a coincidence that someone in a black coat, with a white motif on the back of his coat walked by... Maybe they decided not to use him... I think the motif is "Northface", not sure, my other half said it was, and it may be a very common coat.... It just peaked my interest, seeing as I was looking for the man in the store and he wasn't there....
One last thing I noticed about the clip, at 40 seconds we can see something in Martin Brunt's hand, as Martin Brunt looks up and looks at the camera filming him...he has a leaflet in his hand, with an image of a male, who appears either to be bald or very short hair wearing sunglasses/glasses.... Why would Martin Brunt have this leaflet, when he is apparently doing a piece to camera about Joanna Yeates who has been murdered?? I wondered why MB should have this image in his hand??
What I find noticeable about the filming of this, is the amount of media present when they are trying to film a Crime Watch reconstruction, I don't understand how and why.....
The link below is Getty B-Roll for Crime watch and you cannot just view them, well I mean you can view anything else other than what the BBC made... So if Crime Watch is made by the BBC, and the BBC do not let anyone look at their B-Roll without requesting, why have we got footage of a CrimeWatch reconstruction of Joanna Yeates at Tesco's to view...
Do you see why I think it all odd... And why there is always 2 of everything.... and 2 possible options and possible outcomes...
So going back to the Tesco CCTV footage of Joanna Yeates, was she actually in Tesco's at 8:30pm or 8:30 am on Friday 17th December 2010.. we know the timestamp and date have been added to that footage, it has gone threw an editing suite of some sort having the frames per second visible on the image, plus the word [play] on it also....
We have never seen the Tesco's Receipt, we have no real idea of the time..... and every piece of CCTV we see about this case, the timestamps are Missing.... The Footage of her in the Ram could be early morning of the 17th December 2010 for all anyone knows.... (midnight for instance, which would give the correct date, the date is on the Ram footage , but not the time...)
Every B-Roll and documentary about this case raises more questions... The filming should have been on a Friday at the exact same time and place, with the same people in the store and the same positions as the CCTV..
We can see from the original CCTV there are at least 3 people other than Joanna Yeates in Tesco's on that CCTV... I was going to say night, but unless I can see the original time stamp.. I won't agree with that... And if we count the store shop assistant, that makes a total of 5 people including Joanna Yeates in Tesco's at the time when she purchased the Pizza...
They seem to be inaccuracies in the reconstruction, which was made after the release of the Tesco's CCTV to the public on the 24th December 2010..... People were aware of what she bought and where she bought it....
If I go back to the footage of the morning reconstruction and Joanna Yeates is entering Tesco's... was that on her way to work?? Without the exterior CCTV footage and the real timestamp of the CCTV, we will never know when Joanna Yeates purchased said Pizza!!
And the reconstruction was therefore pointless... because it should have depicted what happened at Tesco's, but it doesn't it only adds to the confusion (imo)
The timestamps are crucial.... the timestamps would show when Joanna Yeates was were and at what time.... How can anyone just accept these apparent timelines, when no-one has seen proof of these times... Making a confession by anyone questionable.... And if Crime Watch are filming when it is light and when it is dark... when did Joanna Yeates actually shop at Tesco's??
Edit... I am pointing out what I observe... I am also looking for something that the sobbing girl may have seen on TV, did she see anyone in the reconstruction.?? .Or did she notice the time of day...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeW_Jwn43g0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxJwSkKu4IY
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/videos/crimewatch-reconstruction?offlinecontent=include&phrase=crimewatch%20reconstruction&sort=best#license
-
Trying to establish when the main footage was taken and by whom is difficult, I stated that there was a label on one of the cameras used inside the Tesco's store with the name of a production company... This production company, does do it's own productions, but also hires out equipment, so I cannot say whom, filmed the reconstruction....
All I have to go on is which Reporters are at the scene at the time, I have discovered MB works for Sky and DS works for Channel4... Not being able to see any of the B-Roll of the BBC I am not sure whether or not they reported on this reconstruction... But ITV has a report about the reconstruction, which was created on the 18th January 2011...
Joanna Yeates murder: police stage reconstruction
Joanna Yeates murder: police stage reconstruction; Reporter to camera
Date Created..
Details
Restrictions: No use by regional TV or radio in UK and Ireland until 3 days after date of creation. Prior approval required if clip features ITN newsreader or reporter, please contact your local Getty Images representative.No use by regional TV or radio in UK and Ireland until 3 days after date of creation. Prior approval required if clip features ITN newsreader or reporter, please contact your local Getty Images representative.
Credit: ITN
Clip #: 655478782 SD
Collection: ITN
Date created: 18 January, 2011
Licence type: Rights-ready
Release info: Not released. More information
Clip length: 00:00:11:23
Location: United Kingdom
Mastered to: QuickTime 8-bit Photo-JPEG SD 720x576 25i More information
Originally shot on: 576 25i
Source: ITN
Object name: t18011104_1381.mov
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/police-stage-reconstruction-reporter-to-camera-news-footage/655478782
Why is RE on his own outside Tesco's reporting with no-one else there about the reconstruction... ???
The description Joanna Yeates murder: police stage reconstruction
Joanna Yeates murder: police stage reconstruction; Reporter to camera[...
Why is RE not part of the media who are there at the time filming as the reconstruction is taking place?? When was this reconstruction made?? Did ITV/ITN not attend at the time of the reconstruction??
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/police-stage-reconstruction-bristol-int-various-shots-of-news-footage/655347000
RE's report... ( stood outside Tesco's a lone reporter on an empty street.)
Like Jo's parents the Police also hope that the public provide the key for solving this Murder, a reconstruction filmed here today, another element designed to jog people's memories
Comparing the other media shots of the reconstruction where there are on-lookers and a mass of media present, RE's report by himself makes me question why??
Why was he not invited to the gathering??
Was it anything to do with ITV/ITN being banned from the Police Conferences??
Was the footage shot earlier than the date of creation of the B-Roll footage??
If so, how much earlier??
The oddity in this, even though I am asking why RE is not there at the same time as the other reporters, the link I have provided which shows DS and MB in the clip, the source of that clip is credited to ITN? same with the RE's report...
It's confusing... Out of these B-rolls I do not know which bits were screened to viewers watching the case unfold... I do not understand why RE is reporting on a quiet street on his own... It's puzzling....
I'll go back to something I said before about his twitter account... There is NO Blue Tick.... It really could be anyone saying that they are RE....
And another thing, when I see images of him he never looks the same, similar, but different....
Here's a random thought.....
Has he got a twin??
(i'll attach images)
(1): Image 1 of RE he is reporting from Cardiff, there is a Police Van and Police man stood outside a modern house, a satellite dish is on the roof of a set of garages and a washing line with pegs upon it..his microphone is attached to his jacket..
(2): Image 2 of RE he is reporting from the same location, you can still see the satellite , pegs and more of the garages, but he his on his own, the Police are no longer there and his microphone is attached to his shirt...
Those are the obvious differences, but in image (2) his hair looks slightly different and his face looks fuller and fatter......
It's not the first time I have thought that about RE.. The images I have seen many times have had me question what I have seen....
Is this case something to do with Twins?? 2 of everything?? 2 versions of events...
Is that what is starring everyone in the face?? It's about twins?? Did Joanna Yeates have a twin?? Did Vincent Tabak have a twin??
When I see the images outside the court in Bristol, even when I see Nigel Lickley QC, it doesn't quite look like him... similar but different...
Maybe that something to contemplate... Maybe that why I see dopple-gangers everywhere..
-
Steven Morris
@stevenmorris20
Fri 11 Feb 2011 19.00 GMT First published on Fri 11 Feb 2011 19.00 GMT
This article is over 7 years old
More than 300 people have attended the funeral of Joanna Yeates, the murdered landscape architect.
"There were a lot of people here, some who had taken great trouble to come," said the Rev Peter Gilks, who led the service. "There was a very reverend and prayerful atmosphere. It was quiet and reflective more than sombre.
"The family said they didn't want to make it a celebration, I think it's too early for that. There are things in Jo's life that gave them great joy and the service was about helping with their sense of grief and loss because it's still very early days since her death."
The funeral service and burial took place at St Mark's in Ampfield, Hampshire, the family's church where Yeates was christened.
Then an article about Dr Vincent Tabak's girlfriend, Tanja Morson, by The Sun..
By JOHN COLES
14th February 2011, 1:45 am Updated: 4th April 2016, 7:45 pm
THE girlfriend of Jo Yeates’ alleged killer emerges from a prison visit — on
the same day as the tragic 25-year-old’s funeral.
Tanja Morson, 34, was seen for the first time since Vincent Tabak was charged.
She arrived at top-security Long Lartin prison with the Dutchman’s brother
Marcel and a female family friend who had travelled from Holland.
The trio went to the Worcestershire jail on Friday afternoon as Jo’s family
held her funeral in her home village of Ampfield, Hants — at which she was
described as “an English rose”.
Financial analyst Tanja, who lived with Tabak in a flat next to Jo, has kept a
low profile since her boyfriend’s arrest.
There are actually 2 problems with this article from The Sun.... Why identify Tanja Morson?? And why would Tanja Morson pose for the cameras???
(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/1250740.main_image.jpg?strip=all)
This image we have seen many times.... We have Marcel, Tanja Morson and another female...
Observation... Tanja has no glasses on..
(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/1304885.main_image.jpg?strip=all)
Observation.. Brown Coat necklace glasses..
I just used these 2 images and I have found more.... and that is why I will post this first....
I could never understand why Ann Redropp was involved with this case, it didn't appear to cover her remit as The Head of The Complex Case Unit... But if "TWINS" are involved then it would make this case complex....
And maybe my opinion may be changed, but not totally....
mrswah has stated on more than one occasion that she is not sure fully as to whether Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent or Not, and I have often got confused by who ever responds, as they do not respond in the way I may be used to and their attitude towards me appears foreign....
So I wondered if that was it.... This has to do with Twins... thats why there is 2 of everything... Who the twins are I have no idea.... But everything is similar but not quite the same.....
Take these images of Tanja and Dr Vincent Tabak...
(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/1399452.main_image.jpg?strip=all&w=280&h=390&crop=1)(https://hips.hearstapps.com/ame-prod-redonline-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/main/thumbs/9076/1320054069-vincent-tabak-and-tanja-morson.jpg)
They look similar but NOT the same...
Is it Dr Vincent Tabak in both images??
Is it Tanja in both images??
I always wondered why images of those at the centre of this case look off....
Is the man who is serving 20 years in prison for the Murder of Joanna Yeates, Dr Vincent Tabak?? Has Dr Vincent Tabak got a twin.... Did Dr Vincent Tabak cover for someone??
If the case is about twins and proving who did what, was that the difficulty that the Police faced??
I've always been convinced that Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent based on what is known and the timelines... etc.. etc... But if twins are involved, then it would change the complexion of the case massively... Did Dr Vincent Tabak pervert the course of justice?? Is that his crime??
Did he take the blame for someone else, because he tried to manipulate the system??
It's just an idea I have, but something has to explain more than one version of events... Something has to explain why no-one in the legal system speaks out, something has to explain, why no-one in the media speaks out.....
And why no-one makes comments about this case...
I think about what I have looked at and what legally I believed I found was completely ignored and not one person does anything about it or questions it.... Apart from people earlier on and an odd person... But NOT the people I expect to make comment....
There has to be a reason that a huge amount of material is available on the internet, and this case to me doesn't seem quite over....
There has to be a reason that the stories are similar but not the same.... There has to be a reason why we have a report from marcel that Dr Vincent Tabak was in Holland earlier, yet the official version is he didn't go to Holland until later...
There has to be a reason why the dates are always slightly off and why we have creation dates and re-enactments of the same event... Forensics twice at Canygne Road... The change of position of the bodies deposition... The two areas of wall on Longwood Lane, similar but yards apart....
I have never really understood why I'm allowed to talk to myself on this topic... And why the timings never add up....
If we are talking twins and they have spoke to a pair of twins in relation to this case..... And interviewed said twins in relation to this case, then contradictory statements would appear... From the apparent No Comment to the interviews and statements that have been given..
I always like to make it clear , that this is just me... It is me trying to understand why this case makes no sense... But if you put twins into the mix... then this case makes lots of sense.... Or even someone assuming the role of an individual, instead of being a twin... But we always have 2 versions at least of everything... we have after the 48hr turn around of the DNA, no further testing is done... They wouldn't need to if they killer is related... they have the DNA, it will match somewhere along the line.... (imo) And the FULL profile that they had that has never been questioned maybe is from someone who is related to the partial DNA/low copy DNA that they had...
What better way to be in two places at the same time... and said behaviour is different to what people may be used to ... And ones recollection would not be the same if the only thing you know, is what has been reported in the media....
Thinking about it... there has to be a reason why the Police released so much information so early on.... The Missing sock for instance, the killer would be the only person who should know about it... But if one person is protecting another then at least 2 people know about the Missing sock, so it is not the only link to the killer...
And maybe that is why the Pizza and receipt are important, and the timing of Joanna Yeates arriving at Tesco's, only one person would know about this... only one person may have shared this..... And removed this....
But if they were not aware of the receipt, and they did not know what time Joanna Yeates was actually in Tesco's then deliberately allowing the public to believe it was night time, follows with the story on the stand... It follows with what appears to be a correct version of events.... But I did say in one my post .... The Tesco's reconstruction that was done twice, was because maybe, it was at 8:36 am that Joanna Yeates bought said Pizza and that is the reason we have the made up time stamp on the CCTV version of the Tesco's footage...
I could be wrong about this... It's an idea... a scenario... just like all of my other scenario's..... But (imo) there appears to be something fundamentally wrong with this case.... I can never quite put my finger on it....
The apparition that is Dr Vincent Tabak... The man I started with being totally convinced he was innocent.... I may change my stance... But there has to be a reason that a man is in prison on what appears to be unsound evidence, a man who apparently out of nowhere makes an apparent confession to a crime, based on what is known, could not have committed said crime....
It is not unheard of that twins have committed Murder together, but what if one twin is the crazy one and the other twin is Innocent?? What if one twin was protecting the other twin and ended up in it up to their necks..??
As I say it's an idea.... And there has to be a reason for the complexity of this case... Because I have been stumped by the information and how names have come out of the blue, how nothing adds up....
Maybe this is still a live investigation.... I do not know.... But I know that I cannot have found so many inconsistencies in this case, information staring us in the face.....
There is something about this case that is not right... But I cannot for the life in me work it out.... But can look at what I find and make observations and comment on possibilities that would make this case make sense....
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/369964/accuseds-girl-visits-jail-as-jo-is-laid-to-rest/
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/feb/11/joanna-yeates-funeral-church
https://www.ranker.com/list/killer-twins/lea-rose-emery
-
7 Images, of Tanja Morson, Marcel Tabak and another person visiting Long Lartin, which is supposed to be on the 11th February 2011...
Apologises for not being able to centre them...... (maybe a mod can tidy my images up..) 8)--))
(https://newslicensing.co.uk//assets/thumbnails/1072/4/740516cde30249a7ae69f8c20059b3f6.jpg)
(https://newslicensing.co.uk//assets/thumbnails/1072/4/e2b4ae775ba4a8972eab3e71747fe669.jpg)
(https://newslicensing.co.uk//assets/thumbnails/1072/4/58c77f0776b214c454c881b6e7f35c6b.jpg)
(https://newslicensing.co.uk//assets/thumbnails/1072/4/db999572be0877d7b8df57b53b335bb7.jpg)
(https://newslicensing.co.uk//assets/thumbnails/1072/4/a4bc72d5cbd07f4f4163558609f360d8.jpg)
(https://newslicensing.co.uk//assets/thumbnails/1072/4/b299f1d543cf8cd659fb8eb0e4fb121c.jpg)
(https://newslicensing.co.uk//assets/thumbnails/1072/4/120a0a53249b3233fa6e17622185be58.jpg)
These images all show Tanja Morson arriving and leaving Long Lartin Prison on my above post, we see Tanja entering Long Lartin prison, she is not wearing any glasses, the man I presume is Marcel, the woman may be a sister of Dr Vincent Tabak , I am not sure, but what the other female has with her is nothing... she appears to be Missing her hand bag, but also it looks like she is not really there... I mean she has been added to the image.... (photoshopped)
It wouldn't be the first time....
Are these images made up??
I have flower pots in some images and not in other, now people may come out of a different exit when they visit Long Lartin, but I do not know, But then I would question where is the bright coloured bag of Tanja Morson's when she is stood outside on her own, the image that is in my other post... (and above)?
When I found these images and scanned over them the date of these images is: 13th February 2011
The image of Tanja walking on her own with the brightly coloured bag shows information when you hover your mouse over it....
13-02-2011 - Tanja Morson leaving Long Lartin Prison after visiting Vincent Tabac.
Now here's my problem..... The funeral was apparently on the 11th February 2011... and the original date of the article in the media is 14th February 2011, and the date of the images is the 13th February 2011..
Odd... yes....
The article is whom is informing us of the date of the visit, but The Guardian gives us a date of the 11th February 2011 as Joanna Yeates funeral....
Then I come back to the staging..... Dr Vincent Tabak is turned into a monster from day one.... why should he have sympathy from the public... when his girlfriend is visiting and hasn't visited before?? His birthday had happened, he was on remand, and the public would believe that there must be evidence if bail wasn't even applied for...
But why the staging of this visit.... Is the date of the images I have attached proof of a staging?? What is going on with the media??
Am I coming back to fake news??
Or is it a case of everything is done twice?? All of the 7 images have the date of 13-02-2011, which is obviously after the funeral event....
How has it been possible for the media to happily mention Tanja Morson's name again and again.... How was evidence of communication between Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson mention at trial and in the media at the time of trial... How was Tanja Morson not called to verify these messages, or give any witness statements in relation to the weekend of the 17th December to the 19th December 2010??
It's ridiculous to me....
I always say the same... I do not know what this case is really about.... But it doesn't add up... Yes a man is in prison, but is he the right man.... thats what people really need to question.... (imo)
There is so much staging it's difficult to know what events are staged and what events are real.... (imo)
https://newslicensing.co.uk/?service=set&action=show_content_page&language=en&category=33&set=6877
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/369964/accuseds-girl-visits-jail-as-jo-is-laid-to-rest/
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/feb/11/joanna-yeates-funeral-church
-
7 Images, of Tanja Morson, Marcel Tabak and another person visiting Long Lartin, which is supposed to be on the 11th February 2011...
Apologises for not being able to centre them...... (maybe a mod can tidy my images up..) 8)--))
(https://newslicensing.co.uk//assets/thumbnails/1072/4/740516cde30249a7ae69f8c20059b3f6.jpg)
(https://newslicensing.co.uk//assets/thumbnails/1072/4/e2b4ae775ba4a8972eab3e71747fe669.jpg)
(https://newslicensing.co.uk//assets/thumbnails/1072/4/58c77f0776b214c454c881b6e7f35c6b.jpg)
(https://newslicensing.co.uk//assets/thumbnails/1072/4/db999572be0877d7b8df57b53b335bb7.jpg)
(https://newslicensing.co.uk//assets/thumbnails/1072/4/a4bc72d5cbd07f4f4163558609f360d8.jpg)
(https://newslicensing.co.uk//assets/thumbnails/1072/4/b299f1d543cf8cd659fb8eb0e4fb121c.jpg)
(https://newslicensing.co.uk//assets/thumbnails/1072/4/120a0a53249b3233fa6e17622185be58.jpg)
These images all show Tanja Morson arriving and leaving Long Lartin Prison on my above post, we see Tanja entering Long Lartin prison, she is not wearing any glasses, the man I presume is Marcel, the woman may be a sister of Dr Vincent Tabak , I am not sure, but what the other female has with her is nothing... she appears to be Missing her hand bag, but also it looks like she is not really there... I mean she has been added to the image.... (photoshopped)
It wouldn't be the first time....
Are these images made up??
I have flower pots in some images and not in other, now people may come out of a different exit when they visit Long Lartin, but I do not know, But then I would question where is the bright coloured bag of Tanja Morson's when she is stood outside on her own, the image that is in my other post... (and above)?
When I found these images and scanned over them the date of these images is: 13th February 2011
The image of Tanja walking on her own with the brightly coloured bag shows information when you hover your mouse over it....
Now here's my problem..... The funeral was apparently on the 11th February 2011... and the original date of the article in the media is 14th February 2011, and the date of the images is the 13th February 2011..
Odd... yes....
The article is whom is informing us of the date of the visit, but The Guardian gives us a date of the 11th February 2011 as Joanna Yeates funeral....
Then I come back to the staging..... Dr Vincent Tabak is turned into a monster from day one.... why should he have sympathy from the public... when his girlfriend is visiting and hasn't visited before?? His birthday had happened, he was on remand, and the public would believe that there must be evidence if bail wasn't even applied for...
But why the staging of this visit.... Is the date of the images I have attached proof of a staging?? What is going on with the media??
Am I coming back to fake news??
Or is it a case of everything is done twice?? All of the 7 images have the date of 13-02-2011, which is obviously after the funeral event....
How has it been possible for the media to happily mention Tanja Morson's name again and again.... How was evidence of communication between Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson mention at trial and in the media at the time of trial... How was Tanja Morson not called to verify these messages, or give any witness statements in relation to the weekend of the 17th December to the 19th December 2010??
It's ridiculous to me....
I always say the same... I do not know what this case is really about.... But it doesn't add up... Yes a man is in prison, but is he the right man.... thats what people really need to question.... (imo)
There is so much staging it's difficult to know what events are staged and what events are real.... (imo)
https://newslicensing.co.uk/?service=set&action=show_content_page&language=en&category=33&set=6877
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/369964/accuseds-girl-visits-jail-as-jo-is-laid-to-rest/
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/feb/11/joanna-yeates-funeral-church
Not wearing any glasses? They aren't glued on, they do come off!
Can't see if the other female has a bag or not but this has nothing to do with the murder of JY
It doesn't look photoshopped at all - it looks small and as such, much of the detail isn't visible
You can see the pots in some pictures and not in others because they are from a different angle. Look at the sign behind TM, they are different but you can see the top of the seat in the image with no pot - proving that it is simply from a different angle.
She does have her bag, it is pushed behind her in one of the images but she is holding the blue item in both.
Why are the dates odd?
How do you know TM gave no witness statement? According to this article, she gave a detailed statement https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murder-suspect-vincent-105911
It add up perfectly.
-
Part 1...
Jo Yeates murder: Suspect Vincent Tabak's girlfriend Tanja Morson 'devastated at his arrest'
FRIENDS of Tanja Morson last night told how she will be devastated at the arrest of boyfriend Vincent Tabak over the murder of Jo Yeates.
ByMartin Fricker
00:02, 22 JAN 2011 UPDATED19:11, 26 JAN 2012
NEWS
FRIENDS of Tanja Morson last night told how she will be devastated at the arrest of boyfriend Vincent Tabak over the murder of Jo Yeates.
The move is said to have shattered the 34-year-old fitness fanatic’s “perfect” world. Computer wizard Tabak, 32, was held after Tanja spoke to murder squad police, the Mirror can reveal. And it follows the emotional appeal by Jo’s parents David and Teresa to help catch the killer of their 25-year-old daughter.
A close friend of Tanja said: “She is such a lovely girl, we can’t believe she has got caught up in this. She will be in absolute pieces.
“Tanja comes from a well-to-do family and thought she had the perfect life.
“Now it’s shattered. Whether Vincent will be charged or released, Tanja’s life has changed forever. It’s just awful.
“I regularly speak to her on Facebook and she never mentioned any problems between her and Vincent.”
Jo lookalike Tanja’s Facebook page was changed to private viewing only shortly before her lanky Dutch boyfriend was arrested. The couple lived next door to architect Jo, who was found dead on Christmas Day three miles from the Bristol flat she shared with boyfriend Greg Reardon, 27.
Avon and Somerset Police yesterday refused to confirm or deny if Tanja had implicated Tabak, who she has been going out with for three years. But a source close to the inquiry said: “She is being treated as a potentially highly significant witness.”
Detectives were last night granted an extension to keep architect Tabak in custody until late this evening while they quiz him.
Officers spoke to the couple in the early stages of the inquiry but ruled out Tabak as a suspect. They have taken a detailed statement from both him and Tanja about his movements after December 17 when Jo was last seen alive after a night out.
Tanja, a treasury analyst at Dyson in Malmesbury, Wilts, has been questioned about her boyfriend’s behaviour.
Neighbours claimed Tabak left his home two days after Jo vanished and travelled to Holland to be with his family for Christmas. It is not known if his girlfriend went with him.
Tanja went to the Queenswood private school in Hertfordshire, where fees cost up to £26,000 a year. She was a boarder and left after completing her A-levels.
The friend added: “She was a popular girl at school and was really sporty. Her mum and dad are really nice and brought Tanja up well, so it must be awful for them too.”
Detectives visited Tanja’s £1million family home in Cambridge yesterday. They entered clutching papers, leaving after 30 minutes
Her dad Geoffrey Morson said later his daughter was still in Britain but refused to reveal her current location. He insisted rumours she and Tabak had split up shortly before Christmas were “absurd”. Mr Morson added: “The idea that they split up is wrong.”
Tanja and Tabak left their one-bedroomed, ground floor flat in Canynge Road, Clifton, when police forensic teams moved in just before Christmas.
The pair moved a mile away to Aberdeen Road, Cotham, to stay in a home owned by friend Emily Williams who is travelling in Chile. That is where police arrested Tabak in a dawn swoop on Thursday.
Nearby shopkeepers said they had spotted him and Tanja in recent days.
One added: “He has been in here regularly after work to buy a bottle of red wine. I’ve also seen his girlfriend walking past the shop. I recognise her because I like her woolly hat.
“I’ve also sold him some Rizlas and tomato ketchup. He comes in and gets his stuff and goes, he never says anything. He seems the sort who knows what he wants and gets on with it.”
Emily’s dad Michael said police had spoken to her. But he added: “I don’t know what she was able to tell them.”
Forensic experts yesterday continued trawling Tabak’s flat and the home where he was arrested for clues.
He works for a Bath firm that has links to Jo’s company.
Tabak is the second person arrested in the murder hunt. Jo’s landlord Chris Jefferies, 66, was arrested and late r released on police bail. He denies involvement.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Articles sometimes go astray, so I have copied and pasted said article....
A close friend of Tanja said: “She is such a lovely girl, we can’t believe she has got caught up in this. She will be in absolute pieces.
“Tanja comes from a well-to-do family and thought she had the perfect life.
“Now it’s shattered. Whether Vincent will be charged or released, Tanja’s life has changed forever. It’s just awful.
“I regularly speak to her on Facebook and she never mentioned any problems between her and Vincent.”
Jo lookalike Tanja’s Facebook page was changed to private viewing only shortly before her lanky Dutch boyfriend was arrested. The couple lived next door to architect Jo, who was found dead on Christmas Day three miles from the Bristol flat she shared with boyfriend Greg Reardon, 27.
The article was first published at 00:02, 22 JAN 2011.... Where is the information coming from? If the warning came from the Attorney General about CJ, then why have the media posted this information??
Who is the close friend??
Tanja’s Facebook page was changed to private viewing only shortly before her lanky Dutch boyfriend was arrested.
Coincidence or warning?? Or simply a realisation that they would or may be witness's?? And how shortly before...?
Avon and Somerset Police yesterday refused to confirm or deny if Tanja had implicated Tabak, who she has been going out with for three years. But a source close to the inquiry said: “She is being treated as a potentially highly significant witness.”
Highly significant witness to what?? ...
Neighbours claimed Tabak left his home two days after Jo vanished and travelled to Holland to be with his family for Christmas. It is not known if his girlfriend went with him.
Maybe this is not the only report that Dr Vincent Tabak was in Holland earlier as I mentioned in my post,
Tanja and Tabak left their one-bedroomed, ground floor flat in Canynge Road, Clifton, when police forensic teams moved in just before Christmas.
There a report that the Flat they lived in had 1 bedroom.... I've gone around in circles about that property, deciphering the layout has been difficult, I have been under the impression that the Flat we know as Joanna Yeates Flat is the Flat that Dr Vincent Tabak lived in...
With the photographs taken at the back of Canygne Road around the 22nd/23rd December 2010 and the forensics happening on the Bay window at this time also, I had come to the conclusion that the living arrangements had to be the opposite away around....
I have got quite animated about the bay window, I have not understood how the photographs of a mans flat were taken, so early on... A man who was ruled out apparently..... A man who should not have even been a suspect because anything untoward hadn't been established.... she was just a Missing person at that time... This is another reason that I believe the Flat with the Bay window was Joanna Yeates Flat.. And who stated that Dr Vincent Tabak lived in the basement Flat at 44, Canygne Road?? If I recall correctly , he only says he lived in Flat 2, if we cannot decipher which Flat is which, and Dr Vincent Tabak lived in a 1 bedroomed Flat, it is either the Flat we have come to know as Joanna Yeates Flat, or he lived in a Flat in the main house.... Or even next door at 42, Canygne Road..
It cannot be coincidence that the Police are taking forensic items from Peter Stanleys house on the 31st December 2010, when at the same time they are interviewing Dr Vincent Tabak in Holland about a car apparently changing position...
Tanja and Tabak left their one-bedroomed, ground floor flat in Canynge Road, Clifton, when police forensic teams moved in just before Christmas.
We see all the throughout the investigation the Police working on the Flat that we know as Joanna Yeates Flat, but if this report is correct then that was Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat that they had been working on... So why have they lead us to believe that it is Joanna Yeates Flat??
What was in that Flat that made then do a full forensic Investigation on a Missing woman?? A Missing woman whom lived next door??
Tabak, 32 – who lived next to Jo in Bristol – left for Christmas in Holland two days after she vanished. Police spoke to both Tanja and Tabak early in the inquiry but had ruled them out.
That quote if we believe that Joanna Yeates disappeared on the 17th December 2010, makes the 19th December 2010 the date that Dr Vincent Tabak left for Holland...
Ruled out!!!!
But then I remember what Ann Reddrop stated outside Bristol Crown Court..
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murder-girlfriend-of-charged-106336
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murder-suspect-vincent-105911
-
Part 2...
Vincent Tabak was a cunning, dishonest and manipulative man who knew exactly what he was (deali) doing when he killed Joanna Yeates... Today he has been convicted by a jury of her murder last year, despite claiming he meant her know harm.. he was cunning and dishonest towards his girlfriend, with whom he had maintained a normal relationship.. Even going as far as to text her shortly after jo was dead to say he was bored..
He manipulated the Police by virtue of his Indepth research on the internet.. to keep one step ahead of the Investigation, before his arrest, looking up extradition and medical details of decomposition.. he made very selective admissions surrounding the circumstances of Jo's death which sought to cast herin an Unfavourable light... And he kept this up even when he gave Evidence to the Jury...
Tabak thought his cleverness and deceit would prevent him from being convicted of a brutal murder............. He was wrong!
Jo went missing on Friday 17th December last year after meeting with friends for a drink.. For several days the Police mounted a "Missing Person Inquiry", but with the discovery of her body on Christmas Morning, this became a "Murder Investigation...
Late in December the Police ask for assistance and guidance from The Crown Prosecution Service.. That assistance has come from "The South West Case Work Unit" based here in Bristol... I reviewed the Evidence and Advised that Vincent Tabak should be charged with this murder and began preparing this case for trial... In May this year Tabak admitted Jo's Manslaughter....but that was only part of it.. The Crowns Case is... and always has been that it was a deliberate action on his part.. And "That|is why we refused to accept his plea for Manslaughter"... and he faced trial for "Murder" over the past 4 weeks....
Jo's family have been here in Bristol, during the trial and have listened to much of the evidence... Our thoughts are with them and with her partner Greg today as Tabak begin's a life sentence for "Murdering" Jo...
Late in December the Police ask for assistance and guidance from The Crown Prosecution Service.. That assistance has come from "The South West Case Work Unit" based here in Bristol... I reviewed the Evidence and Advised that Vincent Tabak should be charged with this murder and began preparing this case for trial.
Ruled out..... Late December.... which one is it???
If Dr Vincent Tabak is in Holland for the Festive period, nothing has happened to warrant the Police or the CPS taking such an Interest in him....
It cannot be the so called phone call from Holland that Dr Vincent Tabak apparently made..... It's not enough for them to spend money flying out there, when they could have easily waited for his return.... Or was he not due back??
A close friend of Tanja said: “She is such a lovely girl, we can’t believe she has got caught up in this. She will be in absolute pieces.
Remember the article is written, before Dr Vincent Tabak is charged, he has been arrested, just as CJ was, that statement in the papers already suggests that there is something else that is untoward... Maybe the images of children, who knows... But at this point in time, there should be positive messages of support and a denial of any involvement of her boyfriend, because he is the Placid Dutchman that DCI Phil Jones described...
What has she got to be in pieces about... He's was away at a possible relevant time.... Joanna Yeates is found on Longwood Lane on the 25th December 2010... No-one knows and still doesn't know the time of death... Why would she even suspect her boyfriend of anything at this time, especially when there is no evidence of anything against him.. We know this because NONE came to trial.... Apart from his statement of self incrimination on the stand...
“Tanja comes from a well-to-do family and thought she had the perfect life.
“Now it’s shattered. Whether Vincent will be charged or released, Tanja’s life has changed forever. It’s just awful.
Again.... This suggest that there is something else other than Joanna Yeates murder.. whether you agree with me or not, it has to be the case....
If he is not charged of THAT crime, why else would her life be shattered??? As far as anyone at this point in time knows, Dr Vincent Tabak is a computer geek, he is polite and inoffensive... Nothing smacks of dangerous, womanising, perversions or anything else at this point.... And if that was the case, why didn't they have witness's at trial to support the fact that this man was a danger and had woman feeling uncomfortable... No-one states anything at trial that could add evidence of his wayward ways....
Why is Tanja's life shattered... she has a perfect life... her boyfriend at this time he is arrested is purely on suspicion, he is not charged at the time of this article, so who's telling there's more than meet the eye to his arrest....
CJ was arrest... he was released...... at midnight on the 22nd January 2011, it was just as probable that Dr Vincent Tabak too would be released.... Or it should have been (imo)
Where is the information coming from at this time??
The article is published at Midnight... therefore it had to be written before midnight, that being the 21st January 2011... So how did the media get the story before, ?? How could anyone be certain that Dr Vincent Tabak would be charged with this Murder??... They couldn't..... Or should I say they shouldn't....
Now I'm coming back to my twin idea..... If someone is either a twin or has assumed the role of Dr Vincent Tabak, then I can kinda understand why he was kept on remand... I can understand why there was a need to separate him from everything....
He was moved between 3 prisons in 48 hours if I remember correctly , and I had thought that was being unkind.....
I do not know the ways of the law.... But..... If they were trying to smoke someone out , then not allowing anyone access to him makes sense.... If he foolishly believed that the person he was protecting gave a shit about him, then this would prove it.....
Everything is not what it seems.... similar , but not quite.....
-
Part 3...
It isn't until the 13th February 2011 that Tanja goes to Long Lartin..... He is left to stew on his own..... Was that a plan?? We are told who visited him.... But do we really know..... he made statements, he apparently stated nothing....
Is the punishment for Dr Vincent Tabak to show HIM.... just how much shit people/a person was happy to leave him in??
He gets advised to say nothing.... And whilst in prison apparently he doesn't.... But if this is a complex case then why would he speak?? Did someone show Dr Vincent Tabak that the person he was protecting was really happy to see him hang....
He doesn't believe so they leave him inside to stew a little..... He then goes to The Old Bailey... were he apparently pleads guilty to Manslaughter.... and The Prosecution don't accept it.... The world is told... we all are told...
So a trial.... a trial to show Dr Vincent Tabak just what he has protected..... The scene is set... the stage is there, he is in a glass dock... he had guards around him.... he looks guilty..... And no-one is there to speak up for him.... Not one person... He tells us his tale... a version of his tale.. a version of events that anyone could have told that was following this case....
Nothing and I mean NOTHING NEW comes out at trial..... The Prosecution go as far as reading the defences opening statement a practice that realistically wouldn't happen... But that doesn't stop said trial... At every single opportunity, The world MANSLAUGHTER is mentioned... in the media.. in the court and between the public talking...
I'm like .... what the F***.... I am honestly.... Burden of proof people.... Burden of proof... Innocent then proven guilty..... Not Guilty until proven guiltier..... Now I may be a little simple... but even I can grasp with my lack of law knowledge that that is not RIGHT!!!!!
20 hearsay witness statements read out at trial, these statements corroborate each other, these statements which should have been thrown out and not accepted by the judge... But hey ho.... No-one gives a crap.... do they..
Anyway... Did Tanja not once think to ask her father about procedure... he 's a lawyer, he must have contacts.... he must know the basics... If I can see it isn't right... and I am no-one... then why didn't she see that and ask advice from her father???
It's just an observation.... It's me and my questions.... Is Tanja a plant?? Is she not real?? Because if he was the love of her life I by this time at least would have expected a statement... something.... No-one is saying anything.... Now that is WEIRD.... And I'm sure Ann will agree with me on that..... (seeing that was one of her sayings)..
So Dr Vincent Tabak is on the stand...... He cannot answer over 80 questions.... Because he doesn't know, because he didn't kill her.... He must be still convinced as to the person he's been protecting will save the day...
But just to make sure he does know this... The flashing up on the screen of the images of Joanna Yeates battered body, whom now I am guessing was sexually assaulted, who fought for her life, for more than 20 seconds and who, was prevented from screaming.... Gets his attention fully....
It may have been described to him as an accident, he may have believed it was.... But it isn't until something smacks you truely in the face that you actually get the message.... You have been royally stitched up.....
Then the question has to be by whom???
I am not sure if it is the Police.... why would the Footage of Joanna Yeates still be on youtube....
Someone was happy to stitch the Dutchman up... And even happy when he was found guilty.... even ecstatic when he could not appeal... and when the PPI was added for that final seal.... they must have been doing the f***ing fandango... (imo) of course.....
But this is a scenario... an idea of why he would stay quiet... An idea, when we finally add the child images, not one person on gods earth will touch him with a barge pole.... Fate Sealed... Goodnight Mr Tabak....
How many years has it been ... what date is today??
Oh yes 23rd January 2019,
Making that 8 years since Dr Vincent Tabak was held in custody... 8 years he has spent in prison.. 8 years that NO-ONE has even bothered looking at this case... because apparently it is all cut an dry... done and dusted... the monster that they saw is a monster is locked away and the key has been smelted....
I started this because I truly believed that Dr Vincent Tabak was INNOCENT.... And I like fair..... Simple thing in life are what make life worth while... I couldn't and don't understand , why this case bothers me.... No other case.... Just this one.... It has always bothered me, and here I am....
Still trying to understand , why No WITNEE"S ever came to trial.... still trying to understand, why no friends supported Dr Vincent Tabak ,.... still trying to understand ALL THE STAGING..... Still trying to understand why CCTV has no time Stamps... Still trying to understand why NO-ONE has come to Dr Vincent Tabak's aid or defence.....
Just mention his name and he is hated....
But just think for a moment....
If I am correct, and Dr Vincent Tabak was set up, by someone, maybe not by whom we may think... anyone could have done this...
Then is this right?
How would anyone feel if one of there love ones had been stitched up?? What would you do???
You would fight....
You would fight knowing what has taken place... knowing nothing adds up... It would be worth causing a rumpus....
If He's on a PPI... you are not gonna loose very much are you... a carrot dangled every now and then to keep your loved one in line, and everyone too scared to say anything incase they mess up his chances of release......
Well I say F*** it.....
Silence causes as much pain as speaking out.... silence is your enemy.... silence will keep you where you are... IN-LINE... and no-one will come running, because they cannot hear you..... Time to take to the roof tops!!!
So tell me honestly, in stead of me keep guessing.....
What is this case really about.... Am I correct in believing that it's a cold case... Am I right in believing that Dr Vincent Tabak is INNOCENT....???
Something is off centre, just like my images.... which I asked a mod to fix....
But a mod can't fix this.... But someone needs too....
Our Judicial System is shot to shit..... I now feel like I live in a dictatorship...
Voting what is the point?? speaking up what is the point????
Maybe I have always lived in a dictatorship, I just wasn't aware....
Well I'm aware now.... and if the small thing I can do is have someone at least look at this case, then I feel I may have achieved something, helping another human being who maybe cannot help himself....
That is an achievement... that is giving back to society, that is having compassion for a fellow human..... And if everything I have stated, talked about , I am wrong..... then so be it...
Then I get ridiculed again.... wouldn't be the first time....
I am just a concerned citizen.. that is all... that is all I have ever been.... I know no-one... I Am no-one.... I am ME!
And this case is too ridiculous to ignore anymore.... (imo)
NB:Just to make things clear... I am not suggesting anything about Tanja... As I have no idea of her position in this matter......
-
Part 3...
It isn't until the 13th February 2011 that Tanja goes to Long Lartin..... He is left to stew on his own..... Was that a plan?? We are told who visited him.... But do we really know..... he made statements, he apparently stated nothing....
Is the punishment for Dr Vincent Tabak to show HIM.... just how much shit people/a person was happy to leave him in??
He gets advised to say nothing.... And whilst in prison apparently he doesn't.... But if this is a complex case then why would he speak?? Did someone show Dr Vincent Tabak that the person he was protecting was really happy to see him hang....
He doesn't believe so they leave him inside to stew a little..... He then goes to The Old Bailey... were he apparently pleads guilty to Manslaughter.... and The Prosecution don't accept it.... The world is told... we all are told...
So a trial.... a trial to show Dr Vincent Tabak just what he has protected..... The scene is set... the stage is there, he is in a glass dock... he had guards around him.... he looks guilty..... And no-one is there to speak up for him.... Not one person... He tells us his tale... a version of his tale.. a version of events that anyone could have told that was following this case....
Nothing and I mean NOTHING NEW comes out at trial..... The Prosecution go as far as reading the defences opening statement a practice that realistically wouldn't happen... But that doesn't stop said trial... At every single opportunity, The world MANSLAUGHTER is mentioned... in the media.. in the court and between the public talking...
I'm like .... what the F***.... I am honestly.... Burden of proof people.... Burden of proof... Innocent then proven guilty..... Not Guilty until proven guiltier..... Now I may be a little simple... but even I can grasp with my lack of law knowledge that that is not RIGHT!!!!!
20 hearsay witness statements read out at trial, these statements corroborate each other, these statements which should have been thrown out and not accepted by the judge... But hey ho.... No-one gives a crap.... do they..
Anyway... Did Tanja not once think to ask her father about procedure... he 's a lawyer, he must have contacts.... he must know the basics... If I can see it isn't right... and I am no-one... then why didn't she see that and ask advice from her father???
It's just an observation.... It's me and my questions.... Is Tanja a plant?? Is she not real?? Because if he was the love of her life I by this time at least would have expected a statement... something.... No-one is saying anything.... Now that is WEIRD.... And I'm sure Ann will agree with me on that..... (seeing that was one of her sayings)..
So Dr Vincent Tabak is on the stand...... He cannot answer over 80 questions.... Because he doesn't know, because he didn't kill her.... He must be still convinced as to the person he's been protecting will save the day...
But just to make sure he does know this... The flashing up on the screen of the images of Joanna Yeates battered body, whom now I am guessing was sexually assaulted, who fought for her life, for more than 20 seconds and who, was prevented from screaming.... Gets his attention fully....
It may have been described to him as an accident, he may have believed it was.... But it isn't until something smacks you truely in the face that you actually get the message.... You have been royally stitched up.....
Then the question has to be by whom???
I am not sure if it is the Police.... why would the Footage of Joanna Yeates still be on youtube....
Someone was happy to stitch the Dutchman up... And even happy when he was found guilty.... even ecstatic when he could not appeal... and when the PPI was added for that final seal.... they must have been doing the f***ing fandango... (imo) of course.....
But this is a scenario... an idea of why he would stay quiet... An idea, when we finally add the child images, not one person on gods earth will touch him with a barge pole.... Fate Sealed... Goodnight Mr Tabak....
How many years has it been ... what date is today??
Oh yes 23rd January 2019,
Making that 8 years since Dr Vincent Tabak was held in custody... 8 years he has spent in prison.. 8 years that NO-ONE has even bothered looking at this case... because apparently it is all cut an dry... done and dusted... the monster that they saw is a monster is locked away and the key has been smelted....
I started this because I truly believed that Dr Vincent Tabak was INNOCENT.... And I like fair..... Simple thing in life are what make life worth while... I couldn't and don't understand , why this case bothers me.... No other case.... Just this one.... It has always bothered me, and here I am....
Still trying to understand , why No WITNEE"S ever came to trial.... still trying to understand, why no friends supported Dr Vincent Tabak ,.... still trying to understand ALL THE STAGING..... Still trying to understand why CCTV has no time Stamps... Still trying to understand why NO-ONE has come to Dr Vincent Tabak's aid or defence.....
Just mention his name and he is hated....
But just think for a moment....
If I am correct, and Dr Vincent Tabak was set up, by someone, maybe not by whom we may think... anyone could have done this...
Then is this right?
How would anyone feel if one of there love ones had been stitched up?? What would you do???
You would fight....
You would fight knowing what has taken place... knowing nothing adds up... It would be worth causing a rumpus....
If He's on a PPI... you are not gonna loose very much are you... a carrot dangled every now and then to keep your loved one in line, and everyone too scared to say anything incase they mess up his chances of release......
Well I say F*** it.....
Silence causes as much pain as speaking out.... silence is your enemy.... silence will keep you where you are... IN-LINE... and no-one will come running, because they cannot hear you..... Time to take to the roof tops!!!
So tell me honestly, in stead of me keep guessing.....
What is this case really about.... Am I correct in believing that it's a cold case... Am I right in believing that Dr Vincent Tabak is INNOCENT....???
Something is off centre, just like my images.... which I asked a mod to fix....
But a mod can't fix this.... But someone needs too....
Our Judicial System is shot to shit..... I now feel like I live in a dictatorship...
Voting what is the point?? speaking up what is the point????
Maybe I have always lived in a dictatorship, I just wasn't aware....
Well I'm aware now.... and if the small thing I can do is have someone at least look at this case, then I feel I may have achieved something, helping another human being who maybe cannot help himself....
That is an achievement... that is giving back to society, that is having compassion for a fellow human..... And if everything I have stated, talked about , I am wrong..... then so be it...
Then I get ridiculed again.... wouldn't be the first time....
I am just a concerned citizen.. that is all... that is all I have ever been.... I know no-one... I Am no-one.... I am ME!
And this case is too ridiculous to ignore anymore.... (imo)
NB:Just to make things clear... I am not suggesting anything about Tanja... As I have no idea of her position in this matter......
This has ALL been explained to you before!
-
This has ALL been explained to you before!
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
I know... But it hasn't stopped the doubt.... Something just doesn't add up!
-
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
I know... But it hasn't stopped the doubt.... Something just doesn't add up!
I guess you're just not very good at maths then! 8((()*/
-
I'm no good at this.... I just always wonder if it's about something else....
Sometimes I think it is like a PR stunt.... It's like it is all about advertising...
I have said this before...
Companies House.... A wealth of information.... You can find most named on the list below at companies House.., but if they are not they have all been associated with this case in one way or another...
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
* Rupert Peter Evelyn
* 44, Canygne Road Management LTD
* The Telegraph
* The Mirror
* The Sun
* Deal or No Deal Ltd
* Dyson Ltd
* Buro Happold
* Building Design Partnership Limited
* Tesco's..... ( all that produce on show)
* Bargain Booze
* Waitrose
* Bristol Post
* Facebook
* Twitter
* Sky
* ITN
* ITV
* The Guardian
* The Times
* The Bristol Ram
* The Hope and Anchor
* Volvo
* Asda
* Amscreen
* Loccit App (Nick Brooko was developing)
* Justgiving
* South West One
* ML4D Ltd
* Film@59
* Sita
* D.R.A. LTD
* D R A MAINTENANCE LIMITED
On Getty images/ B-roll... The BBC 's Footage you need to request... And I think the reason for this is that they don't pay for advertising...
Joanna Yeates tour of the Flat...... It's stripped bare... Nothing there that should be, Microwave TV etc etc... There are 2 items that are there "Red Dwarf" and "Love Heart Sweets"... ??? why?
Other products that are on Joanna Yeates dressing table for instance are turned around...
Blackberry for instance, the only mobile phone product mentioned in this case that I recall... advertising is really powerful, if you get your product on any production, logo etc... The audience that can be reached is huge...
Take CSI New York... I think it's that program, but most in this country wouldn't have recognised the smartphones that were used in the production, but I did... Cannot remember the episode, but I think the boss is called Matt... Anyway, he is in an apartment, looking across the road at another apartment and he is using his mobile phone to take photo's inside the other apartment.. I think there's a canary in a cage, and If I remember he take a photo and sends it too his colleagues... something like that....
Whilst watching this program and seeing said scene, I burst out laughing..... Because I KNOW that that Palm/Treo Smartphone he is using is CRAP at photo's... it was less than useless... he'd of been lucky to take a picture of the chair in the room clearly ( Treo 650 camera specs.....0.3-megapixel (640×480) VGA digital camera with 2× digital zoom and video camera capability) ... see what I mean.... crap'ola...
But everyone at that time in America would have been aware of Treo/Palm and also Blackberry... So getting your product associated with a program is dynamite...
Logo's stick in peoples minds.... Colour, branding everything about it, people get bombarded with it daily...
There used to be a reading program at schools for Children... I am not sure if it still exists, but the bases of it was getting children to recognised logo's etc... which in turn would help them to learn words they would recognse the logo and know the name of the company...... They word "THE" for instance... children can't spell it out... They see it often enough they recognise what it is....
So going back to Advertising... Tesco's is the only supermarket we saw the outside of.... We didn't see the outside of Asda... we were told it was ASDA... But we didn't see the LOGO..
Waitrose.. Joanna Yeates enters Waitrose, but we do not see the Logo...
Dr Vincent Tabak in ASDA (apparently)... It's a supermarket, it may very well be in Bedminster, the name is mentioned, but we see no logo or proof he is in ASDA in Bedminster..
I constantly say I do not know what this is about... ADVERTISING seems to be the core... Well to me anyway....
Ok.... lets start with today, "BREXIT".... we all know about it.. we are sick of hearing about it... But why is it called BREXIT???
We are known by some mainly UK residence as Britain, but not as a member of the European Union.... We are known as the United Kingdom... Here are a list of EU member states....
Austria Italy
Belgium Latvia
Bulgaria Lithuania
Croatia Luxembourg
Cyprus Malta
Czechia Netherlands
Denmark Poland
Estonia Portugal
Finland Romania
France Slovakia
Germany Slovenia
Greece Spain
Hungary Sweden
Ireland United Kingdom
Where on earth is BRITAIN... ?? It's not there.... But at Companies House there are loads of Companies with the name of BREXIT some incorporated before I had even heard of the word BREXIT.... One in particular was created 29 Sep 2015 and dissolved 20 Nov 2018..
We are known as the United Kingdom and not Britain...
Brexit Deal or No Deal.... The voting slip stated the United Kingdom.... So why have we coined the term BREXIT... It's outrageous... (imo)
I hear Deal or No Deal... I think Joanna Yeates... others probably not, but thats what I associate with that phrase..
Dyson are leaving the United Kingdom, because of this BREXIT... apparently.... I again associate Dyson with Joanna Yeates..
When Dyson was mentioned the other day it brought back to my mind Canygne Road, and The Shed in the garden, I had a vague memory of Dyson developing his Vac in A SHED... And the big shed at the bottom of the path just made me think Dyson!!
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/supportservices/2795244/James-Dyson-the-vacuum-dreamer.html
So advertising works, it works extremely well.... Images that are associated with stories etc, stick in peoples minds, it isn't rocket science...
In the early days and the reports, tweets etc on social media... Alan Sugar was asked to promote Joanna Yeates Missing... This was done as a plea to him via a tweet... The people who were tweeting wanted celebrities to be tweeted at... included in every tweet, so as to reach far and wide with this Missing Person... That would be a great coup..
But shouldn't the Police be doing this... Shouldn't the Police be making appeals for this Missing woman.... Shouldn't everyone have been linking Avon and Somerset Polices website with this Missing Person and not individuals... Of course a cause that gets endorsed by celebrities has a greater audience and celebrities by their mere presence, can change a person mind or support an organisation...
So again, this is just my observations.... Was this about advertising... Did a Murder happen?? Is there a man called Dr Vincent Tabak and is he in prison??
I always sway backwards and forwards.... always... I cannot understand this case.... But the common denominator in all of this is advertising...(imo) But what do I know!
So a real cold case/ murder.... Or advertising?? I don't know... As I say, these are just my observations...
Then I get disheartened and wonder why I bother...!!
NB... I found Rupert Peter Evelyn at Companies house, he is listed as a journalist.. I am assuming it is RE, if it is not RE will a mod edited that entry from this post please....
-
The. Please keep your posts shorter as individual points can be answered.
-
The. Please keep your posts shorter as individual points can be answered.
Sorry Angelo... I have many pages open at once, and what I write is what I am thinking... So as not to loose track, I post as I think... apologises again.....
-
I'm no good at this.... I just always wonder if it's about something else....
Sometimes I think it is like a PR stunt.... It's like it is all about advertising...
I have said this before...
Companies House.... A wealth of information.... You can find most named on the list below at companies House.., but if they are not they have all been associated with this case in one way or another...
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
* Rupert Peter Evelyn
* 44, Canygne Road Management LTD
* The Telegraph
* The Mirror
* The Sun
* Deal or No Deal Ltd
* Dyson Ltd
* Buro Happold
* Building Design Partnership Limited
* Tesco's..... ( all that produce on show)
* Bargain Booze
* Waitrose
* Bristol Post
* Facebook
* Twitter
* Sky
* ITN
* ITV
* The Guardian
* The Times
* The Bristol Ram
* The Hope and Anchor
* Volvo
* Asda
* Amscreen
* Loccit App (Nick Brooko was developing)
* Justgiving
* South West One
* ML4D Ltd
* Film@59
* Sita
* D.R.A. LTD
* D R A MAINTENANCE LIMITED
On Getty images/ B-roll... The BBC 's Footage you need to request... And I think the reason for this is that they don't pay for advertising...
Joanna Yeates tour of the Flat...... It's stripped bare... Nothing there that should be, Microwave TV etc etc... There are 2 items that are there "Red Dwarf" and "Love Heart Sweets"... ??? why?
Other products that are on Joanna Yeates dressing table for instance are turned around...
Blackberry for instance, the only mobile phone product mentioned in this case that I recall... advertising is really powerful, if you get your product on any production, logo etc... The audience that can be reached is huge...
Take CSI New York... I think it's that program, but most in this country wouldn't have recognised the smartphones that were used in the production, but I did... Cannot remember the episode, but I think the boss is called Matt... Anyway, he is in an apartment, looking across the road at another apartment and he is using his mobile phone to take photo's inside the other apartment.. I think there's a canary in a cage, and If I remember he take a photo and sends it too his colleagues... something like that....
Whilst watching this program and seeing said scene, I burst out laughing..... Because I KNOW that that Palm/Treo Smartphone he is using is CRAP at photo's... it was less than useless... he'd of been lucky to take a picture of the chair in the room clearly ( Treo 650 camera specs.....0.3-megapixel (640×480) VGA digital camera with 2× digital zoom and video camera capability) ... see what I mean.... crap'ola...
But everyone at that time in America would have been aware of Treo/Palm and also Blackberry... So getting your product associated with a program is dynamite...
Logo's stick in peoples minds.... Colour, branding everything about it, people get bombarded with it daily...
There used to be a reading program at schools for Children... I am not sure if it still exists, but the bases of it was getting children to recognised logo's etc... which in turn would help them to learn words they would recognse the logo and know the name of the company...... They word "THE" for instance... children can't spell it out... They see it often enough they recognise what it is....
So going back to Advertising... Tesco's is the only supermarket we saw the outside of.... We didn't see the outside of Asda... we were told it was ASDA... But we didn't see the LOGO..
Waitrose.. Joanna Yeates enters Waitrose, but we do not see the Logo...
Dr Vincent Tabak in ASDA (apparently)... It's a supermarket, it may very well be in Bedminster, the name is mentioned, but we see no logo or proof he is in ASDA in Bedminster..
I constantly say I do not know what this is about... ADVERTISING seems to be the core... Well to me anyway....
Ok.... lets start with today, "BREXIT".... we all know about it.. we are sick of hearing about it... But why is it called BREXIT???
We are known by some mainly UK residence as Britain, but not as a member of the European Union.... We are known as the United Kingdom... Here are a list of EU member states....
Where on earth is BRITAIN... ?? It's not there.... But at Companies House there are loads of Companies with the name of BREXIT some incorporated before I had even heard of the word BREXIT.... One in particular was created 29 Sep 2015 and dissolved 20 Nov 2018..
We are known as the United Kingdom and not Britain...
Brexit Deal or No Deal.... The voting slip stated the United Kingdom.... So why have we coined the term BREXIT... It's outrageous... (imo)
I hear Deal or No Deal... I think Joanna Yeates... others probably not, but thats what I associate with that phrase..
Dyson are leaving the United Kingdom, because of this BREXIT... apparently.... I again associate Dyson with Joanna Yeates..
When Dyson was mentioned the other day it brought back to my mind Canygne Road, and The Shed in the garden, I had a vague memory of Dyson developing his Vac in A SHED... And the big shed at the bottom of the path just made me think Dyson!!
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/supportservices/2795244/James-Dyson-the-vacuum-dreamer.html
So advertising works, it works extremely well.... Images that are associated with stories etc, stick in peoples minds, it isn't rocket science...
In the early days and the reports, tweets etc on social media... Alan Sugar was asked to promote Joanna Yeates Missing... This was done as a plea to him via a tweet... The people who were tweeting wanted celebrities to be tweeted at... included in every tweet, so as to reach far and wide with this Missing Person... That would be a great coup..
But shouldn't the Police be doing this... Shouldn't the Police be making appeals for this Missing woman.... Shouldn't everyone have been linking Avon and Somerset Polices website with this Missing Person and not individuals... Of course a cause that gets endorsed by celebrities has a greater audience and celebrities by their mere presence, can change a person mind or support an organisation...
So again, this is just my observations.... Was this about advertising... Did a Murder happen?? Is there a man called Dr Vincent Tabak and is he in prison??
I always sway backwards and forwards.... always... I cannot understand this case.... But the common denominator in all of this is advertising...(imo) But what do I know!
So a real cold case/ murder.... Or advertising?? I don't know... As I say, these are just my observations...
Then I get disheartened and wonder why I bother...!!
NB... I found Rupert Peter Evelyn at Companies house, he is listed as a journalist.. I am assuming it is RE, if it is not RE will a mod edited that entry from this post please....
I have no words 8(8-))
-
I have no words 8(8-))
I have more..... @)(++(*
-
I have no words 8(8-))
I've got two.
-
Ages ago, I mentioned about 2, Bedford Row's logo being on ThelawPages website...
Now I don't know law... you all know this..... I don't pretend I do.....
Now I do not know what this website really is... I do not know if anyone actually is a legal expert who produces this website... But I have used it on many occasions, as a reference.....
Now here's were things for me gets weird.... I look for these companies at Companies House, it gives me an idea of who is who.... and what is what....
Who knows who and who may be connected to who..... The internet a wealth of information.....
So is the law pages really used by lawyers etc as a reference?? I don't know... I wouldn't think so, but that just my opinion.... So my question has to be... why would a company who's sole purpose should be education of lawyers have an advert for 2,Bedford Row?? when we visit the page related to Dr Vincent Tabak..
But click on any of those names that are highlighted and you go to there names and what they have covered or who they are etc.. etc.. and again we have adverts...
I personally find that weird... but thats just me.....
So Of course I look at 2, Bedford Row... The chambers of a well known QC and I don't understand..... If this is his business address and his business name and offices..then why has it been dissolved... struck off?? [Voluntarily struck off] I still see the company name used on twitter...
But its been a dormant company ,so I don't get it.... how does that work? It is listed as a dormant company through the relevant years...
Our QC's termination notice and resignation on 05-03-2014 electronically filed on the 10th..
I don't understand.....
Why advertise a dormant company on a lawpages website, ?? Odd... Why advertise any company on a law website?
Shouldn't it be about Law?? And not advertising...
I find it weird... Again that is just me....
-
I've got two.
That's three words..
-
Lets talk about weird... Coincidences and down right strange....
Joel Smith
@rock_smith
Jo Yeates from Bristol went missing on fri Dec 17th. Please RT and help bring Jo home for xmas http://twurl.nl/lx5tvu
2:03 PM - 21 Dec 2010
Odd... Bring Jo home for XMAS!! Is someone having a giggle.... Make of it what you will But that is plain weird... Coincidental or what!! that url doesn't work, but (nl)... I thought Dutch....
We have this bring Jo home for xmas... I'm sure RS mentioned the same thing on Facebook... We have the little wooden Cross with the date of Joanna Yeates death being, the 25th December 2010 and Joanna Yeates is apparently found on the 25th December 2010....
Odd yes.....
Weird Yes....
Joel Smith
@rock_smith
Follow Follow @rock_smith
More
@PerezHilton Jo Yeates from Bristol U.K. went missing on fri Dec 17th. Please RT and help bring Jo home for xmas http://twurl.nl/lx5tvu
2:17 PM - 21 Dec 2010
But if we are talking advertising etc etc... @PerezHilton has
Tweets
Tweets, current page.
312K
Following
Following
574
Followers
Followers
6.09M
Likes
Likes
142K
All I see is advertising... This person who tweeted on the 21st December 2010 to a random person based in the US... And 21st December 2010 is the earliest that anything was mentioned about Joanna Yeates being Missing that I am aware of... But... If it was as serious as it turned out to be... why not direct people to the Avon and Somerset Polices website... instead tweeting at a man with millions of followers??? ( Who isn't even in England.. It was initially a local Missing persons Inquiry ......)
EDIT..... Here's a question how did Joel know for a fact that Joanna yeates went MISSING on the 17th December 2010??? An investigation hadn't established that by that time... and he shouldn't have been in the know... (imo) of course...
Double Edit... Twurl, is an advertising app for twitter apparently...
https://twitter.com/PerezHilton
https://twitter.com/rock_smith/status/17339282595258368
https://twitter.com/rock_smith/status/17342919396564992
-
That's three words..
She hasn't mentioned the two she was thinking of!
-
She hasn't mentioned the two she was thinking of!
Thank You??
Unless she states what they are I do not know what she is thinking, because it would be the words that I am thinking that would be my response and not pugloves two words that were firmly stuck in her own mind...
You'll have to ask PugLove what the two words are....
PugLove.. what two words were you thinking?
-
A case in point....
Joel Smith
@rock_smith
Follow Follow @rock_smith
More
@ladygaga Jo Yeates from Bristol U.K. went missing on fri Dec 17th. Please RT and help bring Jo home for xmas http://twurl.nl/lx5tvu xx
2:16 PM - 21 Dec 2010
Are celebrities really your first port of call when a loved one is Missing.... When The Police haven't had a chance to do their own Investigation and determine whether she is really Missing.. Or as a grown adult woman who could have quite simply have b....red off coz she was sick of her boyfriend.... (In my opinion of course)...
Really....!!!
Edit.. Don't know 100% if the time of that tweet is accurate... But remember Darragh Bellew's message to ALL, on his facebook page.... That didn't happen until 22:30pm on the 21st December 2010
Do not know if the Joel account is really based in the UK or anywhere else... If it is in the UK... how did he tell everyone about Joanna Yeates before Darragh Bellew had sent his facebook message to ALL!!
Thats quite a puzzler.... did anyone check this dude out at the time??
https://twitter.com/rock_smith/status/17342582908518401
https://twitter.com/ladygaga
-
You really shouldn't pay so much attention to half-wits on Twitter.
-
You really shouldn't pay so much attention to half-wits on Twitter.
I ignore those....
But the point I bring fore is relevant..... (imo)
-
A case in point....
Are celebrities really your first port of call when a loved one is Missing.... When The Police haven't had a chance to do their own Investigation and determine whether she is really Missing.. Or as a grown adult woman who could have quite simply have b....red off coz she was sick of her boyfriend.... (In my opinion of course)...
Really....!!!
Edit.. Don't know 100% if the time of that tweet is accurate... But remember Darragh Bellew's message to ALL, on his facebook page.... That didn't happen until 22:30pm on the 21st December 2010
Do not know if the Joel account is really based in the UK or anywhere else... If it is in the UK... how did he tell everyone about Joanna Yeates before Darragh Bellew had sent his facebook message to ALL!!
Thats quite a puzzler.... did anyone check this dude out at the time??
https://twitter.com/rock_smith/status/17342582908518401
https://twitter.com/ladygaga
Some people don't know any better but I suspect the person thought that LG could promote the case - best intentions ill conceived. It just shows how social media works in the negative and is (in this respect) a complete source of confusion. Your posts above (which are nothing more that opinions from SM) highlight this quite clearly.
-
I've got two.
I'm gonna guess.....
"Brexit Party??"
Incorporated 23/11/2018 Should I be laughing at this point????
[" A Party in Waiting"]
Listening to the radio at the mo... And the Brexit Party woman , won't run it without Nigel....
Talking about when it will be made official....
"They can do it in 30 days, or 30 days of the application...."
When was the application....
Edit.... why on earth is this woman even getting air time?? she's the sole director of this company...
A Political Party that doesn't even exit.... and shouldn't.... what a joke....
United Kingdom people.... not Britain.... that is what we are known as , as a member of the EU
What does BR actually stand for... I know what we have been told... but doesn't mean I believe it...
-
I've got two.
What am I thinking PugLove... BR ??? what might it stand for?? Have I kept the letters in the correct order or have I changed them round....
That might make it slightly harder.....
-
Some people don't know any better but I suspect the person thought that LG could promote the case - best intentions ill conceived. It just shows how social media works in the negative and is (in this respect) a complete source of confusion. Your posts above (which are nothing more that opinions from SM) highlight this quite clearly.
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* Send that one to Puglove, maybe she thinks Lifes Good.... lol
-
Back to basic's
Question: Is there a Dutch National with the title of Dr which can be applied or not, know as Vincent Tabak in prison...
Is he serving 20 years in prison for this Murder.... The Murder of Joanna Claire Yeates, a 25 year old white fair haired female, who live on CR.. Clifton??
-
Back to basic's
Question: Is there a Dutch National with the title of Dr which can be applied or not, know as Vincent Tabak in prison...
Is he serving 20 years in prison for this Murder.... The Murder of Joanna Claire Yeates, a 25 year old white fair haired female, who live on CR.. Clifton??
FFS!
-
The Facebook Campaign that was launched I think on the 4th January 2011 ( I may be wrong)..
But I have found this ITN clip from back then and it shows the actual ad campaign, I think it must be the ad campaign...
I am trying to understand how the campaign was set up, and also was wondering if this was the news report that lead to ITV being banned..
At 1:26 of the clip...
It shows an image of the Facebook page, it is a separate page to the Avon and Somerset Constabulary's FB page, for this page you need to sign up to it.... (I will add images)
The top of the page says:
Avon and Somerset Constabulary is on Facebook
Sign up for Facebook to connect with Avon and Somerset Constabulary
To the left near the top of the page is a big green Sign up button..
It has on its wall what is already on Avon and Somersets Facebook page, but it must be aimed at someone.... (possibly)
The only app that comes close that I can find now is an app called mail chimp, it allows you to target people who may have unsubscribed to your list of contacts or just add your list of contacts to it.... But Mail Chimp wasn't around back then so I do not know what was used at that time..
detectives have been contacting Miss Yeates friends on Facebook and they have also posted an appeal on the social networking site.
I wondered if it was actually Joanna Yeates Facebook page that they used?? Or maybe it was their own I don't really know.
But looking at that page the only appeal that is visible is about Ballooning??
Avon and Somerset Constabulary _ Police appeal for witnesses and information following ballooning in
That appeal was on the 3rd January 2011, I cannot find any information about the Ballooning, but if this is the dedicated page for information about Joanna Yeates, then what has ballooning got to do with Joanna Yeates?
This is all I can find of the dedicated page and facebook campaign, it may be all that is left of it....
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xggxsv
Ballooning, The appeal... I had difficulty finding anything about this when I had seen the clip on daily motion...
It was the second image that I have attached that brought me back to this query... The image is of an ipad, it has BBC NEWS... it says
Latest: A 65 year old man arrested over the murder of Joanna Yeates has been released on Police bail, Police say
There 3 stories visible... Jo Yeates.... Officers quell ford prison riot... Two die in hot air balloon crash.. Making the date 1st January 2011
Avon And Somerset Polices facebook page has the story, there is a link, which is now broken, (image attached)
The replies to the Ballooning link, are about Joanna Yeates...
Gabrielle Real Zeus Patric this is hardly the place for stupid jokes now jog on
8y ·
David Williamson I think it would be helpful if the Investigators could publish a broader timeline, this would help witnesses. If the Timeline started from when Joanna left work and was as close as possible to the following known and publicised events. This would reduce a lot of speculation too.
8y ·
Priscilla Anne Howe @ david...did I see you comment in yahoo answers? good suggestions on the timeline.
Manage
8y ·
There should be 5 replies, but 2 are not visible....
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Two killed in hot air balloon crash in Somerset
1 January 2011
Two men died when a hot air balloon crashed on a bowling green in Somerset.
The accident happened at about 0930 GMT at Pratten's Bowls Club in Midsomer Norton, near Bath.
Initial fears of a third fatality proved unfounded. No other aircraft and no-one on the ground were involved, investigators said.
An investigation was launched by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB), with a team of experts making their way to the scene.
Det Insp Mike Williams, of Avon and Somerset Police, said: "An air crash investigation team are currently looking at the circumstances of this incident to establish the cause.
"We would like to speak to anyone who may have seen the balloon in the air before the incident, or witnessed the balloon come to the ground."
Witnesses said flames were seen coming from the basket.
Sarah Andrews said: "I could hear a flapping noise and looked up and there was a balloon. The canopy was collapsing in on itself; it was on fire on one side and the basket was on fire. It was coming down fairly quickly.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-12102865
The images are confusing, if there was a fire why are the balloon silks still in tact??
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
I couldn't understand why there were responses about Joanna Yeates on this item on facebook, seemed odd.... But now that I have found the article that refers to the incident, something caught my eye..
Det Insp Mike Williams, of Avon and Somerset Police, said:
Now I found a PDF:
Mike Williams Detective Inspector – Public Protection Unit.
http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/sites/default/files/sitedocuments/Children-and-Young-People/ChildProtection/rapid_response_contact_details.pdf
( Bath and North East Somerset Local safe guarding Children's Board)
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Coincidence.... Can there be so much of it???? I tried to think what possible reason the Ballooning incident and Joanna Yeates were connected.. And why i had problems finding the article.....
Det Insp Mike Williams, of Avon and Somerset Police, said:
From The Telegraph... ( Speaking of Emily Williams)
By Martin Evans, Andy Bloxham, John Bingham, Bonny Kramer and Caroline Gammell11:00PM GMT 21 Jan 2011
Jo Yeates: Detectives question female friend of Vincent Tabak
There is no suggestion she had anything to do with the case.
Michael Williams, her father, said he was still puzzled by the activity at the building.
Micheal Williams??
Is that DI Mike Williams??
Seems a little coincidental, to me....
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8274808/Jo-Yeates-Detectives-question-female-friend-of-Vincent-Tabak.html
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
The BBC video of this event shows something falling from the sky, there is no sign of fire, yet a witness states it was on fire as it fell to earth.. But again why are the silks ok?
The balloon silks have collapsed in on themselves as it descends, but when it hits the bowling green, the entire silks are carefully spread out....
Another article from The Telegraph dated 11th October 2011 names the two men whom were in the balloon..
Allan Burnett, a scout master 55, died alongside balloonist Lee Pibworth, 42, on New Year's Day this year after their balloon crashed following a high altitude flight.
Mr Pibworth, was piloting the £20,000 balloon when it crashed at Prattens Bowls Club in Midsomer Norton, near Bath, Somerset as his wife Elisabeth looked on. Mr Burnett’s son Alex, the usual co-pilot, was also watching.
An official report into the incident, published yesterday by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB), found a combination of factors, including possible inexperience, were to blame for the crash.
An official report into the incident, published yesterday by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB)
So I went to look for the report....
Published 10 December 2014
From:
Air Accidents Investigation Branch
Date of occurrence:
1 January 2011
Aircraft category:
Sport aviation and balloons
Report type:
Bulletin - Field investigation
Aircraft type:
Cameron O-120 hot air balloon
Location:
Midsomer Norton, Somerset
Registration:
G-BVXF
Cameron O-120 hot air balloon, G-BVXF
Summary:
The pilot was attempting to climb to an altitude of 6,000 m (approximately 19,700 ft). Having reached an altitude of 21,500 ft the balloon descended for about 80 seconds at approximately 1,500 ft/min. It then entered a rapid descent of approximately 5,500 ft/min from which it did not recover. In the latter stages of the descent the envelope was seen in a collapsed, ‘streamered’ state. There was a post-impact fire, which damaged much of the balloon basket and envelope.
The British Balloon and Airship Club (BBAC) and the balloon manufacturer actively assisted in the AAIB investigation. As a result of the accident the BBAC will be issuing guidance information for operation of hot air balloons at high altitudes.
Download report:
Cameron O-120 hot air balloon, G-BVXF 10-11.pdf (3,532.06 kb)
https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/cameron-o-120-hot-air-balloon-g-bvxf-1-january-2011
The Official Report is dated Published 10 December 2014
An official report into the incident, published yesterday by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB), found a combination of factors, including possible inexperience, were to blame for the crash.
So where is this report that The Telegraph speak of?? on the 13th October 2011? must be the same one, yet officially it doesn't appear to get published until 10th December 2014
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8822437/Two-died-after-balloon-crashed-from-21000ft-due-to-inexperience.html
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Going back to the BBC Video, amongst the crowd in the video, is a man that isn't too dissimilar to the rotund version of Dr Vincent Tabak... The one in the ASDA clips...
Again coincidence... The date of the article 13th October 2011 and the date of Dr Vincent Tabak's trial coincide...
What has this event with a balloon got to do with Joanna Yeates Case and Dr Vincent Tabak??
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
I posted a while ago about the forum that was on the bottom of the Missing Poster of Joanna Yeates...
https://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=169097479794933
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15099;image)
I wondered why the event was between dates, but it might have something to do with how facebook works, but there were many people who had already joined the group and I tried to understand why seeing as it was the Missing Facebook group...
But looking at the Ballooning event and the pdf I found this:
They all commented that, from the
pilot’s questions, they considered his preparation was
thorough. The pilot acquired the Cameron O-120 from a
leasing company on 19 December 2010; this was his first
Wreckage site
The wreckage was located on a bowling green. The
envelope had collapsed on top of the basket and there was
significant fire damage. The crown ring had not fallen
on top of the basket; instead it was approximately 8 m
from the basket in a direction consistent with the wind
direction. A fire had consumed most of the basket and
most of the envelope within a radius of approximately
6 m from the basket.
The Pilot has the Balloon from the 19th December 2010 until it crashed on the 1st January 2011.. what did he do with it in between those dates?
The pilot and passenger had flown together in this
basket several times before.
The pilot obtained written approval for this altitude
attempt in the form of an Airspace Co-ordination
Notice from the CAA on 21 December 2010. This
stated a ‘launch window’ from 27 December 2010 to
4 January 2011, with an estimated flight duration of
90 minutes, and ‘vertical limits from the surface to
FL210’. The pilot was required to phone Bristol ATC
24 hours before the launch and on the morning of the
flight, to discuss anticipated rates of climb and descent;
this he did.
Why doesn't it name the pilot??
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5422fab2ed915d13740007bb/Cameron_O-120_hot_air_balloon__G-BVXF_10-11.pdf
Was the facebook group with the original 167 people something to do with the Ballooning event?? It's just a thought...
I'm trying to understand what Joanna Yeates had to do with the Ballooning incident.... Seeing as people posted about Joanna yeates on that link....
-
Bargain Booze... CCTV and the Newspaper that I couldn't see clearly.... But I was concentrating on the wrong image on the newspaper....
It could be just me.... But the black and white image on the right hand side of the front page reminded me of the image of Joanna Yeates with Bernard....(image attached)
I have tried to finds that Newspapers front page, but couldn't...
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15231;image)
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15233;image)
-
Just want to go back to the Ballooning thing for a minute....
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15225;image)
Why did it take Avon and Somerset Police until 3rd January 2011 to post about this incident , when BBC had already reported it at the time?
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5422fab2ed915d13740007bb/Cameron_O-120_hot_air_balloon__G-BVXF_10-11.pdf
The crown ring had not fallen
on top of the basket; instead it was approximately 8 m
from the basket in a direction consistent with the wind
direction. A fire had consumed most of the basket and
most of the envelope within a radius of approximately
6 m from the basket.
Balloon deaths: 'likely caused by lack of experience'
It was a new years day challenge that cost them their lives the cause we now know- a combination of inexperience and mishandling. 42 year old Lee Pibworth from Bishopsworth was the pilot, flying alongside his friend 55 year old friend Alan Burnett from Bedminster.They were attempting to gain a gold medal from the british balloon and air club by reaching 20,000 feet.
Mr Burnett's son was part of the support team and received two calls from his him. In the first his father said they had reached 4,600 metres but were turning back after using 60 litres of gas. *He then called a final time saying they had reached 6,600 metres - higher than required. *
Today an inquest into their deaths at Flax Bourtons coroner's court recorded a narrative verdict. **
The coroner Maria Voison agreed with the findings of air accident investigators who said there were no signs of technical faults
Instead she said it was likely the accident was caused by a lack of experience of operating that particular balloon and its individual features and flying at such a height, as well as a lack of oxygen.
There's a video with this report...
https://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/2012-05-10/balloon-deaths-likely-caused-by-lack-of-experience/
https://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/search/?q=balloon+deaths
I presume that the Basket is under the tarpaulin... with the cylinders upright, but on the 3rd image I have attached, there's a cylinder lying on the ground next to the Forensic tent?? ( Bit weird)
Looking at the video and screenshots.....There appears to be little damage considering it was on fire.... But what do I know.....
Here's a better look at the video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD5WOPI9hO4
Another vid..
https://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/story/2012-05-09/balloon-deaths-inquest/
Cannot find the original ITN report at the time but there has to be more than one report as the witness Sarah Andrews is interviewed at different angels... Unless the youtube video is the original ITN report...
When did they report it??
Edit..... It look like a lady on a horse videoed the orignal footage of the balloon falling..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-nW6gY0vdg
-
Don't know if the ballooning incident was relevant, but with the replies from Avon and Somerset facebook page, I thought i'd add it...
One last thought... was it the ITN report thats on youtube, the reason that ITN got barred from the Joanna yeates Investigation??
Edit......
Didn't really want another post so I added it to this one.....
Funeral held for balloonist killed in Somerset crash
19 January 2011
A funeral has been held in Bristol for a man who died when his hot air balloon crashed in Somerset.
Allan Burnett, 55, was killed, along with pilot Lee Pibworth, 42, when the craft plunged to the ground in Midsomer Norton on New Year's Day.
It is thought the men were attempting a high altitude flight of 20,000ft (6,096m), which was being monitored by Bristol Air Traffic Control.
Mr Burnett's funeral took place at St Oswald's church in Bedminster Down.
Allan Burnett was a governor at Cheddar Grove School, which closed for the day of the funeral as a mark of respect.
A spokesman for the school said: "Allan Burnett was a member of the school community for more than 20 years as a parent, governor, scout leader and friend to many.
"He lived a life full of adventure and dreams that touched the lives of many children and young adults.
"His energy, kindness and generosity to the community knew no ends and nothing was ever a problem.
The Air Accidents Investigation Branch is continuing to look into what may have caused the crash.
Witnesses said the balloon narrowly missed a row of terraced houses and a school.
The date of that article, made me think about the sobbing girl..... Was this what the sobbing girl rang up about???
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-12225494
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/uk-england-somerset-12107265
Double Edit.....
Midsomer Norton fatal balloon crash probe under way
02 January 11 10:30
The crash site
Air accident investigators are trying to find the cause of a hot air balloon crash in Somerset which killed two men.
The balloon plunged down in flames onto a green at Pratten's Bowls Club in Midsomer Norton, near Bath, at about 0930 GMT on Saturday.
It was believed to have been attempting a high altitude flight at 20,000ft (6,096m) and was being monitored by Bristol Air Traffic Control.
Witnesses said it narrowly missed a row of terraced houses and a nearby school.
Sarah Andrews, who saw the crash, said the canopy was collapsing and the basket was on fire. She said the blaze on the ground was "intense".
Avon Fire and Rescue Service spokeswoman Sarah Allen said: "We believe the balloon was attempting a high-altitude flight. It was being monitored by Bristol Air Traffic Control.
"They had a ground crew with them that lost the balloon in the clouds."
She added that relatives of the two men in the balloon were among the team attempting to follow the craft.
Investigators from the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) visited the the crash site on Saturday.
It is not thought that any other aircraft was involved in the incident.
Andy Elson, an expert in high-altitude ballooning, said a problem with the oxygen supply for those on board or with the gas cylinders would be the most likely cause of a problem at flights of over 14,000ft (4,267m).
The balloon contained four liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) cylinders which were venting gas.
Crews used three high pressure hose-reels to extinguish the fire.
Police have appealed to the public for information following the crash.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/uk-england-somerset-12104527
-
Random thought....
If everything is the opposite way around.... Was it the BBC who were banned??
-
Midsomer Norton fatal balloon crash probe under way
02 January 11 10:30
Air accident investigators are trying to find the cause of a hot air balloon crash in Somerset which killed two men.
The balloon plunged down in flames onto a green at Pratten's Bowls Club in Midsomer Norton, near Bath, at about 0930 GMT on Saturday.
It was believed to have been attempting a high altitude flight at 20,000ft (6,096m) and was being monitored by Bristol Air Traffic Control.
Witnesses said it narrowly missed a row of terraced houses and a nearby school.
Sarah Andrews, who saw the crash, said the canopy was collapsing and the basket was on fire. She said the blaze on the ground was "intense".
Avon Fire and Rescue Service spokeswoman Sarah Allen said: "We believe the balloon was attempting a high-altitude flight. It was being monitored by Bristol Air Traffic Control.
"They had a ground crew with them that lost the balloon in the clouds."
She added that relatives of the two men in the balloon were among the team attempting to follow the craft.
Investigators from the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) visited the the crash site on Saturday.
It is not thought that any other aircraft was involved in the incident.
Andy Elson, an expert in high-altitude ballooning, said a problem with the oxygen supply for those on board or with the gas cylinders would be the most likely cause of a problem at flights of over 14,000ft (4,267m).
The balloon contained four liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) cylinders which were venting gas.
Crews used three high pressure hose-reels to extinguish the fire.
Police have appealed to the public for information following the crash.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/uk-england-somerset-12104527
At 1:21 of the youtube vid... the expert that is being interviewed is Andy Noble....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD5WOPI9hO4
So is it Andy Noble or Andy Elson ??
Is this something to do with the hacking Inquiry??
Edit......
Another random thought.....
This article talks of 3 fire hoses, yet I don't see the fire service apart from the short interview with Mark Anderson of Avon and Somerset Fire Services... (I'll add images)
So.............. We have a massive fire with a hot air ballon, fatalities, no visible evidence of fire trucks...
Yet there is a woman whom has been discovered on Longwood Lane, who could have died of hypothermia, it may be the woman whom had been reported MISSING... Lying on her side on a grass verge....
And they have Fire Trucks coming out of there ears..... Remember "Frozen" yet 4 days of usage of these fire trucks on Longwood Lane....
A Balloon Fatality... and nothing lining up.....
Em...... Don't know what to say... !
-
Another random thought....
Were these both sting operations, to catch people out who may have been hacking??
Therefore, who recreated both videos with the information??... And What of Dr Vincent Tabak??
Longwood Lane 7 appliances over 4 days
Balloon Fire.. no signs of Fire appliances
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8061.msg394112#msg394112
That link has the pdf for Longwood Lane and The Fire Service...
( Or is it all fake news???) I cannot decide...
-
Had someone got the information about a sting, and the reason that Joanna Yeates case never adds up or makes sense, no matter, how many ways I go about it... Is the information is mixed up....
It's the opposite way around?
A refresher... Sally Ramage...
Defence Counsel: Let us look at your movements on Friday 17 December:
Time line 11- left for work
Timeline 12- Cycled to Bristol T Stn
Timeline 13- Train to bath
Timeline 16- Arrive Bath 9.41
Timeline 17- Accessed Internet for weather- at work
Timeline 18- Accessed weather report.
Timeline 19- Accessed weather report.
Timeline 20- Telephone call to Tanja.
Timeline 21- Another telephone call to Tanja
Now if these searches are for the ballooning incident, and planning of the Ballooning event, do they make more sense??
And Longwood Lane? What about travelling to the airport???
Defence Counsel: When you left where did you drive then?
Tabak: I drove away from home; I drove in the direction of the airport; and ended up in
Longwood lane.
Defence Counsel: Did you know Longwood Lane at all?
Tabak: No.
The dates for both events appear to have over-lapped, therefore the information and apparent incriminating searches are the searches of both, (maybe)
I couldn't understand the constant checking of the weather (well you would if you were taking a Balloon up).... But If the Ballooning event, and the hiring of the balloon on 19th December 2010 are anything to go by then checking the airport, Longwood Lane weather etc... would be advisable for deciding on the time to have a balloon flight... Don't forget the apparent deep snow...
"Freezing/ Frozen"... Yes..... At that altitude the balloonists would have been frozen....
This is why I believe the times and the timings do not add up.... It is two events happening and someone knows more than they should....
So.. Dr Vincent Tabak? 2 of everything.... Did the trial take place??
Ah... Does that mean that someone was responsible for the death of someone else... That is why The Old Bailey trial happened... U20110387 remember that number..
So Dr Vincent Tabak... or should I say that someone was guilty of MANSLAUGHTER, for the death of the Balloonist... And I'm guessing the Balloonist should have been female....
Because I remember posting about HelpfindJo..... And I found that the poster that was about a man called Jo and not Jo Yeates......
Thats why genders get swopped... (imo) So the female should have been the Balloon passenger/pilot and The Missing person should have been a man....
So When Dr Vincent Tabak says about what happened to that girl... he's talking about the Balloon incident.. Therefore he would be guilty of Manslaughter.. And 20 seconds was probably all it took for a Balloon to fall to earth....
And Tanja Morson could not be a witness at trail, because she was a witness for the Balloon event....
Stripes... That is for the Balloon colours (maybe)
I couldn't understand why the times appeared to be either day time or night time... And why the CCTV is Missing the time stamps..
Oh dear... oh dear... oh dear.... I don't know what to say at the moment...
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg511122#msg511122
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg444165#msg444165
-
It's always about observation..... When what you are being told doesn't make sense...
Sorry but the ballooning incident, if i think it is connected to the case, then I need to add to it a little more...
By DAILY MAIL REPORTER
UPDATED: 10:22, 3 January 2011
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/01/03/article-1343539-0CA0660E000005DC-910_634x753.jpg)
Tragedy: Allan Burnett, right, with son Alex, left, and fellow Scouts
Again that image looks photoshopped,
A Scout master was killed in a hot air balloon explosion after his son gave him the ride as a New Year treat.
Allan Burnett, 55, died alongside experienced balloonist Lee Pibworth when their basket plummeted to the ground after exploding during a 20,000ft high-altitude flight on New Year’s Day.
It is believed that the leader of Blenheim Scouts, from Bristol, was given the balloon ride as a gift by his teenage son Alex.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-12102865
So his son is the male on the right, doesn't look like a teenager, but I'm aware some young men look older, some not all...
That video link... watching the video, I believe I may have identified Allen Burnetts son at the scene of the Balloon accident... at around 1 minute.. (keep watching), there is the man that I had noticed, whom didn't look dissimilar to Dr Vincent Tabak's dopple ganger at ASDA... I think he is supposed to be Allan Burnett's son....
And forgive me if I again seem to be disrespectful, but, if this incident is staged, then my observation are a fair point...
His father was in that balloon, he hasn't left the scene, he looks like an on looker and the woman in the red coat next to him, I have seen her before.... (Can't say where)..
There is no ambulance, the bodies, if they had been there have been removed and if he is his son, why is he hanging around looking disinterested and not with relatives at a different location... why are there not Police looking after this boy??
I think it is the same person, but with The Joanna Yeates Case, we have all the time similar but different....
Now here is where it gets weird...
Most balloons fly at around 3,000ft, but the craft is believed to have reached nearly seven times that height as Mr Pibworth attempted to obtain his 20,000ft altitude badge.
That doesn't seem right... They say that Mr Pibworth was the pilot, but I think it was the other way around,
(https://news.images.itv.com/image/file/28454/image_update_07b76a478a4ccb98_1336666362_9j-4aaqsk.jpeg)
Why if someone was trying to obtain his 20,000ft altitude badge, would you have a passenger on board?? I know nothing about hot air balloons or flying, but you obviously need to obtain a license to fly anything..
We have gone from an altitude attempt to.... A Scout master was killed in a hot air balloon explosion after his son gave him the ride as a New Year treat.
And Mr Pibworth seems to have change appearance..
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/05/09/article-0-13013356000005DC-811_308x425.jpg)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2142046/Hot-air-balloon-duo-attempting-high-altitude-ascent-craft-plunged-ground-exploded-ball-flames.html
Going back to the Balloon site...
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/01/02/article-1343387-0C9FABC9000005DC-848_634x314.jpg)
The basket is on top of the envelope and the canisters are upright, shouldn't that be the other way around, the envelop covered the basket.... It looks like someone has spread out the envelope and popped a basket on top..
Sky news were also there...
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/05/09/article-0-130133A0000005DC-436_638x533.jpg)
Now they have covered the balloon with what I would have thought would be the balloons cover for storing it in when it is packed away....
A pair of amateur hot air balloonists died when their craft burst into flames as they attempted a high altitude four-mile ascent.
Pilot Lee Pibworth, 42, and his passenger Allan Burnett, 55, were killed after their £20,000 balloon plunged towards earth at more than 60mph before crashing into a field at Midsomer Norton in Somerset.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2142046/Hot-air-balloon-duo-attempting-high-altitude-ascent-craft-plunged-ground-exploded-ball-flames.html
Field or Bowling Green....
I am a cynic sometimes, but there a small opening where someone could quite easily have brought that balloon onto that bowling green and staged that scene....
Green Tarpaulin cover.... Brings images of the back of Canygne Road and the Green Tarpaulin hiding the Flat with the glass panelled door...
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/01/20/article-1348832-0CD6F642000005DC-780_634x332.jpg)
That would screen a scene of an accident.... Not the back of a house....
These two events are connected, they have to be... Well... (imo) anyway...
Was Dr Vincent Tabak supposed to be part of the Ballooning event, or did he find out what was going on and had gained access to the data base at South West One,??
Was that Dr Vincent Tabak's Crime??
The cases are connected, I don't know how.... Always nothing adds up....
Question ,who covered the scene of a flying incident with the tarpaulin that the Balloon would be stored in??
It was just handy?? Remember the fire service were first on scene( the firemen returning home at the time), so they would not have allowed anyone near the scene...
Two last images....
The image below is supposed to be a blazing fire, looks to me like it is a controlled fire... (imo)
(https://secure.i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01795/BalloonFire_1795565b.jpg)
Aerial view..
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/05/09/article-0-1301336F000005DC-318_638x416.jpg)
Observation... There are no people around this scene of an accident, it is completely void of them.... Yet..
in the field to the right, there is a row of what could be Police looking like they are searching for something...
To the bottom left corner near the word COM, is a long vehicle, at first i thought it was a fire engine, but it looks as if its a truck with a satellite dish on top...
At the roundabout we see no Police stood there, yet in the BBC video, we have Police cars and DI Mick Williams stood at the roundabout.. And the fire engine can now be seen on the BBC video, yet it is not there on the aerial view... On the Aerial view, it appears that the 2 Police cars are arriving at the scene, yet the Balloon has had it's fire put out....
In the carpark, there is a large van, a van that could have quiet easily transported said Balloon.. (imo)... Looking at the youtube vid, this van has red and yellow stripes at the back, a roof rack and a logo I believe on the side...
Going back to the youtube video, we have people whom appear to be being interviewed, and are allowed to be at the scene on an investigation into a fatal Ballooning accident... why would they allow that??
(Note to mod)... I won't keep putting so many pics in my post, I just need these here, for reference... I'll attach the rest in the normal fashion....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD5WOPI9hO4
-
Have people really died in these two events??
-
Oooops, sorry.... I seem to have wandered onto the Hans Christian Andersen thread by mistake!
-
What I'd really like to know is... How the h*ll you've managed to accumulate 1180 likes to my measly 118?
It must be for comedy and not much else!
-
Oooops, sorry.... I seem to have wandered onto the Hans Christian Andersen thread by mistake!
Indeed... We have already been there....
What I'd really like to know is... How the h*ll you've managed to accumulate 1180 likes to my measly 118?
It must be for comedy and not much else!
Possibly... But maybe they are dislikes.... (sarcasm)?? depends on your view... And at the end of the day, how does anyone know what part of a post a person has liked?
Seeing as my posts are incredibly long, it could be for a multitude of reasons that someone may have liked a post.....
Like doesn't equate to an agreement of what has been said... I could have said two words that struck a cord with someone unrelated to what I have posted about, it may be something personal to them, that either tickled their fancy, or struck a cord about something entirely different...
So liking something isn't in support of a statement... A response to what has been stated whether negative or positive is of better value, than a like...
Likes are for people who need their ego's stroking... For them to be in the belief that people support them or their cause, that they are admired by others,
If I had liked an image of a cold glass of Milk, maybe it was appealing in some form.... it doesn't mean I like MILK.... In actual fact I hate Cow Juice, haven't drunk it since I was at infant school... But someone may assume I did indeed like the said Milk within said glass...
Assumptions don't make fact... I when posting, have give various accounts based on the information that has been made available, I do not know for a fact , what is the true story of any of this Case, or the Ballooning incident, I am giving opinion, based on observation, and not on facts that i know... As I do not know any facts related to either situation and there is no-one to corroborate any of the information I have found... I know no-one from either event... I have explained my position many many times....
-
1: his conduct after Yeates died when he hid the body was “frankly disgusting” and had caused untold anguish and agony to her family.
2: “I’m not going to ask you to like Vincent Tabak. There’s probably nothing to like.”
3: And Miss Morson seems to agree, having failed to make a single appearance at court.
4: He had told “lie after lie to the police.
5: “did everything he could to cover his tracks”.
6: He added that he would not try to justify Tabak’s actions after her death, saying his client was “living a lie” by attending dinner parties and attempting to carry on his life as normal.
7: “I’m not going to ask you to have any sympathy for him. He deserves none.
8: “I’m not going to ask you to excuse his conduct. There can be no excuse.
9: “If I was to set out to win a popularity contest I would lose.
10: He told the court: “Of course, afterwards his behaviour is utterly disgraceful. It’s not going to be justified by me
My last post struck a cord.... And point '9' of the above quote from page 1 of this topic... Now has a different complexion.....
Indeed it could make sense, If you are talking likes....
Because "LIKES" equate to popularity and maybe what Clegg was referring too was, the point that I have made in my above post... And if he was talking about social media and his own popularity, he would definitely lose, as he probably doesn't have any social media that he uses himself.... (Or Vincent Tabak hadn't)?
So what was the trial about??
What was it actually about??
-
Oooops, sorry.... I seem to have wandered onto the Hans Christian Andersen thread by mistake!
Have you ever seen the movie 'Brazil'? @)(++(*
-
Have you ever seen the movie 'Brazil'? @)(++(*
Whats that?? never heard of....
-
Clifton People
@cliftonpeople
Pics released of missing Clifton woman Joanna Yeates, police say they are concerned for her safety: http://tinyurl.com/2awm4q7
4:32 AM - 21 Dec 2010
https://twitter.com/cliftonpeople/status/17195598180515841
Clifton People first tweet related to Missing person....
Note the time...
As we do not know who made said tweet and from which Country said tweet was made, there is a potential of it even being the 20th December 2010
08:21
Saturday, 26 January 2019 (GMT-5)
Time in Washington, DC, USA
07:21 Chicago (GMT-6)
06:21 Denver (GMT-7)
06:21 Phoenix (GMT-7)
05:21 Los Angeles (GMT-8)
04:21 Anchorage (GMT-9)
03:21 Honolulu (GMT-10)
We have various American cities that are a different time zone.. Therefore, it is physically possible for this tweet to have been made 2:00 am on the 20th December 2010... Depends on the settings that the tweeter had at the time... they can change their time zone... And also their country of origin...
So if the time zone differs any searches etc, will differ for their apparent timelines etc etc...
Question , was this tweet place at the time it suggests on the quote and image I have attached??
Why would this tweet happen before the Police have put in place an investigation and to check whether there are life signs?? ie: bank transactions, telephone records, friends.. etc etc...
If this tweet is at 2:00am on the 20th December 2010, that would make it just 1 hour after Greg Reardon apparently called the Police to report that his girlfriend was Missing....
It is all relative... One would need to know the time zone and the country that the twitter account was set to, when the tweet was made....
If this example can bring into doubt the origin of time and country, can the searches be trusted??
Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to be in America for many weeks prior to the 17th December 2010
If he had changed his time zone and country of origin when he was there, all of his searches would be for a different time... Depending on his settings... If the computer had not been analysed properly, and just a read off of said apparent timings based on a computer set to a different country and time zone, it would have a different complexion on the outcome (imo).. I think I'm correct in that... he would need location activated to make a difference..., I believe.. (I may be wrong)
So without knowing anything about these computers Dr Vincent Tabak apparently had used or owned, how do we know for a fact that they were done at those times suggested at trial... Or the date being accurate for said searches??
If that makes sense....
Maybe someone else can explain this better... ?{)(**
-
Is this all about fake news?? Or hacking?? What is this all about...
-
https://twitter.com/cliftonpeople/status/17195598180515841
Clifton People first tweet related to Missing person....
Note the time...
As we do not know who made said tweet and from which Country said tweet was made, there is a potential of it even being the 20th December 2010
We have various American cities that are a different time zone.. Therefore, it is physically possible for this tweet to have been made 2:00 am on the 20th December 2010... Depends on the settings that the tweeter had at the time... they can change their time zone... And also their country of origin...
So if the time zone differs any searches etc, will differ for their apparent timelines etc etc...
Question , was this tweet place at the time it suggests on the quote and image I have attached??
Why would this tweet happen before the Police have put in place an investigation and to check whether there are life signs?? ie: bank transactions, telephone records, friends.. etc etc...
If this tweet is at 2:00am on the 20th December 2010, that would make it just 1 hour after Greg Reardon apparently called the Police to report that his girlfriend was Missing....
It is all relative... One would need to know the time zone and the country that the twitter account was set to, when the tweet was made....
If this example can bring into doubt the origin of time and country, can the searches be trusted??
Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to be in America for many weeks prior to the 17th December 2010
If he had changed his time zone and country of origin when he was there, all of his searches would be for a different time... Depending on his settings... If the computer had not been analysed properly, and just a read off of said apparent timings based on a computer set to a different country and time zone, it would have a different complexion on the outcome (imo).. I think I'm correct in that... he would need location activated to make a difference..., I believe.. (I may be wrong)
So without knowing anything about these computers Dr Vincent Tabak apparently had used or owned, how do we know for a fact that they were done at those times suggested at trial... Or the date being accurate for said searches??
If that makes sense....
Maybe someone else can explain this better... ?{)(**
The tweet was my by Clifton People which clearly states that the page is "A dedicated site for anybody living, working or just hanging out in Clifton". Therefore most likely to have been made by (guess what?) someone from Clifton! It seems to be you who is making fake news through extreme speculation and insinuation.
-
Whats that?? never heard of....
I suggest you watch it! It is very similar to this forum topic and the posts held there within! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3Iy_wtyIZE
-
Transcript of Press Conference with Detective Chief Inspector and Parents...
Missing woman Joanna Yeates: press conference with Detective Chief Inspector and parents
( This is the first 2 minutes of the 8minute interview)
Reporter: At What point did you
(someone directs The Yeates to hold the photograph of Joanna Yeates up)(cameras clicking)
Reporter: You're doing very well (more clicking of cameras taking photo's)
Reporter: Em.. You mentioned there that Greg tried to get in touch with her (When? by this point nope) it was a long time between the Friday when we think she went Missing to the Sunday when that was reported to Police, at what point did you start to worry and what was going through your mind at that time..
David Yeates: We only became aware that, .. Greg.. Jo, Jo wasn't thee.. (licks lips) she didn't always answer her phone in a timely manor,and lets put it that way. Greg thought it was strange, that he ,she didn't respond to (mum or my) at least that is what he told me.
Erm, it was a bit
Teresa Yeates: It was consistent with what
David Yeates: It wasn't totally out of character,the concern was raised when, Greg had got back home... And... After waiting a couple of hours, there was no sign of jo..... And .... Then Jo, then Greg, found the things she would have carried with her, and he became incredibly concerned.. and then he phoned us, and we talked to her very briefly,and erm, then he phoned the Police, I'm not sure at what time I think it was about half past eight, I'm not sure what time he phoned us.. everything happened...
Tereas Yeates: About Midnight, When you get a call at midnight
David Yeates: Everything was a blur, we, we immediately decided we have to come down, because something was definitely wrong, and erm,and we knew Jo wouldn't take off by herself, she's never done it before, she's always had her own space, and er... It isn't her.
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/missing-woman-joanna-yeates-press-conference-with-news-footage/691676342
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
I have assumed that it is a REPORTER asking the questions, because the source is ITN... I Was trying to Fathom out
where the Detective Chief Inspector was in this 8:00 minute interview...
Firstly I wondered if one of the Yeates, where a DCI? Then I wondered whether or not it was not a REPORTER doing the Interview, but it was actually the DETECTIVE CHIEF INSPECTOR doing the Interview, just like Rebecca Scotts Interview....
Greg thought it was strange, that he ,she didn't respond to (mum or my)
How does one interpret that statement? "MUM"... who's MUM?? Or Was it "MY"??
David Yeates: It wasn't totally out of character,the concern was raised when, Greg had got back home... And... After waiting a couple of hours, there was no sign of Jo..... And .... Then Jo, then Greg, found the things she would have carried with her, and he became incredibly concerned.. and then he phoned us, and we talked to her very briefly,and erm, then he phoned the Police, I'm not sure at what time I think it was about half past eight, I'm not sure what time he phoned us.. everything happened...
We have 3 timelines to consider at this point....
* Then he phoned us
* Then he phoned the Police (8:30)
And not forgetting that it was Joanna Yeates phone ringing in her pocket at 9:00pm, that first alerted Greg to the seriousness of the situation.(according to Ann Reddrop in the program)
The only call that anyone had been made aware that occurred at 8:30 was the call to Rebecca Scott.. Is that whom Greg called?? Is Rebecca Scott part of the Police??
Why would Greg ring the Police before Joanna Yeates phone apparently rang in her coat pocket at 9:00pm? well I say 9:00pm, was it 9:00am??
Reporter: Em.. You mentioned there that Greg tried to get in touch with her (When? by this point nope)
I made the comment in brackets because of the interview and when it actually starts... How long was the original interview? I say this because David Yeates hasn't mentioned Greg until part way through the interview... So is there another interview/tape of David Yeates saying that Greg tried to get in touch with them??
she didn't always answer her phone in a timely manor,and lets put it that way. Greg thought it was strange, that he ,she didn't respond to (mum or my) at least that is what he told me.
Erm, it was a bit
Teresa Yeates: It was consistent with what
Mum or my?? either way it raises questions...... Why would it be strange that she didn't respond?? And what is a timely manor??
Listening to David Yeates and wondering if he said "MUM" I started to wonder whether it was Greg who was Joanna Yeates brother...
Teresa doesn't respond when he states this... And if recollection serves me correctly, Greg Readon apparently called his own mother: Here's a quote from around the time.....
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Greg Reardon phoned HIS OWN mother on returning to the flat saying 'Jo's not here'
Family's plea over Jo murder
THE ILFRACOMBE family of Greg Reardon, whose girlfriend Joanna Yeates was found murdered on Christmas Day, have appealed for help solving the killing.
Architect Joanna, 25, who lived with Greg in Bristol, was strangled.
Her body was found by walkers eight days after she went missing on December 17.
Greg, 27, reported her missing on Sunday, December 19, after he returned home from a weekend away in Sheffield. Police said on Tuesday they are not treating him as a suspect.
Greg's parents, Lydia and John Reardon who moved to Ilfracombe in 2004, have appealed for "every last scrap" of information to be given to police.
Lydia Reardon, 67, said: "Someone, somewhere may know the one crucial thing that helps the police solve this dreadful crime. Please just pick up the phone and tell them."
Earlier Mrs Reardon had spoken of when Greg called her when he arrived home.
She said: "He phoned me on Sunday and said 'I've just got home and Jo's not here'.
"At the time, I told him not to worry as she must have just nipped out. Then he said all her stuff was still there and later reported her missing."
The Ilfracombe family are believed to have joined the search for Jo before her body was discovered in the snow three miles from her home.
Mrs Reardon said it was love at first sight for her son, who is working towards his professional chartership.
The couple met at work at the Building Design Partnership in Bristol.
She described Jo as "very intelligent and popular".
Mrs Reardon told reporters: "She was a lovely, gorgeous girl. Greg brought her home and she stayed with us a few times. They had been together for a couple of years.
"Greg was so fond of her. We thought when he finished getting the last of his qualifications they would get engaged."
Greg told police he had tried to call and text Jo during the weekend he was away, but had not got a response.
He said he returned home to find Jo missing, but discovered her coat and bag containing keys and her purse inside their home, when he rang friends and family.
Greg appeared at a police press conference before her body was found, alongside Jo's parents, David and Teresa.
Greg told reporters: "I desperately want her back – I thought we would be together forever."
http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/regionalnews/Family-s-plea-Jo-murder/article-3047139-detail/article.html
Posted by SteelMagnolia at 7:11 AM
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8239.msg443416#msg443416
she didn't always answer her phone in a timely manor,and lets put it that way. Greg thought it was strange, that he ,she didn't respond to (mum or my) at least that is what he told me.
Erm, it was a bit
Teresa Yeates: It was consistent with what
So does David Yeates mean "MUM"or "MY"?? If mum then I suggest that Greg Reardon and Joanna Yeates were brother and sister.....
If MY........
Then as early as 8:30pm David and Teresa Yeates must have been made aware, that sometime was amiss... Or at the very least they had tried several times to contact Joanna Yeates before Greg Reardon had called them about his concerns... So why is Teresa Yeates jumping in to say "It was consistent with what".....??
So what of Ann Reddrop?? what of her interview...(on Killers program at 10:15 mins of video.. ) where she states that it was Joanna Yeates phone ringing in her pocket and that was the start of his nightmare.. ?
I am using this quote to determine the time as 9:00pm
At 9pm he rang her mobile, only to hear it ringing in the flat.
He said: "I found it in the pocket of her white jacket. I had a certain level of stress. I really didn't know what was going on. I tried to justify it to keep myself calm and thought she had gone out for the evening and forgot her phone.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140906044940/http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Vincent-Tabak-killed-Joanna-Yeates/story-13588955-detail/story.html
We have Ann telling us that it was the ringing of the phone, (on Video) and a report in The Bristol Post telling us the time...
So who was rung at 8:30?? was it AM or PM??
Was it MUM or MY... Where Joanna Yeates and Greg Reardon related??
If video evidence of interviews gives us confirmed statements of the people in said video's, we have one side of a story.... So where is there any video evidence from Greg Reardon making statements of any kind as to what took place at this critical time...
On the forum someone stated that the video of Greg speaking had been taken down.. Now I don't remember seeing it... there is only a clip of Greg crying and not speaking, so I do not know for a fact if he ever actually made said spoken interview to camera...
So we are left with the people we see now who make contradictory spoken statements....
The media are the ones who have identified said individuals as whom they are... I do not know for a fact that the man we see at trial or on Longwood lane is in fact Greg Reardon...
If I can find so many inconsistencies with these recorded statements/interviews then why hasn't it been challenged...
If I can suggest that it was possible that Dr Vincent Tabak was actually connected to the Balloon event, and he was responsible for the outcome and possible Manslaughter of said Balloonists, even suggesting it could be the reason he was at The Old Bailey at court room 2... A court room for special cases including terrorism.. etc... under a different case number than the one he was on trial with....
Then why do we accept that he was responsible and he MURDERED Joanna Yeates... when a confession to this act was accepted without query as to whether it was factual??
Where there is no video evidence supporting any statements that Dr Vincent Tabak may have made??
Brothertons statement is hearsay... Yet it is accepted.. nothing supports the events he speaks of....
I don't understand this case.... Its wrong.... But we have been told otherwise, yet I do not believe it.... Based on what is available on-line to view... video's reports, programs made with the relevant people etc... It isn't possible..
The TIMINGS that DCI Phil Jones speaks of , simply do not add up!!... (imo)
It will always be a case that makes no sense , until all of the people who we know or are relevant make videoed statements...
And.. How do we know for a fact that the people identified by the media are in fact the people we know as stated said people including The Yeates .. are indeed these people??
* Greg Reardon
* Frank Reardon
* Emma Brookes
* Brotherton
* Mrs Reardon
* Tanja Morson
The above have not been videoed as far as I am aware...
Earlier Mrs Reardon had spoken of when Greg called her when he arrived home.
She said: "He phoned me on Sunday and said 'I've just got home and Jo's not here'.
"At the time, I told him not to worry as she must have just nipped out. Then he said all her stuff was still there and later reported her missing."
http://steelmagnolia-gossips.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/greg-reardon-phoned-his-own-mother-on.html
So at this point in time we only know what the people who are identified as said people... state on video as their recorded statements we can view.......
If there are no other people appearing at trial or making said statements that are recorded, then how have we just accepted what Dr Vincent Tabaks versions of events are?? when any of us could have put that tale together from what had been made available in the media at the time......
-
Transcript of Press Conference with Detective Chief Inspector and Parents...
Missing woman Joanna Yeates: press conference with Detective Chief Inspector and parents
( This is the first 2 minutes of the 8minute interview)
Reporter: At What point did you
(someone directs The Yeates to hold the photograph of Joanna Yeates up)(cameras clicking)
Reporter: You're doing very well (more clicking of cameras taking photo's)
Reporter: Em.. You mentioned there that Greg tried to get in touch with her (When? by this point nope) it was a long time between the Friday when we think she went Missing to the Sunday when that was reported to Police, at what point did you start to worry and what was going through your mind at that time..
David Yeates: We only became aware that, .. Greg.. Jo, Jo wasn't thee.. (licks lips) she didn't always answer her phone in a timely manor,and lets put it that way. Greg thought it was strange, that he ,she didn't respond to (mum or my) at least that is what he told me.
Erm, it was a bit
Teresa Yeates: It was consistent with what
David Yeates: It wasn't totally out of character,the concern was raised when, Greg had got back home... And... After waiting a couple of hours, there was no sign of jo..... And .... Then Jo, then Greg, found the things she would have carried with her, and he became incredibly concerned.. and then he phoned us, and we talked to her very briefly,and erm, then he phoned the Police, I'm not sure at what time I think it was about half past eight, I'm not sure what time he phoned us.. everything happened...
Tereas Yeates: About Midnight, When you get a call at midnight
David Yeates: Everything was a blur, we, we immediately decided we have to come down, because something was definitely wrong, and erm,and we knew Jo wouldn't take off by herself, she's never done it before, she's always had her own space, and er... It isn't her.
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/missing-woman-joanna-yeates-press-conference-with-news-footage/691676342
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
I have assumed that it is a REPORTER asking the questions, because the source is ITN... I Was trying to Fathom out
where the Detective Chief Inspector was in this 8:00 minute interview...
Firstly I wondered if one of the Yeates, where a DCI? Then I wondered whether or not it was not a REPORTER doing the Interview, but it was actually the DETECTIVE CHIEF INSPECTOR doing the Interview, just like Rebecca Scotts Interview....
Greg thought it was strange, that he ,she didn't respond to (mum or my)
How does one interpret that statement? "MUM"... who's MUM?? Or Was it "MY"??
David Yeates: It wasn't totally out of character,the concern was raised when, Greg had got back home... And... After waiting a couple of hours, there was no sign of Jo..... And .... Then Jo, then Greg, found the things she would have carried with her, and he became incredibly concerned.. and then he phoned us, and we talked to her very briefly,and erm, then he phoned the Police, I'm not sure at what time I think it was about half past eight, I'm not sure what time he phoned us.. everything happened...
We have 3 timelines to consider at this point....
* Then he phoned us
* Then he phoned the Police (8:30)
And not forgetting that it was Joanna Yeates phone ringing in her pocket at 9:00pm, that first alerted Greg to the seriousness of the situation.(according to Ann Reddrop in the program)
The only call that anyone had been made aware that occurred at 8:30 was the call to Rebecca Scott.. Is that whom Greg called?? Is Rebecca Scott part of the Police??
Why would Greg ring the Police before Joanna Yeates phone apparently rang in her coat pocket at 9:00pm? well I say 9:00pm, was it 9:00am??
Reporter: Em.. You mentioned there that Greg tried to get in touch with her (When? by this point nope)
I made the comment in brackets because of the interview and when it actually starts... How long was the original interview? I say this because David Yeates hasn't mentioned Greg until part way through the interview... So is there another interview/tape of David Yeates saying that Greg tried to get in touch with them??
she didn't always answer her phone in a timely manor,and lets put it that way. Greg thought it was strange, that he ,she didn't respond to (mum or my) at least that is what he told me.
Erm, it was a bit
Teresa Yeates: It was consistent with what
Mum or my?? either way it raises questions...... Why would it be strange that she didn't respond?? And what is a timely manor??
Listening to David Yeates and wondering if he said "MUM" I started to wonder whether it was Greg who was Joanna Yeates brother...
Teresa doesn't respond when he states this... And if recollection serves me correctly, Greg Readon apparently called his own mother: Here's a quote from around the time.....
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8239.msg443416#msg443416
she didn't always answer her phone in a timely manor,and lets put it that way. Greg thought it was strange, that he ,she didn't respond to (mum or my) at least that is what he told me.
Erm, it was a bit
Teresa Yeates: It was consistent with what
So does David Yeates mean "MUM"or "MY"?? If mum then I suggest that Greg Reardon and Joanna Yeates were brother and sister.....
If MY........
Then as early as 8:30pm David and Teresa Yeates must have been made aware, that sometime was amiss... Or at the very least they had tried several times to contact Joanna Yeates before Greg Reardon had called them about his concerns... So why is Teresa Yeates jumping in to say "It was consistent with what".....??
So what of Ann Reddrop?? what of her interview...(on Killers program at 10:15 mins of video.. ) where she states that it was Joanna Yeates phone ringing in her pocket and that was the start of his nightmare.. ?
I am using this quote to determine the time as 9:00pm
https://web.archive.org/web/20140906044940/http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Vincent-Tabak-killed-Joanna-Yeates/story-13588955-detail/story.html
We have Ann telling us that it was the ringing of the phone, (on Video) and a report in The Bristol Post telling us the time...
So who was rung at 8:30?? was it AM or PM??
Was it MUM or MY... Where Joanna Yeates and Greg Reardon related??
If video evidence of interviews gives us confirmed statements of the people in said video's, we have one side of a story.... So where is there any video evidence from Greg Reardon making statements of any kind as to what took place at this critical time...
On the forum someone stated that the video of Greg speaking had been taken down.. Now I don't remember seeing it... there is only a clip of Greg crying and not speaking, so I do not know for a fact if he ever actually made said spoken interview to camera...
So we are left with the people we see now who make contradictory spoken statements....
The media are the ones who have identified said individuals as whom they are... I do not know for a fact that the man we see at trial or on Longwood lane is in fact Greg Reardon...
If I can find so many inconsistencies with these recorded statements/interviews then why hasn't it been challenged...
If I can suggest that it was possible that Dr Vincent Tabak was actually connected to the Balloon event, and he was responsible for the outcome and possible Manslaughter of said Balloonists, even suggesting it could be the reason he was at The Old Bailey at court room 2... A court room for special cases including terrorism.. etc... under a different case number than the one he was on trial with....
Then why do we accept that he was responsible and he MURDERED Joanna Yeates... when a confession to this act was accepted without query as to whether it was factual??
Where there is no video evidence supporting any statements that Dr Vincent Tabak may have made??
Brothertons statement is hearsay... Yet it is accepted.. nothing supports the events he speaks of....
I don't understand this case.... Its wrong.... But we have been told otherwise, yet I do not believe it.... Based on what is available on-line to view... video's reports, programs made with the relevant people etc... It isn't possible..
The TIMINGS that DCI Phil Jones speaks of , simply do not add up!!... (imo)
It will always be a case that makes no sense , until all of the people who we know or are relevant make videoed statements...
And.. How do we know for a fact that the people identified by the media are in fact the people we know as stated said people including The Yeates .. are indeed these people??
* Greg Reardon
* Frank Reardon
* Emma Brookes
* Brotherton
* Mrs Reardon
* Tanja Morson
The above have not been videoed as far as I am aware...
http://steelmagnolia-gossips.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/greg-reardon-phoned-his-own-mother-on.html
So at this point in time we only know what the people who are identified as said people... state on video as their recorded statements we can view.......
If there are no other people appearing at trial or making said statements that are recorded, then how have we just accepted what Dr Vincent Tabaks versions of events are?? when any of us could have put that tale together from what had been made available in the media at the time......
There is no doubt about it - he said MUM!
-
There is no doubt about it - he said MUM!
Thanks for your opinion on that Caroline, I had someone else listen to it and they said the same... But it is NOT clear to me....
But if we stay with him saying MUM... Does that mean that Teresa Yeates is not her birth mother? And that Greg Reardon and Joanna Yeates were related..ie Brother and Sister?
Then Jo, then Greg, found the things she would have carried with her, and he became incredibly concerned.. and then he phoned us, and we talked to her very briefly,and erm, then he phoned the Police, I'm not sure at what time I think it was about half past eight, I'm not sure what time he phoned us.. everything happened...
That statement makes me think they were talking about someone else who was Missing.... He first states Jo.. then Greg...... Odd!
David Yeates: We only became aware that, .. Greg.. Jo, Jo wasn't thee.. (licks lips) she didn't always answer her phone in a timely manor,and lets put it that way. Greg thought it was strange, that he ,she didn't respond to (mum or my) at least that is what he told me.
Erm, it was a bit
So why should Joanna Yeates respond to Mrs Reardon?? Why a timely manor??
Who is Mrs Reardon??
There are many scenario's one could make from that statement that David Yeates makes to camera, many conclusions one could reach....
For instance if a young girl had run away from home, and her parents wanted her back and she didn't respond to a text or phone call in a timely manor, then telling said young girl that the Police would be informed because she had left without consent... (to stay with friends perhaps).... And if she hadn't returned said call or messaged, they would report her as Missing... It may make the young girl contact someone immediately, whether she returned or not is another matter....
Therefore what does David Yeates mean?? What is a timely manor for a 25 year old woman??
And who is Joanna Yeates birth mum?? or should I say... who is Greg Reardon's father??
-
Thanks for your opinion on that Caroline, I had someone else listen to it and they said the same... But it is NOT clear to me....
But if we stay with him saying MUM... Does that mean that Teresa Yeates is not her birth mother? And that Greg Reardon and Joanna Yeates were related..ie Brother and Sister?
That statement makes me think they were talking about someone else who was Missing.... He first states Jo.. then Greg...... Odd!
So why should Joanna Yeates respond to Mrs Reardon?? Why a timely manor??
Who is Mrs Reardon??
There are many scenario's one could make from that statement that David Yeates makes to camera, many conclusions one could reach....
For instance if a young girl had run away from home, and her parents wanted her back and she didn't respond to a text or phone call in a timely manor, then telling said young girl that the Police would be informed because she had left without consent... (to stay with friends perhaps).... And if she hadn't returned said call or messaged, they would report her as Missing... It may make the young girl contact someone immediately, whether she returned or not is another matter....
Therefore what does David Yeates mean?? What is a timely manor for a 25 year old woman??
And who is Joanna Yeates birth mum?? or should I say... who is Greg Reardon's father??
No, no, no, no, no, no... ad infinitum!
-
And it's manner, not manor.
-
And it's manner, not manor.
Is that my only error in my posts?
-
Thanks for your opinion on that Caroline, I had someone else listen to it and they said the same... But it is NOT clear to me....
But if we stay with him saying MUM... Does that mean that Teresa Yeates is not her birth mother? And that Greg Reardon and Joanna Yeates were related..ie Brother and Sister?
That statement makes me think they were talking about someone else who was Missing.... He first states Jo.. then Greg...... Odd!
So why should Joanna Yeates respond to Mrs Reardon?? Why a timely manor??
Who is Mrs Reardon??
There are many scenario's one could make from that statement that David Yeates makes to camera, many conclusions one could reach....
For instance if a young girl had run away from home, and her parents wanted her back and she didn't respond to a text or phone call in a timely manor, then telling said young girl that the Police would be informed because she had left without consent... (to stay with friends perhaps).... And if she hadn't returned said call or messaged, they would report her as Missing... It may make the young girl contact someone immediately, whether she returned or not is another matter....
Therefore what does David Yeates mean?? What is a timely manor for a 25 year old woman??
And who is Joanna Yeates birth mum?? or should I say... who is Greg Reardon's father??
Nothing is clear to you. It's like you WANT this to me a mystery when it isn't!
I have no idea how you have come to THIS conclusion?
"But if we stay with him saying MUM... Does that mean that Teresa Yeates is not her birth mother? And that Greg Reardon and Joanna Yeates were related..ie Brother and Sister?"
You are taking things literally that's your problem!
Greg Readon told her parents that he thought it unusual that she didn't respond to her moth (TY's) calls.
He isn't talking about Mrs Readon! He's talking about TY!
There are indeed many conclusions YOU could come to and frequently do ....... BUT there is only one meaning, not many!
I guess a timely manor is one where you answer it when you hear the call and JY's mother is TY.
-
Nothing is clear to you. It's like you WANT this to me a mystery when it isn't!
I have no idea how you have come to THIS conclusion?
"But if we stay with him saying MUM... Does that mean that Teresa Yeates is not her birth mother? And that Greg Reardon and Joanna Yeates were related..ie Brother and Sister?"
You are taking things literally that that's your problem!
Greg Readon told her parents that he thought it unusual that she didn't respond to her moth (TY's) calls.
He isn't talking about Mrs Readon! He's talking about TY!
There are indeed many conclusions YOU could come to and frequently do ....... BUT there is only one meaning, not many!
I guess a timely manor is one where you answer it when you hear the call and JY's mother is TY.
I wish "Timely Manor" was a loony bin. With a vacancy. &%54%
-
Nothing is clear to you. It's like you WANT this to me a mystery when it isn't!
I have no idea how you have come to THIS conclusion?
"But if we stay with him saying MUM... Does that mean that Teresa Yeates is not her birth mother? And that Greg Reardon and Joanna Yeates were related..ie Brother and Sister?"
You are taking things literally that that's your problem!
Greg Readon told her parents that he thought it unusual that she didn't respond to her moth (TY's) calls.
He isn't talking about Mrs Readon! He's talking about TY!
There are indeed many conclusions YOU could come to and frequently do ....... BUT there is only one meaning, not many!
I guess a timely manor is one where you answer it when you hear the call and JY's mother is TY.
Yes.. I do take things literally... Maybe that is my problem...
Ok be happy to accept things as they stand... Pointless me commenting on anything really.... And AH suggestion of a serial killer and the Polices suggestion of a serial killer , or should I say media, may as well be ignored...
But... If the idea that a serial killer had been around from the 70's or before, there was a case I remember that happened in the 70's, which someone served a sentence for....
But because Policing is very different now and I question events more than I did, I have started thinking about this case... We have at the time Jack the Ripper roaming about, and even though the public are under the impression he was only interested in prostitutes, the acts on surviving victims have since become known....
Young girls and woman were afraid to go out after dark, so the murder of this young girl at that time was shocking... But it was put down to some young lad wanting to go out with her and she had said no... so he attacked her... if memory serves me correctly.... We are talking 40 years ago...
So the story was the Police turn up at her house looking for her mother and dad/mothers boyfriend... The police either send her to the pub to get her mother or she leaves the house to go get her mother... I think it was about 10:00 O'clock at night.. she takes a short cut...
And then, I cannot remember if it was the next day or later her body is found, and her head had been bashed in... If memory serves me right....
I was trying to find out the reports that may be on-line, but I can't find any now... And I am sure I had seen some not too long ago....
A friend of her sister told me that she left the house herself, but the reports in the paper at the time I thought were that the police had sent her to get her mother.... But don't quote this as fact.... The friend of her sister says she went to one pub... But the report in the papers had stated a different pub about a mile in the opposite direction...
But either way I was wondering why on earth this 17 yr old girl was walking about at night on her own when the police knew the dangers... And the young man whom was jailed for this crime was shall we say..... described as different...
No young female at that time would walk alone at night... they would be in groups as young girls...
Then when looking for something on this case I found this PDF....
Our ref: 1022/15
Please could you provide me with details of both Murders and Physical Assaults of / on
Females aged Fifteen years and over between January 1969 and December 1985 within the
West Yorkshire Police boundaries (cases both solved and unsolved). I'm particularly
interested in name (where permissible) and age of victim, details, date and location of
incident.
Please find attached information in respect of murders between January 1969 and
December 1985 which specifically related to females whom were aged fifteen and over at
the time of the offence. Please note that we hold no information in relation to physical
assaults during this period. Please note that the location is not recorded on the spreadsheet,
to establish the location would involve a manual search of the paperwork and as such would
render the request overcost.
West Yorkshire Police have a dedicated Department who are responsible for investigating
Major and Serious Crime types across the county. This means that West Yorkshire Police
can provide resource capacity and expertise in support of Territorial Districts to deliver an
integrated, high level investigative service for the most serious of crimes including murder.
https://www.westyorkshire.police.uk/sites/default/files/files/building-projects/foi_1022-15_historic_murders_of_females.pdf
Which makes me query even more what happened to this young girl.... especially this part: (cases both solved and unsolved)
So taking things literally helps sometimes... It means I therefore ignore the emotion and ask questions that some may deem inappropriate... that s all...
Edit... And another reason that ringing of bells spring to mind with cases.... Or coincidences shall we say... As I am thinking about this case of the young girl, I know her sister name was the same as Marcels ex wife... There's coincidence for you... well for me anyway... just rings a bell of interest... thats all...
-
Went to the website to see this FOI request: The name of of young woman is spelt incorrectly.... Her name was Zabrocki... (could by spelt with a "Y" and not an "I") not Zabrock.... And her name was Iris....
Iris Zabrocky.....
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/murders_and_assaults_of_women_in#incoming-701228
https://www.westyorkshire.police.uk/sites/default/files/files/building-projects/foi_1022-15_historic_murders_of_females.pdf
I wonder why this person asked for this information??
-
Yes.. I do take things literally... Maybe that is my problem...
Ok be happy to accept things as they stand... Pointless me commenting on anything really.... And AH suggestion of a serial killer and the Polices suggestion of a serial killer , or should I say media, may as well be ignored...
But... If the idea that a serial killer had been around from the 70's or before, there was a case I remember that happened in the 70's, which someone served a sentence for....
But because Policing is very different now and I question events more than I did, I have started thinking about this case... We have at the time Jack the Ripper roaming about, and even though the public are under the impression he was only interested in prostitutes, the acts on surviving victims have since become known....
Young girls and woman were afraid to go out after dark, so the murder of this young girl at that time was shocking... But it was put down to some young lad wanting to go out with her and she had said no... so he attacked her... if memory serves me correctly.... We are talking 40 years ago...
So the story was the Police turn up at her house looking for her mother and dad/mothers boyfriend... The police either send her to the pub to get her mother or she leaves the house to go get her mother... I think it was about 10:00 O'clock at night.. she takes a short cut...
And then, I cannot remember if it was the next day or later her body is found, and her head had been bashed in... If memory serves me right....
I was trying to find out the reports that may be on-line, but I can't find any now... And I am sure I had seen some not too long ago....
A friend of her sister told me that she left the house herself, but the reports in the paper at the time I thought were that the police had sent her to get her mother.... But don't quote this as fact.... The friend of her sister says she went to one pub... But the report in the papers had stated a different pub about a mile in the opposite direction...
But either way I was wondering why on earth this 17 yr old girl was walking about at night on her own when the police knew the dangers... And the young man whom was jailed for this crime was shall we say..... described as different...
No young female at that time would walk alone at night... they would be in groups as young girls...
Then when looking for something on this case I found this PDF....
https://www.westyorkshire.police.uk/sites/default/files/files/building-projects/foi_1022-15_historic_murders_of_females.pdf
Which makes me query even more what happened to this young girl.... especially this part: (cases both solved and unsolved)
So taking things literally helps sometimes... It means I therefore ignore the emotion and ask questions that some may deem inappropriate... that s all...
Edit... And another reason that ringing of bells spring to mind with cases.... Or coincidences shall we say... As I am thinking about this case of the young girl, I know her sister name was the same as Marcels ex wife... There's coincidence for you... well for me anyway... just rings a bell of interest... thats all...
When you say Jack the Ripper? Do you mean the Yorkshire Ripper?
I take it you must be male? I was a teenager in the 1980's and frequently walked to and from places on my own!
Never heard of Iris Zabrocki
None of this has anything to do with JY of course. A serial killer commits a 'series of murders' (hence the name) and uses the same MO each time. Is there some reason why you are unwilling to accept that VT is guilty even though even he isn't denying it?
-
Went to the website to see this FOI request: The name of of young woman is spelt incorrectly.... Her name was Zabrocki... (could by spelt with a "Y" and not an "I") not Zabrock.... And her name was Iris....
Iris Zabrocki.....
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/murders_and_assaults_of_women_in#incoming-701228
https://www.westyorkshire.police.uk/sites/default/files/files/building-projects/foi_1022-15_historic_murders_of_females.pdf
I wonder why this person asked for this information??
Reasearch.
-
Reasearch.
Indeed.... not suggesting anything at all about that case....
-
When you say Jack the Ripper? Do you mean the Yorkshire Ripper?
I take it you must be male? I was a teenager in the 1980's and frequently walked to and from places on my own!
Never heard of Iris Zabrocki
None of this has anything to do with JY of course. A serial killer commits a 'series of murders' (hence the name) and uses the same MO each time. Is there some reason why you are unwilling to accept that VT is guilty even though even he isn't denying it?
Yorkshire Ripper.... I meant..
I cannot know what you have heard about at anytime....
I am not saying it has anything to do with Joanna Yeates, as I do not understand The Joanna Yeates case...
Again... I do not know what this case is about... therefore, what I have stated about said case I am not accepting until something else changes my mind....
-
Yorkshire Ripper.... I meant..
I cannot know what you have heard about at anytime....
I am not saying it has anything to do with Joanna Yeates, as I do not understand The Joanna Yeates case...
Again... I do not know what this case is about... therefore, what I have stated about said case I am not accepting until something else changes my mind....
You don't know what the case is about? It's about a woman who was murdered and the man who murdered her.
-
You don't know what the case is about? It's about a woman who was murdered and the man who murdered her.
Yes...... I know that is what we know
But like most things, there always more to something than meets the eye...
-
Yes...... I know that is what we know
But like most things, there always more to something than meets the eye...
No, not always.
-
No, not always.
True... I see coincidences that may not be linked..... But coincidences all the same.... just had a quick look for something about the case I mentioned... Noticeable coincidences to me ... no one else....
https://livebyfamily.com/2015/12/19/the-zabrocki-christmas-letter/
And at the end of the line up is Iris. She is beyond funny and crazy and she never, ever, ever, ever stops talking. That’s a lot of evers coming from another person that talks a lot, but she supersedes me in all areas of talking. Iris is just another great blessing that somehow God fit perfectly right into this family. She is so sweet and kind.
But the strangest thing that peaked my interest.... At the bottom of the page....
Love came down at Christmas,
Love all lovely, Love Divine,
Love was born at Christmas,
Star and Angels gave the sign.
-Christiana Rossetti
These are observations, that is all... maybe you are all correct... I have no idea what I am talking about... I have no idea about anything... I have wasted my time....
-
True... I see coincidences that may not be linked..... But coincidences all the same.... just had a quick look for something about the case I mentioned... Noticeable coincidences to me ... no one else....
https://livebyfamily.com/2015/12/19/the-zabrocki-christmas-letter/
But the strangest thing that peaked my interest.... At the bottom of the page....
These are observations, that is all... maybe you are all correct... I have no idea what I am talking about... I have no idea about anything... I have wasted my time....
What coincidence? Christmas?
-
Articles about the trial at the time raise many many question.... And this article is no different...
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Vincent Tabak 'researched killings and sentences after Joanna Yeates's death'
Dutch engineer allegedly searched online for information about jail sentences and the decomposition of bodies
Steven Morris
Wed 19 Oct 2011 12.55 BST First published on Wed 19 Oct 2011 12.55 BST
This article is over 7 years old
Vincent Tabak did online research on sexual offences after killing Joanna Yeates, Bristol crown court heard on Wednesday.
Among the phrases Tabak Googled were "sexual offence explained" and "definition of sexual assault", the jury was told.
The 33-year-old Dutch engineer, who admits manslaughter but denies murder, also carried out internet searches on the average sentences for manslaughter and for murder, it was claimed.
A police analyst described the online searches Tabak carried out after killing the 25-year-old landscape architect, whose body was found on a snowy roadside verge on Christmas morning last year.
Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you
Read more
Lyndsey Farmery said that on the day after Yeates went missing — December 17 — Tabak was doing research on subjects including the five-day weather forecast.
Next day he looked at online maps and images of Longwood Lane, the road three miles from her Bristol flat where her body was discovered. In subsequent days Tabak looked at news articles on Shrien Dewani, the Bristol man accused of hiring hitmen to kill his wife in South Africa, and the case of Melanie Hall, who was murdered after leaving a nightclub in Bath in 1996.
Later, the jury was told, he researched subjects including: "How does forensic identification work?" and the location of CCTV cameras in Canynge Road, Clifton, where Tabak and Yeates lived.
He researched "body decomposition time" and an article about a man who strangled his wife and pleaded diminished responsibility.
When police revealed they were sifting tonnes of rubbish he looked up details of household waste collection in Bristol.
Tabak, who denies murder but admits manslaughter, also spent time finding out about prison life in the UK. In addition he searched online for phrases including the "definition of sexual assault", "definition sexual conduct" and "sexual offence explained".
The trial continues.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/19/vincent-tabak-joanna-yeates-death?fbclid=IwAR3oovi66vEdYxh1F3zNIIXv5VFubUwbwXnFnXVxkh-4kPGclYjCpMxEBt0
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
The most striking paragraph is this one:
Later, the jury was told, he researched subjects including: "How does forensic identification work?" and the location of CCTV cameras in Canynge Road, Clifton, where Tabak and Yeates lived.
Three separate points in that paragraph..
(1): "How does forensic identification work?"
(2): and the location of CCTV cameras in Canynge Road, Clifton,
(3): where Tabak and Yeates lived
(1): Appears that the person who checked this had no- idea whatsoever about forensics... yet apparently Dr Vincent
Tabak was worried about DNA
(2): Dr Vincent Tabak didn't need to research for CCTV on Canygne Road seeing as he lived there, he just had to
walk up and down the road and look...
But the most concerning point is:
(3): Why would Dr Vincent Tabak be searching the internet to find where Tabak and Yeates lived??
A trial I have described as a MOOT TRIAL... A trail that made no sense... A man apparently in prison for 20 years for a crime I have stated i didn't believe he committed....
I get the impression the real killer they could not touch... I get the impression that they wanted to let everyone know what had taken place.... I get the impression the trial was to let the public know what happened....
I think their are 3 options, they may be more....
* Dr Vincent Tabak stopped the Investigation by admitting to Joanna Yeates manslaughter, thinking he was helping
someone...
* Someone set Dr Vincent Tabak up...
* The killer was in Bristol Crown Court at the time of the trial and they wanted them to see what they had done..
We have Dr Vincent Tabak in court sobbing, apologising and unable to answer over 80 questions... Saying that he was responsible... The images of Joanna Yeates are flashed around the court room on several days...
The sentence in the paragraph, suggest that it wasn't Dr Vincent Tabak.... (imo) It suggest that someone was looking for where Dr Vincent Tabak and Joanna Yeates lived... It brings a question to my mind that it was Dr Vincent Tabak and Joanna Yeates who may have been the couple...
If not knowing the actual date of this search , it makes it difficult to put it into context... Was this before Joanna Yeates went Missing??
Where both Joanna Yeates and Dr Vincent Tabak being stalked??
Or is that sentence proof that Dr Vincent Tabak couldn't have made the searches?
Who's computer did the searches really come from?
What truths are being hidden?? What have we been allowed to believe?? Is Dr Vincent Tabak in prison serving a 20 year sentence for the Murder of Joanna Yeates??
I'll leave you with this last thought :
How and why would Dr Vincent Tabak make a search for: where Tabak and Yeates lived.
Edit...... (1): forensic identification work? That is more of a question a scholar would be researching on the internet....
How and why would Dr Vincent Tabak make a search for: where Tabak and Yeates lived.
-
The point of the above post, was to try to clarify perception... Context an understanding....
Did the article simply mean that where Joanna Yeates and Dr Vincent Tabak lived there happened to be CCTV.... anyone could search for on the net...
That would have to be traffic cams..(imo) as private CCTV would not be easily to identify, even using google maps, things change...
Or did the article mean it in the context I posted... That there was a separate search, for where Dr Vincent Tabak and Joanna Yeates lived??
If the full information is not available, how can a jury make an informed decision based on MISSING information... If the context is not known, how can anyone honestly make a decision of someones apparent guilt..
Context is crucial.... The context of the information of this case is crucial... And if information is MISSING, How do we know the context of anything!!
Edit...
Or was I correct in my above post, and the searches did contain a search where Tabak and Yeates lived.??
-
Articles about the trial at the time raise many many question.... And this article is no different...
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Vincent Tabak 'researched killings and sentences after Joanna Yeates's death'
Dutch engineer allegedly searched online for information about jail sentences and the decomposition of bodies
Steven Morris
Wed 19 Oct 2011 12.55 BST First published on Wed 19 Oct 2011 12.55 BST
This article is over 7 years old
Vincent Tabak did online research on sexual offences after killing Joanna Yeates, Bristol crown court heard on Wednesday.
Among the phrases Tabak Googled were "sexual offence explained" and "definition of sexual assault", the jury was told.
The 33-year-old Dutch engineer, who admits manslaughter but denies murder, also carried out internet searches on the average sentences for manslaughter and for murder, it was claimed.
A police analyst described the online searches Tabak carried out after killing the 25-year-old landscape architect, whose body was found on a snowy roadside verge on Christmas morning last year.
Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you
Read more
Lyndsey Farmery said that on the day after Yeates went missing — December 17 — Tabak was doing research on subjects including the five-day weather forecast.
Next day he looked at online maps and images of Longwood Lane, the road three miles from her Bristol flat where her body was discovered. In subsequent days Tabak looked at news articles on Shrien Dewani, the Bristol man accused of hiring hitmen to kill his wife in South Africa, and the case of Melanie Hall, who was murdered after leaving a nightclub in Bath in 1996.
Later, the jury was told, he researched subjects including: "How does forensic identification work?" and the location of CCTV cameras in Canynge Road, Clifton, where Tabak and Yeates lived.
He researched "body decomposition time" and an article about a man who strangled his wife and pleaded diminished responsibility.
When police revealed they were sifting tonnes of rubbish he looked up details of household waste collection in Bristol.
Tabak, who denies murder but admits manslaughter, also spent time finding out about prison life in the UK. In addition he searched online for phrases including the "definition of sexual assault", "definition sexual conduct" and "sexual offence explained".
The trial continues.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/19/vincent-tabak-joanna-yeates-death?fbclid=IwAR3oovi66vEdYxh1F3zNIIXv5VFubUwbwXnFnXVxkh-4kPGclYjCpMxEBt0
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
The most striking paragraph is this one:
Later, the jury was told, he researched subjects including: "How does forensic identification work?" and the location of CCTV cameras in Canynge Road, Clifton, where Tabak and Yeates lived.
Three separate points in that paragraph..
(1): "How does forensic identification work?"
(2): and the location of CCTV cameras in Canynge Road, Clifton,
(3): where Tabak and Yeates lived
(1): Appears that the person who checked this had no- idea whatsoever about forensics... yet apparently Dr Vincent
Tabak was worried about DNA
(2): Dr Vincent Tabak didn't need to research for CCTV on Canygne Road seeing as he lived there, he just had to
walk up and down the road and look...
But the most concerning point is:
(3): Why would Dr Vincent Tabak be searching the internet to find where Tabak and Yeates lived??
A trial I have described as a MOOT TRIAL... A trail that made no sense... A man apparently in prison for 20 years for a crime I have stated i didn't believe he committed....
I get the impression the real killer they could not touch... I get the impression that they wanted to let everyone know what had taken place.... I get the impression the trial was to let the public know what happened....
I think their are 3 options, they may be more....
* Dr Vincent Tabak stopped the Investigation by admitting to Joanna Yeates manslaughter, thinking he was helping
someone...
* Someone set Dr Vincent Tabak up...
* The killer was in Bristol Crown Court at the time of the trial and they wanted them to see what they had done..
We have Dr Vincent Tabak in court sobbing, apologising and unable to answer over 80 questions... Saying that he was responsible... The images of Joanna Yeates are flashed around the court room on several days...
The sentence in the paragraph, suggest that it wasn't Dr Vincent Tabak.... (imo) It suggest that someone was looking for where Dr Vincent Tabak and Joanna Yeates lived... It brings a question to my mind that it was Dr Vincent Tabak and Joanna Yeates who may have been the couple...
If not knowing the actual date of this search , it makes it difficult to put it into context... Was this before Joanna Yeates went Missing??
Where both Joanna Yeates and Dr Vincent Tabak being stalked??
Or is that sentence proof that Dr Vincent Tabak couldn't have made the searches?
Who's computer did the searches really come from?
What truths are being hidden?? What have we been allowed to believe?? Is Dr Vincent Tabak in prison serving a 20 year sentence for the Murder of Joanna Yeates??
I'll leave you with this last thought :
How and why would Dr Vincent Tabak make a search for: where Tabak and Yeates lived.
Edit...... (1): forensic identification work? That is more of a question a scholar would be researching on the internet....
How and why would Dr Vincent Tabak make a search for: where Tabak and Yeates lived.
(1): Appears that the person who checked this had no- idea whatsoever about forensics... yet apparently Dr Vincent
Tabak was worried about DNA - You don't have to know much about forensics to know about DNA and BECAUSE he wasn't forensics savy, he worried about leaving his DNA!
(2): Dr Vincent Tabak didn't need to research for CCTV on Canygne Road seeing as he lived there, he just had to
walk up and down the road and look... He clearly needed confirmation where the cameras were, just counting them himself means he might miss one or two. This PROVES he was worried
But the most concerning point is:
(3): Why would Dr Vincent Tabak be searching the internet to find where Tabak and Yeates lived?? Read the sentence again "and the location of CCTV cameras in Canynge Road, Clifton, where Tabak and Yeates lived." It's not sayig he was researching where he and Joanna lived, it's explaining to the reader that that's where they both lived!
There isn't anything that will convince you that Tabak (who doesn't deserve to be called Doctor anymore) murdered that poor girl because he couldn't control himself. He admitted to the murder and clearly searched the internet because he was worried about being caught. There isn't three options - there's just ONE - the man is guilty, he isn't denying it! I don't think crime detection is your forte!
-
Unless you want to call him Doctor Jekyll.
-
Later, the jury was told, he researched subjects including: "How does forensic identification work?" and the location of CCTV cameras in Canynge Road, Clifton, where Tabak and Yeates lived.
where Tabak and Yeates lived
I am sticking with my view of what that actually meant.... It was meant (imo) as a search.....
Why didn't the journalist have the decency to call Joanna Yeates, either Jo yeates or Joanna Yeates in the paragraph....??
Why would he be so disrespectful about the victim?
Yes... One may accept that the word "TABAK" was acceptable, seeing as he was on trial, but "YEATES"!!
It reminds me of school. when your name was called out on the register, and your name was always your surname name that a teacher would use, when confirming if you were in attendance..
So either it was a search that Dr Vincent Tabak did, which makes no sense....
Someone else made the searches.
The newspaper is being disrespectful about the VICTIM
Or A person with the name of YEATES lived with Dr Vincent Tabak.... (Or knew Dr Vincent Tabak)
Or even, Joanna Yeates was actually Dr Vincent Tabak's girlfriend....
I'll leave you to make your own choice.....
-
where Tabak and Yeates lived
I am sticking with my view of what that actually meant.... It was meant (imo) as a search.....
Why didn't the journalist have the decency to call Joanna Yeates, either Jo yeates or Joanna Yeates in the paragraph....??
Why would he be so disrespectful about the victim?
Yes... One may accept that the word "TABAK" was acceptable, seeing as he was on trial, but "YEATES"!!
It reminds me of school. when your name was called out on the register, and your name was always your surname name that a teacher would use, when confirming if you were in attendance..
So either it was a search that Dr Vincent Tabak did, which makes no sense....
Someone else made the searches.
The newspaper is being disrespectful about the VICTIM
Or A person with the name of YEATES lived with Dr Vincent Tabak.... (Or knew Dr Vincent Tabak)
Or even, Joanna Yeates was actually Dr Vincent Tabak's girlfriend....
I'll leave you to make your own choice.....
And that's why you never move on!
-
And that's why you never move on!
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
It's all about perception...
-
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
It's all about perception...
Actually, the sentence you highlighted and you're question over it is all about grammar @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Actually, the sentence you highlighted and you're question over it is all about grammar @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
So was it deliberately grammatically incorrect??
-
So was it deliberately grammatically incorrect??
It wasn't an error in writing it, it was YOUR error in understanding it!
-
I was reading about Peter Sutcliffe on wiki... Of course wiki can be inaccurate, so I do not know if this information is correct..
But, It stated that Peter Sutcliffe had worked for Baird Television... That made me think about Joanna Yeates and the name 'Operation Braid'. Had this been the reason for the name of the operation?
Is that what this was about... ??
Noel O'Gara has always insisted that there was more than one killer as they had 2 different samples of blood: He had been eliminated twelve times by the police because he was blood group O... the Ripper was known to be blood group B.
Throughout The Joanna Yeates Investigation, there has been a suggestion that a serial killer was in the frame, and the talk of several victims that were mentioned at the time adds to that... DCI Phil Jones stating (killers) as in plural...
Patricia Atkinson.
I followed her into the flat, she closed the curtains, and I hung my coat on the hook on the back of the door. She took her coat off and sat on the bed, her back was slightly towards me. I went up to her and hit her on the back of the head with the hammer. She fell off the bed onto the floor. I picked her up and put her back on the bed. That was the first time I had noticed the red blood, before it had always been dark, but this time in the light I saw lots of blood on the bed and on the floor. When she was on the floor I hit her another twice, or three times, before I put her on the bed. I pulled the bedclothes back before I put her on the bed."
The fact that this lady had been killed in her home, had always struck me as strange, as other victims had been attacked or killed outside..
(https://www.execulink.com/~kbrannen/atkinso2.gif)
Looking at where Patricia lived, it makes it very risky for Sutcliffe to attack this woman in her home, the possibility of witness's is far greater..
When she was on the floor I hit her another twice, or three times, before I put her on the bed. I pulled the bedclothes back before I put her on the bed."
That doesn't make sense to me... Why are you picking the victim up from the floor and then spending the time to pull the bed covers back??
Was the idea of Operation Braid, to catch a serial killer??
I have never understood why anyone would remove Joanna Yeates body from her Flat to Longwood Lane.. I have never understood what advantage that would give Dr Vincent Tabak...
But apparently Dr Vincent Tabak isn't satisfied with just moving her once, he moves her several times, even taking her into his own flat, before dumping her on Longwood Lane...
Really.... why on earth would he do that?? Why on earth would anyone do that??
How would that be beneficial to him?... He doesn't know her... he is going away, he has all weekend, because he had apparently been informed that Greg was away...
If Joanna Yeates is Missing from that weekend, we have the Police at that Flat from day one... they never leave it yet, Joanna Yeates isn't found until days later 3 miles away from her home... Nothing at this point in time should connect Dr Vincent Tabak to Joanna Yeates... he has plenty of time to distance himself from the crime scene, and he had also been eliminated early on..
A whole weekend in which to make decisions, but an apparent panicked Dr Vincent Tabak, decided to share the crime scene with his flat and his car... He is supposed to be a very clever ,manipulating individual, yet his stupidity is endless according to the tale on the stand... There must be virtually no-one these days who isn't aware of DNA..
But.. that doesn't stop Dr Vincent Tabak spreading Joanna Yeates DNA and his own DNA everywhere... He had no connection to Joanna Yeates, so why move her?? Doesn't make sense... No physical evidence was ever produced at trial connecting Joanna Yeates to Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat, or Dr Vincent Tabak to Joanna Yeates Flat...
Now that is odd.... there should have been something from this violent assault...
Why would the Police be looking at Dr Vincent Tabak from late December?? He'd been eliminated... he didn't know the victim... he had only just returned from the America days earlier, he was studious, a bit geeky, he was polite, had friends, had no previous convictions of any type, was called Placid by DCI Phil Jones, had not as far as we know given any indication that he could possibly have had anything to do with his neighbours disappearance.. But for some obscure reason, the CPS in late December were wanting to build a case against him... At a time when he wasn't even in the country..
There could not at this point have been any solid evidence to connect him to Joanna Yeates Flat, or I would assume it would have been brought into evidence at trial.... yet it was NOT!
Was Operation Braid a sting to catch a serial killer? Did the Operation go too far?
I do not want to appear unkind, but I question whether or not Joanna Yeates did die? And it is a fair point if looking at this as some type of sting!
Which always brings me back to who is Dr Vincent Tabak and What is this case really about...
Edit... Did Sutcliffe actually write his account of what he did? Or did he just sign a statement?
The reason I ask is this part from the link....
When she was on the floor I hit her another twice, or three times, before I put her on the bed. I pulled the bedclothes back before I put her on the bed."
Shouldn't that be twice more, another twice isn't grammatically correct.. And Caroline had pointed out that issue with the Guardian article... I'm just thinking about that now... Is that supposed to make him sound more Yorkshire?
Was the statement made from taped interviews? I would have thought that if it was from taped interviews then a Yorkshire man wouldn't pronounce the "H".. he would leave it out and the statement should be 'it 'er another twice'... or even... it 'er anover twice'
Just an observation...
Double Edit... A babby i’ t’hahse
by Emma O'Connell
Read by Stanley Ellis
http://www.yorkshiredialectsociety.org.uk/listen/
My observations....
When he starts to speak to the audience , it is noticeable that he has learnt to speak clearer english, yet when he gets really into the poem, he slips into the dialect and doesn't pronounce the 'H' even in "hahse" because you wouldn't...
Reading the Yorkshire dialect is difficult, it is even harder to write it correctly.. but someone who was from Yorkshire would naturally drop into there dialect without any issue, even when reading it from a script..
I do not know if Stanley Ellis is a Yorkshireman... But that is the impression he gives me... A Yorkshireman who has learnt or is trying to speak the queens english...
http://www.yorkshiredialectsociety.org.uk/listen/
Listen to the poem 'A babby i’ t’hahse'
And oddly enough, I find things as I write, and just found this... I do not know if it is the same person reading the poem, but the coincidences, he is from Bradford Yorkshire and was connected to the Ripper Inquiry... This Stanley Ellis you can read about here...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/culture-obituaries/tv-radio-obituaries/6608130/Stanley-Ellis.html
Oldfield consulted Ellis, who played and replayed the tape, repeating key syllables, before pinning the voice down to the Castletown district of Sunderland, Tyne and Wear. Police swamped the area, but Ellis and his colleague, Jack Windsor Lewis, also an expert in linguistics, always doubted the authenticity of the tape, and were sceptical that the man who became known as "Wearside Jack" was responsible for the murders.
As I stated I do not know if the poem and the Stanley Ellis who has the article written about him are one in the same...
But I did detect that the reader of the poem was in fact a Yorkshireman... Whom had tried to reign in his accent in his every day life..
NB: I'm not trying to connect Stanley Ellis, that was just coincidence, when I found said article... I was looking for some Yorkshire dialect to show the difference in how something would sound or how an interview would be transcribed...
Stanley Ellis is just an example that was all.... It surprised me when I found the Telegraph article... And no assumptions should be made from my find...
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/16283351-the-real-yorkshire-ripper
https://www.execulink.com/~kbrannen/victim10.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Sutcliffe
-
Just back to the article in the Telegraph for a moment...
Ellis interviewed mainly older farming people to gather data on their vocabulary, verbal constructions and dialect words that had passed into vernacular use but were in danger of disappearing. The work was exhaustive and exhausting: he interviewed each subject for some 18 hours, and asked them to complete a 1,300-item questionnaire.
How illiterate was Peter Sutcliffe?
Were the interviews transcribed?
A Yorkshire man would write differently from how he speaks, the extent would be dependant on his education, even if he attended a secondary school, he would have been taught English, therefore writing in a different manner.. ..
So Ellis having these people from around the country filling in questionnaires is pointless really... (imo) no 1300 page document would really show anyone where these people came from, as the dialect would not be written that way, and only the way in which someone wrote a paragraph would determine their level of education and not where they came from... (And a bell rings again... Sally Ramage is now in my head..... )
So that exercise I am unsure of it's usefulness....
Therefore questioning whether Peter Sutcliffe's interview was transcribed or it was what Peter Sutcliffe actually stated is important.... And who actually wrote said statement...
Every area has its own slang and dialect, interpretation of what something means to one small area and the whole country in general could be quite different and that could be the difference in what a jury may understand in any case... And that surely is dependant on the interviewers interpretation and maybe their age.....
Example: When I was younger, when someone stated that they had got off with someone, it meant that the person of the opposite sex had taken an interest in them, they may have held hands, or even had a sneaky kiss.. But when asking someone how they would interpret the statement 'Got off with someone".. they interpreted that as they had sex... Which wasn't the case at all....
So interpretation of language in cases can change the view of anyone... understanding dialect and the nuances within dialects and meanings of said dialects, can change the complexion of any statement...
I am finding the expert quite interesting, because the written word of someone from any region within the UK, would not determine where they came from.... Making the tape from the Ripper inquiry even more interesting, no-one would have known that the Ripper was a Geordie if it hadn't been for the tape, As something written would not make this obvious...
Therefore who sent the Ripper Tape? And why would he?? It would only be of use to someone trying to steer the investigation in another direction...(imo)
No-one at any point at that time could 100% state that the Ripper was a Geordie.... and what was to say, that a Geordie man didn't live in Yorkshire... They don't all live there.... So why not look for a Geordie Man in Yorkshire instead of venturing up to Geordie land??
I'm just listening to the tape.. 'The Hoax Tape'... It sounds like he is reading it off something... Well (imo) anyway..
I'm serious... whoever is on that tape is reading that message from something that is written, and it (imo) is not someone speaking naturally...
Why would a person need to write down what he would say to George Oldfield, when he should know the case inside out... The vids I am adding are the Tape from the Hoaxer and 2 videos from a Geordie Lady, whom explains a little about the accent... She admits she has softened her accent, and another point of interest is that Geordies speak fast..
The Hoax Tape is deliberate and slow speaking which also makes me think it was something that a person had read from a script that had be written, otherwise anyone may have difficulty in understanding everything that was stated... Therefore, what was the point of the tape from The Hoaxer? If he wanted to be understood all he needed to do was to send a letter and the postcode marked on the envelope would show the region that it had originated from..
The idea, that The Hoaxer had to prove he was a Geordie, by making the tape is strange to me... If he was making a tape, it should have sounded more natural, he wouldn't need to be reading something, and the Police would have had a more difficult time in understanding the tape, as the speed of how a natural Geordie talks, is fast... And why would The Hoaxer really care whether or not he spoke so someone could understand his accent... Especially as it was supposed to be a Hoax anyway...
This is why no-one could identify the Geordie accent of the tape... (imo) Because a Geordie reading something at a slow pace, is different from a Geordie talking naturally and certain words written, would be pronounced differently than certain words naturally spoken, as I have explained about The Yorkshire Accent...
So was The Hoax tape really a Geordie speaking or a person trying to sound like a Geordie, reading from a script??
That shoves the cat amongst the pigeons... Something else to contemplate....
Edit.. Are there any taped interviews of Dr Vincent Tabak speaking?? We are told he is a Dutch National and his command of the English Language is excellent, but his accent would still be noticeable even if he could speak perfect English.. .. I would be interested to hear any Interview tapes... Even if he states "No Comment"!!
Those two words alone would clearly indicate whether or not he had been born and lived in Holland his whole life... And whether or not it was Dr Vincent Tabak being interviewed... (imo)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2woc46LXkw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22DUclUZiX4
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/culture-obituaries/tv-radio-obituaries/6608130/Stanley-Ellis.html
-
Therefore I am asking... Was Operation Braid to do with a Serial killer??
A Killer who could have been responsible for some if not all of the Yorkshire Ripper attacks??
-
Reading this passage again, made me re-think the condition of the Flat we have seen the images of the front room and the tour..
Patricia Atkinson..
I followed her into the flat, she closed the curtains, and I hung my coat on the hook on the back of the door. She took her coat off and sat on the bed, her back was slightly towards me. I went up to her and hit her on the back of the head with the hammer. She fell off the bed onto the floor. I picked her up and put her back on the bed. That was the first time I had noticed the red blood, before it had always been dark, but this time in the light I saw lots of blood on the bed and on the floor. When she was on the floor I hit her another twice, or three times, before I put her on the bed. I pulled the bedclothes back before I put her on the bed."
In the Flat of Joanna Yeates, the living room curtains were closed on the images we have seen, it has never been revealed how this happened...
(https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/1/285x214/277139_1.jpg)
* Where they not drawn back in the morning?
* Did Joanna Yeates close them?
* Did Dr Vincent Tabak close them?
* Did Greg close them before he left for Sheffield?
* Were the curtains closed on Greg's return from Sheffield?
* Did the Yeates close them when they arrived?
It's a small detail, but it could be of great importance,.. As we have been made aware Joanna Yeates was more or less attacked when she arrived home, or within ten minutes, there is no mention at trial that I am aware of that Dr Vincent Tabak closed the living room curtains. So who closed them should be of interest. The prosecution nor the Defence mention this detail...
If Greg did not close them, it was then conceivable that someone saw Joanna Yeates in her living room, through the open curtains.. The hedge at the front of the garden and the window being very low, would make it difficult for someone from the road to see into the Flat.. If they stood at the small gate they would get a better view.
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-eC1BM5KYyPk/VechDpLoknI/AAAAAAAAAyM/kb3n_yCabzw/s320/102_7109%2Bcopy.jpg)
Joanna Yeates TV was switched off, which suggests she must have turned it on.. We do not know for sure she did, but with Dr Vincent Tabak saying he turned the TV off, unless Greg or someone else turned the TV on, how do we know that it was an action that Joanna Yeates made??
If someone was outside the living room window and someone walked passed the window via the small patio, Joanna Yeates would not see whom it was, as the light inside was far greater and he outside at the front is in darkness..
So it was feasible for someone to look into this Flat without being seen, especially if the curtains were open...
We are told the blind stayed up all the time, we are also told by David Yeates that Tanja and him were walking across the grass, he also notes that there are diagonal foot prints going across the grass in the snow...
So it is feasible that anyone who lived, or visited Canygne Road could have made the diagonal foot prints.. Making me query the idea that it was also possible for Joanna Yeates curtains to be opened.. A room with a better view of a person at home..
In the documentaries The Yeates do not mention the curtains as far as I can remember.. In Fact the only reason I know the curtains are closed is because of the images that come from the tour of Joanna Yeates Flat..
Why were the curtains not taken for forensics??
Consider this... The killer could see her through her front room window... The killer did attack her in the kitchen with the kitchen door open blocking any visual from the front room curtains being drawn back... The killer could then have turned the lights off (or not)and closed the curtains, and then carried on cleaning up and removing the body without anyone seeing into the room...
If the killer had touched the curtains, there could either be blood evidence or fibre evidence on said curtains... So what stopped the Police collecting them for forensic testing... They in fact shouldn't have still been hung up (imo) going from every other item that was removed, stripping the Flat bare...
They had no idea who closed the curtains, but shouldn't they still have tested them for elimination purposes and to make sure the killer hadn't touched them??
The questions have to be who closed the curtains and why didn't the Police remove them for testing... We have seen the doing Forensics on the actual windows inside and out so why aren't the curtains removed??
Or am I back to the idea that the Flat in the tour belonged to Dr Vincent Tabak, And if that is the case, why aren't the curtains from the Flat with the bay window removed?? Either way the curtains should have gone for testing...(imo)
It reminded me of that "Washing Pile" no-one mentions other than David Yeates...
If they thought someone had gained entry through a window for instance, then again the curtain are of evidential value... even if they didn't , the curtains still should be of evidential value...
Don't try telling me they tested them and put them back.... Because that doesn't happen... So why are the living room curtains still hung upon the pole in Joanna Yeates living room??
-
If Greg did not close them, it was then conceivable that someone saw Joanna Yeates in her living room, through the open curtains.. The hedge at the front of the garden and the window being very low, would make it difficult for someone from the road to see into the Flat.. If they stood at the small gate they would get a better view.
Mentioning the only view from the gate as to whether or not these curtains were closed has me revisiting what CJ stated.. he saw 2 or 3 people at the gate...
Well did any of these 2 to 3 people close Joanna Yeates curtains in her front room... Did any of these 2 to 3 people notice whether or not the curtains were open or closed? Did any of these 2 or 3 people notice whether Joanna Yeates living room light was still on??
Did CJ notice whether the curtains of Joanna Yeates front room were open or closed when he arrived back from the gym? Did CJ notice whether or not Joanna Yeates living room light was still on when he arrived from the gym??
We do not know what was in CJ's witness statements, either of them, well not the full content... Was he asked about the living room curtain and the living room main light?
Were any of these 2 to three people ever identified???
Edit.... If the curtains were not closed or the living room light on, when CJ returned home from the gym, that would maybe indicate that Joanna Yeates was killed later, Or, she had never returned home at all and it had been suggested that someone returned the items..
So was the Flat in darkness on CJ's return from the gym??
-
Joanna Yeates is a Missing person, a Missing person for days...
Did Greg get removed from the Flat on the Monday morning when he had reported her Missing... ??
So didn't he open the curtains on the Monday Morning if he stayed at home that evening??
Why would the curtains of a Flat of a Missing person not be opened??
It reminds me of when people are in mourning and they close the world off and do not open the curtains.....
But Joanna Yeates is only Missing.. So if the Police suspect foul play, why didn't they take the living room curtains for forensic testing??
-
Just back to the article in the Telegraph for a moment...
How illiterate was Peter Sutcliffe?
Were the interviews transcribed?
A Yorkshire man would write differently from how he speaks, the extent would be dependant on his education, even if he attended a secondary school, he would have been taught English, therefore writing in a different manner.. ..
So Ellis having these people from around the country filling in questionnaires is pointless really... (imo) no 1300 page document would really show anyone where these people came from, as the dialect would not be written that way, and only the way in which someone wrote a paragraph would determine their level of education and not where they came from... (And a bell rings again... Sally Ramage is now in my head..... )
So that exercise I am unsure of it's usefulness....
Therefore questioning whether Peter Sutcliffe's interview was transcribed or it was what Peter Sutcliffe actually stated is important.... And who actually wrote said statement...
Every area has its own slang and dialect, interpretation of what something means to one small area and the whole country in general could be quite different and that could be the difference in what a jury may understand in any case... And that surely is dependant on the interviewers interpretation and maybe their age.....
Example: When I was younger, when someone stated that they had got off with someone, it meant that the person of the opposite sex had taken an interest in them, they may have held hands, or even had a sneaky kiss.. But when asking someone how they would interpret the statement 'Got off with someone".. they interpreted that as they had sex... Which wasn't the case at all....
So interpretation of language in cases can change the view of anyone... understanding dialect and the nuances within dialects and meanings of said dialects, can change the complexion of any statement...
I am finding the expert quite interesting, because the written word of someone from any region within the UK, would not determine where they came from.... Making the tape from the Ripper inquiry even more interesting, no-one would have known that the Ripper was a Geordie if it hadn't been for the tape, As something written would not make this obvious...
Therefore who sent the Ripper Tape? And why would he?? It would only be of use to someone trying to steer the investigation in another direction...(imo)
No-one at any point at that time could 100% state that the Ripper was a Geordie.... and what was to say, that a Geordie man didn't live in Yorkshire... They don't all live there.... So why not look for a Geordie Man in Yorkshire instead of venturing up to Geordie land??
I'm just listening to the tape.. 'The Hoax Tape'... It sounds like he is reading it off something... Well (imo) anyway..
I'm serious... whoever is on that tape is reading that message from something that is written, and it (imo) is not someone speaking naturally...
Why would a person need to write down what he would say to George Oldfield, when he should know the case inside out... The vids I am adding are the Tape from the Hoaxer and 2 videos from a Geordie Lady, whom explains a little about the accent... She admits she has softened her accent, and another point of interest is that Geordies speak fast..
The Hoax Tape is deliberate and slow speaking which also makes me think it was something that a person had read from a script that had be written, otherwise anyone may have difficulty in understanding everything that was stated... Therefore, what was the point of the tape from The Hoaxer? If he wanted to be understood all he needed to do was to send a letter and the postcode marked on the envelope would show the region that it had originated from..
The idea, that The Hoaxer had to prove he was a Geordie, by making the tape is strange to me... If he was making a tape, it should have sounded more natural, he wouldn't need to be reading something, and the Police would have had a more difficult time in understanding the tape, as the speed of how a natural Geordie talks, is fast... And why would The Hoaxer really care whether or not he spoke so someone could understand his accent... Especially as it was supposed to be a Hoax anyway...
This is why no-one could identify the Geordie accent of the tape... (imo) Because a Geordie reading something at a slow pace, is different from a Geordie talking naturally and certain words written, would be pronounced differently than certain words naturally spoken, as I have explained about The Yorkshire Accent...
So was The Hoax tape really a Geordie speaking or a person trying to sound like a Geordie, reading from a script??
That shoves the cat amongst the pigeons... Something else to contemplate....
Edit.. Are there any taped interviews of Dr Vincent Tabak speaking?? We are told he is a Dutch National and his command of the English Language is excellent, but his accent would still be noticeable even if he could speak perfect English.. .. I would be interested to hear any Interview tapes... Even if he states "No Comment"!!
Those two words alone would clearly indicate whether or not he had been born and lived in Holland his whole life... And whether or not it was Dr Vincent Tabak being interviewed... (imo)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2woc46LXkw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22DUclUZiX4
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/culture-obituaries/tv-radio-obituaries/6608130/Stanley-Ellis.html
You do know that they caught the guy who made the Ripper Hoax tape? By the way, he's NOT a geordie! He's from Sunderland BUT yes, he was speaking in his own dialect. Wearside Jack turned about to be a man called John Humble. He's been convicted, served his sentence and is now a free man https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211217/Yorkshire-Ripper-hoaxer-Wearside-Jack-released-prison-weeks.html
-
You do know that they caught the guy who made the Ripper Hoax tape? By the way, he's NOT a geordie! He's from Sunderland BUT yes, he was speaking in his own dialect. Wearside Jack turned about to be a man called John Humble. He's been convicted, served his sentence and is now a free man https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211217/Yorkshire-Ripper-hoaxer-Wearside-Jack-released-prison-weeks.html
Yes I am aware of this... But I found oddities that was all..
(https://wearsideonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/letter-from-john-humble-10.jpg)
* Not original, obviously, Humble’s letter was in his own hand writing.
** The reference to Preston ’75 was about a murder of a woman, However, in the end, had nothing to do with the Yorkshire Ripper case. So, perhaps this was guess work. Nonetheless, it was clear that John Humble or Wearside Jack as he now dubbed, had an unhealthy interest in the Yorkshire Ripper case. Indeed, Humble sent two more letters before he sent in the audio tape.
Why would a Hoaxer even mention Preston '75?? He wouldn't have a clue about it..
Joan Harrison, 26, who was found dead in a derelict garage in Preston in 1975, was once thought to have been killed by the Yorkshire Ripper.
But the lifeless and battered body was that of Joan Harrison who had been the victim of what the second-in-command of Lancashire CID, Detective Superintendent Wilf Brooks, described as a "savage attack" with no obvious motive.Murder squad detectives later made inquiries in other areas to see if there were any other violent crimes which may be linked to the attack on Mrs Harrison. But their inquiries, at that stage, drew a blank.There were a few strange things about the murder of Mrs Harrison. Her body had lain undiscovered for more than 48 hours and a post-mortem examination revealed she had had sex shortly before she was killed.There was also a bite mark on her left breast and experts in forensic ondontology were able to ascertain that whoever bit her had an eighth-of-an-inch gap in his top two front teeth.
The Gap in the teeth was another reason that they arrested and charged Peter Sutcliffe, and Josephine Whitaker was also had a bite mark
After the trial in 1981, the Sunday Times ("Did The Ripper Have An Accomplice?"- May 24 1981) reported that they had "learned that Sutcliffe's tenth victim, Josephine Whitaker, was found with a bite-mark on her left breast. It had been made, shortly before her death, by someone with a gap between the two upper front teeth. Sutcliffe has just such a gap. In the course of his interrogation by police, Sutcliffe admitted killing Whitaker, but he denied categorically that he had bitten her. Ripper Squad detectives on the other hand are convinced that Sutcliffe did."
But composite photo of The Ripper doesn't show A Gap..
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/04/29/22/001A312200000258-0-image-m-4_1461966074502.jpg)
I cannot find any Newspaper reports of the time, which makes it difficult to know whether The Hoaxer would be aware of this victim or not... But someone was... And someone needed to know about the bite Mark on Joan Harrison, for her to be considered a victim till later, when it was shown she wasn't.... How many victims had bite marks?
Why did The Hoaxer pull Joan Harrison out of a hat???
There must have been many victims at the time many victims who were not connected at the time, so why believe the Hoax letter talking about the Preston woman from '75
Other woman whom had been Murdered around that time and reports in the media having been made... It's almost like The Hoaxer was aware the Police might have looked for a connection.. But why would he know?
The apology for Jayne Macdonalds Murder in itself should have had the Detectives of the time knowing it was a hoax.. Where it originated from is another matter...
But the oddity I find that the hoax letter apologises for Jayne MacDonald and the Yorkshire Ripper apologises for the murder of Jayne MacDonald is a strange coincidence..
(http://yorkshireripper.com/OLDSITE/macdonald_files/sut_macdonald.jpg)
Why would Peter Sutcliffe feel sorry for Jayne MacDonald?? He never felt guilt for any of his victims that were younger than Jayne MacDonald whom survived his attacks??
He never felt sorry for Josephine Whitaker when he discovered that she wasn't a prostitute nor Jacqueline Hill....
I find it coincidental, that The Hoax letters and the information that Peter Sutcliffe tells the Police bare the same apology...
I cannot remember at the time if the press told the public that Jayne macDonald wasn't a prostitute, but the reports suggested that she was..
(http://yorkshireripper.com/OLDSITE/macdonald_files/beattiemcdonald.jpg)
So why would The Hoax letter apologise for killing a 16 year old girl?? And Peter Sutcliffe himself do the same...
At 9:45 am two children made their way into the adventure playground between Reginald Street and Reginald Terrace and discovered the body of Jayne MacDonald near a wall. Spots of blood on the pavement at the entrance of the adventure playground quickly established where she had first been attack. Her body was found lying face down, her gingham skirt disarranged, and her blue and white halter-neck sun top pulled up to expose her middle. She had been hit on the head three times with a hammer and had been stabbed about twenty times in the chest and on the back. There was repeated stabbing through one wound in her chest and and one wound in her back. Blood smears on her back revealed that Sutcliffe had tried to wiped his knife clean. When the police turned over her body, they discovered a broken bottle with the screw-top still attached had been embedded into her chest. Sutcliffe would later claim that he did not deliberately embed the bottle into her chest, and that it must have happened as he dragged her through the rubble on the playground. A post-mortem examination showed she had not been drinking, but had only had soft drinks that night.
I found A copy of what was the official Police report,( If it is correct) doesn't mention being stabbed, or a broken bottle...
(http://yorkshireripper.com/OLDSITE/macdonald_files/POL_REP_macdonald.jpg)
The report clearly states that no links should be made and no information should be given to the press, so it appears they had a field day...
From reading the report I get the impression that the killer dragged her from behind and the blood that transferred from Jayne MacDonalds head would be on the suspects clothing... The information from the press has come from somewhere, but not directly from the report (imo). I believe that extra details were added..
So what proved that The Hoaxer was John Humble who was sentenced for this crime?
Apparently it was DNA... DNA that had survived the best part of nearly 40 years,
A major breakthrough came during 2005 when senior officers from West Yorkshire Police's Homicide and Major Inquiry Team (HMIT), headed by Det Chief Supt Chris Gregg, decided to review the case. A small piece of the gummed seal from one of the envelopes was located in a forensic laboratory and following publicity about the cold case review the hoax tape was retrieved from a retired scientist who had worked on the original investigation.[9]As a result of this cold case review, DNA from envelopes sent by Humble as part of the hoax were matched in the United Kingdom National DNA Database with samples police had obtained from Humble in an unrelated incident in 2000, when he had been arrested and cautioned for being drunk and disorderly.[10] By this time Humble had become an alcoholic loner.
Was there nothing else that connected this man other than the envelope? His hand writing for instance.. Did they not get him to do a reconstruction of the tape that he sent??
Did they not find John Humbles finger prints on the tape he sent?? His finger prints on the envelope?? Or on the letters?
According to this article John Humble was already in the system..
In part, he was motivated by a hatred for police. In 1975, aged 19, he was convicted of actual bodily harm for kicking an off-duty policeman in the head at Sunderland's Locarno ballroom, and sentenced to three months at a young offenders institution. Two years earlier, he was convicted of burglary and theft.
Therefore they should have already have had a set of his finger prints..
So I cannot say for sure what I think about john humble and his arrest, charge and sentence, if all they had was some DNA.. which should have degraded over the years... (imo)
Question.... Why do we not see the original letter that John Humble sent to the Police? And why don't the letter and the tape sound like it came from the same person? In fact the letter says he posts the letter on his way through Sunderland.. It's the tape with the accent that changes the direction of the investigation... So the letters and the tape should match and they don't...
Humble was remanded on 20 October 2005.[11] He was tried at Leeds Crown Court on 9 January 2006, and initially pleaded not guilty. He admitted to being Wearside Jack on 23 February 2006, and on 20 March 2006, changed his plea to guilty on four counts of perverting the course of justice.[12]
Another confession... Why am I not surprised...
https://wearsideonline.com/wearside-jack/
http://www.yorkshireripper.com/2011/12/28/jayne-macdonald/
https://www.execulink.com/~kbrannen/victim11.htm
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-12396506
https://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/is-jack-a-killer-too-1-1083732
https://www.execulink.com/~kbrannen/victim18.htm
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/wearside-jack-i-deserve-to-go-to-jail-for-evil-ripper-hoax-6106028.html
-
Here's another thought... Would the term "Sluts' be used by someone with a Sunderland accent, or would they have used the term "Slags"?? Or even another name....?? Prossies?? How would a Sunderland man talk about prostitutes?? And at the time...
Dialect and district do make a difference...
Edit... "Warn whores to keep off streets cause I feel it coming on again.
Sorry about young lassie."
Would a Geordie or a Sunderland man say young lassie? Or Whores? Or would the term be closer to a Scottish term and wee lassie be used?
On the tape we have plenty of phrases Missing that someone from Sunderland would use... 'The word 'like" for instances is used virtually in every sentence.. And according to the young man in the video I have linked... Like needs to be used in a sentence at least twice even if it is not needed...
This makes me question the tape even more...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwVYoA2NyAU
-
Yes I am aware of this... But I found oddities that was all..
(https://wearsideonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/letter-from-john-humble-10.jpg)
Why would a Hoaxer even mention Preston '75?? He wouldn't have a clue about it..
The Gap in the teeth was another reason that they arrested and charged Peter Sutcliffe, and Josephine Whitaker was also had a bite mark
But composite photo of The Ripper doesn't show A Gap..
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/04/29/22/001A312200000258-0-image-m-4_1461966074502.jpg)
I cannot find any Newspaper reports of the time, which makes it difficult to know whether The Hoaxer would be aware of this victim or not... But someone was... And someone needed to know about the bite Mark on Joan Harrison, for her to be considered a victim till later, when it was shown she wasn't.... How many victims had bite marks?
Why did The Hoaxer pull Joan Harrison out of a hat???
There must have been many victims at the time many victims who were not connected at the time, so why believe the Hoax letter talking about the Preston woman from '75
Other woman whom had been Murdered around that time and reports in the media having been made... It's almost like The Hoaxer was aware the Police might have looked for a connection.. But why would he know?
The apology for Jayne Macdonalds Murder in itself should have had the Detectives of the time knowing it was a hoax.. Where it originated from is another matter...
But the oddity I find that the hoax letter apologises for Jayne MacDonald and the Yorkshire Ripper apologises for the murder of Jayne MacDonald is a strange coincidence..
(http://yorkshireripper.com/OLDSITE/macdonald_files/sut_macdonald.jpg)
Why would Peter Sutcliffe feel sorry for Jayne MacDonald?? He never felt guilt for any of his victims that were younger than Jayne MacDonald whom survived his attacks??
He never felt sorry for Josephine Whitaker when he discovered that she wasn't a prostitute nor Jacqueline Hill....
I find it coincidental, that The Hoax letters and the information that Peter Sutcliffe tells the Police bare the same apology...
I cannot remember at the time if the press told the public that Jayne macDonald wasn't a prostitute, but the reports suggested that she was..
(http://yorkshireripper.com/OLDSITE/macdonald_files/beattiemcdonald.jpg)
So why would The Hoax letter apologise for killing a 16 year old girl?? And Peter Sutcliffe himself do the same...
I found A copy of what was the official Police report,( If it is correct) doesn't mention being stabbed, or a broken bottle...
(http://yorkshireripper.com/OLDSITE/macdonald_files/POL_REP_macdonald.jpg)
The report clearly states that no links should be made and no information should be given to the press, so it appears they had a field day...
From reading the report I get the impression that the killer dragged her from behind and the blood that transferred from Jayne MacDonalds head would be on the suspects clothing... The information from the press has come from somewhere, but not directly from the report (imo). I believe that extra details were added..
So what proved that The Hoaxer was John Humble who was sentenced for this crime?
Apparently it was DNA... DNA that had survived the best part of nearly 40 years,
Was there nothing else that connected this man other than the envelope? His hand writing for instance.. Did they not get him to do a reconstruction of the tape that he sent??
Did they not find John Humbles finger prints on the tape he sent?? His finger prints on the envelope?? Or on the letters?
According to this article John Humble was already in the system..
Therefore they should have already have had a set of his finger prints..
So I cannot say for sure what I think about john humble and his arrest, charge and sentence, if all they had was some DNA.. which should have degraded over the years... (imo)
Question.... Why do we not see the original letter that John Humble sent to the Police? And why don't the letter and the tape sound like it came from the same person? In fact the letter says he posts the letter on his way through Sunderland.. It's the tape with the accent that changes the direction of the investigation... So the letters and the tape should match and they don't...
Another confession... Why am I not surprised...
https://wearsideonline.com/wearside-jack/
http://www.yorkshireripper.com/2011/12/28/jayne-macdonald/
https://www.execulink.com/~kbrannen/victim11.htm
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-12396506
https://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/is-jack-a-killer-too-1-1083732
https://www.execulink.com/~kbrannen/victim18.htm
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/wearside-jack-i-deserve-to-go-to-jail-for-evil-ripper-hoax-6106028.html
He had an unhealthy interest in the YR case> @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* Doesn't that remind you of someone? *%87
-
He had an unhealthy interest in the YR case> @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* Doesn't that remind you of someone? *%87
Nothing springs to mind...
All I have been saying is there's so much fake news... And I do not know whether The Joanna Yeates case is any different.. I do not know if Leveson 2 would have been about fake news and that would open up a whole can of worms...
This post is the last time I will mention The Yorkshire Ripper, it is not a case I know much about, but imaging in the papers of that case shows just how the media allow us to believe what we see..
An image that has been seen all over the media..
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/11/18/article-2234709-00CDFBB000000190-477_634x414.jpg)
A clearer image of Peter Sutcliffe at the wheel of his truck..
(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2519547.main_image.jpg?strip=all)
Peter Sutcliffe looking slightly different in his truck
(https://brightcove04pmdo-a.akamaihd.net/4221396001/4221396001_129117864001_Iper1279285123134I-83800-1-480x360.jpg?pubId=4221396001&videoId=129118830001)
Then i found this from Getty...
Details
Restrictions: Contact your local office for all commercial or promotional uses.The following uses are prohibited in the territories indicated: Retail Print, Poster; Worldwide.
Credit: Bettmann / Contributor
Editorial #: 517721812
Collection: Bettmann
Date created: 05 January, 1981
Licence type: Rights-managed
Release info: Not released. More information
Source: Bettmann
Object name: u2031728.jpg
Max file size: 4986 x 3528 px (42.21 x 29.87 cm) - 300 dpi - 4.83 MB
(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/january-5-1981-bradford-england-this-retouched-photo-shows-peter-at-picture-id517721812)
Drawing of Yorkshire Ripper
(Original Caption) January 5, 1981 - Bradford, England: This retouched photo shows Peter Sutcliffe, 35, at the wheel of his truck. It is a file photo. Sutcliffe was arrested by police January 2, 1981 and charged with the slaying of Jacqueline Hall, the last of the victims of the so-called 'Yorkshire Ripper.'
The point proven that the altering of images to support statements people believe is nothing new.....
I have stated many times that the images related to the Joanna Yeates Case have been photoshopped ... The whole Case was played out in the papers/online..
Do I know the case is true.?... I do not
Do I know a man named Dr Vincent Tabak is in prison for this crime?.... I do not
As I said from the start.. I didn't believe that Dr Vincent Tabak was guilty.. What I knew about the case and subsequently found does not add up..... I was a concerned citizen hoping to get someone to look at the case and see what could be done...
But I do not know for sure if Dr Vincent Tabak is in prison...
I do not know or sure whether this case is real or not
I do not know for sure if a woman called Joanna Yeates was Murdered
I do not know for sure if it is fake news
I do not know for sure if I have wasted my time
All I know is that it never made any sense to me and I tried to understand why, having a forum to post on gave me an opportunity to have all of the information in one place, where I could cross reference points of interest. It also meant that by looking at the case and writing about it on here,it posed more questions than I originally started with...
And being inquisitive, I looked further at the case... That is all...
The Joanna Yeates Case is what? I honestly have no idea.... It is not about what we have been lead to believe. I can say I believe that..
-
Nothing springs to mind...
All I have been saying is there's so much fake news... And I do not know whether The Joanna Yeates case is any different.. I do not know if Leveson 2 would have been about fake news and that would open up a whole can of worms...
This post is the last time I will mention The Yorkshire Ripper, it is not a case I know much about, but imaging in the papers of that case shows just how the media allow us to believe what we see..
An image that has been seen all over the media..
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/11/18/article-2234709-00CDFBB000000190-477_634x414.jpg)
A clearer image of Peter Sutcliffe at the wheel of his truck..
(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2519547.main_image.jpg?strip=all)
Peter Sutcliffe looking slightly different in his truck
(https://brightcove04pmdo-a.akamaihd.net/4221396001/4221396001_129117864001_Iper1279285123134I-83800-1-480x360.jpg?pubId=4221396001&videoId=129118830001)
Then i found this from Getty...
(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/january-5-1981-bradford-england-this-retouched-photo-shows-peter-at-picture-id517721812)
The point proven that the altering of images to support statements people believe is nothing new.....
I have stated many times that the images related to the Joanna Yeates Case have been photoshopped ... The whole Case was played out in the papers/online..
Do I know the case is true.?... I do not
Do I know a man named Dr Vincent Tabak is in prison for this crime?.... I do not
As I said from the start.. I didn't believe that Dr Vincent Tabak was guilty.. What I knew about the case and subsequently found does not add up..... I was a concerned citizen hoping to get someone to look at the case and see what could be done...
But I do not know for sure if Dr Vincent Tabak is in prison...
I do not know or sure whether this case is real or not
I do not know for sure if a woman called Joanna Yeates was Murdered
I do not know for sure if it is fake news
I do not know for sure if I have wasted my time
All I know is that it never made any sense to me and I tried to understand why, having a forum to post on gave me an opportunity to have all of the information in one place, where I could cross reference points of interest. It also meant that by looking at the case and writing about it on here,it posed more questions than I originally started with...
And being inquisitive, I looked further at the case... That is all...
The Joanna Yeates Case is what? I honestly have no idea.... It is not about what we have been lead to believe. I can say I believe that..
And you are helping to create it!
-
And you are helping to create it!
No positive response Caroline?? Nothing else coming from you?? Do you care Caroline?? Do you like fair caroline? I'm just asking, having spent the best part of my time on here not having any positive responses about much I have said... And thats not about ego either...! And you are not being singled out, many have been as unresponsive in a positive way from the very beginning...
-
I will now give you my full frank, honest opinion....
What this case has highlighted to me, is how INJUST our legal system is.... As a citizen I never really thought about the true cost of The System. I never thought about the conditions that prisoners were forced to live in, where the punishment is supposed to be about their loss of liberty and not a draconian system, that degrades, humiliates and serves to cause mental anguish... Not just for the prisoners, but for their families and loved ones..
A system that from the start of your arrest if you haven't the financial backing, you haven't got a hope in hell of Defending yourself to the fullest.
Over 2 years I have written about this case, pointing out discrepancies, 2 years were at my own leisure, I have been able to cross reference and point out inconstancies that have played out in the media.. 2 years when on my own I have questioned virtually everything I know of this case..
Now try put that into man hours... The point being, for someone who cannot afford a FULL Defence, they will only ever get a Bronze level of service if they are lucky, they will and would have been vilified in the media, a public baying for blood at an atrocity that has taken place, leaving the Defendant at a clear disadvantage from day one.. Never mind if he is guilty or not....
You have the full weight of the Police, with umpteen Investigators, forensic scientist, pathologists and every expert known to man. Plus the CPS, making a small army of people putting together a case against you.. Many educated people by their title alone giving them an immediate upper hand, as no-one would ever question their, honesty and values.
You have a system that needs to show it's citizens that they are in control of the situation and monsters locked away... And as they cannot find any more monsters, they then add extra time to the existing monsters they locked away and bring them forward for the public to revisit in newspapers.
So what chance would anyone have if they cannot afford to defend themselves, where they have to rely on one person and the money he/she is allowed to claim for their services whilst looking into a defendants case.. Where the defendant has no realistic input or understanding of the system, to maybe ask the correct questions..
And then you arrive at court... You are separated from your Defence, you may be in a box surrounded by guards, it already is having a dramatic impact upon the jury and general public alike, without a word even been spoken..
"He must be guilty"..
" Look he's caged already"
" He must be dangerous, look at all those guards"
The visual impact alone has already put the defendant at a disadvantage, why is he not sat next to his counsel? Why has he not got the opportunity, to confer with his counsel throughout his trial, where he may hear or see a discrepancies himself that he would like his counsel to challenge?
No.. make him look guilty, then it will make it easier for a jury to convict...
The idea of Innocent until proven guilty is a fallacy, when images are just as powerful as words.. When the public and jury are presented with the accused and make a judgement on their 'First Impression'.. As we know and we are taught first impressions count..
So the uphill battle has begun in the court... You were already disadvantaged by the media, before you reached trial
and now the jury who lets face it in a high-profile case, could not have failed to have heard about it, they could not have failed to have already been prejudiced by what they read or heard.
And to let them truly remember just how dangerous said defendant is, we will place him in a dock and encompass him with guards, so the jury will be reminded that what they had read or heard of this defendant in the media, must be true..
Realistically, at this point the prosecution do not need to even open their mouths, the imagery has done the job for them...
If you as a defendant are feeling disadvantaged at this point, it is only going to get far, far,worse... What has proven at this point that the defendant is guilty?... Nothing really, a case is just that, information gathered and evidence, that will be presented to show guilt or innocence.
Now we come to the time of the prosecution, where what they are actually doing is proving their case... Does that mean that the information they have is complete, or does it mean that they can present pieces of information that may have holes in it, to a jury to convince them, that the defendant they have already made their mind up about with their first impression, is now well an truly going to show them just what a deviant, monster etc.. he or she is...
Now this is were it becomes really unfair.... The defence can counter-act what the prosecution have presented, but only if they have themselves fully investigated the case for their defendant, based on the payment they may be entitled too and time they have available....
Lets just think about that for a minute... To start with you have had 80 Officers plus civilian staff working on this investigation, you have had forensic staff other experts and many people from the CPS working on this case.. And you are a party of one..
A party of one hoping against hope that the person who is dealing with your case, isn't working on any other case at the same time, you are hoping that the person dealing with your case is turning over every stone, you are hoping against hope, that the person dealing with your case will find that piece of evidence that will shoot holes in the prosecutions case, you are hoping that the person dealing with your case will shoot down in flames, what the prosecution have prepared against you... What a dedicated team of Police have spent, months, years collecting evidence of these cases... And the only dedicated person in your case is YOU...
Your freedom is at stake, your liberty, your friends and family will never be the same... So you on your own have the most to loose, and you the defendant have the least at your disposal to prove your innocence.. But that makes the price high... higher than any cost of trials and investigation, because how does anyone put a price on liberty and life?
I am not saying that defence lawyers etc do not try their best, I am saying that the odds are stacked against them before they even start...
Where prisons are run in a private capacity it will only ever be about the shareholder... (imo) The prisoner is convicted, the prisoner is no longer seen as human, the prisoner no matter what they may or may not have done, will be treated no better than an animal.. But we care about animals, we apparently have empathy for animals, so what does that therefore say about prisoners? cramming more and more into prisons that are not fit for purpose and where having personal space isn't valued..
I was brought up to believe that prison was about reform, but that doesn't appear to be the case, punishment and inhuman acts are perpetrated, but why should the public care.. They are monsters after all...
The Justice System needs a complete overhaul, we are nearly in 2020 a time were the future was supposed to be rosy, a time when we had advanced so much that everything would be different from a hundred years prior.. But there are no real differences, the poor are still poor, they will never have the ability to launch a full defence for themselves, and if they are ill educated, it will make the task even more difficult as they would have to just sit there and take what is stated, by either side, having no idea how to challenge the charges..
I stated I like fair, it's simple really, but unfortunately I have found that the system isn't fair, it cannot be fair in it's present state. It cannot be fair when the odds are stacked against you from the outset..
I am sure that there are many good people within the Justice System, many good people who must be frustrated, with the state of said system, who cannot openly discredit the systems failings, without making life difficult for themselves.
Having started with wanting to defend what some may see as the undefendable, and make a real difference to society, the tools and money they have isn't equal to the states tools and finance.
But how would they be able to change the system? I don't know... It's almost like there needs to be an amnesty, A line drawn, a new approach, a huge change.. And an admission of an old system that is broken...
So when it comes to a defendant at trial, is it just a case of who can present the better story or a case of real evidence that beyond a shadow of a doubt, proves the guilt of the person in the dock...
Do we really need TV programs to convince us of a persons guilt after a trial? Where the facts are different from what may be known..
No-one should be seen by a court via video link, everyone has the right to FACE their accusers, and that should be in person.. Just because there is technology available doesn't mean we should use it... That also puts the defendant at a disadvantage...
" Oh Cheryl... they haven't even brought him to court, its via video link.... He must be a monster, he must be dangerous'!!!
Impressions matter, presentation matters, a level playing field matters....
Of course people should not be walking around when they can cause great harm to others, but we need to be sure the correct person is being prosecuted, the correct person is in prison facing a life sentence... If not all you have managed to do, is apparently put to bed the fear that the monster has gone, when the monster has been hiding in the cupboard all along... he hasn't gone and he will raise his head again, but if caught, would not be prosecuted for what has gone before, that would mean the system actually admitting it's failures...
So I do not believe the system is fair, it cannot ever be fair unless their are massive changes, and whether people chose to believe the guilt of any individual may depend on what they believe they know, or the evidence that has been presented, with other evidence being omitted...
If only part of a story is ever presented at trial, with the defendant in a box surrounded by guards, then the likely hood of guilt is greater, the likely hood that an admission of guilt happening is greater, the defendant may by this point be mentally worn down and has accepted his/her fate and hasn't the ability, education or strength to fight what has been put forward.
Lost within a legal system of jargon they cannot comprehend, and bamboozeled by the situation they have found themselves in...
I do not know the answer, but honesty is a good place to start.. fair is a good place to start...
As I have stated I am no-one, a citizen who came here concerned about a case, a citizen whom through looking at this case of Joanna Yeates /Dr Vincent Tabak, has found the justice system lacking greatly, a system that this country was once proud of, a system which should have moved with the times.. A system that obviously needed shaking, a system that should be progressive..
But it isn't it fails on many levels, it fails not only those in prison , but the free citizens who feel that they are being protected by the very same system, that would put someone in prison for not having a TV License.. A system that is closing courts, reducing police officers, using technology in a way that should not be used at court...
I think I am sad, sad that what I stupidly believe was the system, was fair... And an innocent person sent to prison was unusual and would be dealt with swiftly... But that is not the case, as we know, many many innocent people are in prison, many having lost the best part of their lives.. And if they are lucky enough to overturn the injustice perpetrated against them, who really cares? Not the public.. rarely do we these days see outrage, they do not show the outrage they showed when these people were covered in a blanket and rushed into court or a police van, where the public banged on the side of the van shouting obscenities... There is little coverage in the media for these poor people and their families..
No body from the CPS, the Police etc are filmed apologising for what happened to them, no TV crews day in and day out explaining to the public how the system had failed these people....
No... Sweep it under the carpet and lets hope it goes away...
Until the media whom have extreme power everywhere, recognise the tragedies that have happened and appeal to the public to act, nothing will change.. But the media are not going to do that , it doesn't sell newspapers or TV time, it is not money making, I believe they think it is pointless.. (imo)
If the media want respect, let them Pro Bono and highlight cases of injustice, where money isn't at the forefront, lets face it they already made their money with the stories they sold before, during and after the trial... The defendant has made them a ton of money or should I say the victim... Because the victim isn't really of concern to the media, the victim and the way in which the victim died is a money spinner for the media.. Apparently everyone loves a juicy story...
So responsible reporting, on all sides needs to be established, and in the event of a Miscarriage of Justice, the same attention that brought this person into the public view in the first place, should be given upon their release or appeals..
I sometimes wonder why the courts stop reporters, reporting on events inside the court? What happened to transparency?
Therefore a skewed view and speculation, become rife, and after conviction any type of story is game... Any untruths , unfounded information can be laid on a platter for the hungry public..
The question is an apathetic public are easy to convince, an apathetic public and an Old System, that has cracks the size of Casumms are tearing it apart, and no sticking plaster will fix it anytime soon...
If nothing changes, it will only get worse, if no-one cares, who will fix it... If citizens like me are made to feel that we are either, crazy, obsessed, or having an unnatural interest in justice by questioning what we believe is unfair, then let me remind you all...
Anyone is one step away from being wrongly accused, everyone is one step away from enjoying the delights The System has to offer, and realistically, should it take for every individual in this country to find themselves at the wrong end of the system for them to understand it's failings, before people will change their minds...
So it is time for change, we need change, and it is time that people who have concerns are not tarred with a brush..
I suppose the reality of what I have learnt has disappointed me, I have been under the assumption that everyone likes fair.. I have gone through life believing fair is right and true.... Now for that you can call me delusional, for that idea that fair is the right way forward is so alien that nobody recognises it anymore, then I will accept being called a loony, I will accept the idea that I have an unhealthy interest, obsessed even... What ever you want to dress it up as to make me out to be a person you know nothing about or just to belittle me... I don't care...
I care about fair... and honesty... simple things really, and I care that The Justice System has become liken to a production line, where the value of it's clients many of them the poorest in the land, are all ready disadvantaged before the game has begun..
And if all that I have learnt about Dr Vincent Tabak, whether the story is true or not... I have learnt every citizen has a responsibility to challenge what they believe is an unfair system and every politician, and law maker of the land does what the public expect of them, seeing it is the public who are paying their wages....
But as always this is my opinion, my opinion based on what I have learnt and understood... And maybe everyone thinks I am wrong again... Well so be it.... I think therefore you should rename the whole site and call it "POINTLESS"... But thats just my opinion... Or maybe the Justice System could be renamed that.. I don't know..
I know I live in la la land hoping fair and honesty should come first... But I'd rather live in la la Land it's a fairer place to live..
NB: This post is just my opinion.....
-
No positive response Caroline?? Nothing else coming from you?? Do you care Caroline?? Do you like fair caroline? I'm just asking, having spent the best part of my time on here not having any positive responses about much I have said... And thats not about ego either...! And you are not being singled out, many have been as unresponsive in a positive way from the very beginning...
Positive response to what? There is nothing you have written that I agree with. I will say that you're dedicated but in my opinion, you're dedicated to flogging a dead horse. Sorry, nothing against you, just your opinion on this topic.
-
I will now give you my full frank, honest opinion....
What this case has highlighted to me, is how INJUST our legal system is.... As a citizen I never really thought about the true cost of The System. I never thought about the conditions that prisoners were forced to live in, where the punishment is supposed to be about their loss of liberty and not a draconian system, that degrades, humiliates and serves to cause mental anguish... Not just for the prisoners, but for their families and loved ones.
Our system isn't perfect but in THIS case a family received justice for their dead daughter who would have been alive today were it not for the fact that VT couldn't control his urges. Now THAT is INJUST!
A system that from the start of your arrest if you haven't the financial backing, you haven't got a hope in hell of Defending yourself to the fullest.
Over 2 years I have written about this case, pointing out discrepancies, 2 years were at my own leisure, I have been able to cross reference and point out inconstancies that have played out in the media.. 2 years when on my own I have questioned virtually everything I know of this case..
Now try put that into man hours... The point being, for someone who cannot afford a FULL Defence, they will only ever get a Bronze level of service if they are lucky, they will and would have been vilified in the media, a public baying for blood at an atrocity that has taken place, leaving the Defendant at a clear disadvantage from day one.. Never mind if he is guilty or not....
The only person that was vilified was Christopher Jefferies not Tabak!
You have the full weight of the Police, with umpteen Investigators, forensic scientist, pathologists and every expert known to man. Plus the CPS, making a small army of people putting together a case against you.. Many educated people by their title alone giving them an immediate upper hand, as no-one would ever question their, honesty and values.
Who would you like to investigate a crime? How do you imagine that a case would ever be solved if a bunch of idiots were left in charge?
You have a system that needs to show it's citizens that they are in control of the situation and monsters locked away... And as they cannot find any more monsters, they then add extra time to the existing monsters they locked away and bring them forward for the public to revisit in newspapers.
What would you like society to do with murderes?
So what chance would anyone have if they cannot afford to defend themselves, where they have to rely on one person and the money he/she is allowed to claim for their services whilst looking into a defendants case.. Where the defendant has no realistic input or understanding of the system, to maybe ask the correct questions.
Tabak admitted responsibility and the man isn't an idiot. The charges were pretty clear - nothing complicated about them.
And then you arrive at court... You are separated from your Defence, you may be in a box surrounded by guards, it already is having a dramatic impact upon the jury and general public alike, without a word even been spoken..
"He must be guilty"..
" Look he's caged already"
" He must be dangerous, look at all those guards"
The visual impact alone has already put the defendant at a disadvantage, why is he not sat next to his counsel? Why has he not got the opportunity, to confer with his counsel throughout his trial, where he may hear or see a discrepancies himself that he would like his counsel to challenge?
No.. make him look guilty, then it will make it easier for a jury to convict...
The idea of Innocent until proven guilty is a fallacy, when images are just as powerful as words.. When the public and jury are presented with the accused and make a judgement on their 'First Impression'.. As we know and we are taught first impressions count..
So the uphill battle has begun in the court... You were already disadvantaged by the media, before you reached trial
and now the jury who lets face it in a high-profile case, could not have failed to have heard about it, they could not have failed to have already been prejudiced by what they read or heard.
And to let them truly remember just how dangerous said defendant is, we will place him in a dock and encompass him with guards, so the jury will be reminded that what they had read or heard of this defendant in the media, must be true..
Realistically, at this point the prosecution do not need to even open their mouths, the imagery has done the job for them...
Realistically, Tabak admitted responsibility but for your observations to be factual, it would mean that no on facing such proceedings would ever be found 'not guilty. but that isn't the case - is it?
If you as a defendant are feeling disadvantaged at this point, it is only going to get far, far,worse... What has proven at this point that the defendant is guilty?... Nothing really, a case is just that, information gathered and evidence, that will be presented to show guilt or innocence.
Now we come to the time of the prosecution, where what they are actually doing is proving their case... Does that mean that the information they have is complete, or does it mean that they can present pieces of information that may have holes in it, to a jury to convince them, that the defendant they have already made their mind up about with their first impression, is now well an truly going to show them just what a deviant, monster etc.. he or she is...
Now this is were it becomes really unfair.... The defence can counter-act what the prosecution have presented, but only if they have themselves fully investigated the case for their defendant, based on the payment they may be entitled too and time they have available....
Lets just think about that for a minute... To start with you have had 80 Officers plus civilian staff working on this investigation, you have had forensic staff other experts and many people from the CPS working on this case.. And you are a party of one..
A party of one hoping against hope that the person who is dealing with your case, isn't working on any other case at the same time, you are hoping that the person dealing with your case is turning over every stone, you are hoping against hope, that the person dealing with your case will find that piece of evidence that will shoot holes in the prosecutions case, you are hoping that the person dealing with your case will shoot down in flames, what the prosecution have prepared against you... What a dedicated team of Police have spent, months, years collecting evidence of these cases... And the only dedicated person in your case is YOU...
You're only hoping all of that if you're innocent - Tabak wasn't/isn't. He was hoping that they 'wouldn't' find the evidence he'd left behind!
Your freedom is at stake, your liberty, your friends and family will never be the same... So you on your own have the most to loose, and you the defendant have the least at your disposal to prove your innocence.. But that makes the price high... higher than any cost of trials and investigation, because how does anyone put a price on liberty and life?
I am not saying that defence lawyers etc do not try their best, I am saying that the odds are stacked against them before they even start...
Where prisons are run in a private capacity it will only ever be about the shareholder... (imo) The prisoner is convicted, the prisoner is no longer seen as human, the prisoner no matter what they may or may not have done, will be treated no better than an animal.. But we care about animals, we apparently have empathy for animals, so what does that therefore say about prisoners? cramming more and more into prisons that are not fit for purpose and where having personal space isn't valued..
Have you ever been inside a prison?
I was brought up to believe that prison was about reform, but that doesn't appear to be the case, punishment and inhuman acts are perpetrated, but why should the public care.. They are monsters after all...
The inhuman acts are generally perpetuated by other prisoners.
The Justice System needs a complete overhaul, we are nearly in 2020 a time were the future was supposed to be rosy, a time when we had advanced so much that everything would be different from a hundred years prior.. But there are no real differences, the poor are still poor, they will never have the ability to launch a full defence for themselves, and if they are ill educated, it will make the task even more difficult as they would have to just sit there and take what is stated, by either side, having no idea how to challenge the charges..
I stated I like fair, it's simple really, but unfortunately I have found that the system isn't fair, it cannot be fair in it's present state. It cannot be fair when the odds are stacked against you from the outset..
That's a matter of opinion - whatever Utopian ideal you have about the justice system won't suit other people and they will believe that to be 'unfair'. I guess it's a case of you can't please everyone. It's not perfect (fat from it) but if you feel that strongly about it do something about it. Think of all that time wasted that you could have used to make a stand.
I am sure that there are many good people within the Justice System, many good people who must be frustrated, with the state of said system, who cannot openly discredit the systems failings, without making life difficult for themselves.
Having started with wanting to defend what some may see as the undefendable, and make a real difference to society, the tools and money they have isn't equal to the states tools and finance.
But how would they be able to change the system? I don't know... It's almost like there needs to be an amnesty, A line drawn, a new approach, a huge change.. And an admission of an old system that is broken...
It's not just the justice system that's broken!
So when it comes to a defendant at trial, is it just a case of who can present the better story or a case of real evidence that beyond a shadow of a doubt, proves the guilt of the person in the dock...
Do we really need TV programs to convince us of a persons guilt after a trial? Where the facts are different from what may be known..
No-one should be seen by a court via video link, everyone has the right to FACE their accusers, and that should be in person.. Just because there is technology available doesn't mean we should use it... That also puts the defendant at a disadvantage...
" Oh Cheryl... they haven't even brought him to court, its via video link.... He must be a monster, he must be dangerous'!!!
Impressions matter, presentation matters, a level playing field matters....
Of course people should not be walking around when they can cause great harm to others, but we need to be sure the correct person is being prosecuted, the correct person is in prison facing a life sentence... If not all you have managed to do, is apparently put to bed the fear that the monster has gone, when the monster has been hiding in the cupboard all along... he hasn't gone and he will raise his head again, but if caught, would not be prosecuted for what has gone before, that would mean the system actually admitting it's failures...
The correct person was prosecuted but you refuse to accept it. There is no change to the justice system that can help you with that.
So I do not believe the system is fair, it cannot ever be fair unless their are massive changes, and whether people chose to believe the guilt of any individual may depend on what they believe they know, or the evidence that has been presented, with other evidence being omitted...
If only part of a story is ever presented at trial, with the defendant in a box surrounded by guards, then the likely hood of guilt is greater, the likely hood that an admission of guilt happening is greater, the defendant may by this point be mentally worn down and has accepted his/her fate and hasn't the ability, education or strength to fight what has been put forward.
Tabak was none of those things!
Lost within a legal system of jargon they cannot comprehend, and bamboozeled by the situation they have found themselves in...
I do not know the answer, but honesty is a good place to start.. fair is a good place to start...
But you don't have a definition of what you believe 'fair' to be?
As I have stated I am no-one, a citizen who came here concerned about a case, a citizen whom through looking at this case of Joanna Yeates /Dr Vincent Tabak, has found the justice system lacking greatly, a system that this country was once proud of, a system which should have moved with the times.. A system that obviously needed shaking, a system that should be progressive..
Only because you refuse to accept he is guilty!
But it isn't it fails on many levels, it fails not only those in prison , but the free citizens who feel that they are being protected by the very same system, that would put someone in prison for not having a TV License.. A system that is closing courts, reducing police officers, using technology in a way that should not be used at court...
I think I am sad, sad that what I stupidly believe was the system, was fair... And an innocent person sent to prison was unusual and would be dealt with swiftly... But that is not the case, as we know, many many innocent people are in prison, many having lost the best part of their lives.. And if they are lucky enough to overturn the injustice perpetrated against them, who really cares? Not the public.. rarely do we these days see outrage, they do not show the outrage they showed when these people were covered in a blanket and rushed into court or a police van, where the public banged on the side of the van shouting obscenities... There is little coverage in the media for these poor people and their families..
I don't think that's true - does Birmingham six ring a bell?
No body from the CPS, the Police etc are filmed apologising for what happened to them, no TV crews day in and day out explaining to the public how the system had failed these people....
No... Sweep it under the carpet and lets hope it goes away...
Until the media whom have extreme power everywhere, recognise the tragedies that have happened and appeal to the public to act, nothing will change.. But the media are not going to do that , it doesn't sell newspapers or TV time, it is not money making, I believe they think it is pointless.. (imo)
If the media want respect, let them Pro Bono and highlight cases of injustice, where money isn't at the forefront, lets face it they already made their money with the stories they sold before, during and after the trial... The defendant has made them a ton of money or should I say the victim... Because the victim isn't really of concern to the media, the victim and the way in which the victim died is a money spinner for the media.. Apparently everyone loves a juicy story...
Tabak isn't a case of injustice!
So responsible reporting, on all sides needs to be established, and in the event of a Miscarriage of Justice, the same attention that brought this person into the public view in the first place, should be given upon their release or appeals..
I sometimes wonder why the courts stop reporters, reporting on events inside the court? What happened to transparency?
Therefore a skewed view and speculation, become rife, and after conviction any type of story is game... Any untruths , unfounded information can be laid on a platter for the hungry public..
The question is an apathetic public are easy to convince, an apathetic public and an Old System, that has cracks the size of Casumms are tearing it apart, and no sticking plaster will fix it anytime soon...
If nothing changes, it will only get worse, if no-one cares, who will fix it... If citizens like me are made to feel that we are either, crazy, obsessed, or having an unnatural interest in justice by questioning what we believe is unfair, then let me remind you all...
Anyone is one step away from being wrongly accused, everyone is one step away from enjoying the delights The System has to offer, and realistically, should it take for every individual in this country to find themselves at the wrong end of the system for them to understand it's failings, before people will change their minds...
So it is time for change, we need change, and it is time that people who have concerns are not tarred with a brush..
I suppose the reality of what I have learnt has disappointed me, I have been under the assumption that everyone likes fair.. I have gone through life believing fair is right and true.... Now for that you can call me delusional, for that idea that fair is the right way forward is so alien that nobody recognises it anymore, then I will accept being called a loony, I will accept the idea that I have an unhealthy interest, obsessed even... What ever you want to dress it up as to make me out to be a person you know nothing about or just to belittle me... I don't care...
I care about fair... and honesty... simple things really, and I care that The Justice System has become liken to a production line, where the value of it's clients many of them the poorest in the land, are all ready disadvantaged before the game has begun..
And if all that I have learnt about Dr Vincent Tabak, whether the story is true or not... I have learnt every citizen has a responsibility to challenge what they believe is an unfair system and every politician, and law maker of the land does what the public expect of them, seeing it is the public who are paying their wages....
But as always this is my opinion, my opinion based on what I have learnt and understood... And maybe everyone thinks I am wrong again... Well so be it.... I think therefore you should rename the whole site and call it "POINTLESS"... But thats just my opinion... Or maybe the Justice System could be renamed that.. I don't know..
I know I live in la la land hoping fair and honesty should come first... But I'd rather live in la la Land it's a fairer place to live..
NB: This post is just my opinion.....
I couldn't quite get to the bottom of your post - it's too long
-
I gave up reading the perpetual BS weeks ago. There's something desperately wrong with a person who doesn't listen to reason and logic, but continues to live in this bizarre fantasy world of their own making. Why am I not surprised that no-one, save Caroline with her endless patience, bothers to respond to your posts.
-
I never cease to be amazed...
William Clegg QC: "Under the Wig - A Lawyer’s Stories of Murder, Guilt and [...]" | Talks at Google
At 2:45 of video:..
And.. Cases I've done 'Rough Justice' a program that worked on BBC trying to correct Miscarriages of Justice , one quite bemusing case, involving a man being convicted on the bases of an ear print, erm.. which was completely and utterly debunked in a subsequent trail, where he was found erm, to be not guilty.
I wasn't aware that WC had any input in these programs, it sheds a different light on what I think about them.. I had always been under the impression that they were independently investigated, buy a group of individuals, who were trying to highlight Miscarriages of Justice cases... I must ask the question, why is WC involving himself in a BBC program.. I am slightly surprised... What other programs if any has WC been apart of??
At 3:54 of the video..
And erm, reverting to the,.. theme of todays talk, Murder... Erm.. I've defended in my career over a hundred people, charged with murder. And I presume the first question really to ask is who is likely to kill you. Statistically, it is not going to be the stranger in the street, grabbing you on the way home and killing you, or a man or woman, breaking into your house, with a sawn of shotgun to commit a burglary and shooting you.
The person most likely to kill you, is your partner, your parent, or your child and that is I'm afraid, a statistical fact....Murder by stranger is actually very rare.... they are in fact, for lawyers the most interesting cases, because so often, murder in the family, doesn't require a great deal of work to solve. And hence they don't provide for a challenge, as far as us lawyers are concerned,so.. erm.. the ones that we find interesting, the ones in this book, are erm.. all but one I think,erm.. examples of stranger murders. Statistically they are very rare..
, murder in the family, doesn't require a great deal of work to solve So what work was put into Dr Vincent Tabak's case?? Or is he a member of the family?
At 5:58 of the video:
Most Murders... Most people who kill have no previous convictions of any kind, they are not people who have been in trouble with the police in the past, they haven't been stealing and fighting during the course of their live, most occasions they are people who have just snapped for one reason or another and struck out.With terrifying results.And I do subscribe to a theory
I'm carefully watching this video, something that has become apparent to me,(I may be incorrect) when he talks about war crimes, which lets face it he goes into great depths, it comes across almost like it's a personal experience... As if a member of his family were actually there...
The more I watch, the more I believe the war story he is sharing, is indeed personal... The detail attributed to this story above all others, he appears passionate about that particular case, he sits arms folded, without any prompting ,relives in minute detail every aspect of the case.
At 26:48 of the video:
He sadly developed altzimers and was before the case could be heard and unfit to stand trial and died very shortly afterwards and that caused a slight change of approach by the prosecution, they had picked him because they thought he was in a position of command, they didn't just want to go for a private in the army and prosecute him, they wanted someone in command to make the process worth while in their eyes, and I can see the logic of that
Whilst he has been allowing the audience to understand this case, he has made it clear that this man was not in a position of power and was akin to a lowly Sargent...
You have to understand that these are my observations, And it has been interesting to watch this video... The first point I will make, is when did WC first become aware and defend this man??
I have a couple of issues, firstly how did he know in such detail, what had happened in this mans life? i say this because WC admits that this man has altzimers and his recollection must be flawed, his recollection may be confused, his recollection realistically cannot be relied upon...
Yet WC with passion for his client, defends a man he has no evidence to prove one way or the other what his role in the war was? He defends a man who could have committed atrocities, but no proof either way must exist.. I cannot understand the passion that WC shows in this case, when he quickly fluffs over others. And the only conclusion I can come up with, is it is personal in some way to him...
He then goes on to speak about the Balkens war, where even though it is a bigger stage, his recollect appears not to be as precise as his recollection of the other war criminal, referring to the book to point him in the right direction.
At 32:58 of the video:
I went to see him, I meet Taditch in the united nations detention facility, which was a jail within a jail, inside the hague. I had to go through a Dutch jail to get to the detention centre, where the security would provide by UN guards, it smelt of stale cabbage, like all other prisons I had visited, but it was more peaceful than a normal prison with plenty of time for visits, when families could make the journey, the relaxed atmosphere was fostered by the Irish governor, who had managed to house prisoners on opposite side of the conflict, without any animosity that I could detect.
Most notable in this case , he is using his book to reiterate this story, it is not clearly implanted in his brain as the other war crime case, he reads from the book of the smell of stale cabbage, a memory I would have imagined he would not forget.
But again the detail and empathy he shows is surprising when compared with Dr Vincent Tabak, where on page one of his topic, he devalues his own client with the comments he makes..
Back to the video.. at 36:59
Called Goran Jelisic.. erm who had been erm, convicted of war crimes, but in fact acquitted of genocide, who was in charge of one of the concentration camps where he would, it would appear for his own pleasure, torture and kill , inmates who were muslims.. he was a slightly different individual, I erm, I would suspect was really a psychopath, he was really a cold, difficult to reason with individual, as opposed to Tadich who had a delightful family who would come to visit him, gave me a bottle of the most disgusting plum vodak I have ever had in my life as a christmas present one year.. Where as Jelisic was not such an attractive individual..
Whilst Talking of Taditch , he talks as if he is almost a friend accepting a gift of vodka for christmas, but apparently Jelisic lacking support for his family and with empty hands was not an attractive proposition. And he concludes that this man was a psychopath.. I'm bemused... Did he defend or prosecute Jelisic? I don't know...
He has spoken for over 30 minutes on war crimes and relayed details that he hasn't as yet shown to other cases he has been apart of... His next quote is interesting...
At 40:12
Just reflect on that as we come to Christmas, which is always statistically a high time for Murder ( he says with a smile)... which is more business for me..
That comment should have lead into Dr Vincent Tabak and The Murder of Joanna Yeates, a case that was at Christmas, a young woman found Murdered on Longwood Lane on Christmas day...
He misses the opportunity to talk of this high profile case and sips his water then says..
I'm keeping an eye on the clock, coz I know you have all got jobs to do this afternoon and I haven't and there's about 15 mins left and I am very keen erm, to take some questions, I
He talks of programs, he contradicts what he believes, he thinks that war crimes the evidence is lost and makes it difficult to prosecute, because of time past and evidence lost, yet in another breath he believes crimes against children where there is no difference in evidence lacking and time passed similar to the war crime issue for prosecutions...
He further goes on to say at 44:33 of the video talking about crimes against children..
We're dealing with paedophile cases going back some 40 years and more in the courts at the moment, it's a one of the growth area's for criminal justice
Growth area's?? It sound like stocks and shares, how can it be a growth area? Crimes perpetrated against children, should be dealt with, but in revisiting historic cases, WC is in fact correct, this type of crime has become a growth area, with the difficulties associated with passage of time, witness's etc....
Questions from the audience about forensics and DNA and I am sat with bated breath... at last I will hear what I have been waiting for,.... But does he take the opportunity to give me what I want.... No... although he does surprise..
At 45:20 of the video..
DNA has been a fantastic aid, to criminal investigations.. erm.. I mentioned briefly the Rachel Nickell Murder, in um, 1974 I think it was..
I'll give him a mo... he did look left which could have been for a prompt, but where the hell did 1974 come from??
He further goes on to state about the case with the ear print and he shows his distain of another professional..
96 year old widow, smothered by a pillow and the Police found a perfect ear print on the outside window of the house, and the theory was that the burglar had put his ear to the window and couldn't hear anything and had broken in.. And.. er..... rather idiotic policeman, from Holland called Van der Lugt, if you believe it, had given evidence that ear prints were unique and it was Dallaghers ear print, well he was convicted of murder on this daft evidence and spent about 8 years there, before I got involved with the case.
I had to look up why Van Der Lugt's name would be something Clegg would comment on the 'if you could believe it'... Yes I used google translator and yes it may be incorrect, but in English it means 'EAR.'..
Does he speak Dutch , had he just like me looked it up? He can remember that Lugt means Ear yet cannot remember when Racheal Nichol was murdered and refers to a date of 1974... A date for me that screams another murder which had been connected to the Joanna Yeates Case and that is The Murder of Glenis Carruthers...
I am bemused, disappointed having wasted over an hour wanting answers to my questions and he totally managed to avoid this high profile case that I hoped he would cover, I hoped an explanation of how he represented Dr Vincent Tabak and what advice he had given him...
It obvious his passion is war crimes, but I was waiting for ground breaking statements that once and for all would stop me questioning this case... But not even a mention in the video... Of course it could have been edited and omitted from the recording, I do not know how long this talk was for....
going back to this: 96 year old widow, smothered by a pillow and the Police found a perfect ear print on the outside window of the house, and the theory was that the burglar had put his ear to the window and couldn't hear anything and had broken in.. And.. er..... rather idiotic policeman, from Holland called Van der Lugt, if you believe it, had given evidence that ear prints were unique and it was Dallaghers ear print, well he was convicted of murder on this daft evidence and spent about 8 years there, before I got involved with the case.
Daft evidence.... It rings in my Lugt... I want to know what evidence they had against Dr Vincent Tabak before he apparently confessed? which I don't believe for a moment, but lets put that aside and ask the question... If we accept May 2011 as his confession, then what had been done to release Dr Vincent Tabak from custody, what evidence up until then had the prosecution have in their possession that Dr Vincent Tabak was unequivocally guilty of this crime? What solid evidence was there that it was indeed Dr Vincent Tabak? Had the idea that DNA had been found been enough to cast doubt on what Dr Vincent Tabak stated... Why didn't WC attack this case with the same passion he has shown for the war crimes?
Lets go back to his initial statements...
The person most likely to kill you, is your partner, your parent, or your child and that is I'm afraid, a statistical fact....Murder by stranger is actually very rare.... they are in fact, for lawyers the most interesting cases, because so often, murder in the family, doesn't require a great deal of work to solve. And hence they don't provide for a challenge, as far as us lawyers are concerned,so.. erm.. the ones that we find interesting, the ones in this book, are erm.. all but one I think,erm.. examples of stranger murders. Statistically they are very rare..
If he believe the person most likely to kill is related or connected to you as in partner, then that in itself should have had alarm bells ringing... Why would a complete stranger Murder Joanna Yeates?/ Statistically according to WC, it is extremely low..
He astounds me with this statement: Most Murders... Most people who kill have no previous convictions of any kind, they are not people who have been in trouble with the police in the past, they haven't been stealing and fighting during the course of their live, most occasions they are people who have just snapped for one reason or another and struck out.With terrifying results. And I do subscribe to a theory
How could one attribute that statement to Dr Vincent Tabak?
Dr Vincent Tabak was not related to Joanna Yeates, he did not know Joanna Yeates, the window of opportunity was minute, yet he acted completely out of character, calmly strangling Joanna Yeates for what reason?? He didn't snap? It was cold and calculated apparently... He had no previous convictions he was a model citizen... So explain why he went rouge??
Dr Vincent Tabak is the opposite of everything that WC states, there is no hole/ box he can be put in... Yet to me it appears that not all that could have been done for Dr Vincent Tabak was done! Why??
-
continued....
If no forensic evidence came to court, considering the fact that they stripped the flat bare, where was the argument, that nothing forensically other than low copy DNA, which considering they lived in the same building and could be attributed to transfer, how did WC not argue the case for that... The proof has only ever been the statement made on the stand... A statement on the stand that explained the way in which Joanna Yeates was apparently murdered, a statement made in its fullest at his own trial....
Why was he not advising his client against self incrimination? why had he not questioned the lack of forensics or witness's in this case... He with affection recalls Taditch's family and must have exchanged pleasantries and gifts of appreciation... But anyones background or family should I say , should not be an indication as to whether someone should be defended or not, where you are judged on your families social skills and not on the evidence of any case...
Families may provide evidence in support of an action or a reference, but ultimately unless they are witness's to the case, their status as citizens is irrelevant, their social skills are not on trial....
It's an odd statement for him to make (imo), and anyone can read into it what they will, but I am trying to understand what makes WC tick....
And erm, reverting to the,.. theme of todays talk, Murder... Well war crimes and domestic crimes are somewhat different (imo), by domestic crimes i am referring to the act of Murder... Yet war crimes are what WC's talk is all about...
Statistically, it is not going to be the stranger in the street, grabbing you on the way home and killing you, or a man or woman, breaking into your house, with a sawn of shotgun to commit a burglary and shooting you.
Statistically.... statistically..?? I could repeat that time and again.... He's aware that it is extremely unusual for for a random stranger to attack someone in there home and Murder them... Someone without a criminal record of any type, who's professional standing and intellect goes before him, his Placid nature, his expertise in computers and engineering, whom had been in America up until 3 days prior to the Murder, was socially active, had friends and family and a loving relationship with his girlfriend, was respected in his profession, would out of nowhere and for no reason, wangle his way into his neighbours home, whom he had never meet, on the off chance she was in fact on her own, where he could work his magic and then strangler her...
Has he looked back at this case?? My God... What category would he put that in....
I can comprehend where he states depending on circumstances and conditions one who would never commit a crime may be bullied, or forced to act out of character, because of war etc....
But Dr Vincent Tabak was none of those.... Dr Vincent Tabak's Case in fact should have been at the forefront of that talk he gave, because he doesn't appear to fit anything that WC has come across before, he cannot be pigeon holed in any shape or form... yet the case of Dr Vincent Tabak leaves me speechless.... (obviously a figure of speech)
He states: The person most likely to kill you, is your partner, your parent, or your child and that is I'm afraid, a statistical fact....Murder by stranger is actually very rare
I'm like arrggghh.... I don't get it... He knows what is more likely, he understand what drives people to behave out of character yet.....
What did he do for Dr Vincent Tabak, what evidence did he collect in his defence..? What arguments did he pose to the prosecution as to why this case was flawed?? What evidence proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that his client was guilty, when he himself is equipped with statistics, which in themselves should have him asking questions...
I am at a loss... What made him beyond a shadow of a doubt think his client was guilty? I say this because I cannot understand where he came from in this case.... Yes , we have been told he watched porn apparently... There are many that do.... They are not all murders... The apparent child abuse images, were not admissible for Joanna Yeates case and not proven either at the time of trial, not that it was proven afterwards, when another admission of guilt puts it to bed....
It is rather peculiar in my opinion, that what appears as so little done to find witness's in this case and evidence to support his clients innocence for months before trial we have an admission to manslaughter in its place.. We have no-one coming forward to support Dr vincent tabak, and no witness's either at trial in his support..
This master defender that he purports to be and has appeared in magazines as such has failed this Dutch National miserably (imo)...
His talk disappointing to me... Why did he not mention Dr Vincent Tabak?? Joanna Yeates a high profile case, that he was involved with??
The phrase 'Daft Evidence, is reverberating around my head, as I cannot comprehend the difference between the two cases, on the basis that we have. A Dutch national whom has apparently admitted guilt to manslaughter, whom throughout the trial is sat in the dock with glass panels surrounded by guards and whom is on a suicide mission to tell the world what he apparently did.... With The Jury aware that this Dutch national had admitted to Manslaughter ringing in their ears when they judge on whether or not he is guilty of Murder......
My little brain can not comprehend this... my little brain is in pain... my little brain is fighting with its very being as to what evidence this case was based on... What evidence proved that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates, when there were no witness's no forensics and no confession upon arrest.... Nothing and I mean nothing put Dr vincent Tabak in the frame for this Murder, statistically nothing.... Nothing in December 2010 pointed to Dr Vincent Tabak being responsible.. No hard evidence supported this fact....
And then I find we are were we are.... me going around in circles not being able to comprehend this case as it makes no sense and has never made any sense.....
I have again given my opinion on what I have viewed whether or not you agree with me... But on hearing WC speak about statistics and circumstance, doesn't it make anyone wonder what on earth The Joanna Yeates case was about, seeing as I cannot find anything that was apparently done to defend this Dutch National from a charge of Murder.... in my opinion of course..
My problem is I cannot quite work out whether WC is playing Dumb, like the Dutch Policeman he describes, about this case and his hands were tied, or he really didn't attack this case to the fullest from day one?
And with either proposition the question would be Why??
Edit..... " the ones that we find interesting, the ones in this book, are erm.. all but one I think,erm.. examples of stranger murders. "
Can someone tell me which one case he is referring to that is not a stranger Murder?
mrswah, any ideas??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLJLwID6Tso
-
I never cease to be amazed...
William Clegg QC: "Under the Wig - A Lawyer’s Stories of Murder, Guilt and [...]" | Talks at Google
At 2:45 of video:..
I wasn't aware that WC had any input in these programs, it sheds a different light on what I think about them.. I had always been under the impression that they were independently investigated, buy a group of individuals, who were trying to highlight Miscarriages of Justice cases... I must ask the question, why is WC involving himself in a BBC program.. I am slightly surprised... What other programs if any has WC been apart of??
At 3:54 of the video..
, murder in the family, doesn't require a great deal of work to solve So what work was put into Dr Vincent Tabak's case?? Or is he a member of the family?
At 5:58 of the video:
I'm carefully watching this video, something that has become apparent to me,(I may be incorrect) when he talks about war crimes, which lets face it he goes into great depths, it comes across almost like it's a personal experience... As if a member of his family were actually there...
The more I watch, the more I believe the war story he is sharing, is indeed personal... The detail attributed to this story above all others, he appears passionate about that particular case, he sits arms folded, without any prompting ,relives in minute detail every aspect of the case.
At 26:48 of the video:
Whilst he has been allowing the audience to understand this case, he has made it clear that this man was not in a position of power and was akin to a lowly Sargent...
You have to understand that these are my observations, And it has been interesting to watch this video... The first point I will make, is when did WC first become aware and defend this man??
I have a couple of issues, firstly how did he know in such detail, what had happened in this mans life? i say this because WC admits that this man has altzimers and his recollection must be flawed, his recollection may be confused, his recollection realistically cannot be relied upon...
Yet WC with passion for his client, defends a man he has no evidence to prove one way or the other what his role in the war was? He defends a man who could have committed atrocities, but no proof either way must exist.. I cannot understand the passion that WC shows in this case, when he quickly fluffs over others. And the only conclusion I can come up with, is it is personal in some way to him...
He then goes on to speak about the Balkens war, where even though it is a bigger stage, his recollect appears not to be as precise as his recollection of the other war criminal, referring to the book to point him in the right direction.
At 32:58 of the video:
Most notable in this case , he is using his book to reiterate this story, it is not clearly implanted in his brain as the other war crime case, he reads from the book of the smell of stale cabbage, a memory I would have imagined he would not forget.
But again the detail and empathy he shows is surprising when compared with Dr Vincent Tabak, where on page one of his topic, he devalues his own client with the comments he makes..
Back to the video.. at 36:59
Whilst Talking of Taditch , he talks as if he is almost a friend accepting a gift of vodka for christmas, but apparently Jelisic lacking support for his family and with empty hands was not an attractive proposition. And he concludes that this man was a psychopath.. I'm bemused... Did he defend or prosecute Jelisic? I don't know...
He has spoken for over 30 minutes on war crimes and relayed details that he hasn't as yet shown to other cases he has been apart of... His next quote is interesting...
At 40:12
That comment should have lead into Dr Vincent Tabak and The Murder of Joanna Yeates, a case that was at Christmas, a young woman found Murdered on Longwood Lane on Christmas day...
He misses the opportunity to talk of this high profile case and sips his water then says..
He talks of programs, he contradicts what he believes, he thinks that war crimes the evidence is lost and makes it difficult to prosecute, because of time past and evidence lost, yet in another breath he believes crimes against children where there is no difference in evidence lacking and time passed similar to the war crime issue for prosecutions...
He further goes on to say at 44:33 of the video talking about crimes against children..
Growth area's?? It sound like stocks and shares, how can it be a growth area? Crimes perpetrated against children, should be dealt with, but in revisiting historic cases, WC is in fact correct, this type of crime has become a growth area, with the difficulties associated with passage of time, witness's etc....
Questions from the audience about forensics and DNA and I am sat with bated breath... at last I will hear what I have been waiting for,.... But does he take the opportunity to give me what I want.... No... although he does surprise..
At 45:20 of the video..
I'll give him a mo... he did look left which could have been for a prompt, but where the hell did 1974 come from??
He further goes on to state about the case with the ear print and he shows his distain of another professional..
I had to look up why Van Der Lugt's name would be something Clegg would comment on the 'if you could believe it'... Yes I used google translator and yes it may be incorrect, but in English it means 'EAR.'..
Does he speak Dutch , had he just like me looked it up? He can remember that Lugt means Ear yet cannot remember when Racheal Nichol was murdered and refers to a date of 1974... A date for me that screams another murder which had been connected to the Joanna Yeates Case and that is The Murder of Glenis Carruthers...
I am bemused, disappointed having wasted over an hour wanting answers to my questions and he totally managed to avoid this high profile case that I hoped he would cover, I hoped an explanation of how he represented Dr Vincent Tabak and what advice he had given him...
It obvious his passion is war crimes, but I was waiting for ground breaking statements that once and for all would stop me questioning this case... But not even a mention in the video... Of course it could have been edited and omitted from the recording, I do not know how long this talk was for....
going back to this: 96 year old widow, smothered by a pillow and the Police found a perfect ear print on the outside window of the house, and the theory was that the burglar had put his ear to the window and couldn't hear anything and had broken in.. And.. er..... rather idiotic policeman, from Holland called Van der Lugt, if you believe it, had given evidence that ear prints were unique and it was Dallaghers ear print, well he was convicted of murder on this daft evidence and spent about 8 years there, before I got involved with the case.
Daft evidence.... It rings in my Lugt... I want to know what evidence they had against Dr Vincent Tabak before he apparently confessed? which I don't believe for a moment, but lets put that aside and ask the question... If we accept May 2011 as his confession, then what had been done to release Dr Vincent Tabak from custody, what evidence up until then had the prosecution have in their possession that Dr Vincent Tabak was unequivocally guilty of this crime? What solid evidence was there that it was indeed Dr Vincent Tabak? Had the idea that DNA had been found been enough to cast doubt on what Dr Vincent Tabak stated... Why didn't WC attack this case with the same passion he has shown for the war crimes?
Lets go back to his initial statements...
The person most likely to kill you, is your partner, your parent, or your child and that is I'm afraid, a statistical fact....Murder by stranger is actually very rare.... they are in fact, for lawyers the most interesting cases, because so often, murder in the family, doesn't require a great deal of work to solve. And hence they don't provide for a challenge, as far as us lawyers are concerned,so.. erm.. the ones that we find interesting, the ones in this book, are erm.. all but one I think,erm.. examples of stranger murders. Statistically they are very rare..
If he believe the person most likely to kill is related or connected to you as in partner, then that in itself should have had alarm bells ringing... Why would a complete stranger Murder Joanna Yeates?/ Statistically according to WC, it is extremely low..
He astounds me with this statement: Most Murders... Most people who kill have no previous convictions of any kind, they are not people who have been in trouble with the police in the past, they haven't been stealing and fighting during the course of their live, most occasions they are people who have just snapped for one reason or another and struck out.With terrifying results. And I do subscribe to a theory
How could one attribute that statement to Dr Vincent Tabak?
Dr Vincent Tabak was not related to Joanna Yeates, he did not know Joanna Yeates, the window of opportunity was minute, yet he acted completely out of character, calmly strangling Joanna Yeates for what reason?? He didn't snap? It was cold and calculated apparently... He had no previous convictions he was a model citizen... So explain why he went rough??
Dr Vincent Tabak is the opposite of everything that WC states, there is no hole/ box he can be put in... Yet to me it appears that not all that could have been done for Dr Vincent Tabak was done! Why??
There you go again taking things literally ...... JUST because someone mentions that murder is (more often than not) committed by family member or someone close to the victim, you have to apply it to all cases.
Tabak killed JY - bottom line!
-
This is a staged fake news report about a murderer who doesn't exist... https://www.channel4.com/news/tabak-so-sorry-for-killing-joanna-yeates (https://www.channel4.com/news/tabak-so-sorry-for-killing-joanna-yeates)
-
This is a staged fake news report about a murderer who doesn't exist... https://www.channel4.com/news/tabak-so-sorry-for-killing-joanna-yeates (https://www.channel4.com/news/tabak-so-sorry-for-killing-joanna-yeates)
Indeed so creative, it's upsetting!
-
This is a staged fake news report about a murderer who doesn't exist... https://www.channel4.com/news/tabak-so-sorry-for-killing-joanna-yeates (https://www.channel4.com/news/tabak-so-sorry-for-killing-joanna-yeates)
I have just viewed the news report,
News desk Reporter: The man who killed Joanna Yeates has broken down in the witness box, as he recalled the moment she died. Giving evidence in his own defence Vincent Tabak apologised to her family who were there in court watching, but he said he hadn't meant ti kill her. our home affairs correspondent Andy Davis was there.
Andy Davis: This is the first time David and Teresa Yeates have listened to the man who killed their daughter talk about that night. They walked into a packed court room this morning, with Joanna 's brother Chris beside them.
They would sit in silence side by side as the tall bespectable figure of Vincent Tabak walked within a few feet of them to take his place at the witness box.
In a dark suit and blue tie shoulders slightly hunched, the 33 year old who has a PHD in studying how people move within office spaces, spoke briefly about his upbringing in Holland, his move to the UK for work and then the night he killed his next door neighbour.
William Clegg QC for the defence here on the left at one point asked Vincent Tabak to close his eyes and try to relive those moments, in an attempt to time how long it took to strangle her. When I say start said the barrister to Vincent Tabak, I want you to say now, when you think the incident ended. Start said Mr. Clegg, Vincent Tabak shut his eyes the court fell completely silent. After a few seconds with his eyes still shut he started rubbing his forehead with his eyes still shut, leaning to the right slightly, a few seconds more passed in complete silence and then he said now. 15 seconds the jurors heard, seconds in which Tabak claimed he had tried to stop Joanna screaming , trying to calm her down.
He claimed she had invited him in that night, and then he went to kiss her after she made a flirtatious comment, he alleged, likening herself to her cat going into places she shouldn't. He never intended to kill her he said and then he panicked when he had. He claimed he felt guilt, that it would haunt him for the rest of his life and described his decision to abandon Joanna's body later that night in a country lane as horrendous.
"Whilst trying to lift her body, I was sin a state of total panic and stress and I just left her on the road side verge and I'm so sorry for doing that. I know I put Jo's parents and Greg, through a week of hell and I still can't believe that I did that." he said.
Nigel Lickley QC closest to camera, in cross examination for the prosecution suggested to Tabak that there'd been no panic, that he was lying, that he had been calculating , manipulative and in complete control throughout.
"All you had to do Vincent Tabak, was to walk out of the flat. Correct?
"Yes" said Tabak " I didn't".
"No" said Nigel Lickley "because you decided to put a hand round her throat, did you not??"
"Yes"
"And you squeezed her throat?"
"Yes" Tabak replied.
"What was she doing?"
"I can't remember"
"Yes you can" said the barrister. "What was she doing"?
"I can't remember".
Nigel Lickley went on, " She was fighting was she not, she was struggling"
Tabak replied. " She was not struggling"
And there was a point during the cross examination, when as Vincent Tabak was describing how he put his hand on Joanna Yeates neck. Nigel Lickley QC intervened and said. "Show us what you did".
And Vincent Tabak paused, he raised his hand to his head, very briefly,then he put his hand out like that, with his fingers slightly splayed and looked directly at the barrister questioning him,
There were other highly charged moments in that court today, particularly when some very graphic and harrowing images of Joanna's injuries were shown, to the court, to the family and to the defendant.
Nigel Lickley QC said to Tabak. "Thats you gripping her arms in part of the struggle, is it not Vincent Tabak". he replied " I don't know".. Mr Lickley went on. "Account for the injuries Mr Tabak ". And Vincent Tabak replied. " I don't know".
Andy Davis in Bristol
The description Andy Davis gives, resonated with something I had seen recently, and my love of subtitled programs. It was a Finish program that caught my attention, and the main character, whom fascinated me from the start.. He appeared odd, strange ,random a bit different. I could relate to that. His calm approach to solving problems in crime looked alien, his hand movement and his counting method and concentration, his method of recollection, in his silence, would above all have anyone asking how he ticks..
So when I watched the Channel 4 news report it clicked... I had always believed before that what Dr Vincent Tabak stated on the stand was a recollection of information that he was already party too via news media of the time. Nothing new had come to trial, nothing new that we really all didn't know already.
It was these 2 descriptions from the reporter, that made the connection in my mind..
Vincent Tabak shut his eyes the court fell completely silent. After a few seconds with his eyes still shut he started rubbing his forehead with his eyes still shut, leaning to the right slightly, a few seconds more passed in complete silence and then he said now.
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15269;image)
And Vincent Tabak paused, he raised his hand to his head, very briefly,then he put his hand out like that, with his fingers slightly splayed and looked directly at the barrister questioning him,
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15271;image[img]
Especially the second description as I could envisage the main character in the Finish program concentrating and trying to recollect, scenes he had seen and images that may have a meaning or may be connected to his case...
[img]http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15273;image)
The characters active mind is never far away from a thought or idea that, he heard or saw, he tries to connect the dots.
When Andy Davis described the action of Dr Vincent Tabak in the witness box, I had a realisation, that this was probably the technique that Dr Vincent Tabak used in his learning, his ability to recollect information stored in his memory, information he has read or seen, I am putting forward the idea, this is what makes Dr Vincent Tabak tick, he uses a technique whether learnt or natural, to recall the volume of information he knows in relation to his PHD and subsequent job..
So applying that to this situation, we can see that it falls flat, his recollection is vague, his recollection is missing detail, his recollection doesn't exist on many counts, as he falls to recall and answer over 80 questions..
I tried to understand why he couldn't remember and why he appeared vague... Him breaking down in tears and apologising to The Yeates...
The case is off... I know it is... questions have been asked as to why he would admit guilt, questions have been asked why he would take the stand and tell a story, a story that is just that....
But if he was protecting someone, if he unwittingly or deliberately, hampered the Police Investigation, if as Ann Reddrop states, he was Clever, then we need to put that into context...
I do not know what technique that Dr Vincent Tabak may have used for his recollection, there is one technique I have found called 'The Memory Palace", but I am sure there are others...
5. Visit Your Palace
At this point, you are done memorizing the items. If you’re new to the technique, though, you’ll probably need to do a little rehearsal, repeating the journey at least once in your mind.
If you start from the same point and follow the same route, the memorized items will come to your mind instantly as you look at the journey’s selected features. Go from the beginning to the end of your route, paying attention to those features and replaying the scenes in your mind. When you get to the end of your route, turn around and walk in the opposite direction until you get to the starting point.
In the end, it’s all a matter of developing your visualization skills. The more relaxed you are, the easier it will be and the more effective your memorization will be.
As I do not know anything about Dr Vincent Tabak , his technique may be natural, and this was never explored at trial, we were given very limited information as to what if any techniques Dr vincent Tabak used in his education or his every day life.. There are huge swaths of information missing from, not only Dr Vincent Tabak's account on the stand, but about him as a person.
Going back to the program a mo... Kari The Detective, has a technique, where he makes oblong boxes on the floor, where in front of him may be the images from the crime scene, he paces back and forth, bare footed, within these boxes, moving his toes as if they are counting, touching his head, either cupping it with two hands or just fingers, thoughts are constantly in his head, as he says.." thoughts occupy my mind without even trying"..
He tries to recall what he has seen and what may have been stated, were connections between places and people come together.. Where sometimes he may appear disinterested as his brain is sifting through information and images that, he has swimming around his head..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjOFzeVynVY
I do not know his technique, but I will put this scenario forward... Dr Vincent Tabak is just such a person, he has images etc swimming around, he has a technique in which he recalls situations, times, places etc and he has used this technique throughout his life..
So when we get to trial, his recollection is useless, his recollection is no more than we all know, because that is exactly it, he is only recalling what has already gone before... He cannot recall in detail, what actually took place.
Maybe he thought he was protecting someone when he gave an account to the police, when we do not know if he always stated no comment or he actually said quite a lot... Because if i am correct in my scenario, he would have run rings around the Police using a technique and recalling very thing that he knew, everything that was either in the media or on social media... He would have been able to put to see those discrepancies in anyones account, having an ability to memorises information.. Having the ability to recall details, that others cannot.
If he thought he was protecting, helping someone when he first went to the Police or when he was interviewed in Holland, he may have actually stated something, that a person had divulged to him, he may have given a piece of information he didn't realise.. Putting him now in the frame for this Murder...
We really have no idea of the people that Dr Vincent Tabak knew, or the acquaintances he may have had, no idea of the people he may have spoken too about his neighbour...
We have no idea whom the Police had already interviewed and whether or not Dr Vincent Tabak stated something that was held within those interviews..
I believe that this is a possible reason why Ann Reddrop had Dr Vincent Tabak in her sights, because it had to be the Holland interview that triggered something, (imo). Because up until this point, Dr Vincent Tabak was not considered a suspect, Dr Vincent Tabak had apparently been eliminated..
I am having a recollection myself as I type, and DC Karen Thomas stating that Dr Vincent Tabak was over interested in Forensics, was one of the reasons alarm bells started to ring...
Well consider this... Was Dr Vincent Tabak trying to recall something that happened, something he knew, something about the areas that the police were forensically testing didn't add up in his own mind. Questions posed by the police allowing for an idea or thought to swim throw his mind.. Making the idea of him asking questions about forensics making more sense.... And maybe he has in his own mind questions of what someone may have told him, or what he had seen or knew himself.
Did the Police/ CPS feel that Dr Vincent Tabak had tried to bamboozle them, with his technique, whilst he was trying to protect someone else..??
Could they not comprehend how someone had the ability to recall in such detail, what they knew? Did the just assume that he must have been there and been party to this, because they had never come across a person such as Dr Vincent Tabak...
Did he humiliate them and their efforts and point out to them, where they went wrong... Did he make them feel inadequate by the sheer fact he was able to recall what had been stated... Did he in fact reply to the questions posed on his arrest.. Or stay silent, knowing that their stupidity, would fail them....
Ann says he was cunning and manipulative young man. But put it into context, she then says, and I have pointed it out before..
"He knew exactly what he was (deali) doing with, when he killed Jo Yeates."
Dealing with...? As I have stated, did he run rings around them, did he in fact embarrass, humiliate and generally discredit the system??
Is Dr Vincent Tabak actually in prison for Murdering Jo Yeates, or for protecting someone? Or did he simply work out who the real killer was???
There is far more to this than meets the eye, there is far more to Dr Vincent Tabak than we have been told... For an intelligent man that can only recollect the information that was known and the apparent circumstances of Joanna Yeates disappearance, and who at trial fails to answer over 80 questions, and it is not until he sees the images all over the court room that he bows his head and wipes away a tear,and apologises to The Yeates.. I believe that is because, Joanna Yeates was savagely attacked, beaten, strangled, maybe any other type of injury, injuries that were not divulged to the public in the beginning, 43 significant injuries that the public intitially were told didn't exist...
I believe when he saw the full horror of what had happened to Joanna Yeates, he realised that what had happened was far greater than he had been told..
Whether or not the whole case is true..... Is something I have been battling with...
If he believed or knew that the whole case wasn't true, maybe he was just playing a game with the Police and sent them around in circles.. I don't know...
But I do believe that whatever was stated on the stand was already in the public domain, I believe the concocted story on the stand, was just that.....
I believe that there was a reason that Dr Vincent Tabak was facing trial for Murder... And I do not believe that the reason was because he actually killed her... In my opinion of course....
https://litemind.com/memory-palace/
-
................
-
I have just viewed the news report,
The description Andy Davis gives, resonated with something I had seen recently, and my love of subtitled programs. It was a Finish program that caught my attention, and the main character, whom fascinated me from the start.. He appeared odd, strange ,random a bit different. I could relate to that. His calm approach to solving problems in crime looked alien, his hand movement and his counting method and concentration, his method of recollection, in his silence, would above all have anyone asking how he ticks..
So when I watched the Channel 4 news report it clicked... I had always believed before that what Dr Vincent Tabak stated on the stand was a recollection of information that he was already party too via news media of the time. Nothing new had come to trial, nothing new that we really all didn't know already.
It was these 2 descriptions from the reporter, that made the connection in my mind..
Vincent Tabak shut his eyes the court fell completely silent. After a few seconds with his eyes still shut he started rubbing his forehead with his eyes still shut, leaning to the right slightly, a few seconds more passed in complete silence and then he said now.
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15269;image)
And Vincent Tabak paused, he raised his hand to his head, very briefly,then he put his hand out like that, with his fingers slightly splayed and looked directly at the barrister questioning him,
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15271;image[img]
Especially the second description as I could envisage the main character in the Finish program concentrating and trying to recollect, scenes he had seen and images that may have a meaning or may be connected to his case...
[img]http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15273;image)
The characters active mind is never far away from a thought or idea that, he heard or saw, he tries to connect the dots.
When Andy Davis described the action of Dr Vincent Tabak in the witness box, I had a realisation, that this was probably the technique that Dr Vincent Tabak used in his learning, his ability to recollect information stored in his memory, information he has read or seen, I am putting forward the idea, this is what makes Dr Vincent Tabak tick, he uses a technique whether learnt or natural, to recall the volume of information he knows in relation to his PHD and subsequent job..
So applying that to this situation, we can see that it falls flat, his recollection is vague, his recollection is missing detail, his recollection doesn't exist on many counts, as he falls to recall and answer over 80 questions..
I tried to understand why he couldn't remember and why he appeared vague... Him breaking down in tears and apologising to The Yeates...
The case is off... I know it is... questions have been asked as to why he would admit guilt, questions have been asked why he would take the stand and tell a story, a story that is just that....
But if he was protecting someone, if he unwittingly or deliberately, hampered the Police Investigation, if as Ann Reddrop states, he was Clever, then we need to put that into context...
I do not know what technique that Dr Vincent Tabak may have used for his recollection, there is one technique I have found called 'The Memory Palace", but I am sure there are others...
As I do not know anything about Dr Vincent Tabak , his technique may be natural, and this was never explored at trial, we were given very limited information as to what if any techniques Dr vincent Tabak used in his education or his every day life.. There are huge swaths of information missing from, not only Dr Vincent Tabak's account on the stand, but about him as a person.
Going back to the program a mo... Kari The Detective, has a technique, where he makes oblong boxes on the floor, where in front of him may be the images from the crime scene, he paces back and forth, bare footed, within these boxes, moving his toes as if they are counting, touching his head, either cupping it with two hands or just fingers, thoughts are constantly in his head, as he says.." thoughts occupy my mind without even trying"..
He tries to recall what he has seen and what may have been stated, were connections between places and people come together.. Where sometimes he may appear disinterested as his brain is sifting through information and images that, he has swimming around his head..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjOFzeVynVY
I do not know his technique, but I will put this scenario forward... Dr Vincent Tabak is just such a person, he has images etc swimming around, he has a technique in which he recalls situations, times, places etc and he has used this technique throughout his life..
So when we get to trial, his recollection is useless, his recollection is no more than we all know, because that is exactly it, he is only recalling what has already gone before... He cannot recall in detail, what actually took place.
Maybe he thought he was protecting someone when he gave an account to the police, when we do not know if he always stated no comment or he actually said quite a lot... Because if i am correct in my scenario, he would have run rings around the Police using a technique and recalling very thing that he knew, everything that was either in the media or on social media... He would have been able to put to see those discrepancies in anyones account, having an ability to memorises information.. Having the ability to recall details, that others cannot.
If he thought he was protecting, helping someone when he first went to the Police or when he was interviewed in Holland, he may have actually stated something, that a person had divulged to him, he may have given a piece of information he didn't realise.. Putting him now in the frame for this Murder...
We really have no idea of the people that Dr Vincent Tabak knew, or the acquaintances he may have had, no idea of the people he may have spoken too about his neighbour...
We have no idea whom the Police had already interviewed and whether or not Dr Vincent Tabak stated something that was held within those interviews..
I believe that this is a possible reason why Ann Reddrop had Dr Vincent Tabak in her sights, because it had to be the Holland interview that triggered something, (imo). Because up until this point, Dr Vincent Tabak was not considered a suspect, Dr Vincent Tabak had apparently been eliminated..
I am having a recollection myself as I type, and DC Karen Thomas stating that Dr Vincent Tabak was over interested in Forensics, was one of the reasons alarm bells started to ring...
Well consider this... Was Dr Vincent Tabak trying to recall something that happened, something he knew, something about the areas that the police were forensically testing didn't add up in his own mind. Questions posed by the police allowing for an idea or thought to swim throw his mind.. Making the idea of him asking questions about forensics making more sense.... And maybe he has in his own mind questions of what someone may have told him, or what he had seen or knew himself.
Did the Police/ CPS feel that Dr Vincent Tabak had tried to bamboozle them, with his technique, whilst he was trying to protect someone else..??
Could they not comprehend how someone had the ability to recall in such detail, what they knew? Did the just assume that he must have been there and been party to this, because they had never come across a person such as Dr Vincent Tabak...
Did he humiliate them and their efforts and point out to them, where they went wrong... Did he make them feel inadequate by the sheer fact he was able to recall what had been stated... Did he in fact reply to the questions posed on his arrest.. Or stay silent, knowing that their stupidity, would fail them....
Ann says he was cunning and manipulative young man. But put it into context, she then says, and I have pointed it out before..
"He knew exactly what he was (deali) doing with, when he killed Jo Yeates."
Dealing with...? As I have stated, did he run rings around them, did he in fact embarrass, humiliate and generally discredit the system??
Is Dr Vincent Tabak actually in prison for Murdering Jo Yeates, or for protecting someone? Or did he simply work out who the real killer was???
There is far more to this than meets the eye, there is far more to Dr Vincent Tabak than we have been told... For an intelligent man that can only recollect the information that was known and the apparent circumstances of Joanna Yeates disappearance, and who at trial fails to answer over 80 questions, and it is not until he sees the images all over the court room that he bows his head and wipes away a tear,and apologises to The Yeates.. I believe that is because, Joanna Yeates was savagely attacked, beaten, strangled, maybe any other type of injury, injuries that were not divulged to the public in the beginning, 43 significant injuries that the public intitially were told didn't exist...
I believe when he saw the full horror of what had happened to Joanna Yeates, he realised that what had happened was far greater than he had been told..
Whether or not the whole case is true..... Is something I have been battling with...
If he believed or knew that the whole case wasn't true, maybe he was just playing a game with the Police and sent them around in circles.. I don't know...
But I do believe that whatever was stated on the stand was already in the public domain, I believe the concocted story on the stand, was just that.....
I believe that there was a reason that Dr Vincent Tabak was facing trial for Murder... And I do not believe that the reason was because he actually killed her... In my opinion of course....
https://litemind.com/memory-palace/
This is my final response to this thread and that's only to say ....... this is my final response to this thread.
-
?
-
Lord Denning on Rough Justice Program
At 12:40 of the video..
After a decision has been given by judge and jury, the media must not go round, trying to get what they call fresh evidence, so as to show if they can, the decision was wrong, that is undermining our system of justice altogether
I do not remember seeing this program, but the BBC caused a stir...
Is that the point... Is this why I will never get anywhere with everything I have pointed out?
The justice system in itself does not want be be 'undermined' by anyone pointing directly to it's flaws, it isn't able to admit to catastrophic failures that effect us all..
I am not surprised I have gone around in circles questioning whether this cases is real or not, when the very basis of justice in this land would never admit to it's failings..
How blatantly procedures were not followed (imo),
It will never matter even if I can find any FRESH evidence, no-one wants to look at this case, no-one wants to question the fact that it is diabolical, that Dr Vincent Tabak was seen as guilty in July 2011 when the Leveson Inquiry was set up, and CJ and the media went to court to settle the contempt issue.. On the 29th July 2011 we have Dr Vincent Tabak been named as guilty for the Murder of Joanna Yeates even before a trial has taken place, where he may have retracted the guilty to Manslaughter plea..
But it had to be done and dusted then..(imo) I have shown what I believe is a reason for CJ to be at trial, CJ who has conversed with Dr Vincent Tabak over that weekend, CJ, whom saw people at the gate, CJ whom exchanged pleasantries with his tenant and CJ who should have been interviewed by the defence.
But we know that CJ was a key participant in this inquiry, he was named in August 2011 to be such a participant, when I couldn't understand how knowing a trial was taking place in October 2011, he at anytime could have been called to be a witness.. So why his involvement with the inquiry before a trial...
For me the fact that CJ is involved and is making written statements to an inquiry, before a trial, makes this trial of Dr Vincent Tabak even more questionable. That they could be so sure, Dr Vincent Tabak would not change his mind, and that no live witness's whom had seen or spoken to Dr Vincent Tabak that weekend came to trial..
CJ on video stated he saw Dr Vincent Tabak, so why not call him to testify? Why not put him on the stand were he can tell us what he knows, the 2/3 people who could be extremely relevant to this case, that he saw at the gate.. These people whom at around 9:00pm were seen by the landlord of 44,Canygne Road on his return from the gym, these 2/3 people who have never been identified and are just as likely to be persons of interest..
We just get the story we all already knew spoken on the stand and I do not understand why everyone is happy with it...
What really happened in the Joanna Yeates Case? I do not believe the rubbish we have been told, When there is evidently witness's whom were not spoken to or produced at a trial, that could and would change the complexion of it...
Can people honestly tell me that this case is right and true? Can people honestly tell me that this trial is right and true??
Where their is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever to support a man's version of events that was no different to what had already appeared in the media, is accepted as a confession of guilt, by just admitting guilt is enough to have your liberty taken away.. Nothing is known about Dr Vincent Tabak, Nothing whatsoever, he could be a fantasist.. But we do not know.. All we know was whatever had been stated on the stand, was not challenged..
And a man was sentenced to 20 years for a crime that he didn't commit? didn't happen? Wasn't investigated to the fullest.
Truth ,Honesty and Real Justice, should always be at the forefront... But with the way in which the apathy applies in this country and no-one will question the system. We will allow someone to pay the cost of any crime whether guilty or not, just as long as it isn't us..
As a country were bizarre, we're happy to point out what we see as other countries failures and inhumanities, yet we do not admit our own. We have not matured enough to accept our inadequacies, our lacking in fairness and the human rights of others. We pretend we are progressive, but we have been taking one step forward and ten steps back for decades. And if challenged a new law comes and plugs that hole.
So keep kicking people down, stop people asking questions, is the norm...
Ok.. you've won.... I haven't the strength to keep fighting this, I haven't any support, whatsoever..
And when the real monsters come out to play, you get what you deserve, because you have allowed it to happen.... So no complaining... No shock , horror, and surprise.. Keep a stiff upper lip and continue with your life, because no-one gives a crap anyway...
If Dr Vincent Tabak is in prison, I can't help him, I haven't the finance or support, to even begin... I have wasted my time, because the odds were always stacked against me.. And someone like me has no sway or influence..
Why bother trying, why bother highlighting anything, people only do this to make money these days, we have a growth industry according to WC and when a growth industry can keep producing victims, it will stop any other injustice being highlighted.
I cried today.. I cried when I realised the pointlessness of the society I live in... Where no-one gives a crap about anyone else it appears... Where even the good people that are around get taken down in one way or another.
So I'll be quiet., like a good little citizen, and get on with my own business... And remember that I live in the era I was brought up in , where woman are seen and not heard, never mind children, where woman should ask their husbands permission if they can purchase items with there own money...
Where woman should not have an opinion... Where as a good little woman ,I will get a wry smile by a man, and a condescending pat on the head, and then told not worry about matters that don't concern me.. And only a man truly understands the complexities of life.
What on earth was I thinking of... believing that a mere woman as myself of no standing could actually do something... Ideas above my station.... my god....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6tDARIM8dI
-
Missing woman Joanna Yeates: press conference with Detective Chief Inspector and parents
Missing woman Joanna Yeates: press conference with Detective Chief Inspector and parents; David Yeates and Teresa Yeates (Parents of missing 25-year-old, Joanna Yeates) press conference SOT - [David Yeates] The papers used vivacious ... she loved life, loved doing things with her boyfriend ... was a really loving daughter ... did touching things for me which I didn't expect, many small things for her ... Over the last couple of years she has blossomed into a classy lady, she had style, if I could pick a daughter I wouldn't pick anyone else, I miss her terribly and its breaking my heart - [Teresa Yeates] I am missing being able to hold to her ... Jo come back, if anyone has got her don't keep her, give her back to us, we miss her so much, we want to thank everyone who has been helping us ... thank everyone for what they have done and Greg ... just come back Jo - I came down to Bristol a couple of weeks ago to see 'Deal or no Deal' ... I stayed the night with them, I went off early, I texted her and she said did you get there ok? ... She was going to make mince pies, she printed something off the internet ... She was coming up tomorrow - [David Yeates] Christmas is suspended until Jo comes back ... we want to be by ourselves, rather than anyone else, Greg, Chris share something but not to the same extent, ... we hope and pray that she is being held by somebody, please let her go / I think she was abducted after getting home from her flat, because what was behind, we feel she wouldn't have gone out by herself, taken away somewhere, she is a professional lady ... - [Teresa Yeates] She wanted to be in that night and the whole weekend, she had a party on Tuesday ... - [David Yeates] Plans were to finish her Christmas shopping ... she did have things planned / This is a picture of our daughter when she had her graduation, her and Greg were totally in love and devoted to each other, she had no work worries, no money worries, if she went away she would have ta...
Details
Credit: ITN
Clip #: 691670172 SD
Collection: ITN
Date created: 23 December, 2010
Licence type: Rights-ready
Release info: Not released. More information
Clip length: 00:01:51:01
Location: United Kingdom
Mastered to: QuickTime 8-bit Photo-JPEG SD 720x576 25i More information
Originally shot on: 576 25i
Source: ITN
Object name: r23121002_2832.mov
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/missing-woman-joanna-yeates-press-conference-with-news-footage/691670172
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Joanna Yeates murder: Statement by parents of Jo Yeates
Joanna Yeates murder: Statement by parents of Jo Yeates; David Yeates (Father of Jo Yeates) interview SOT - Want to bring conclusion to this - last few weeks have been an absolute nightmare David and Teresa Yeates holding up Police Appeal poster with Greg Reardon (Boyfriend of Joanna Yeates) and Chris Yeates (Brother of Joanna Yeates) standing behind as posing for photocall / More of David & Teresa Yeates, Chris Yeates and Greg Reardon posing for photocall
Details
Restrictions: No use by regional TV or radio in UK and Ireland until 3 days after date of creation. Prior approval required if clip features ITN newsreader or reporter, please contact your local Getty Images representative.
Credit: ITN
Details
Restrictions: No use by regional TV or radio in UK and Ireland until 3 days after date of creation. Prior approval required if clip features ITN newsreader or reporter, please contact your local Getty Images representative.
Credit: ITN
Clip #: 689136980 SD
Collection: ITN
Date created: 18 January, 2011
Licence type: Rights-ready
Release info: Not released. More information
Clip length: 00:02:54:06
Location: United Kingdom
Mastered to: QuickTime 8-bit Photo-JPEG SD 720x576 25i More information
Originally shot on: 576 25i
Source: ITN
Object name: r18011102_5719.movSD
Collection: ITN
Date created: 18 January, 2011
Licence type: Rights-ready
Release info: Not released. More information
Clip length: 00:02:54:06
Location: United Kingdom
Mastered to: QuickTime 8-bit Photo-JPEG SD 720x576 25i More information
Originally shot on: 576 25i
Source: ITN
Object name: r18011102_5719.mov
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/statement-by-parents-of-jo-yeates-david-yeates-interview-news-footage/689136980
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
689136980 = 18th January 2011
691670172 = 23rd December 2010
I believe both clips are made at the same venue, it's just the opposite side of the curtain...
If we follow Maths, numbers come in sequence... 689136980 comes before 691670172
That should follow that 689136980 = 18th January 2011 was made first... Then 691670172 = 23rd December 2010
was made after,.....
My conclusions come from my observations... They may appear heartless, but I'm trying to be objective.. If I am correct and they were filmed in a different order, the fact that David Yeates talks about his daughter in the past tense ,therefore makes sense...
The question has to be........
* When did Joanna Yeates die?
* Did Joanna Yeates die ?
* What did The Yeates know about their daughter?
* Is this fake news??
* Why the Police search?
* Why the media interest??
* Why fool the public?
I remember people talking years ago about Joanna Yeates been talked of in the past tense, when she was just supposed to be a Missing person, Greg apparently did this too, that was part of the reason that the speculation about him being a person of interest came about...
If I am correct about the clips, what does this clip then tell us?
Missing woman Joanna Yeates: police find body; Missing woman Joanna Yeates: police find body
24.12.2010 Bristol: Clifton: Police forensic investigators (wearing protective suits) searching windows of flat where Joanna Yeates lived Police officers searching through rubbish in bins Back view forensic officer taking evidence from window
Details
Restrictions: No use by regional TV or radio in UK and Ireland until 3 days after date of creation. Prior approval required if clip features ITN newsreader or reporter, please contact your local Getty Images representative.No use by regional TV or radio in UK and Ireland until 3 days after date of creation. Prior approval required if clip features ITN newsreader or reporter, please contact your local Getty Images representative.
Credit: ITN
Clip #: 659120944 SD
Collection: ITN
Date created: 25 December, 2010
Licence type: Rights-ready
Release info: Not released. More information
Clip length: 00:00:09:23
Location: United Kingdom
Mastered to: QuickTime 8-bit Photo-JPEG SD 720x576 25i More information
Originally shot on: 576 25i
Source: ITN
Object name: t25121001_1445.mov
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/police-forensic-investigators-searching-windows-of-flat-news-footage/659120944
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
659120944 = 25 December, 2010
689136980 = 18th January 2011
691670172 = 23rd December 2010
Tell me how that works??
I don't know what to say, someone explain to me please why the numbers aren't consecutive and in date order? Am I Missing something?
This is why I wonder if Operation Braid was a sting or something, everything appears to be the opposite way around in this case, it has never made any sense...
Has this case only ever appeared on-line? I know there are News clips, but I cannot remember if I actually saw any of it on the TV...
I have shown the staging before, is that all this is, some production?
Below is the link to the clips... number wise they are all back to front..
We have The Yeates at Bristol Crown Court, number = 656414432 date = 20 October, 2011
Before DCI Phil Jones makes his first appeal number = 700088056 date = 28 December, 2010
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/videos/joanna-yeates?page=2&phrase=joanna%20yeates&sort=mostpopular&license=rf,rr
Its very possible I am just plain stupid here.....
So what was Operation Braid really about and why arrest CJ??? Or is he part of the Operation too? seeing as his clips number is (29th December 2010)=(6591125500)
Before DCI Phil Jones appeal...(28th December 2010)=(7000880560)
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/christopher-jefferies-as-speaks-to-press-news-footage/659112550
Maybe CJ could explain what The Joanna Yeates Case is really about, and what was it about Dr Vincent Tabak that they wanted him in prison... Or is he just a figment of someones imagination???
Well I may be wrong, as I say, it's like some big production, I have absolutely no idea any more...
-
I feel like I am in a production of 'The Emperor's New Clothes'... I keep pointing things out and everyone else doesn't see it.....
More fairy tales eh.....
-
I feel like I am in a production of 'The Emperor's New Clothes'... I keep pointing things out and everyone else doesn't see it.....
More fairy tales eh.....
I think that this total disrespect towards the Yeates family should stop now.
-
I think that this total disrespect towards the Yeates family should stop now.
Thanks for that Puglove
I wasn't trying to be disrespectful, I am trying to understand what this is all about... You can eff and jeff at me as much as you want........... lovely!
-
Your right puglove... I should desist .....
Please remove all 3656 posts and deactivate my account ... thankyou
-
One last thing puglove....
Part 1...
I have struggled as to whether this is real, because of events that have taken place, Events that should not happen before time... (imo)
We have had The Attorney General getting involved in Dec 2010/Jan 2011, we again have the attorney general and the case against the newspapers, where I have pointed out that it is stated that Dr Vincent Tabak is guilty on the 29th July 2011, before a trial has even taken place and before a defendant could withdraw any plea given.. Yet it is there in black and white for all to see..
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/attorney-general-reflects-on-how-the-law-of-contempt-is-developing
Mr Dominic Grieve QC, Her Majesty’s Attorney-General and Miss Melanie Cumberland (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Claimant
Mr Jonathan Caplan QC (Instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP) for the First Defendant
Miss Adrienne Page QC and Mr Anthony Hudson (Instructed by Farrer & Co) for the Second Defendant
Hearing date: 5th July 2011
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown copyright©
The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales:
In these proceedings Her Majesty’s Attorney-General contends that the first defendant, the publisher of the Daily Mirror newspaper, and the second defendant, the publisher of The Sun newspaper, should be committed, or otherwise dealt with for contempt of court. The contempt is said to arise from articles published in the issues of the Daily Mirror dated 31st December 2010 and 1st January 2011 and in the Sun on 1st January 2011 in breach of the strict liability rule as defined in the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (the Act).
The Context
The proceedings arise from the killing of a young woman, Joanna Yeates, in Bristol on 17th December 2010. Her landlord, Christopher Jefferies, was arrested on 30th December on suspicion of her murder. He was released from custody on unconditional police bail during the evening of 1st January 2011. On 22nd January another man, Vincent Tabak was charged with the murder of Miss Yeates. On 4th March Mr Jefferies was informed that he was released from police bail. On 5th May Tabak admitted that he was responsible for killing Miss Yeates when, at the Central Criminal Court, he pleaded guilty to her manslaughter. He denied murder on the basis of diminished responsibility. The trial of that issue will take place in the autumn.
There is therefore no doubt about the identity of the man who killed Miss Yeates or that Mr Jefferies is innocent of any involvement in it. By way of emphasis, he is not simply presumed in law to be innocent of the killing. As a matter of fact and reality he is innocent. He is not facing trial, and he will never face trial. However at the time when the articles complained of were published, he was under arrest. For the purposes of the Act proceedings against him were active. No one was to know that before very long he would be entirely exonerated. That feature makes this an unusual case. The articles complained of did not have and could not have had any impact whatever on a trial of Mr Jefferies, just because – as we now know - there will never be one. From the point of view of the defendants that was purely adventitious, and as we shall see, it is irrelevant to our decision. It is also irrelevant that the way in which some elements of the media may have treated Mr Jefferies may justify a substantial award of damages for defamation. This is a prosecution for contempt of court, not an analysis of any possible civil claim by him for compensation.
https://www.iclr.co.uk/document/2011201901/%5B2011%5D%20EWHC%202074%20(Admin)/html?query=tabak&filter=content-available%3A%22Transcript%22&fullSearchFields=&page=1&sort=relevance&pageSize=10
But the most interesting of these official reports/ debates before a trial has to be in Parliament..
4 Feb 2011 : Column 1159
House of Commons
Friday 4 February 2011
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con): I beg to move, That the House sit in private.
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163), and negatived.
4 Feb 2011 : Column 1160
Anonymity (Arrested Persons) Bill
Second Reading
9.34 am
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Where as the date tells us many things have not yet taken place...
4 Feb 2011 : Column 1191
Many Members have mentioned or alluded to the tragic Joanna Yeates case, which happened over Christmas, and the media's dreadful treatment of her landlord. The shameful way in which that man was portrayed in the press-from "weird-looking" to "strange", and with questions raised about his sexuality, his teaching practices and even his hairstyle-should embarrass and shame our media.
The phenomenon is not new. Countless other examples spring immediately to mind-for example, the speculation, which I believe we heard again this morning, about a well-known actor and television presenter back in 2003, which has done untold damage to his career, despite the fact that no charges have ever been brought, or the American press treatment of Richard Jewell as a suspect in the 1996 Olympic park bombing, although in fact he was a hero on the day who saved countless lives through his actions.
As I think everyone listening to the debate will know, on 17 December 2010 Joanna Yeates left her place of work and joined her colleagues in a Bristol pub for a drink. On 20 December, Avon and Somerset police launched their first appeal for information about Joanna's disappearance. It was around this time that the national media, perhaps because of the Christmas period, when there is generally considered to be little for the media to report, began to pay attention to the case. Over the next few days, it was given ever-increasing media attention, and more details emerged about Joanna's final movements.
A key part of the case became a pizza that Joanna was seen buying in Tesco Express, but of which there was no trace in her flat, and the police used the media to ask the public whether they had seen anything relating to this. Joanna's parents made a number of public appeals at this stage, believing that she had either gone missing or perhaps been abducted, and the media carried those appeals and contributed a huge amount to efforts to find Joanna safely. It is important to remember, as we discuss this Bill, that the media have traditionally played a huge role in such situations, and there are countless examples of missing people having been found as a result of information that has been obtained following appeals.
Tragically, on Christmas morning, a body was found in an area of north Somerset that was quickly confirmed to be that of Joanna. Over the next few days, the media concentrated on the reaction of the family and friends, before, on 29 December, the police interviewed Joanna's landlord. He advised that he saw her leaving the flat with two people on the night that she was murdered. But the next day, Avon and Somerset police confirmed that a 65-year-old man had been arrested on suspicion of murder, and it was rapidly reported that this was her landlord.
At this stage the media turned their attention to what can be described only as a detailed character assassination of this man. Papers revelled in the nickname used by students at the college where he formerly taught, and a particular tabloid-I will not mention which one, but I think it will become apparent-ran a story entitled "Weird, posh, lewd, creepy", in which it described him as "weird-looking" and ran quotes from a number of former pupils in which the overriding comment seemed intent on painting a very negative picture of this man. This continued over the following few days as police
4 Feb 2011 : Column 1192
obtained further time to question the gentleman in question, and more of his former acquaintances came forward with stories about his apparently odd behaviour.
On new year's day, this man was released on bail, at which point the tone of the stories changed. He was no longer weird or strange, with the newspaper in question now preferring to describe him as "wild-haired eccentric", and most attention in the article reporting this being paid to comments from his aunt and former colleagues who supported him, expressing their view that they would never think him capable of such a crime.
Anna Soubry: I am very grateful for the exceptionally helpful comments that have been made thus far by the hon. Gentleman. Does he agree that at the point when this gentleman was arrested and there was a media feeding frenzy attacking his character, it would be fair to say that there must have been women in Bristol who concluded that the police had him and that therefore they were safe? If events are proved right, women were effectively made more vulnerable in the mistaken belief that the attacker was no longer on the loose.
As I think everyone listening to the debate will know, on 17 December 2010 Joanna Yeates left her place of work and joined her colleagues in a Bristol pub for a drink. On 20 December, Avon and Somerset police launched their first appeal for information about Joanna's disappearance. It was around this time that the national media, perhaps because of the Christmas period, when there is generally considered to be little for the media to report, began to pay attention to the case. Over the next few days, it was given ever-increasing media attention, and more details emerged about Joanna's final movements.
A key part of the case became a pizza that Joanna was seen buying in Tesco Express, but of which there was no trace in her flat, and the police used the media to ask the public whether they had seen anything relating to this. Joanna's parents made a number of public appeals at this stage, believing that she had either gone missing or perhaps been abducted, and the media carried those appeals and contributed a huge amount to efforts to find Joanna safely.
How was it even possible for parliament to comment on a PIZZA , whether Joanna Yeates had been abducted or was just Missing, where the PIZZA was purchased, stating that there was NO TRACES of said PIZZA in her Flat..
"On 20 December, Avon and Somerset police launched their first appeal for information about Joanna's disappearance." this being the same day that Greg Reardon reported Joanna Yeates Missing...
If a trial hasn't taken place, CJ hasn't been released from bail,.. Dr Vincent Tabak is on remand, why on earth are the details of this case being discussed in Parliament on the 4th February 2011??
The PIZZA for all intense and purposes may have been a red herring... But for Parliament to be discussing a case that hasn't gone to trial at that point is wrong..(imo) Dr Vincent Tabak at this point apparently has made NO COMMENT... There is no talk of confessions or pleads of guilt, so how can Parliament even discuss any aspect of a case that hasn't gone through the judicial process??
Apparently at this point NO-ONE knew what had happened to Joanna Yeates and that only came to light at trial in October 2011
I find this most perplexing....
-
Part 2.....
Robert Flello: I can see the hon. Lady leaping to her feet on that point.
Anna Soubry: With great respect, I think we are moving into really difficult territory, because Joanna Yeates's family did not know whether the man who had been arrested was the person who had murdered their
4 Feb 2011 : Column 1195
daughter or fiancée, so in those circumstances it would be fallacious to argue that the victim's family should be involved, in any way, in the publication of an arrested person's name.
Didn't we have the report from Greg on the 1st January 2011 about of yet "Innocent Men"
Her boyfriend Greg Reardon also issued a statement in which he declared he would always love her but criticised the media's ''character assassination'' of ''as yet innocent men''.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8235055/Joanna-Yeates-was-stolen-from-us-say-family.html
4 Feb 2011 : Column 1196
Robert Flello: The hon. Gentleman makes the point very well, and I will return to it shortly.
I should like to touch on other concerns that I have about the Bill, some of which relate to whether it is necessary and some to how it would work in practice. First, it is worth mentioning again the current legislation relating to contempt of court. The Contempt of Court Act 1981 is the most important piece of legislation in this field and, if used properly, it should be sufficient to deal with the problems that the Bill seeks to address. Section 2(2) of the Act states that the press are prohibited from the reporting of information which
"creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced".
In the Joanna Yeates case, the Bristol man would almost certainly not have had a fair trial if he had indeed been guilty of the offences. Therefore, use of the 1981 Act should have been looked at more closely.
Of course, the simple reporting of an individual's arrest would not impede or prejudice an investigation. I suspect that few Members have a strong objection to the simple reporting of an arrested person's name; we have pretty much heard agreement on that today. Indeed, this reporting is crucial to the rule that administration of justice should take place in the public eye. Simple reporting of a name ensures that speculation is avoided and protects other individuals. The problem has arisen from the fact that the simple reporting of a name has grown and mutated, in a ridiculous and appalling way, into in-depth investigations about an individual's past jobs, hobbies and actions.
The media are expected to refrain from reporting on a suspected person's previous convictions or making any sort of speculative comment about an individual's guilt or otherwise. I would argue that in the Bristol case, and in others, a number of press outlets were indeed guilty of precisely that-effectively carrying out their own investigations into the case and speculating as to why the person would carry out this crime with only the merest of efforts to mention that no charges had been laid. This mutation has been allowed to happen because of the failure of various bodies, including Ministers, to ensure that the law is implemented properly.
In the Bristol case, I am afraid to say that the reaction of the Attorney-General was not what I would have expected of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. His so-called warning to newspaper editors consisted of little more than the gentlest of reminders of the law as it stands and the importance of nothing taking place that might prejudice a fair trial. Indeed, according to reports of this "warning", the Attorney-General was very careful not to address precisely the coverage of the Joanna Yeates case. I dare say that had the Attorney-General taken a stronger view and warned media outlets that some of the reporting was at great risk of being in contempt-I think that hon. Members agree that it probably was in contempt-a slightly more measured approach might have been taken.
Now I at this point need to point something out... we are talking the 4th February 2011
In the Joanna Yeates case, the Bristol man would almost certainly not have had a fair trial if he had indeed been guilty of the offences. Therefore, use of the 1981 Act should have been looked at more closely
The Bristol man would almost certainly not had a fair trial???
Dr Vincent Tabak has been arrested and charged by the 22nd January 2011, he is in custody, as far as we are aware he has said nothing, no bail has been applied for, he has not yet spoken to the assumed chaplain Peter Brotherton where he apparently confessed to the murder (which I don't believe..) But more apparent is the fact that CJ is still himself on POLICE BAIL, he doesn't get released from POLICE BAIL until March 2011
Why are they using CJ as an example in Parliament in February 2011, when he still could be suspect in this case... Until the Police release him from bail, and lets not forget that DCI Phil Jones stated at the Leveson that it was the TRAINER they found behind the kick board under the sink in the house, was the reason that CJ was still on bail, do we have interest in Parliament on what is taking place surrounding CJ??
In the Joanna Yeates case, the Bristol man would almost certainly not have had a fair trial if he had indeed been guilty of the offences.
I'm trying to get my head around that statement....
How would anyone know on the 4th February 2011, whether or not CJ had committed any offence in relation to Joanna Yeates seeing as I will repeat, he was still on POLICE BAIL until March 2011??
And I don't understand why CJ is being mentioned in Parliament... anyone explain..
If we are supposed to have the fade factor on any case, where does it make The Joanna Yeates Case stand???
* 20th January 2011
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348832/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Vincent-Tabaks-flat-searched-man-32-arrested.html
* 21st January 2011
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8273016/Joanna-Yeates-murder-a-quiet-lonely-Dutchman-who-came-to-life-after-finding-love.html
* 22nd January 2011 Dr Vincent Tabak is all over the media
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349356/Joanna-Yeates-murder-suspect-Vincent-Tabak-split-girlfriend.html
* 24th January 2011 appears at Court all over the media ( PETER DOMINICZAK IN BRISTOL Monday 24 January
2011 08:46)
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/joanna-yeates-neighbour-vincent-tabak-in-court-on-murder-charge-6558679.html
* 25th January 2011 (By DAILY MAIL REPORTER UPDATED: 13:11, 25 January 2011)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350309/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Vincent-Tabak-remanded-custody.html
* 26th January 2011 (26th January 2011, 12:00 am) Moves to Gloucester Prison)
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/330342/tabak-jail-switch-over-attack-fears/
* 31st January 2011 preliminary hearing Paul cook photographed outside court
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/vincent-tabaks-defence-lawyer-paul-cook-leaves-bristol-news-photo/108634508
* 4th February 2011 the case is mentioned in Parliament
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110204/debtext/110204-0001.htm
* 11th February 2011
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/feb/11/joanna-yeates-funeral-church
* 14th February 2011, 1:45 am (THE girlfriend of Jo Yeates’ alleged killer emerges from a prison visit — on
the same day as the tragic 25-year-old’s funeral.)
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/369964/accuseds-girl-visits-jail-as-jo-is-laid-to-rest/
* 27 February 2011
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1360903/Joanna-Yeates-Murdered-landscape-architect-leaves-47-000-estate.html
* 07 March 2011
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8365807/Joanna-Yeates-murder-landlord-Chris-Jefferies-released-from-bail-without-charge.html
* 7th April 2011 (Recent drawing of Vincent Tabak (Joanna Yeates murder suspect))
http://exmouthartgroup.blogspot.com/2011/04/elizabeth-cook-court-artist.html
* 21st April 2011
https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2011/apr/21/joanna-yeates-national-newspapers
* May 5th 2011 its reported that Dr Vincent Tabak has pleaded guilty to Manslaughter, yet it is not accepted by the
CPS
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8496027/Dutch-engineer-Vincent-Tabak-admits-I-did-kill-Jo-Yeates.html
* May 5th 2011 The Yeates are in the media attending the Old Bailey Hearing
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/may/05/joanna-yeates-neighbour-admits-killing
* 8th May 2011
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/may/08/christopher-jefferies-jo-yeates
* On 12 May 2011, the Attorney-General was granted permission to bring proceedings for strict liability contempt
under ss. 1 and 2 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981against two newspapers for their coverage of Mr Jefferies’
arrest:
https://www.5rb.com/case/attorney-general-v-1-mgn-limited-2-news-group-newspapers-ltd/
* Friday 13 May 2011
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/contempt-of-court-case-raises-difficult-issues-2283363.html
* June 24th 2011 (Dutchman Vincent Tabak has pleaded guilty to Yeates's manslaughter but denies murder. He is likely to face trial in October.)
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jun/24/levi-bellfield-jury-discharged
* 29 Jul 2011 - Sun and Mirror fined for contempt of court in Christopher Jefferies articles. The Daily Mirror has been
fined ....
* 5 Aug 2011 - guardian.co.uk, Thursday 4 August 2011 15.18 BST
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/aug/04/contempt-court-christopher-jefferies-tabloids.
* 20 Sep 2011 - David and Teresa Yeates were at Bristol Crown Court for a pre-trial hearing for Vincent Tabak, who
arrived earlier in a prison van.The couple have not seen ...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8776357/Joanna-Yeates-parents-face-daughters-killer-in-court.html
* 29 Sep 2011 - He was released from police bail on 4 March 2011 and on 5 May 2011 Vincent Tabak pleaded guilty
to the manslaughter of Miss Yeates. On 12 May 2011, the ... ( google search threw up that date)
* OCTOBER 8, 2011 (The ordeal of Christopher Jefferies )
https://www.ft.com/content/22eac290-eee2-11e0-959a-00144feab49a
Every publication between the arrest of Dr Vincent Tabak and the trial relating to The Joanna Yeates Case, prejudices the case (imo), every publication stops the fade factor, so how was a trial fair??
Nothing was said about Dr Vincent Tabak being named before charge, yet Parliament are concerned that CJ who was still on Police bail wasn't named.. Go figure!
Whatever you think about what I have posted about... this 2 part post brings questions and concerns, when we have Parliament getting involved in a case that hasn't yet gone through the judicial process, and on the 4th February 2011, what was to say that CJ wouldn't be called as a witness, seeing as we know he spoke to Dr Vincent Tabak on that weekend and not only that as parliament state, he saw people leaving the flat..
Tragically, on Christmas morning, a body was found in an area of north Somerset that was quickly confirmed to be that of Joanna. Over the next few days, the media concentrated on the reaction of the family and friends, before, on 29 December, the police interviewed Joanna's landlord. He advised that he saw her leaving the flat with two people on the night that she was murdered.
Where did parliament get their info from? That is a huge piece of evidence, were these people ever located... Did Dr Vincent Tabak want to locate these people or anyone representing Dr Vincent Tabak...
Whatever you think about my posts... This case is weird.... And even weirder that Parliament feel the need to involve themselves with our judicial system.. (When it's a live case)
There was no way in February 2011 that anything to do with this case should have come to Parliaments attention..and the mentioning of a possible witness that everyone was aware whom they were referring too, may have needed to attend the trial of his tenant Dr Vincent Tabak..(imo)
It's like I keep saying.. this case appears to be have done and dusted before a trial ever took place... and how can that be right..
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110204/debtext/110204-0001.htm
https://accesstojusticeactiongroup.co.uk/2011/08/05/guardian-article-christopher-jefferies-case-delivers-wake-up-call-to-tabloids/
-
Now you can remove ALL 3660 of my Posts.......
-
Now you can remove ALL 3660 of my Posts.......
Um -------why?
-
Um -------why?
That request to remove all of the member's Posts is above our pay grade.
-
Um -------why?
Where do I start.... I appear to talk rubbish, I get eff and jeffed at... I have not tried to be disrespectful to The Yeates.. I know no-one... I will never get anywhere... No-one is really interested... It is all too bizarre for words..
I have done my own head in with it... never mind anyone elses... I appear to have wasted my time... I do not know what is ok to say most of the time or whether some posts should have been removed..... Is anyone really interested in this case or not?
And then I wonder if the trial was all made up... I wonder all the time what is real and what isn't real... I wonder if anyone really cares..
I wonder if anyone will ever do anything about it... I wonder why nothing adds up... I wonder if anyone else questions the case... I wonder why it has always bugged me...
I give up... It is all pointless....
-
Where do I start.... I appear to talk rubbish, I get eff and jeffed at... I have not tried to be disrespectful to The Yeates.. I know no-one... I will never get anywhere... No-one is really interested... It is all too bizarre for words..
I have done my own head in with it... never mind anyone elses... I appear to have wasted my time... I do not know what is ok to say most of the time or whether some posts should have been removed..... Is anyone really interested in this case or not?
And then I wonder if the trial was all made up... I wonder all the time what is real and what isn't real... I wonder if anyone really cares..
I wonder if anyone will ever do anything about it... I wonder why nothing adds up... I wonder if anyone else questions the case... I wonder why it has always bugged me...
I give up... It is all pointless....
You will have to make this request to Admin. Although I don't know what the policy is re removing all Posts.
-
Where do I start.... I appear to talk rubbish, I get eff and jeffed at... I have not tried to be disrespectful to The Yeates.. I know no-one... I will never get anywhere... No-one is really interested... It is all too bizarre for words..
I have done my own head in with it... never mind anyone elses... I appear to have wasted my time... I do not know what is ok to say most of the time or whether some posts should have been removed..... Is anyone really interested in this case or not?
And then I wonder if the trial was all made up... I wonder all the time what is real and what isn't real... I wonder if anyone really cares..
I wonder if anyone will ever do anything about it... I wonder why nothing adds up... I wonder if anyone else questions the case... I wonder why it has always bugged me...
I give up... It is all pointless....
What if the Yeates family stumbled across your "Is Joanna really dead/did she even exist?" Can't you imagine the pain that would cause?
Can't you find something better to do with your time? No, rhetorical question. Don't answer.
-
Where do I start.... I appear to talk rubbish, I get eff and jeffed at... I have not tried to be disrespectful to The Yeates.. I know no-one... I will never get anywhere... No-one is really interested... It is all too bizarre for words..
I have done my own head in with it... never mind anyone elses... I appear to have wasted my time... I do not know what is ok to say most of the time or whether some posts should have been removed..... Is anyone really interested in this case or not?
And then I wonder if the trial was all made up... I wonder all the time what is real and what isn't real... I wonder if anyone really cares..
I wonder if anyone will ever do anything about it... I wonder why nothing adds up... I wonder if anyone else questions the case... I wonder why it has always bugged me...
I give up... It is all pointless....
I wouldn't say you have wasted your time. I think, perhaps you have got too "bogged down" in some of the details, and that's why it doesn't make sense.
In my opinion, it is not disrespectful to challenge a conviction-----if nobody ever did, for the sake of not upsetting victims' families, no miscarriages of justice would ever be overturned.
-
I wouldn't say you have wasted your time. I think, perhaps you have got too "bogged down" in some of the details, and that's why it doesn't make sense.
In my opinion, it is not disrespectful to challenge a conviction-----if nobody ever did, for the sake of not upsetting victims' families, no miscarriages of justice would ever be overturned.
I'm just frustrated I think mrswah.... I feel I must be stupid or something, I point things out that are obvious and no-one makes comment on said piece of information...
I then wonder why no-one speaks of this case, I am confused as to why no-one really speaks of this case... thats why I come to the strange conclusions sometimes, as it doesn't appear real...
The posts on Parliament for instances, why would Parliament speak up for CJ whilst Dr Vincent Tabak is in prison waiting to face trial, where DCI Phil Jones has told us that the reason CJ was on bail was because of the trainers that had blood on them...
Surely there were other examples they could have used on the 4th February 2011....
I then think how the fact that Parliament had spoken on CJ's behalf could have had a possible effect on the outcome of taking The papers to Court for Contempt, (which I don't get where the contempt part came from? ) which resulted in CJ receiving an out of court settlement... Did CJ know he was the subject of a Parliamentary debate? Did it give him the confidence to take the media to court, was that why solicitors were happy to represent him?? If he had foreknowledge that he was the subject of interest in Parliament....
I'm just asking... ( I may be wrong)..... all this settled before a trial has taken place....? After a trial maybe... I don't get how it happened before to be honest... Everything always seems back to front.... Or am I just plain thick???
From the Parliament publication: 4th February 2011
I mentioned events in Bristol. Let me make it clear that I do not intend to name anybody, and I am sure that hon. Members will also be keen not to name anybody, save for this: I do not think there is anybody who is not aware of the publicity and media coverage that was given to the first man who was arrested following the murder of Joanna Yeates. It is right and fair to say that everybody with any sense of decency and sensibility has accepted that the coverage of that individual was, if not outrageous, as I believe it was, certainly unacceptable and plain wrong. It is as if we had forgotten that one is innocent in this land until proven guilty. Unfortunately, it is not the first time that that has happened, but it is the most extreme case that we have seen.
Everyone tends to forget that on being arrested, a person suffers the trauma of the arrest. It is difficult to imagine a worse accusation than to be accused of taking somebody's life, raping someone or doing something horrible to a child. There is the trauma of the process
The first man arrested is clearly CJ...
It is right and fair to say that everybody with any sense of decency and sensibility has accepted that the coverage of that individual was, if not outrageous, as I believe it was,
Does the member know CJ?? Why outraged, nothing at this point has cleared CJ, he is still on Police Bail... now if it had been any other Tom, Dick or Harry would we have had the same outrage?? Have we since had the same outrage, when people are named in the media??
How on earth could Parliament get involved? I don't get it... CJ is on record stating he wasn't released from bail until March 2011, yet we have it from the ( https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110204/debtext/110204-0001.htm ) publication that they did indeed discuss this before CJ was released on bail...
I have issues galore about the handling of CJ.. he appears to get preferential treatment (imo) .. He is apparently no-one, he doesn't want hounding by the media, he doesn't want all the attention that this case has brought, now don't get me wrong, Monstering people in the press isn't the right way to go either... but what made his case so special?
Who were CJ's friends?
We have in February 2011 Parliament using CJ as an example for a Anonymity (Arrested Persons) Bill in Parliament, at a time when CJ was still on bail, a time when realistically I feel that they had no business in influencing any out come that may have taken place... I'll repeat CJ was on Police Bail at this time...
Mr Jefferies, 66, a former public school teacher, was questioned for several days over the murder of his neighbour in Bristol.
A spokesman said: ''Avon and Somerset Police can confirm that a 66-year-old arrested on suspicion of murdering Joanna Yeates was released without charge on Friday 4 March.''
So you can understand my concern about him being used as an example in Parliament.. After his release maybe, even after the court case in July 2011, maybe... But before... It doesn't seem right.. Realistically it should have been after the trial in October 2011...
Then we get in the Guardian on the 14th September 2011 this:..... A piece on Core Participants of The Leveson....
Christopher Jefferies
Bristol landlord arrested in connection with murder of landscape architect Joanna Yeates and later released without charge in December. He successfully took eight newspapers to court for libel, while the Daily Mirror and Sun were fined for contempt of court for their Jefferies coverage. He is expected to discuss what it was like to be targeted by the press in the feeding frenzy following a murder.
How is he named as a core participant? why was everyone so certain that Dr Vincent Tabak wouldn't want CJ called as a witness? How were the media in contempt of court? That I don't understand, how did it interfere with the judicial process or prejudice any trial? That was never really explained..(imo)
From the program.... Countdown to Murder Joanna Yeates CJ states:at 27:41
As I was on my way out to the gym, quite by chance, erm I met Vincent Tabak and we had a very brief conversation, erm and he seemed to be in quite an elated mood and was saying what a very beautiful evening it was erm, this light dusting of snow, erm thats all the conversation consisted of...
At 28:45 of the video:
Vincent Tabak helped me move the car that morning, erm, becawse, there was snow on the drive, and I need some help, in the car being pushed up.. erm, the slight incline, erm, from the parking area onto the main part of the drive,, so that I could get the car out.
Er, when I thanked Vincent for er, doing that for me, erm, his reply was,.. well what are neighbours for
I believe that Dr Vincent Tabak apparently signed a statement in September 2011, I presume that would be at the 20th September 2011 at the pre trial hearing..
Again that has me questioning how could CJ be named a core participant, before Dr Vincent Tabak has signed his apparent statement in September 2011 and before a trial at court...
I cannot imagine how CJ, a man whom no-one really knew anything about , has become this apparent figure for Parliament and the Justice System to protect him and have him involved in an inquiry such as the Leveson, when, there is an ongoing trial/ investigation is taking place...
This is the point at which my head explodes....
How could everyone blatantly ignore what should be The Order of Justice and use CJ in this way, when I have pointed out how CJ could and should have been a witness at this trial.....
And then I find myself back to the question of whether the trial was real or not!
I'm sure you can understand my dilemma...
When no-one says anything about this, but (imo) should say something, and I go round and round again...
Then I come to the conclusion about Joanna Yeates not being real for example, as I do not get how Parliament and The Leveson could confidently use CJ without anyone batting an eye..
I don't understand why everyone appears happy with what was stated on the stand by Dr Vincent Tabak, as it doesn't add up and there is no supporting evidence...
Everyone appears to have chucked the baby out with the bathwater and no give a flying fig about it...
CJ recently has been pushing for Leveson 2 to take place.... now I hoped it would, but only in the event that he discloses something that hasn't thus far been disclosed... The contents of his second witness statement for starters... But I don't think it will happen...
So isn't it about time he disclosed this information now... isn't it about time that the mystery that is The Joanna Yeates case is put to bed once and for all...
The media have been nothing but glowing in handling CJ since 2011 and I believe now they should be asking him the questions that need answering, such as did he recognise the people at the gate etc etc.... I believe they are of great significance...
I have no idea who CJ is, and quite honestly I do not care, the protection of this man seems weird, seeing as I believe he should have been a witness and no-one in the government should have taken an interest him whilst a live case was in its Judicial process.. (imo)
CJ a man whom I believe should speak up if he actually gives a damn about the Murder of Joanna Yeates and not stay silent and talk of himself all the time... He's not daft, even he must see how it looks when our countries big wheels are moving just for him... What influence and sway does he actually have??
CJ is pushing for Leveson 2.. And I find it strange, when he stated that he didn't want publicity, he is still front and centre stage and The case of Joanna Yeates is forgotten... everyone only knows the tale of the landlord that was vilified in the media.....
I only hope that pushing for Leveson 2 is to uncover this case... but I have my doubts....
And then I come back to the beginning, as to how all these people in powerful positions interfered with a future trial of Dr Vincent Tabak, I cannot see how it is all so blatant and no-one does or says anything about it....
It is time REAL questions were asked about this case... It is time to look at the conviction of Dr Vincent Tabak....imo
It is time that people spoke up...
It is time that this is addressed....
Ok... I'll change my request to remove my posts and state that if Dr Vincent Tabak is a real person severing time in prison for the murder of Joanna Yeates, then you can keep my posts up... as fighting for what I believe is a miscarriage of justice is important....
If not, explain to me what this is all about, other than the narrative, explain why it doesn't make sense and what brings Parliament and The Leveson to the front and centre of this case before a trial has taken place in October 2011, where a man stood on a stand and explained how he apparently killed his next door neighbour for no apparent reason, not knowing his next door neighbour, only having been home just a few days before, after returning from America on a business trip.. Would he decide it was a good idea to kill her, and not happy with that share his and her DNA between various flats and a car, followed by the deposition site...
So mrswah... detail is needed, because without the detail, links and quotes I make, it wouldn't be possible to back up any argument I may have... I have made many statements, which are backed up with where I have obtained my information... And all I have done is cross reference any material that is relevant to this case, and therefore I come to my conclusions..
The Defence Will State Their Case... Is the title of this thread for a reason, I was trying to show what I believed that the Defence could and should have looked at with regards their client Dr Vincent Tabak, instead of accepting a plea in May 2011 some 4 months after arrest and charge... Where in those months a team of investigators for the defence could have questioned the people of Canygne Road, and questioned Greg Reardon, Tanaj Morson,and CJ......
This topic is just that... questions, queries, head scratching as to why it doesn't make sense... As to why Dr Vincent Tabak's girlfriend Tanja Morson wasn't even at trial to make a statement, good or bad for Dr Vincent Tabak, and why CJ, who most certainly had conversed with Dr Vincent Tabak that weekend, should have also been a witness...
But it is all my opinion,
I just really need it explaining to me WHY..... on the 4th February 2011 Parliament feels it can use CJ as an example for a Bill in Parliament when he is still on Police Bail and when a trial hasn't taken place and when it was still viable that he could be called as a witness in this case, not forgetting CJ was still on Police Bail until March 2011 and then The Leveson names CJ as a core participant, before a trial has taken place, when he could and should have been called as a witness...
Whatever you may think about this case, that surely isn't right....
I swing from having sympathy for CJ, to feeling somewhat outraged, I cannot get how he has commanded the influence with these figures, when he is apparently just a school teacher... When there were statements made in the media at the time of his arrest over a couple of days, where if he hadn't gone on about it so much everyone would have soon forgotten who the hell he was, the media reporting continuing from the original time which was some 8/9 years ago.....
He still is insistent about Leveson 2, he still wants to be front and centre, where he has now made himself a household name, where in reality no-one probably gave a crap as to who he is or what apparently had happened to him.... (imo)
He has had more coverage than Joanna Yeates to be honest, and that is ridiculous, the victim of a crime, a crime of murder and she has become second stage in this saga.... he has had more coverage than anyone, he is known as the poor landlord first and Joanna Yeates is mentioned almost as a secondary thought....
If CJ wants this Leveson 2, because he wants the truth out there, I get it.... but otherwise, he needs to wind his neck in (imo), if Leveson 2 would allow him to reveal what he actually told the Police in his statements, then I am for it... But I don't think that is what it is about... I don't think he wants to tell,( Or do you CJ?) he could intimate he would reveal something to the public in due course, if it was only the Leveson 2 preventing him from speaking up..
When I look at the video of him speaking about Dr Vincent Tabak, it's almost like he know a secret or something, he's almost smirking as he tell of his conversation with Dr Vincent Tabak and thanking him for his assistance.... why would you feel the need to smirk about such a serious thing as talking about the killer of Joanna Yeates??
This is an oddity I find of a man whom was supposed to not want media attention, who is all over the media in print and recorded interviews and has had the assistance of people I believe should not have assisted him..(imo)
A man whom gets an apology from Avon and Somerset Police some years later, when I cannot think of anyone whom has received such an apology with such content..
31: It may be that, in addition to the legal route for libel, someone who has been held on
bail for a prolonged time without being charged, and their reputation ruined, there should
be a mechanism for the person to receive an acknowledgement that they were falsely
accused. In the Chris Jeffries case, the Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset, Nick
Gargan, wrote to Mr Jeffries in the following terms:
I write formally to acknowledge the hurt that you suffered as a result of that arrest,
detention and eventual release on police bail in connection with the murder of
Joanna Yeates in December 2010 and which was the subject of huge media interest.
[…] I accept unequivocally that you played no part in the murder and that you are
wholly innocent of the crime.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmhaff/962/962.pdf
When anyone else would not receive such an apology, as an investigation and arrest on suspicion of a crime based on the evidence that they had at the time, would and should be seen as the Police following protocols... So why the apology?
I find it odd that is all... Seeing as the Police don't do this all the time.... or NEVER, should I say
CJ has become synonymous with The Joanna Yeates Murder, in which ever way you wish to view it, a man that wanted to hide away and not be bothered by the media etc, has become centre stage and I want to understand why?
I want to understand why Parliament and The Leveson used him as they did, and why Avon and Somerset Police made such a public apology... When there have been people whom have served prison sentences for years that never receive an apology from any Police Authority...
This case is strange... This case is odd, this case has had attention that it shouldn't have had from people in power, when a trial hasn't even taken place...(imo)...
But who am I to say?
I will stick with my belief that Dr Vincent Tabak is innocent, I will stick with my belief that this case just doesn't add up... I will stick with my belief that Dr Vincent Tabak didn't get the defence he deserved (imo).. I will stick with my belief that the public have been fooled on some level and I will stick with my belief that people have somehow been made to stay silent....
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8365807/Joanna-Yeates-murder-landlord-Chris-Jefferies-released-from-bail-without-charge.html
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/sep/14/leveson-inquiry-full-list-participants
https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/jefferies-and-others-v-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department-secretary-of-state-for-digital-culture-media-and-sport-leveson-2/
-
From the program.... Countdown to Murder Joanna Yeates CJ states:at 27:41
As I was on my way out to the gym, quite by chance, erm I met Vincent Tabak and we had a very brief conversation, erm and he seemed to be in quite an elated mood and was saying what a very beautiful evening it was erm, this light dusting of snow, erm thats all the conversation consisted of...
At 28:45 of the video:
Vincent Tabak helped me move the car that morning, erm, becawse, there was snow on the drive, and I need some help, in the car being pushed up.. erm, the slight incline, erm, from the parking area onto the main part of the drive,, so that I could get the car out.
Er, when I thanked Vincent for er, doing that for me, erm, his reply was,.. well what are neighbours for
That video where we can see CJ speaking about Dr Vincent Tabak, should have The Defence questioning
"What time did CJ leave for the gym"???
We know CJ apparently returned at 9:00pm on Friday 17th December 2010, he states so in his Leveson Inquiry statement..
Dr Vincent Tabak returned around 7:00pm from work and was at Canygne Road, where he texted Tanja... he did various tasks.. had food I believe, etc etc , then walked passed Joanna Yeates Flat where he was allowed inside...
So what was Dr Vincent Tabak doing when CJ spoke to him? Was he on his way out, was he taking photographs, we have to fit in certain action so that we can establish a timeline...
CJ is in this timeline, yet CJ didn't come to trial as a witness... He could have seen Dr Vincent Tabak anywhere between 7:00pm and 9:00pm... that timeline needs establishing (imo)... How long was CJ at the gym
I then had another random thought....
As CJ had given his statement to The Leveson Inquiry, did that mean that The Defence could not see his statement?
Or did CJ not tell The Leveson or The Police that he had actually conversed with Dr Vincent Tabak that Friday evening/ weekend..
And if he had would they have used him in The Leveson Inquiry seeing as there was a Judicial Process taking place??
Leveson 2 apparently was halted because of ongoing Investigations needing conclusion...
On page 3 of CJ's second witness statement to The Leveson, CJ states..
My second statement to the police oil Wednesday 22 December 2010
,
On Tuesday 2t December 2010 1 provided a statement to tile police who were at that
time searching the entire house and all the flats in it and taking statements from all the
residents. I was not being treated as a suspect. At the time the police said to all of us
that if we subsequently remembered anything that could be material we should get
back in touch,
That evening I remembered something else that I had not mentioned to
the police that I thought could possibly be material. This was that one evening, which
might have been Friday 17 December 2010, as I was coming back from fine gym at
about 9pm, I had parked my car on the road and was just walking through the gates of
the main driveway, when I became aware of what sounded like two or perhaps three
people leaving by the side gate on the other side of the house which I could not see as
there is a hedge in between and it was dark, I duly telephoned the police and relayed
this.
,
The next day, Wednesday 22 December 2010, the same officer who had taken my
first statement came back to my fiat and took a second statement about this. The
officer asked me if one of tile voices could have been a woman’s voice. I responded
that it could have been but that I could not say either way. The police have since
confirmed to me that the fact flint I gave a supplementary statement raised their
suspicions in relation to me. On the basis of what ensued, I believe it is likely that the
police passed these suspicions on to rite media.
Isn't it just as important for The trial of Dr Vincent Tabak to establish what CJ had witnessed seen or had spoken to before 9:00pm... As we can see it is relevant to the timeline of Dr Vincent Tabak's trial.. A timeline if the Defence had questioned CJ may have shed more light on the ridiculous tale on the stand....
Why doesn't Dr Vincent Tabak state he saw CJ that weekend?? Why is it missing from trial??
How can a jury make a balanced decision and convict, if vital information is Missing??
Did CJ divulge to The Leveson that he did indeed speak with Dr Vincent Tabak that weekend?? If not why not!
Or do I just come to the conclusion that he was more interested in himself than Justice for Joanna Yeates... Because it is the way in which I read it...
These statements about CJ conversing with Dr Vincent Tabak are on video... he has stated it in the flesh... They are not reports in the media, but words coming from CJ's lips...
What else has CJ omitted? What information does he hold that could shed light on this case, I'll repeat that Dr Vincent Tabak never lied about the car changing position, as CJ himself tells the Leveson he parked it on the road, and CJ himself on video tells us that the car was on the drive and Dr Vincent Tabak helped him move it which he thanked him for...
I implore someone to look at this case... I cannot be on my own with my doubts... These last few posts in themselves make questions to be asked...
The Leveson cannot have blatantly ignored that they had a potential witness at a Murder trial and allowed him to be a core participant... I find that difficult to believe, but one never knows does one....
https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122175642/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Second-Witness-Statement-of-Christopher-Jefferies.pdf
Edit..... If The Leveson didn't know that CJ has conversed with Dr Vincent Tabak that weekend, making him a potential witness at a criminal trial... what do people think about it now??
* Should he have been a core participant??
* Did he make fool of the establishment?
* What does it mean for The Leveson Inquiry??
* How many millions were spent on this inquiry??
* Is this Inquiry worth the paper it's written on?
* Why haven't the media commented on this evidence ??
* Has CJ committed an offence??
Or is the establishment too embarrassed to put their hands up for their obvious error...
Is the fact that Leveson 2 is not taking place, more to do with the apparent cock-up that is Leveson 1, when a potential witness at a Murder trial is named as a core participant, in this inquiry... I believe in earlier posts I had established that it was indeed in August 2011 that he first became a core participant...
Where as a witness he could establish the timeline of Dr Vincent Tabak's movements that evening, seeing as no-one else apparently saw Dr Vincent Tabak that night....
It is immeasurable (imo) the significance of CJ's statement in the Count Down to Murder program... But as usual no one really cares, for some obscure reason....
-
Please, please, PLEASE, for the sake of your sanity, LET THIS GO.
-
Please, please, PLEASE, for the sake of your sanity, LET THIS GO.
Thank goodness for the voice of reason.
Nine....or whatever you choose to call yourself today, please try to realise that a lovely young woman's life was taken, and all the hopes and dreams went with her. No more birthdays, no more Christmases, no grandchildren.
-
Thank goodness for the voice of reason.
Nine....or whatever you choose to call yourself today, please try to realise that a lovely young woman's life was taken, and all the hopes and dreams went with her. No more birthdays, no more Christmases, no grandchildren.
And I know if I post more, Mrs Wah will mod me so severely that I will end up sounding like Julie Andrews, but you're wrong. You're just wrong.
-
And I know if I post more, Mrs Wah will mod me so severely that I will end up sounding like Julie Andrews, but you're wrong. You're just wrong.
You won't. Nine got there before you. She's scaled every mountain, dredged every stream, dug up every highway, but still believes a dream.
-
You won't. Nine got there before you. She's scaled every mountain, dredged every stream, dug up every highway, but still believes a dream.
... and completely demolished a lovely song in the process... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_AcWbuxQdo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_AcWbuxQdo)
-
... and completely demolished a lovely song in the process... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_AcWbuxQdo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_AcWbuxQdo)
Well, at least it made me laugh.
-
You won't. Nine got there before you. She's scaled every mountain, dredged every stream, dug up every highway, but still believes a dream.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjxugyZCfuw
I will end up sounding like Julie Andrews, but you're wrong. You're just wrong.
Why Wrong??
-
If we're talking Julie's / Julia's .. I'll go with Julia Pastrana..
There's nothing wrong with being different..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjxugyZCfuw
Or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5V1-hfaRy7A @)(++(*
-
You won't. Nine got there before you. She's scaled every mountain, dredged every stream, dug up every highway, but still believes a dream.
She certainly did... 8@??)(
-
What do I take from that??
I'm correct and it's all made up... a dream??
-
Everything is dependant on interpretation and context, and understanding said context, by either omission of information or situation and the timing of information..... So I want to question the content of CJ's Leveson statement and what and how they could be interpreted....
9 That day my home telephone rang between 10 and 20 times as journalists from a wide
variety of publications called me and tried to persuade me to speak to them by saying
that they wanted my ’side of the story’, wanted to give me ’an opportunity to set the
record straight’ and ’prevent any twisted rumours from circulating’. Each time I said
that I had absolutely nothing to say and eventually stopped answering the telephone,
after which a series of answering machine messages were left.
10, That day, Wednesday 29 December 2010, some reporters filed articles (for
publication the next day) which firmly pointed the finger of suspicion at me. For
example, The Dally Mail published the article at pages 1 to 12 of CJ2 entitled: "Could
landlord hold the key to Joanna’s murder?". This contained the words:
"Bachelor Chris Jefferies, 65, apparently told police he saw three people,
including Ms Yeates, walking away together and talking it hushed tones. ’"
That day, Wednesday 29 December 2010, some reporters filed articles (for
publication the next day) which firmly pointed the finger of suspicion at me
When was CJ aware that on the 29th December 2010, some reporters filed articles for publication for print the next day being the 30th December 2010?
He also states this.... That day my home telephone rang between 10 and 20 times as journalists from a wide
variety of publications called me and tried to persuade me to speak to them by saying
that they wanted my ’side of the story’, wanted to give me ’an opportunity to set the
record straight’ and ’prevent any twisted rumours from circulating’. Each time I said
that I had absolutely nothing to say and eventually stopped answering the telephone,
after which a series of answering machine messages were left.
That day I presume he means the 29th December 2010.... Not only was he accosted at the gate, but had been rung by reporters between 10 and 20 times from varying publications wanting ,as he states " His side of the story...."
This quote from this earlier (first) CJ Leveson statement:
14. The worst of the reporting of me started on Friday 31
December 2010, the day after my arrest, and continued
throughout the time I was in Police custody. As I will
refer to below, the reporting was so hostile that it led to
my criminal solicitor, Bambos Tsiattalou of Stokoe
Partnership, writing letters to several editors warning
them to stop publishing defamatory material about me.
15. At the same time, the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve,
was also forced to issue a public statement warning
newspaper editors to comply with the Contempt of Court
Act 1981. Again, despite this, the newspapers continued
their campaign.
16. As I have said, I was blissfully unaware of this at the
time. The reason is that, whilst I was in custody, my
solicitor spared me the ordeal of telling me about the
papers and so I had no idea what the press was
publishing about me.
I may be wrong in my conclusion here, I am trying to understand what is going on here, and what CJ knew at any time in regards to this situation and Joanna Yeates, and of course the treatment he received..
I want to go back to this part of the statement..
9. That day my home telephone rang between 10 and 20 times as journalists from a wide
variety of publications called me and tried to persuade me to speak to them by saying
that they wanted my ’side of the story’, wanted to give me ’an opportunity to set the
record straight’ and ’prevent any twisted rumours from circulating’.
And this...
10, That day, Wednesday 29 December 2010, some reporters filed articles (for
publication the next day) which firmly pointed the finger of suspicion at me.
Wouldn't it be procedure for journalists to contact someone for comments on any article that they were about to print and get the subjects response to these said articles etc etc?
This is why i'm asking... CJ states that the media had contacted him some 10 to 20 times and eventually he stopped answering the phone...
Were they asking him to confirm or deny the articles that they were about to publish?
It's a real possibility... They did the door stepping first as we had seen with the sky news report..
So the phone calls??? What was the content of these phone calls??
Is it feasible that the media wanted CJ's side of ANY story that they were going to publish..... eg..
1. ’The Strange Mr Jefferies’, The Sun, 31 December
2010;
2. ’Murder Police Quiz ’Nutty Professor’ with a Blue
Rinse, Was Jo’s Body Hidden. Next to Her Flat?’, The
Daily Mail, 31 December 2010;
3. ’The Strange Mr Jefferies, Creepy’, Daily Record, 31
December 2010;
4. ’Jo Suspect is Peeping Tom’, Daily Mirror, 31
December 2010;
5. ’Joanna suspect Ex-teacher known as Mr Chips’, Daily
Express, 31 December 2010
6. ’Jo Suspect, ’scared kids’ - Obsessed by death’, The
Sun, 1 January 2011;
7. ’Was Killer Waiting in Jo’s flat?’, Daily Mirror, 1
January 2011;
That day, Wednesday 29 December 2010, some reporters filed articles (for
publication the next day) which firmly pointed the finger of suspicion at me
How did he know? How did he know that they were filed??, how did he know that they were for the NEXT DAY???
Bambos Tsiattalou of Stokoe
Partnership, writing letters to several editors warning
them to stop publishing defamatory material about me.
15. At the same time, the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve,
was also forced to issue a public statement warning
newspaper editors to comply with the Contempt of Court
Act 1981. Again, despite this, the newspapers continued
their campaign.
His Criminal Solicitor and the Attorney General both have warned the newspapers... This apparently being the 31st December 2010....
How strange....
16. As I have said, I was blissfully unaware of this at the
time. The reason is that, whilst I was in custody, my
solicitor spared me the ordeal of telling me about the
papers and so I had no idea what the press was
publishing about me.
I'm questioning that statement.... I mean I need to question that statement... And the context of that statement...
The second witness statement to the Police that CJ made and it's content has always been Missing, but maybe we should also know the content of the 10 to 20 phone calls CJ received and the many that he didn't answer, leaving messages on his machine...
Those phone calls and messages may have information within them that is important to this case... Did they ask about Dr Vincent Tabak for instance??
But more to the point, is what questions they asked CJ directly...
That day my home telephone rang between 10 and 20 times as journalists from a wide
variety of publications called me and tried to persuade me to speak to them by saying
that they wanted my ’side of the story’, wanted to give me ’an opportunity to set the
record straight’ and ’prevent any twisted rumours from circulating’.
Set the record straight?? in what context?? With relation to what??
Did they all just ring to say did you see Joanna Yeates on Friday 17th December 2010, that evening?
Or did they have other questions to ask??
Did they want him to confirm or deny information that they had already gathered??
CJ states he was blissfully unaware... but to what exactly?
When they were going to publish? that they had in fact published??
tried to persuade me to speak to them by saying
that they wanted my ’side of the story’, wanted to give me ’an opportunity to set the
record straight’ and ’prevent any twisted rumours from circulating
"Tried to persuade me"???? Persuade him how?
His side of the story?? What story?? Which story?? Why would they need his side of the story?? What was the other side of the story??
That implies that the media were aware of something, to me... If they wanted HIS side of the story? Hadn't he already stated he wasn't telling the media what he had said to the Police? So what story is being referred too?
Were the media already aware that CJ would be arrested?? Is that why they kept ringing him because they had various stories that they wanted him to comment on??
What were these conversations with the media about that CJ had...??
He would be literally blissfully unaware that the stories were published at a time he was in police custody, as access to newspapers at the time of arrest wouldn't be available to him... but was he blissfully unaware of the content of the publications or what they may or may not have been about?
I am not saying that CJ is lying, as I have stated above, because of his situation at the time he wouldn't have access to the newspapers of the day... The Police aren't going to provide him with a newspaper with his cup of tea in the morning whilst he eats his breakfast and scans the days news looking for anything related to him and this case.....
But omitting something he had been made aware of is a different thing entirely...
So how much of the information that the papers published about CJ was CJ aware of before publication??
That CJ had not been forewarned, by the media of what potential stories they may publish...
It's a fair question.... The media could have asked him to comment on what various tenants and pupils had stated about him...
The conversations that took place on the phone with the media are of interest to the case... They themselves could have information and questions asked that were not asked by the Police...
I cannot and haven't been able to understand why the media were in contempt of court, I don't get it... They could have had far more damaging information available to them about anyone....
Did the media apply pressure on CJ to obtain information from him? is that what he meant by :"Tried to persuade me" What would they need to persuade him about? What questions had they asked him??
For me there has always been information that has being omitted in this case... Did CJ omit that he was already aware of the information the press had about him? Was CJ aware of this information before he was arrested?? Did he ever confirm or deny any of this information at the time of the phone calls??
You see I still don't understand how CJ could know that the articles were filed for publication the next day, who told him this was the case?? They may have held onto these articles and published them the day after and the day after that...
Who informed CJ??
Was it the media that told him in one of those phone calls or directly, that the articles had been filed and were ready for publication the next day??
My conclusion would be that was the reason his lawyer contacted them, knowing of what articles may or may not be published based on what he had said or not said to the press when they phoned CJ on the 29th December 2010. or even before that date..... ( Even directly spoke to him about said info) And he could indeed have stated something that was to do with another case for instance.... Or that he was asked about another case....
I'm trying to understand why the Attorney General got involved with these publications about CJ?? What else were the media going to publish??..... I want to understand how a signed statement by CJ to The Leveson is enough, without what must be supporting evidence, by this I mean, the statements that CJ made to the Police and the phone calls that the media made to CJ... Both evidence of what took place, followed by the CCTV footage that DS Mark Saunders saw of that weekend of the 17th to the 19th December 2010 of people milling about Canygne Road... We haven't seen or heard any supporting evidence.... Or did the Leveson receive this evidence??
Maybe I expect too much.... Maybe physical evidence doesn't get used in these situations... But I would have thought that is would be... Maybe it was, but had been omitted from public view because of Leveson2
CJ is front and centre of this case and I don't understand why... And why no-one questions him about what he really knows.... No-one publishes any probing questions about what happened and what may have happened...
No-one really questions CJ....
All I am doing is asking the questions I believe should have been asked, but appear to be lacking...
So was CJ aware of any of the information that was published about him whilst he was in custody?? Was CJ told of any of the information that may be published about him before his arrest?
Was there even more to come out in publication about CJ and that was why his solicitor wrote to the media??
Did the media refuse to stop?
Was that why the Attorney general got involved??
Was there actually going to be a complete massacre of CJ in the media??
I put together what is available on the net for all to see, then cross reference, and conclude from that...
I just want to know what has been omitted.. I want to know how relevant said information is...
The content of CJ 2 Police witness statements are vital in this case, along with any telephone conversations or recorded messages that CJ may have had... Lets not forget he received a missed call from Greg... Did he receive a message also??
I do believe that CJ is central in this case and should have been a witness at trial as I have demonstrated..
In court it is only the evidence that is presented and I am sure the same applied to The Leveson, but what had been omitted is of more importance,.... If Leveson 2 waited for investigations to conclude, then CJ omitting information for another reason is possible as he may be aware of something else that was happening at the time and therefore the tapes of conversations he may have had with the media couldn't be brought into evidence.... And that is why CJ's statements can be viewed in different ways...
But Leveson 2 isn't happening... So the content of both CJ's Police statements and his conversations with the media at the time are of public interest.. They may shed light onto this case.. I am surprised no-one talks of CJ and what he may know, or question what he may have meant in his Leveson statements and what he may have omitted...
Or whether CJ was already made aware by the media that he was going to have various articles published about him...
Again it is something to contemplate... It is questions to be asked....
https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122175126/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Christopher-Jefferies.pdf
https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122175642/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Second-Witness-Statement-of-Christopher-Jefferies.pdf
-
What do I take from that??
I'm correct and it's all made up... a dream??
Whatever it is you think maybe your dream you've turned into our nightmare.
-
Whatever it is you think maybe your dream you've turned into our nightmare.
Why a nightmare? I just ask questions....
The old man for instance, the one that handed in the sock and popped it into a brown paper forensic bag at the gate, as the media images showed us... Well according to this retweet, he entered the building also..
Marcus Edwards
Verified account
@c4marcus
RT @c4midlandsprod: A man has just arrived at the flat of #joyeates with what looks like a sock. He's inside now talking to police #c4news
4:15 PM - 5 Jan 2011
@c4midlandsprod is no longer on twitter so I cannot find his tweet on this subject, but it begs the question, if it is a simple retweet then...
What entrance of the building did the old man go into??
Why was he allowed in said building seeing as it was a crime scene??
Who did he see in said building??
Why the need to go into said building seeing as he had handed a sock in...
Was the man that handed the sock in at the gate, the same man who entered the building, or was the man at the gate there just for the media??
So which old man entered the building and handed over a sock?
Was the old man anything to do with the Police??
See always questions from simple statement....
https://twitter.com/c4marcus/status/22672516250079232
-
Stick with it Nine, we're right with you. Although we're chipping away at a different block it's all part of the same dyke. Plod is going to need all available fingers, we've just got to make sure there aren't enough to go round.
-
Not another deluded full of riddle-me-rees, surely!
-
Stick with it Nine, we're right with you. Although we're chipping away at a different block it's all part of the same dyke. Plod is going to need all available fingers, we've just got to make sure there aren't enough to go round.
You talk in riddles AH.... @)(++(* haven't a clue what you're referring too, I just post what I find and what interests me in this case and The Leveson seems to have information that pertains to this case in great quantity...
CJ is front and centre, and i'm trying to ascertain exactly what he apparently knew and when he knew it..... And what he said or didn't say to reporters or the inquiry, he appears to have been quite vocal...
We know what he said to Dr Vincent Tabak, as he has told us.....
What it is about him and the attention he has received, I don't understand, he's a nobody as far as I can tell, an ex school teacher, yet he commands great interest and attention, far beyond what one might expect....
Whatever block your chipping at that appears stuck in a dyke, I'll let you get on with it... And I'll carry on looking at the Leveson to see what others have to say about their contact with CJ, he has to be of great importance with this, I do not understand otherwise why he was asked to be a core participant, there has to be more to The Leveson Inquiry than meets the eye... And in particular those who were called to give statements on his treatment in the press...
-
CJ's second witness statement The Leveson
15, I have recently received a letter from the Chief Constable of ASC confirming that my
name was leaked to the press when I was arrested. See page 13 of CJ2. I have been
informed that an internal inquiry has led to the arrest of two people although no one
has been charged. The letter refers to an "inadvertent" disclosure by the police but
provides no details, which prevents the explanation being investigated or verified;
16, This confirmation verifies what Richard Wallace, the Editor of The Mirror said at
paragraph 10’ (a) of his Second Witness Statement dated I0 January 2012 to the
Inquiry ill Module 1 (at page 14 of CJ2), that:
"The off-the-record guidance to reporters on the ground from the police was that it
was Mr Jefferies who had been arrested."
I was trying to ascertain who told CJ when the articles were going to be put to print, and how he knew that they had been filed, I have been looking at Richard Wallaces second witness statement for The Leveson, to see if he himself had stated the information about filing articles, but I found something else of interest....
Richard Wallace, Leveson second witness statement...
I have set out in response to matter 2 above details of the nature of the steps taken to verify
the accuracy of the information. So far as other pertinent provisions of the PCC Code are
concerned, I did not see any issue with privacy arising from our coverage. Indeed, the
journalists on the ground remarked to the Content Desk that Mr. Jefferies was often
hanging around, occasionally engaging in conversation with reporters about the case. It
seemed Mr. Jefferies was not trying to avoid the press
Mr. Jefferies was often hanging around, occasionally engaging in conversation with reporters about the case. It seemed Mr. Jefferies was not trying to avoid the press
That statement surprised me, I had no idea that CJ had been loitering around and had even spoke to reporters, engaging in conversation as stated...
What conversations did CJ have with these reporters, and when and on which dates did these conversations take place??
The sources that the media used at the time should be of interest, The fact that CJ appears to have spoken more than once to said reporters on the ground is a little worrying,(imo)..
CJ had by his own statement to the Leveson told us that his second witness statement was given on the 22nd December 2010, and it wasn't until a week later that the press were apparently informed about said statement, hence their arrival on the door step of CJ....
But... What is on the record and off the record are 2 different things... And when the media may or may not have been told certain information is also relevant... They may have been held by the media, before they acted on it...
I can understand the press's interest in CJ, if he had been courting them before and had been engaged in conversations with them , whilst hanging around the area?? I say area because it doesn't state exactly where these conversations took place... I would presume Canygne Road, But that hadn't been confirmed in this statement...
I believe it is imperative that we understand, the circumstances surrounding this case, and those whom are in the headlights.. CJ as I have stated, has made may statements either via The Leveson or Via video, and it is these that I have used to try to put into context exactly what happened in this case...
The odd thing I found, was that CJ up until the 29th December 2010, had not appeared in any footage taken by the media, that I can only assume was because he should have been a material witness in this case...
Back to Richard Wallaces statement..
My Content team (both on the ground in Bristol and back in London) spoke to as many
people as possible to build up a picture of Mr. Jefferies. Greig Box Turnbull, a journalist
based in London whose name appears on the byline to two of the 31 December 2010/1
January 2011 articles, would have assisted with these inquiries. I would describe our team
including Greig Box Turnbull and multi-award winning reporter Ryan Parry - as
professional, experienced and conscientious
Greig Box Turnbull, a journalist that I have tried to see whether or not he made a statement to The Leveson, but all I found that he was one of the journalists that was part of Operation Elveden and I am assuming that this was a reason that he did not appear in Part 1 of The Leveson Inquiry, and I must say that it is a shame, as he had obtained various material vital to this case....
So which journalists did CJ converse with?? And why would he be conversing with journalists on the ground, I would have imagined that The Police would not want any material witness and especially the landlord of said property, talking ti journalists in any capacity during this investigation... But that is just my opinion..
Mr. Jefferies was often
hanging around, occasionally engaging in conversation with reporters about the case.
What was he saying to said reporters?? Why was he discussing the case? Why on earth was this educated man whom apparently wanted nothing to do with the media, and according to himself was thrust into the limelight , actually talking with journalists on the ground??..
From CJ's second witness statement The Leveson...
Prior to December 2010 I had not had any dealings at all
with the media. However, I was suddenly thrust into the
media spotlight because I was the landlord to Joanna
Yeates, the girl who disappeared from her flat on the
weekend of 17 December 2010 and whose body was
subsequently discovered on the outskirts of Bristol on
Christmas Day 2010.
In particular, I became the subject
of intense media interest when I was arrested on 30
December 2010 by Avon and Somerset Police on suspicion of her murder. Although I was entirely innocent
of any wrongdoing, as has since been proved, the
treatment I received at the hands of the press has
significantly affected my life.
Prior to December 2010 I had not had any dealings at all
with the media. However, I was suddenly thrust into the
media spotlight because I was the landlord to Joanna
Yeates,
Two opposing statements, well again it's context and interpretation... Would either person lie on oath? And I am not saying either is lying, I am trying to deconstruct the statements and put it into context that would be understood..
CJ stating he had had no dealings with the media, is a true statement, because it was December 2010 that this Investigation started, and his property was at the heart of this investigation... But he doesn't tell us when in December that he had dealings with the media... Or whether or not he had spoken to them other than on the 29th December 2010 when Sky turned up on his door step...
His understanding of why he may or may not have been thrust into the media spotlight, based purely on him being the landlord,for me isn't accurate....
If the statement by Richard Wallace is accurate, and by that I mean he has supporting evidence that CJ hung around and conversed with the media on the ground, (And I have no reason not to believe him...) Then CJ's surprise at being in the spotlight of the media, shouldn't have come as a surprise to him...
Anyone hanging around any scene of crime or scene of an investigation, WILL draw attention from The Police and media alike..(imo)
They themselves draw the attention and then become a person of interest... (imo) We have no idea what conversations CJ had with the media on the ground and they should be of interest... We have no idea if he was ever the source of information that appeared in print throughout this investigation...
I am not stating that he was... just that it leaves open possibilities if as Richard Wallace states CJ hung around and talked with journalists on the ground..
I then go back to what I posted yesterday... and CJ knowing about the filing of certain articles on the 29th December 2010, was it possible that he had spoken to journalists on the ground?
I go back to the hacking, and I assumed that the media must have hacked CJ seeing as he is part of Hacked-Off, but is there any proof of this?? I do not know...
I want to know how friendly CJ and these journalist were? Is this how they obtained his phone number to ring him about articles they may or may not publish? Did he himself give any journalist his own phone number? I am not saying he did, I am trying to understand CJ's relationship with on the ground reporters... And where he was hanging around..
Why doesn't The lost Honour of CJ show us him hanging around? why hasn't CJ himself made any comment on Richard Wallaces statement, that puts him in the middle of this Investigation at an early stage...
Indeed, the
journalists on the ground remarked to the Content Desk that Mr. Jefferies was often
hanging around, occasionally engaging in conversation with reporters about the case.
The content desk... do they have records of these comments made by journalists on the ground??
I am still bemused by the Richard Wallace statement, and why no-one has stated anything about this important statement he has made at The Leveson...
You may feel that I am going on a tangent, but not really, I need to establish what took place at the time of the investigation and what CJ knew about this, seeing as he was absent from the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak..
What stopped them using CJ as a witness? Was it his conversations with journalists at the time?
CJ has between 22nd Dec 2010 and the 29th Dec 2010 to be looked at by journalists....as we know The Police often do tell journalist to hold off printing, I say this because it is possible that certain journalists had been given information that they held onto, and were trying to discover any other information CJ may have know.... Did they court CJ and try to get him to divulge information about the case, or did CJ just voluntarily give the journalists on the ground information about the case....
This is not a witch hunt of CJ.... I want to get to the bottom of what actually took place, and what had been omitted from statements etc by those involved with the case.. And as I have stated before that CJ, is front and centre, whom has made many statements whether written or oral, with us knowing he was the landlord and had conversed with Dr Vincent Tabak, having not only those conversations, but 2 witness statements that the full content is unknown publicly, he therefore is of great interest...
CJ should speak up publicly about this situation..(imo) he has done little to nothing to quell my concerns with this case... He has talked of his own interests and there may be a reason for this, but you would have imagined that Joanna Yeates should have been the main concern, and the fact that he doesn't really go into much detail about her as a person, tenant, as a Murdered tenant of his to this day,is bound to cause question...
He refrains from giving anything away and is not ever questioned directly about her... Why doesn't he say?? What does he really know??
What is actually stopping CJ from revealing what he knows? If obviously he had things to say to journalists on the ground about his tenants inquiry..
What did CJ really know about the Joanna Yeates Inquiry? What is the Joanna Yeates Case?? What is Operation Braid??
Was he ever questioned by journalists about Dr Vincent Tabak? Did he ever divulge who the tenants were to journalists? Did he tell journalists who were on the ground that Dr Vincent Tabak helped move his car? Or that he had seen Dr Vincent Tabak the evening before he helped move the car?
Did the Police arrest CJ because he had been conversing with journalists on the ground and they wanted to shut him up??
Is that the reason for his arrest? He had after all put himself front and centre and with the knowledge of people at the gate did he ever divulge off the record who these people were?
I cannot believe that CJ believes that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates, he has not stated that this is his belief.... He has told of of talking with Dr Vincent Tabak, but I do not understand to this day why he wasn't a witness at the trial... and why he was allowed to be part of The Leveson as a core participant before any trial had commenced..
There are huge swathes of information missing in this case... And as ever opposing statements, which in themselves should make us question how a man could take the stand and give a version of events that had no supporting evidence, that a man could admit to a crime and it being accepted based purely on his say-so... No follow up investigation as to why he would make such a statement and admit in May 2011 that he was responsible for Joanna Yeates death...
Why was everyone so happy to accept what can only be described as a story on the stand, without the witness's whom had conversed with Dr Vincent Tabak or lived with Dr Vincent Tabak, taking the stand to confirm or deny his claims or his apparent timeline...
Where does CJ actually fit into this timeline of that weekend? He has given us two examples of conversations he had that weekend with Dr Vincent Tabak, we just need to know what the actual time and dates of these conversations were, as DCI phil Jones had said it started snowing at 2:00am on the 18th December 2010, if my memory serves me correctly, and I do not know if it had snowed at all on the Friday 17th December 2010, the day that CJ went to the gym... And CJ's videoed interview telling us about 2 different occasions he conversed with Dr Vincent Tabak..... The day before and the next day...
Because in CJ's video interview, he doesn't actually say which day it was, it is left for us to try and decide which day it could be, based on what we have been told.... And our understanding that CJ was at the gym on what could be Friday the 17th December 2010... (as CJ states in his Leveson statement)
I do hope that CJ makes a statement about what he really knows, and put an end to the secrecy that appears to cover this case.... Because I do not understand why the secrecy, why no-one speaks and why I feel I am alone in sifting through the volumes of information that surrounds this case...
It cannot be coincidence that CJ is mentioned at every opportunity in the media about his vilification, even to this day... There must be a lot more to this case other than a Placid Dutch Man admitting responsibility for Joanna Yeates demise...
And maybe it is still a live investigation, still open??? And maybe a Reporting Restriction Order has been placed on this case and that is why nothing different is ever said...
But if this was done in court, then CJ wasn't in court... and if Leveson 2 is the only thing stopping CJ speaking up and explaining what happened, then lets go....
But I forgot what I just said... Maybe the media cannot report on anything else CJ may wish to tell if there is a RRO on this case....
Catch 22 anyone.....
If CJ cannot speak, is it his way of drawing attention to this case to have himself mentioned at every opportunity? Or is it some other reason??
I am always left with more questions and I cannot be the only one....
https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140306130725/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Second-Witness-Statement-of-Richard-Wallace.pdf
https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122175642/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Second-Witness-Statement-of-Christopher-Jefferies.pdf
-
Another question I would like to put forward in the light of Richard Wallaces statement about CJ and on the ground Journalists, is was CJ ever apart of any of the forums discussion groups of the time when Joanna Yeates was reported Missing and after her body was found in Longwood Lane, or even a little later??
That question has never been posed to CJ... It's another one to contemplate... (imo)
-
Part 1.....
I've started writing another post , which has brought me to this one, whilst the other is sat on my computer, and I'll come back too....
From DCI Phil Jones Leveson statement....
I was appointed as SIO on 27th December 2010 and in
consultation with CCD continued to develop the media strategy as the
investigation grew, documenting al! media related decisions in my policy book
27th December 2010.... which is 10 days into the disappearance of Joanna Yeates, if we go with the 17th December 2010.
But I want to go back to who was originally in charge...
7:00AM GMT 22 Dec 2010 The Telegraph...
Det Supt Mark Saunders, of Avon and Somerset Police, who is leading the investigation, said Miss Yeates's disappearance was a "complete mystery". He said: "This is out of character for Jo. We are concerned for her welfare and we need help from the public.
In all of this where has DS Mark Saunders been?? We had the Leveson , a trial etc, and he appears to be Missing, like most things in this case...
Why he is important is obvious... Lets take CJ's Leveson statement , where he divulges that it was on the 22nd December 2010, that he gave his second witness statement, this at a time when DS Mark Saunders was in charge of this Investigations, this statement that was at the heart of CJ's arrest....
Various questions to pose.. We had the fortune of DCI Phil Jones explaining his role in the Joanna Yeates Investigation, but we have never had DS Mark Saunders tell us anything since his appearance in a couple of clips about Joanna Yeates disappearance and then he too disappeared....
Thinking about all that has happened to CJ, I came back to DS Mark Saunders... why if he was the original investigating officer was he not called to The Leveson Inquiry??
Why was CJ not questioned after he gave his second witness statement on the 22nd December 2010 as a suspect??
What reason did DS Mark Saunders have for not wanting to bring CJ in as a suspect? It's an important question and I am surprised that CJ didn't want DS Mark Saunders opinion on this matter, why he wasn't called to The Leveson to explain why he didn't feel that CJ's statement made him a viable suspect??
* 20th December 2010 Joanna Yeates reported Missing
* 22nd December 2010 DS Mark Saunders make TV appearance, he's in charge of the Investigation
* 22nd December 2010 CJ makes his second witness statement
* 25th December 2010 Joanna Yeates is found dead
* 27th December 2010 DCI Phil Jones is put in charge
* 29th December 2010 CJ's infamous Sky News appearance
* 30th Decemeber 2010 CJ's arrested
* 31st December 2010 Paper print XYZ about CJ
Those dates are important, and the order in which events happened... We are given the reason for CJ's arrest, was that what he had told the Police was very ver y much vaguer than that.... Referring to the possibility that he had indeed seen Joanna Yeates on that Friday 17th December 2010 evening....
But a denial to the media is not a reason for arrest..(imo) if he didn't wish to be seen or named as a witness, then denial is the way forward... he hasn't divulged anything that could be of great importance to the investigation, and that in itself should not have made him a suspect....
All this talk of him being the landlord etc, having keys and the various stories that were put to print about CJ at the time, to blacken his character, as he says.... But The Police were already aware he was the landlord and had keys to the flats....
So I do not see the idea that all of a sudden that idea spring into mind on the day they decided to arrest him.... This Missing persons inquiry has always seemed like a Murder Inquiry from day one... The forensics outside the property dusting window panes etc whilst Joanna Yeates is a Missing person.... Certain aspects of the case always seeming not quite right... The photo's of the flat for instance... The images of the outside garden and Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat in early December when it snowed... Images they shouldn't have....
As I look at the information I am trying to bring together, theres so much swirling around my head... Ideas.. questions... A different angle....
Where was CJ all the time?? This is something I want to tackle, brought on by a passage or short sentence in Ryan Parrys Leveson Statement....
Towards the end of the published article there are quotes from a Clifton shopkeeper and a
named man (Mr Girvan) who said he met Mr Jefferies 48 hours after Jo Yeates vanished.
This was part of a post I had started, but I'll use it here instead... Who is Mr Girvan? And what is 48 hours after Joanna Yeates is Missing?? No-one knew at the time for a fact when Joanna Yeates actually went Missing...
I was thinking about that statement yesterday and couldn't understand the need for it, but it is there for all to see in The Leveson... So it has to be of importance (imo)...
Trying to understand the chain of command changing and the importance of CJ's second witness statement and CJ's arrest in connection to this case and statements made by various people in The Leveson and elsewhere and why we have repeats of certain pieces of info....
CJ's movements...
* 17th December 2010 CJ and Peter Stanley assists Greg with his car trouble
* 17th December 2010 returned from the gym at 9:00pm
* 17/18th December 2010 talked to Dr Vincent Tabak, a light dusting of snow on way to gym
* 18/19th December 2010.. The next day Dr Vincent Tabak assisted CJ move his car
* 19th December 2010.. (we do not know for sure the date..but..) Saw Mr Girvan
* 20th December 2010 Misses a phone call from Greg Reardon
* 22nd December 2010 makes second witness statement
* 29th December 2010 Talks to Sky News
* 30th December 2010 arrested
These are the dates that are available for CJ's movements... But where was he all the time??
We don't know and I think it is important, he has used Dr Vincent Tabak to put him at home on the 18th December 2010, something that Dr Vincent Tabak has not confirmed himself...
We have a random Mr Girvan who lives were?? who is were at the time he see CJ??
Where did CJ make his statement?? I mean where was he when the Police took witness statements?/ and where was he when he gave his second witness statement??
Was he even in the country?? Had CJ been away over that Christmas period, from when Joanna Yeates was reported Missing to the 29th December 2010 when he appears on TV??
No finger pointing, I am trying to piece together where things changed in this Investigation.... And why CJ wasn't arrested immediatley once they discovered Joanna Yeates body?? They had always treated this as a Murder Inquiry and everyone reacted as if she was all ready dead, so, there was no real reason not to arrest CJ with immediate effect, (imo)
* She's posed...
* She's concealed,
* She's Missing her sock,
* She has no coat
* There's blood on the wall
* Her breast is exposed
* Her T shirt is above her head
* She has blood on her nose
* There's blood in her hair
* They are treating the scene as a Crime scene
* She is wearing a different T-shirt than that in the Ram
* She is starting to thaw
All the indications that were used for the case against Dr Vincent Tabak.... But why not arrest CJ?? Why wait... Why change command..
Now you all might think that I am pointing at CJ... And that is not the case... But it is really important that we know CJ's movements, because i have just had an idea....
It should have been enough to arrest CJ, or at least bring him in for questioning.... The circumstances are the same in reality.. They had named the body they found as Joanna Yeates, so why not act.... why the charade of the door stepping and arrest the next day, based on CJ not giving away information to the media??
The media tell us that they get info before hand and release it when it may be beneficial to an investigation... If there is a leak, where had it come from.... DCI Phil Jones talks of surprise when info is leaked and only a few where privy to this....
Well maybe whilst he was in charge, but we have had someone else in charge before, so why didn't the leak come from that area.... I'm not saying DS Mark Saunders leaked the info, but I do not know who was on his team at the time... So anything that had been leaked to the media, could and would have been known before DCI Phil Jones took over as SIO on the 27th December 2010....
Back to why I'm asking where CJ was.....
The evidence they had against CJ, looking at it cold, was far greater than the evidence they had against Dr Vincent Tabak when they arrested him... Yet for some reason CJ's lawyers had more success in getting him bailed than Dr Vincent Tabak's laywer managed... He's solicitor didn't even apply for bail to the courts...
By CJ's own admission, he arrives home at 9:00pm on Friday 17th December 2010, and hears/ sees 2/3 people at the gate... we then don't know what he does... He has Dr Vincent Tabak help move his car, and has also conversed the day before with Dr Vincent Tabak.... We get a Mr Girvan chucked in for good measure, all able to offer an explanation to CJ's movements that weekend...
Which if he is under suspicion, these people would be able to verify what CJ did or didn't do....
Dr Vincent Tabak sees CJ on his way to the gym
2/3 people see CJ returning from the gym
Dr Vincent Tabak see's and helps CJ the day after
And Mr. Girvan sees CJ 48hrs after Joanna Yeates is Missing....
All these people supporting what CJ was doing....
Now out of all of these witness's we only ever know of Dr Vincent Tabak, and only because CJ himself has told us of this piece of information.... Dr Vincent Tabak doesn't mention it at trial, in fact he is lambasted for implicating his landlord about a car changing position, which we know by CJ's statement is true....
All this time I keep saying that CJ was a witness for Dr Vincent Tabak, when maybe it was Dr Vincent Tabak who was a witness for CJ..... Same with the people at the gate.... Peter Stanley too...
On the 22nd December 2010 Zoe and Florian Lehman double check with the party host what time they arrived... I don't know if they saw CJ.. maybe maybe not.... I never understood why it was the 22nd December 2010 that Zoe and Florian Lehman suddenly felt the need to check this piece of information out, it seemed coincidental to me....
But there must have been something that they heard, for them to do this on the day that CJ has given his second witness statement...
And this is the time that DS Mark Saunders is leading this investigation..... Which makes me ask if they were checking everything at that time about CJ... Did they always suspect him..... ??
Now you're going to have to bare with me ... I will get to the point in a mo....
Up until now, everything appears to point to CJ... I say appears because the circumstantial evidence suggests that he could be responsible.... The witness's are the people at the gate..... Dr Vincent Tabak too is a witness.... Peter Stanley... Mr . Girvan... all witness's to CJ's movements...
But we have never questioned CJ's movements... It has been shown that he is wholly innocent.. It has been talked of at the Leveson etc etc.... But I find that there is always something I am Missing.... something starring me in the face.... Something obvious.....
Why were the people at the gate never identified?? They really should be vital in this investigation... But they have been put aside.... They are only not relevant if they are CJ's alibi...(imo) and they wouldn't want them identifying if that is the case....
So what was it when CJ was arrested that stopped them from firmly stopping him being charged??
Circumstancially, it should have been a slam dunk..... But there is something that stops them... What is it??
Was CJ else where?
Did he leave the country??
Did he not return till after they had found Joanna Yeates??
CJ isn't speaking and his movements are important, we know parts but not all.... Ok if they managed to fly to Holland to question Dr Vincent Tabak about a car changing position , then that was possible with CJ if he wasn't in the country at the time...
So where exactly was CJ?? Again I'm not finger pointing ,I am trying to establish what took place ,so I can put into context the strange events and unanswered questions....
We do not know the questions CJ was asked whilst he was in custody, or the answers he gave.... Or more importantly where he was...
DNA test doe not connect CJ, but that is only ever part of any evidence.... motive opportunity etc are also needed...
And then I go back to when Joanna Yeates was found and in what condition her body was....
She is found on the 25th December 2010... as we are aware... most agree she couldn't have been on Longwood Lane for so long.... But if CJ is away at this time, then he couldn't place Joanna Yeates on Longwood Lane...
And it has to be hard evidence that proved CJ wasn't possibly responsible... Was he in the country when she was found?? What arguments did his solicitor use??
There has to be some correlation between dates... Had he returned at that time ? Had he been away....
Had they waited for CJ to return and that why we have the circus surrounding his arrest?
Other than the tale on the stand... What put Joanna Yeates on Longwood Lane since 17th December 2010??
NOTHING...........!!
And is that the problem with the Polices case against CJ... If he wasn't here when Joanna Yeates was deposited on Longwood Lane.... And that was the case that his solicitor put to the Police....
This is a theory.. of course... but we don't know CJ's movements, and I want to explore other avenues...
CJ at the Leveson doesn't confirm he saw Joanna Yeates, nor do we see his witness statement at The Leveson... Which would support Colin Ports own Leveson statement....
So what and who are the people at the gate... And why do we not know their identity?? Were they CJ's alibi??
And this is why they were never produced???
Think about it... What was it that CJ needed to do... I mean alibi wise?? They have not moved from that house... they have ripped it apart... the media are parked outside from the beginning and CJ is a single man living on his own...
It is he who needs the alibi... And i think it is possible that is why he remembered the people at the gate.... They were his alibi.. along with the others I have named....
Put yourself in CJ's position at the moment... They search the house, the ask all the tenants for statements about what happened that weekend.. all extremely unusual for a Missing Persons inquiry take DNA samples, according to CJ, and we have a forensic blitz like no other for a Missing persons Inquiry.....
Was he just trying to cover himself.... ??
What did you do on the evening of the 17th December Mr CJ??
Can't remember at the moment... think I spent the evening at home....
More busy Policemen around the building....
Gossip.. etc etc...
Head working over time trying to establish ones movements....
Ring Ring.... Hello Mr Police man... I have just remembered something, there was 2/3 people leaving the Flat.. at the gate talking in hushed tones that could tell you I arrived home at 9:00pm on Friday the 17th December 2010
Easy to twist that statement to anything one wants... But if it is his alibi, and there is only he who knows or saw them, then again they are important...
This is why I ask if it was Dr Vincent Tabak at the gate or leaving the property also..... Something to consider...
-
Part 2...
But going back to Mr. Girvan... he had to be spoken too, he gives a timeline for CJ's movements... but why would he need to?? why would he even be quoted as Ryan Parry states in his Leveson statement?? he shouldn't have been of importance... But he is... He's an alibi witness.... (imo)
If there wasn't evidence for CJ to be charged, why was there evidence for Dr Vincent Tabk to be charged??
The blood spot and DNA can be explained away by an expert... But when Joanna Yeates was placed on Longwood Lane, that would bring into question, how it would be possible for anyone who wasn't in the country at the time to do such a task...
CJ's DNA must have been all over Joanna Yeates Flat... he was the Landlord after all... again explained away... any transfer of CJs DNA can be explained away....
So I do not think it was the DNA that secured the release of CJ... It's possible he wasn't even here at certain times... Otherwise.. the circumstantial evidence could have buried him....
So what at the time of Dr Vincent Tabak's arrest differs from CJ??
Nothing... even the blood spot in Dr Vincent Tabak's car could be explained away... he put his case on the pavement and picked up Joanna Yeates blood inadvertently transferring it into the car boot....
Low copy DNA could only eliminate someone not enough to charge someone...
Dr Vincent Tabak was in Holland over the `Christmas Period.....
Realistically CJ had more opportunity than Dr Vincent Tabak and a means of access.... So there has to be something about this case that stops CJ being charged...
And it could be when Joanna Yeates was deposited... (imo).. Nothing proves when she was placed on Longwood Lane... Nothing , So why didn't they say CJ did it on the 17th December 2010 when he was at home alone and no alibi??
There is something about the timing of Joanna Yeate being found and where she is found that makes it impossible for it to connect back to CJ.... And the only thing I can think of is he is away...
But to create a scenario and a press fuss... we have the infamous Sky News Report...
Because the people at the gate are actually important to this case.... CJ could actually know them... Or recognise them... They should have been of importance.. whatever way you want to view this....
Why bring in DCI Phil Jones?? Did someone want to smoke out the people at the gate?? As I have stated it was possible for them to arrest CJ sooner, and only if he was away maybe they didn't.... Or was CJ a smoke screen, to let someone know they were spotted at the gate?
CJ for some reason can't speak or doesn't speak about this....
And like everything with this case it is what is omitted....
What was omitted from CJ's statements? what don't we know?? His movements for starters... Am I correct in assuming that everyone that was mentioned were CJ's alibi witness's??
There has to be a reason this case keeps being in the public eye... In varying shapes... And there has to be a reason that the people at the gate were never identified or mentioned at trial...
Did the people at the gate... leaving said Flat ever make a statement??
I cannot imagine the police not looking for these people ... Or should I ask were they ever on CCTV that DS Mark Saunders sees??
As I say I'm not pointing the finger at CJ... I just want to understand the difference between his movements and no apparent alibi being a single man living alone, having witness's for that weekend..
Compared to the movements of Dr Vincent Tabak... Who's window of opportunity is slim to none... and having a live in girlfriend and colleagues , parties etc, who could account for his movements.... CCTV in Asda minus time stamp... etc etc ..
Just for a moment forget the names of these two individuals... and we have (A) and (B)... if the same set of circumstances were put before a jury... (A) who had no alibi whatsoever for their movements that weekend, would be a safer bet than (B), whom had a miriad of people vouching for what he did.... The jury having a choice of (A) or (B) would surely go with (A)..... A person with no way in which to prove their movements for the majority of that weekend....
-
Part 3...
So the Police apologise belatedly for CJ's arrest... etc etc.... and he is wholly innocent.... And that cannot be just because Dr Vincent Tabak speaks up in May 2011.... Because we have CJ's solicitors in April 2011 preparing to take the newspapers to court... Dr Vincent Tabak has said nothing at this point... So why would his solicitors feel that they could take this action confidently before a trial??
There is still something I cannot put my finger on just yet... but i think I may be getting closer....
DCI Phil Jones excuse of the trainer under the sink being the reason for holding CJ on Police Bail, doesn't hold water for me.... Thy managed to test everything else in a short space of time... so why take so long with testing the bloody trainer??
He was on bail for another reason.... I don't know what.... If Dr Vincent Tabak is protecting someone... Maybe keeping CJ on bail was to put pressure on Dr Vincent Tabak.... Maybe that is why CJ doesn't feel the need to help him....
Because he caused untold anguish to CJ, so CJ refused to help and not be a witness... It's possible...
Many people have spoken in CJ's defence, an Inquiry happy for him to testify and be a core participant
They cannot be all putting their heads on the chopping block.... Something other than Dr Vincent Tabak's arrest and charge completely exhonerates CJ... And maybe him being away is the reason.. or when exactly Joanna Yeates body appeared on Longwood Lane...
There has to be something, someone who's alibi supports CJ's version of events and movements... Going back for one moment to CJ talking of Dr Vincent Tabak pushing the car up the incline... I see the importance of it now... If CJ is there suspect, then Dr Vincent Tabak would be able to say if it was heavier than he expected, if Joanna Yeates body should have been in it.... That is why I believe that it is Dr Vincent Tabak who is CJ's alibi and why Dr Vincent Tabak moving this car from the drive is important...
This is an idea... a scenario.. an explanation to the odd people witnessing events... and putting themselves or being put in the middle of CJ's timeline..
I have no idea who killed Joanna Yeates... I have no idea what this is all really about.... I am just trying to interpret what we know in a different way...
And CJ's campaign to have his named remembered, keeping this case in the spotlight...
It is always what is Missing!!
So back to DS Mark Saunders and the change of command... why?
Why has he not appeared at the Leveson? Why has he never spoke about what he believed, why has HE NOT appeared in any documentaries???
What would his version of events be??
Am I correct in believing all these people were CJ's witness's?? even the people at the gate??
Is that why everyone is confident and apologises to CJ.... he did have witness's and maybe he was away...
More needs to be asked of DS Mark Saunders... More needs to be asked about this case.... There has to be more to it... Otherwise CJ wouldn't keep being mentioned at every opportunity....
One last witness that has been forgotten about is Laurence Penny, who went away when Joanna yeates was Missing... I believe he was there on the Friday, but went abroad, and was questioned by Police on the 31st December 2010 when CJ was in custody.... Now why would Laurence Penney be of any interest?? Unless CJ maybe went away with him.... Now was it Laurence Penney that put paid to CJ's incarcaration??
Ryan Parry quotes him..
I cannot recall where the quotes from the tenant of the neighbour (Laurence Penney) came
from, although again I believe it would probably have been from the agency posted at the
address.
It was reported in the media that Laurence Penney was interviewed... But his only relevance would be to alibi CJ...(imo)...
He's not brought to trial as any type of witness for that time.. just like Peter Stanley isn't brought to trial... I will say it again... I believe it is possible that all of these people are CJ's alibi...
But did CJ go away with Laurence Penney??
10:28PM GMT 31 Dec 2010 The Telegraph...
Mr Penney, a design consultant, told The Daily Telegraph that he had been asked to account for his movements around the time of Miss Yeates’s disappearance. He said the questioning had been “routine” because he had only just returned home after a Christmas break in Europe.
Was Laurence Penney's CJ alibi if CJ had gone away?? Proving he had no time in which to commit the crime of Murder and dispose of the body....
Let me go back to Greg.... And I mean for the purposes of what became a huge splash across the front page of a tabloid newspapers....
Visual... (http://www.anorak.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/greg-reardon1.jpg)
This was on the 29th December 2010... splashed across the media... on the same day that CJ is door steeped by Sky News... So when CJ is arrested on the 30th December 2010, that media publication helped secure CJ's demise.... (imo)
But why did I mention it.... well it had already been stated that Greg wasn't a suspect on the 23rd December 2010, in a small paragraph by the express newspaper... and it was missed by one and all.... (possibly not , just bringing it back to attention)
PUBLISHED: 00:00, Thu, Dec 23, 2010 The Express
They lived together and there could be information contained on them that can help us. Mr Reardon is not a suspect.”
That one floated by... The finger of suspicion was on Greg in the forums... And he is eliminated quickly within days...
So why the big front page splash?? If it wasn't to secure peoples opinions if Greg didn't do it then the Landlord must have??
-
Part 4......
Lets go back a minute... CJ is still on bail.... on the 1st February Joanna Yeates body is released to the family for burial.... Because...... apparently Dr Vincent Tabak had given consent for a second post mortem the week before... etc etc.... And the Yeates are allowed to bury their daughter....
Back to CJ... who according to DCI Phil Jones Leveson appearance, CJ was kept on bail until the 4th March 2011 because of the trainer that was found under the sink, behind the kick board in the house, and until that came back they still believed CJ was connected to this crime......
Crapola.... If they seriously believed that CJ was in anyway connected to this crime and that there was a possibility that this trainer linked Joanna Yeates to the killer/killers/ CJ then why allow the body to be released for burial, before they had cleared CJ conclusively??
And of course this trainer never came to trial.....
We don't know where in the house it was found or if it indeed was in anyway related to Joanna Yeates...
So am I back to the beginning with CJ.... and he's a witness, he knows something and was made a scapegoat, and his insistence of being front and centre of this case is to make sure no-one forgets about it.... ????
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Then back to questioning who DS Mark Saunders is??? Is he a real Police man?? why was he in front of camera telling us about this CCTV footage, that should quiet easily for everyone involved show whether
* Joanna Yeates reached home on Friday 17th December 2010
* Who CJ saw at the gate
* Which people were milling about Canygne Road
* When Dr Vincent Tabak got his car from the road
* When CJ Left for the gym
* When CJ arrived home from the gym
* When Dr Vincent Tabak left for ASDA
* When Dr Vincent Tabak returned
* When Tanja left for the party
* When CJ and Peter Stanley started Greg's/Jo's car
* When Greg arrived back from Sheffield
* When CJ left on the morning Dr Vincent Tabak pushed the car up the incline on the drive
* When The Yeates arrived from Southampton
* Mrs Yeates wandering around banging on cars boots
* When Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja went out for the evening on Saturday 18th December 2010
* When Tanja and Dr Vincent Tabak left for Cambridge
Or was that the Polices problem with CJ.. they couldn't produce this CCTV that would show CJ's movements??
The CCTV that DS Mark Saunders told us showed the comings and going on Canygne Road that weekend...
So where is this CCTV.. Where is DS Mark Saunders?? Who is DS Mark Saunders??
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-rsZDIUS46H8/T_QxZvOIidI/AAAAAAAAAMc/J_QscRmyq1IrNSELsV3aLo7wf29Qhh16wCPcBGAYYCw/s1600/Mark%2BSaunders.JPG)
That is DS Mark Saunders telling us at that conference about the private CCTV footage of Canygne Road showing people milling about and cars coming and going on the weekend of the 17th-19th December 2010
But he fails to appear after Joanna Yeates is found, he fails to be at The Leveson, he fails to be in any documentary, he fials to be at the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak... And he fails to produce this CCTV footage...!!
Something about this case is off.... Which bit is off is difficult to say, is it DS Mark Saunders??
I'll just remind everyone... Colin Port stated at The Leveson that the footage at The HopHouse pub, was the last known CCTV footage of Joanna Yeates...
What does that tell us about The CCTV footage that DS Mark Saunders spoke of ??? It doesn't exist?? Or he's not a real Police man who was in charge of this investigation....?? Or both??
Realistically that CCTV footage should have been produced at trial.... It should have at least shown us Dr Vincent Tabak's movements and timeline if nothing else..... (imo)
Always more questions....
So I come back to CJ... and why he is so determined to keep this case in the public eye..... For someone who wanted to be a wall flower, it makes one question his reasoning... and it can't be just the media 2/3 day character assasination... That realistically should have long been forgotten... Others have had far worse said about them....
Leveson 2 last year was at the courts... 2018 8 years after Joanna Yeates Murder... 8 years after CJ was front and centre of this case.... So why would he be asking for it to continue??
He could walk away... he said his piece... he's had his Police apology... he's taken the papers to court.... he has been proved wholly innocent... he has been the talk of Parliament.... He's been a core participant in Leveson 1.
There's been a drama made about him.... Everyone loves CJ... everyone has sympathy for CJ.... He should ultimately be happy and satisfied with the outcome.... Maybe a little disappointed, but Leveson 2 wouldn't change the fact that CJ is Innocent of the Murder of Joanna Yeates....
But it keeps the case in the public eye... And there has to be a reason for that...
If it is the only way in which this case can be mentioned, Leveson 2 maybe crucial...
Is Leveson 2 CJ's only way in which he can help Dr Vincent Tabak?? Is it the only way the truth about this case will come out??
What is it that CJ needs everyone to know that they don't already know with Leveson 1??
Again these posts are my ideas and thoughts, and another way in which to approach this case...
Once again sorry for long posts and my jumping backwards and forwards... I write as I think... ?{)(**
https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140306154614/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-DCI-Phillip-Jones.pdf
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8218181/Tearful-parents-plead-Help-find-our-daughter.html
https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140306131800/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Ryan-Parry.pdf
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8234570/Joanna-Yeates-murder-neighbour-interviewed-by-police-over-boyfriends-flat-battery-incident.html
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/218982/CCTV-clues-to-the-riddle-of-missing-architect-Jo
-
Why a nightmare? I just ask questions....
The old man for instance, the one that handed in the sock and popped it into a brown paper forensic bag at the gate, as the media images showed us... Well according to this retweet, he entered the building also..
@c4midlandsprod is no longer on twitter so I cannot find his tweet on this subject, but it begs the question, if it is a simple retweet then...
What entrance of the building did the old man go into??
Why was he allowed in said building seeing as it was a crime scene??
Who did he see in said building??
Why the need to go into said building seeing as he had handed a sock in...
Was the man that handed the sock in at the gate, the same man who entered the building, or was the man at the gate there just for the media??
So which old man entered the building and handed over a sock?
Was the old man anything to do with the Police??
See always questions from simple statement....
https://twitter.com/c4marcus/status/22672516250079232
Yes, you ask question but when provided with an answer, you ignore it.
When the police stated that the guy in the tweet was 'inside' he didn't actually say he was inside the flat 'specifically'. He was probably inside the building - you're too pedantic Nine.
-
Isn't that the Son of Bryan Saunders, the bloke who screwed up the John Cannan case (IMO)? Talk about keep it in the family.
-
Part 4......
Lets go back a minute... CJ is still on bail.... on the 1st February Joanna Yeates body is released to the family for burial.... Because...... apparently Dr Vincent Tabak had given consent for a second post mortem the week before... etc etc.... And the Yeates are allowed to bury their daughter....
Back to CJ... who according to DCI Phil Jones Leveson appearance, CJ was kept on bail until the 4th March 2011 because of the trainer that was found under the sink, behind the kick board in the house, and until that came back they still believed CJ was connected to this crime......
Crapola.... If they seriously believed that CJ was in anyway connected to this crime and that there was a possibility that this trainer linked Joanna Yeates to the killer/killers/ CJ then why allow the body to be released for burial, before they had cleared CJ conclusively??
And of course this trainer never came to trial.....
We don't know where in the house it was found or if it indeed was in anyway related to Joanna Yeates...
So am I back to the beginning with CJ.... and he's a witness, he knows something and was made a scapegoat, and his insistence of being front and centre of this case is to make sure no-one forgets about it.... ????
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Then back to questioning who DS Mark Saunders is??? Is he a real Police man?? why was he in front of camera telling us about this CCTV footage, that should quiet easily for everyone involved show whether
* Joanna Yeates reached home on Friday 17th December 2010
* Who CJ saw at the gate
* Which people were milling about Canygne Road
* When Dr Vincent Tabak got his car from the road
* When CJ Left for the gym
* When CJ arrived home from the gym
* When Dr Vincent Tabak left for ASDA
* When Dr Vincent Tabak returned
* When Tanja left for the party
* When CJ and Peter Stanley started Greg's/Jo's car
* When Greg arrived back from Sheffield
* When CJ left on the morning Dr Vincent Tabak pushed the car up the incline on the drive
* When The Yeates arrived from Southampton
* Mrs Yeates wandering around banging on cars boots
* When Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja went out for the evening on Saturday 18th December 2010
* When Tanja and Dr Vincent Tabak left for Cambridge
Or was that the Polices problem with CJ.. they couldn't produce this CCTV that would show CJ's movements??
The CCTV that DS Mark Saunders told us showed the comings and going on Canygne Road that weekend...
So where is this CCTV.. Where is DS Mark Saunders?? Who is DS Mark Saunders??
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-rsZDIUS46H8/T_QxZvOIidI/AAAAAAAAAMc/J_QscRmyq1IrNSELsV3aLo7wf29Qhh16wCPcBGAYYCw/s1600/Mark%2BSaunders.JPG)
That is DS Mark Saunders telling us at that conference about the private CCTV footage of Canygne Road showing people milling about and cars coming and going on the weekend of the 17th-19th December 2010
But he fails to appear after Joanna Yeates is found, he fails to be at The Leveson, he fails to be in any documentary, he fials to be at the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak... And he fails to produce this CCTV footage...!!
Something about this case is off.... Which bit is off is difficult to say, is it DS Mark Saunders??
I'll just remind everyone... Colin Port stated at The Leveson that the footage at The HopHouse pub, was the last known CCTV footage of Joanna Yeates...
What does that tell us about The CCTV footage that DS Mark Saunders spoke of ??? It doesn't exist?? Or he's not a real Police man who was in charge of this investigation....?? Or both??
Realistically that CCTV footage should have been produced at trial.... It should have at least shown us Dr Vincent Tabak's movements and timeline if nothing else..... (imo)
Always more questions....
So I come back to CJ... and why he is so determined to keep this case in the public eye..... For someone who wanted to be a wall flower, it makes one question his reasoning... and it can't be just the media 2/3 day character assasination... That realistically should have long been forgotten... Others have had far worse said about them....
Leveson 2 last year was at the courts... 2018 8 years after Joanna Yeates Murder... 8 years after CJ was front and centre of this case.... So why would he be asking for it to continue??
He could walk away... he said his piece... he's had his Police apology... he's taken the papers to court.... he has been proved wholly innocent... he has been the talk of Parliament.... He's been a core participant in Leveson 1.
There's been a drama made about him.... Everyone loves CJ... everyone has sympathy for CJ.... He should ultimately be happy and satisfied with the outcome.... Maybe a little disappointed, but Leveson 2 wouldn't change the fact that CJ is Innocent of the Murder of Joanna Yeates....
But it keeps the case in the public eye... And there has to be a reason for that...
If it is the only way in which this case can be mentioned, Leveson 2 maybe crucial...
Is Leveson 2 CJ's only way in which he can help Dr Vincent Tabak?? Is it the only way the truth about this case will come out??
What is it that CJ needs everyone to know that they don't already know with Leveson 1??
Again these posts are my ideas and thoughts, and another way in which to approach this case...
Once again sorry for long posts and my jumping backwards and forwards... I write as I think... ?{)(**
https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140306154614/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-DCI-Phillip-Jones.pdf
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8218181/Tearful-parents-plead-Help-find-our-daughter.html
https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140306131800/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Ryan-Parry.pdf
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8234570/Joanna-Yeates-murder-neighbour-interviewed-by-police-over-boyfriends-flat-battery-incident.html
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/218982/CCTV-clues-to-the-riddle-of-missing-architect-Jo
Why would the CCTV footage be shown at trial? He didn't deny killing her - the CCTV footage was irrelevant - the trial wasn't about him being there, it was about whether he murdered her or not. These are the very things you fail to take account of before you post. Ask yourself if things are relevant to the charges he faced at trial.
-
Isn't that the Son of Bryan Saunders, the bloke who screwed up the John Cannan case (IMO)? Talk about keep it in the family.
Isn't who the son of Bryan Saunders??
You referring to DS Mark Saunders??
-
Isn't who the son of Bryan Saunders??
You referring to DS Mark Saunders??
Who else? @)(++(*
-
Who else? @)(++(*
Clarification Caroline... That is all I am doing... AH may have meant that , but AH could have also meant someone else..
-
Its OK Nine, if people asked for clarification more often things wouldn't be in quite the mess they are.
Yes I am referring to DS Mark Saunders, I'm just digging around to see what I can find out. If, and it's a big IF, Saunders B. was able to influence Saunders M. because a cock up in 1987 led to an almighty cover up it could just be the connection I'm looking for, and you wouldn't want to drop the Old Man in the guano now would you? (IMO)
-
Its OK Nine, if people asked for clarification more often things wouldn't be in quite the mess they are.
Yes I am referring to DS Mark Saunders, I'm just digging around to see what I can find out. If, and it's a big IF, Saunders B. was able to influence Saunders M. because a cock up in 1987 led to an almighty cover up it could just be the connection I'm looking for, and you wouldn't want to drop the Old Man in the guano now would you? (IMO)
Thanks for the clarification AH.... 8(0(* It's important to clarify.....
I find it mighty odd that he was there and then he was gone... And that therefore makes the Leveson somewhat of a giant cock-up.. (imo)
Omitting evidence and people who are vital...
Everyone in the media appears to have forgotten what was said before DS Mark Saunders disappeared from the scene.... Why was he removed?? Why does no-one refer to him`?? Where's the bloody CCTV??
22nd December 2010 BBC...
Police are also studying private CCTV footage which shows the area around her Canynge Road home.
Det Supt Mark Saunders said: "You can see lots of people walking up and down and vehicles driving up and down on Friday night and the early hours of Saturday morning.
"We'd really like to get hold of any of those people because if anyone was in that street, even if you didn't think you saw anything you might be able to help."
We have no idea if they all came forward... The didn't pursue it as far as I can tell.... And then The CCTV magically disappeared... CCTV which would show evidence of who came and went including Joanna Yeates....
If she didn't get home she wasn't killed at home.... Why is this vital CCTV being ignored.... If she didn't get home Dr Vincent Tabak couldn't have killed her in her home on Friday 17th December 2010..
Who ever left the gate would be seen... when anyone arrived would be seen.... I could go on and on....
Where is the CCTV and where is DS Mark Saunders hiding?? And why has no-one questioned his role in this???
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-12061305
-
What did Joanna Yeates buy from WAITROSE??? Or should I rephrase that...
What was on the receipt from WAITROSE that was found in the Flat of Joanna Yeates, what date and time was on this receipt?? Was it
* Friday 17th December 2010
* Saturday 18th December 2010
or even
* Sunday 20th December 2010
Does this receipt show when Joanna Yeates was alive??
Or was The Pizza actually bought from Waitrose.... The Tesco's CCTV has been edited, we do not know the real date and time of that CCTV, do we!!
The Pizza was similar in all respects to the one in DCI Gareth Bevans hands... As he stated... Well was it a Tesco's Pizza??
Something was on the WAITROSE Receipt of importance.... why have we not seen Joanna Yeates buying anything in WAITROSE?? Or was it the killer who shopped there??
22nd December 2010 BBC..
Detectives believe she then returned to her flat in the Clifton area as receipts from nearby Tesco and Waitrose supermarkets were found there.
Always something MISSING in this case.... Is the Waitrose receipt with the CCTV DS Mark Saunders told us about????
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-12061305
-
Clarification Caroline... That is all I am doing... AH may have meant that , but AH could have also meant someone else..
Who else could AH have meant given that you only mentioned one person called Saunders? This is why you get bogged down in a myriad of irrelevant questions because you can't accept the obvious.
-
Who else could AH have meant given that you only mentioned one person called Saunders? This is why you get bogged down in a myriad of irrelevant questions because you can't accept the obvious.
Obvious in which way??
If I clarify what is meant then there cannot be any mistakes.... Think thats the problem with this case... NO clarification!!!!
And thats what should have happened at trial also.... clarification and supporting evidence of what Dr Vincent Tabak stated on the stand...
IE.... THE CCTV THAT DS MARKS SAUNDERS SAID EXISTED.... THE CCTV THAT SHOWS WHO WAS ABOUT CANYGNE ROAD ON THAT WEEKEND OF FRIDAY 17th DEC 2010 to SUNDAY 19th DEC 2010... And even any time after to be honest.....
Show me the evidence..... Please...!
-
Obvious in which way??
If I clarify what is meant then there cannot be any mistakes.... Think thats the problem with this case... NO clarification!!!!
And thats what should have happened at trial also.... clarification and supporting evidence of what Dr Vincent Tabak stated on the stand...
IE.... THE CCTV THAT DS MARKS SAUNDERS SAID EXISTED.... THE CCTV THAT SHOWS WHO WAS ABOUT CANYGNE ROAD ON THAT WEEKEND OF FRIDAY 17th DEC 2010 to SUNDAY 19th DEC 2010... And even any time after to be honest.....
Show me the evidence..... Please...!
THE CCTV ISN'T RELEVANT BECAUSE HE'S NOT SAYING HE WASN'T THERE!!!!!! He confessed to killing her so why would they need the CCTV footage at his trial? No one needs to show YOU anything, the trial wasn't for YOUR peace of mind! You're asking questions that aren't relevant that's why you can't find an answer!
-
THE CCTV ISN'T RELEVANT BECAUSE HE'S NOT SAYING HE WASN'T THERE!!!!!! He confessed to killing her so why would they need the CCTV footage at his trial? No one needs to show YOU anything, the trial wasn't for YOUR peace of mind! You're asking questions that aren't relevant that's why you can't find an answer!
The CCTV is relevant..... whether I see it or not... It proves whether or not Joanna Yeates actually reached home... And I'll repeat, Colin Port said at the Leveson...
411111: The investigation team reported on the full movements of Ms
Yeates as seen on CCTV from the Ram Public House to the last sighting at
the Hop House CCTV
Full movements as seen on CCTV..... From the Ram Pub to the last sighting at The Hop house...
Vital CCTV.... did Joanna yeates actually ever reach home?? According to the last CCTV sighting .....NO!!!
DS Mark Saunders doesn't mention her being on the CCTV he's sees either.... !
Making it impossible for Dr Vincent Tabak to have killed Joanna Yeates in her Flat.... in Friday 17th December 2010... He can't have seen her as he passed the kitchen window, if she didn't ever arrive home!
https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122184118/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Witness-Statement-of-Chief-Constable-Colin-Port.pdf
-
The CCTV is relevant..... whether I see it or not... It proves whether or not Joanna Yeates actually reached home... And I'll repeat, Colin Port said at the Leveson...
Full movements as seen on CCTV..... From the Ram Pub to the last sighting at The Hop house...
Vital CCTV.... did Joanna yeates actually ever reach home?? According to the last CCTV sighting .....NO!!!
DS Mark Saunders doesn't mention her being on the CCTV he's sees either.... !
Making it impossible for Dr Vincent Tabak to have killed Joanna Yeates in her Flat.... in Friday 17th December 2010... He can't have seen her as he passed the kitchen window, if she didn't ever arrive home!
https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122184118/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Witness-Statement-of-Chief-Constable-Colin-Port.pdf
The proof that she reached home comes from Tabak who admitted to ending her life there! (JEEZ!!!!). There wasn't a question from the prosecution as to whether she reached home - it wasn't part of the trial and it wasn't part of the trial because of the confession!
-
Beware!!! Conspiracy theorists are out in force on this thread. I feel sorry for that poor dyke who's having all her holes plugged.
-
Beware!!! Conspiracy theorists are out in force on this thread. I feel sorry for that poor dyke who's having all her holes plugged.
I just don't understand how Nine can't see the obvious ............ it's OBVIOUS @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
I just don't understand how Nine can't see the obvious ............ it's OBVIOUS @)(++(* @)(++(*
That it all doesn't add up??
From... https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140306184943/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-28-November-20111.txt
12 A. Well, when I was released from custody, both the
13 solicitor who had represented me and friends with whom
14 I was staying outlined in very general terms the sort of
15 press coverage that there had been. They did suggest
16 that it would probably be good for my psychological
17 health if I didn't, at least for the time being, read
18 any of that coverage since a great deal of it was so
19 defamatory. So it was -- I started to read some of the
20 coverage in detail only after I was asked to do so as
21 a result of the commencement of the libel action.
Who started the libel action for CJ?? Reading this the libel action started before CJ had even seen the media coverage... Only conclusion I can come up with is someone started the libel proceedings... Question has to be whom??
I started to read some of the coverage in detail only after I was asked to do so as a result of the commencement of the libel action.
Unless I have read that wrong and I do not believe I have.... CJ only read some of the coverage AFTER he was asked to do so,... as a result of the commencement of the libel action...
Therefore in my mind the libel action had already commenced.... Now how was that even possible if CJ didn't set the libel action in motion himself????
Now there's a question!!
Alternatively.. he saw his picture and decided to take action.... which doesn't make sense.... In my mind it appears that the libel action started first... You would think that CJ would need to know the entire content of the articles before acting on whether they were libellous or not and in what context...!!
-
That it all doesn't add up??
From... https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140306184943/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-28-November-20111.txt
Who started the libel action for CJ?? Reading this the libel action started before CJ had even seen the media coverage... Only conclusion I can come up with is someone started the libel proceedings... Question has to be whom??
I started to read some of the coverage in detail only after I was asked to do so as a result of the commencement of the libel action.
Unless I have read that wrong and I do not believe I have.... CJ only read some of the coverage AFTER he was asked to do so,... as a result of the commencement of the libel action...
Therefore in my mind the libel action had already commenced.... Now how was that even possible if CJ didn't set the libel action in motion himself????
Now there's a question!!
Alternatively.. he saw his picture and decided to take action.... which doesn't make sense.... In my mind it appears that the libel action started first... You would think that CJ would need to know the entire content of the articles before acting on whether they were libellous or not and in what context...!!
The answer to your question is actually IN the transcript you posted!
-
Dr Vincent Tabak,
* A man whom apparently was cunning, manipulative,
* A man whom had the presence of mind to take a sock and pizza box, evidence that he was apparently
connected too....
* A man who left no finger prints at this crime scene or DNA...
* A man that apparently needed to remove a body to his own flat, to give him time to do whatever..
* A man who followed ever aspect of this case
* A man that left no signs of a struggle
* A Man who had been told by Joanna Yeates that Greg was away that weekend
* A Man who had great strength to move a dead body on his own several times
* A Man Who could or couldn't have worn gloves during this attack
* A Man who knew he had all weekend to disassociate himself from the crime scene
* A Man who carried on as normal
* A Man whom text for an alibi apparently
* A Man that didn't know the victim...
* A man who didn't raise suspicion with his girlfriend
* A Man who was a computer genius
* A Man that attacked for no reason his neighbour
* A Man that could have left Joanna Yeates in her Flat
* A Man whom was on CCTV as Adsa
I think about that... why move a body?? If Dr Vincent Tabak had no connection to Joanna Yeates, then what possible reason would he have to remove a body from a flat, to his flat then onto a grass verge in Longwood Lane, whist parties were taking place on that Friday 17th December 2010..
A busy road for people coming and going to said parties, both Canygne Road and Longwood Lane.. Where he could have been spotted at any time, also going to Asda so as to be seen when he didn't need too...
To be honest, all he needed to do was to knock on CJ's door and ask to borrow a cup of sugar.. CJ being home at the time would be able to say that Dr Vincent Tabak was in that evening...
All too elaborate for a man with no connection to the victim....
If as Dr Vincent Tabak said at trial, he knew that Greg was away that weekend, then why didn't Dr Vincent Tabak remove Joanna Yeates coat, boots and Joanna Yeates rucksack??
The coat on the coat rack, apparently ends up on the floor... The Rucksack sat on the dining table in the front room, on the table that was next to the kitchen door...
Dr Vincent Tabak had no need to establish that Joanna Yeates had reached home, in fact I would imagine not having any items such as her Coat, boots and rucksack at home would leave the impression that Joanna Yeates may have gone away to friends... It may have been interpreted that she came home and went out again at some point..
If he is trying to make distance and time, then removing these items would be of more benefit to Dr Vincent Tabak, it would take the Police a lot longer to check anyone who may have been in contact with her, either through text or through social media or simply someone who knocked on her door and invited her out.... ...
Her mobile phone in her pocket would not be in the flat, therefore the reporting of her Missing would have happened a lot later, as she was an independent woman with no responsibilities..
Dr Vincent Tabak had no need to show that Joanna Yeates reached home, it would be better for him if she hadn't... The Police would not have concentrated on that building.. The would have no need to search that building... They would have no need to take statements from the tenants of that building....
The killer wants to distance himself from this crime... Why wouldn't he remove all evidence of her returning home apart from a sock and a pizza??
If Joanna Yeates hasn't reached home, the search for her stretches far and wide, which if a cunning an manipulative killer knows that, he would make sure it was more difficult for the Police to start looking...
Why didn't Dr Vincent Tabak remove Joanna Yeates coat , boots and rucksack from the Flat? He would have been away by the time the Police felt the need to ask him questions...
He was happy to lock Bernard into the flat... A dirty cat tray, he could have simply left the cat outside .. The cat may have disappeared, but that shouldn't have worried him... On Greg's return a Cat tray would have been clean, a house having no evidence of where Joanna Yeates may have gone... visiting friends etc... Or maybe Joanna Yeates could have taken Bernard to a friend to look after, she must have made arrangements for Bernard for when she was due to be away visiting her parents for christmas....
She wasn't good at answering her phone, so even if he rang nothing would be any different... She may have been annoyed he went to Sheffield, anything is possible...
It has been said many times before that the items could have been returned by the killer, to make it appear that Joanna Yeates arrived home... But that doesn't need to be useful for Dr Vincent Tabak...
Yes.... she could have arrived home, and Yes she could have left again, visiting anyone at all....
Again I'll ask, why therefore didn't Dr Vincent Tabak remove basic items like her coat, boots and rucksack from the house to make it look like she had gone out? Him knowing that Greg was away for the weekend... He wasn't to know what type of relationship Joanna and Greg had... It could have been good it could have been bad, they could have had an open relationship for all he knew... So removing items that gives an impression she has left for what ever reason, gives him more time available if, the Police check the people closest to the victim first...
It is only the mobile phone ringing in the pocket of Joanna Yeates coat that, alarm bells ring for Greg...
It has never made any sense to me why Dr Vincent Tabak would remove Joanna Yeates from her Flat... If it was to create time and distance, then the above mentioned items should have gone with her.... Otherwise he might as well have left her in her own flat, instead of carrying her to his flat and having her there for half an hour or so lying on the floor, then putting her into the boot of his car, where copious amounts of DNA could be transferred to any of these locations...
There is no advantage in Dr Vincent Tabak removing Joanna Yeates from her Flat... He apparently knows that Greg is away all weekend, so he has plenty of time to get himself together, plenty of time to distance himself...
Taking all the items I have stated with him and dumping those items in various locations.... The quarry for instance, would have slowed things down... There would be no-one knocking on the door of the flats, as there first port of call would be any of Joanna Yeates friends and colleagues, asking if they had seen or heard anything from her...
Dr Vincent Tabak therefore would be the last person anyone suspected...
Ann Reddrop stated he was cunning and manipulative... Well based on what he apparently did I would say stupid...
I am still convinced that a person who knew Joanna Yeates strangled her, a person leaving items at her home, so that the Police would start looking for her immediately... A person creating a scene that made her parents believe that she had been abducted...
If her, coat, mobile phone and boots had not been left behind in the flat, would the Police have conducted this inquiry differently, would they have left 48 hours after she was reported Missing before they reviewed what they knew... Would as many Policemen connected to various unsolved murder cases be involved in appeals??
Would they have arrived at Canygne Road within hours of her disappearance??
So if Dr Vincent Tabak is this cunning man trying to keep one step ahead of this investigation, why didn't he remove her boots , coat and rucksack at the same time as he removed the Pizza and sock??
Because that would have put a spanner in the works, that would make it a little more difficult for those investigation what essentially was a Missing persons inquiry, that would give a Dutchman, more time to create an alibi for the whole of that weekend...
* Monday 20th December 1:00am Joanna Yeates is reported Missing
* Wednesday 22nd December 2010 at 1:00am 48 hours later
After this time the Police start to check her possible whereabouts, then the questions start, by the 24th December 2010 Dr Vincent Tabak is in Cambridge
It makes no sense that Dr Vincent Tabak would take a Pizza and a sock, ( some say for a trophy), and not take anything else that suggested that Joanna Yeates was at home that weekend ...
Another thought... He may have known that Greg was away that weekend, according to the story on the stand.. but what was to say that Joanna Yeates wasn't expecting any visitors that weekend?? What was to say that she hadn't arranged to meet someone on the Saturday the 18th December 2010 for instance??
Lets say a friend had arranged to come over to stay because Joanna Yeates was going to be on her own as Greg was away, and when they arrived at the flat there was no answer... they rang her phone and no answer.... Wouldn't the next person they may ring be Greg?? Couldn't the alarm be have been raised earlier?? It was possible, Dr Vincent Tabak wasn't to know...
Of course I am not saying that was the case, but it could have been, so Dr Vincent Tabak taking a body out of a Flat was even more risky for him, as anyone at anytime may have turned up to stay with Joanna Yeates that weekend...
There is absolutely no reason or advantage for Dr Vincent Tabak to remove Joanna Yeates from her flat... No reason or advantage to take her to his Flat... no reason or advantage to hide her under leaves and snow on Longwood Lane.... And no reason or advantage to put her into the boot of his car...
Dr Vincent Tabak would have needed to know Joanna Yeates extremely well, to know she was staying at home alone all weekend, and that no-one would visit... not even her parents at that time... Otherwise it is far too risky to even attempt to move her from the flat, and as a stranger would have left her in situ..(imo)
The Pizza... The cider on the side, why not take the cider? if Joanna Yeates is attacked as soon as she returns home, then why not take the cider as well? How was the Dr Vincent Tabak to know that she bought them that evening? She could have got the Pizza out of the fridge ready to cook, opened cider she already had.. Dr Vincent Tabak could not have had any knowledge as to when Joanna Yeates purchased said Pizza and Cider ....
He didn't need to remove the Pizza... he could have wiped the box down to remove finger prints, or not, seeing as there were none of his finger prints in the flat after such a violent attack, why would a Pizza box be any different....
I feel that the killer didn't know that Joanna Yeates bought the cider that evening, they knew she purchased a Pizza, I believe it was the receipt that showed that it had been purchased, but if the killer only saw one receipt and not any other, then they wouldn't feel the need to remove the cider or anything else...
The Flat always seems staged to me... And I believe it was... But Dr Vincent Tabak has no need to stage the flat, he has no need to remove anything, he has no need to take Joanna Yeates from her Flat.... He could have just closed the door behind him, using the time he had to clean it down, before going to Asda no need to be therefore on Longwood Lane.. Straight to Asda, then straight home
Dr Vincent Tabak's story on the stand was just that... A story.... A story that anyone could have cobbled together with the information available in the news media and social media of the time....
So why does everyone accept it as true???
-
Dr Vincent Tabak,
* A man whom apparently was cunning, manipulative,
* A man whom had the presence of mind to take a sock and pizza box, evidence that he was apparently
connected too....
* A man who left no finger prints at this crime scene or DNA...
* A man that apparently needed to remove a body to his own flat, to give him time to do whatever..
* A man who followed ever aspect of this case
* A man that left no signs of a struggle
* A Man who had been told by Joanna Yeates that Greg was away that weekend
* A Man who had great strength to move a dead body on his own several times
* A Man Who could or couldn't have worn gloves during this attack
* A Man who knew he had all weekend to disassociate himself from the crime scene
* A Man who carried on as normal
* A Man whom text for an alibi apparently
* A Man that didn't know the victim...
* A man who didn't raise suspicion with his girlfriend
* A Man who was a computer genius
* A Man that attacked for no reason his neighbour
* A Man that could have left Joanna Yeates in her Flat
* A Man whom was on CCTV as Adsa
I think about that... why move a body?? If Dr Vincent Tabak had no connection to Joanna Yeates, then what possible reason would he have to remove a body from a flat, to his flat then onto a grass verge in Longwood Lane, whist parties were taking place on that Friday 17th December 2010..
A busy road for people coming and going to said parties, both Canygne Road and Longwood Lane.. Where he could have been spotted at any time, also going to Asda so as to be seen when he didn't need too...
To be honest, all he needed to do was to knock on CJ's door and ask to borrow a cup of sugar.. CJ being home at the time would be able to say that Dr Vincent Tabak was in that evening...
All too elaborate for a man with no connection to the victim....
If as Dr Vincent Tabak said at trial, he knew that Greg was away that weekend, then why didn't Dr Vincent Tabak remove Joanna Yeates coat, boots and Joanna Yeates rucksack??
The coat on the coat rack, apparently ends up on the floor... The Rucksack sat on the dining table in the front room, on the table that was next to the kitchen door...
Dr Vincent Tabak had no need to establish that Joanna Yeates had reached home, in fact I would imagine not having any items such as her Coat, boots and rucksack at home would leave the impression that Joanna Yeates may have gone away to friends... It may have been interpreted that she came home and went out again at some point..
If he is trying to make distance and time, then removing these items would be of more benefit to Dr Vincent Tabak, it would take the Police a lot longer to check anyone who may have been in contact with her, either through text or through social media or simply someone who knocked on her door and invited her out.... ...
Her mobile phone in her pocket would not be in the flat, therefore the reporting of her Missing would have happened a lot later, as she was an independent woman with no responsibilities..
Dr Vincent Tabak had no need to show that Joanna Yeates reached home, it would be better for him if she hadn't... The Police would not have concentrated on that building.. The would have no need to search that building... They would have no need to take statements from the tenants of that building....
The killer wants to distance himself from this crime... Why wouldn't he remove all evidence of her returning home apart from a sock and a pizza??
If Joanna Yeates hasn't reached home, the search for her stretches far and wide, which if a cunning an manipulative killer knows that, he would make sure it was more difficult for the Police to start looking...
Why didn't Dr Vincent Tabak remove Joanna Yeates coat , boots and rucksack from the Flat? He would have been away by the time the Police felt the need to ask him questions...
He was happy to lock Bernard into the flat... A dirty cat tray, he could have simply left the cat outside .. The cat may have disappeared, but that shouldn't have worried him... On Greg's return a Cat tray would have been clean, a house having no evidence of where Joanna Yeates may have gone... visiting friends etc... Or maybe Joanna Yeates could have taken Bernard to a friend to look after, she must have made arrangements for Bernard for when she was due to be away visiting her parents for christmas....
She wasn't good at answering her phone, so even if he rang nothing would be any different... She may have been annoyed he went to Sheffield, anything is possible...
It has been said many times before that the items could have been returned by the killer, to make it appear that Joanna Yeates arrived home... But that doesn't need to be useful for Dr Vincent Tabak...
Yes.... she could have arrived home, and Yes she could have left again, visiting anyone at all....
Again I'll ask, why therefore didn't Dr Vincent Tabak remove basic items like her coat, boots and rucksack from the house to make it look like she had gone out? Him knowing that Greg was away for the weekend... He wasn't to know what type of relationship Joanna and Greg had... It could have been good it could have been bad, they could have had an open relationship for all he knew... So removing items that gives an impression she has left for what ever reason, gives him more time available if, the Police check the people closest to the victim first...
It is only the mobile phone ringing in the pocket of Joanna Yeates coat that, alarm bells ring for Greg...
It has never made any sense to me why Dr Vincent Tabak would remove Joanna Yeates from her Flat... If it was to create time and distance, then the above mentioned items should have gone with her.... Otherwise he might as well have left her in her own flat, instead of carrying her to his flat and having her there for half an hour or so lying on the floor, then putting her into the boot of his car, where copious amounts of DNA could be transferred to any of these locations...
There is no advantage in Dr Vincent Tabak removing Joanna Yeates from her Flat... He apparently knows that Greg is away all weekend, so he has plenty of time to get himself together, plenty of time to distance himself...
Taking all the items I have stated with him and dumping those items in various locations.... The quarry for instance, would have slowed things down... There would be no-one knocking on the door of the flats, as there first port of call would be any of Joanna Yeates friends and colleagues, asking if they had seen or heard anything from her...
Dr Vincent Tabak therefore would be the last person anyone suspected...
Ann Reddrop stated he was cunning and manipulative... Well based on what he apparently did I would say stupid...
I am still convinced that a person who knew Joanna Yeates strangled her, a person leaving items at her home, so that the Police would start looking for her immediately... A person creating a scene that made her parents believe that she had been abducted...
If her, coat, mobile phone and boots had not been left behind in the flat, would the Police have conducted this inquiry differently, would they have left 48 hours after she was reported Missing before they reviewed what they knew... Would as many Policemen connected to various unsolved murder cases be involved in appeals??
Would they have arrived at Canygne Road within hours of her disappearance??
So if Dr Vincent Tabak is this cunning man trying to keep one step ahead of this investigation, why didn't he remove her boots , coat and rucksack at the same time as he removed the Pizza and sock??
Because that would have put a spanner in the works, that would make it a little more difficult for those investigation what essentially was a Missing persons inquiry, that would give a Dutchman, more time to create an alibi for the whole of that weekend...
* Monday 20th December 1:00am Joanna Yeates is reported Missing
* Wednesday 22nd December 2010 at 1:00am 48 hours later
After this time the Police start to check her possible whereabouts, then the questions start, by the 24th December 2010 Dr Vincent Tabak is in Cambridge
It makes no sense that Dr Vincent Tabak would take a Pizza and a sock, ( some say for a trophy), and not take anything else that suggested that Joanna Yeates was at home that weekend ...
Another thought... He may have known that Greg was away that weekend, according to the story on the stand.. but what was to say that Joanna Yeates wasn't expecting any visitors that weekend?? What was to say that she hadn't arranged to meet someone on the Saturday the 18th December 2010 for instance??
Lets say a friend had arranged to come over to stay because Joanna Yeates was going to be on her own as Greg was away, and when they arrived at the flat there was no answer... they rang her phone and no answer.... Wouldn't the next person they may ring be Greg?? Couldn't the alarm be have been raised earlier?? It was possible, Dr Vincent Tabak wasn't to know...
Of course I am not saying that was the case, but it could have been, so Dr Vincent Tabak taking a body out of a Flat was even more risky for him, as anyone at anytime may have turned up to stay with Joanna Yeates that weekend...
There is absolutely no reason or advantage for Dr Vincent Tabak to remove Joanna Yeates from her flat... No reason or advantage to take her to his Flat... no reason or advantage to hide her under leaves and snow on Longwood Lane.... And no reason or advantage to put her into the boot of his car...
Dr Vincent Tabak would have needed to know Joanna Yeates extremely well, to know she was staying at home alone all weekend, and that no-one would visit... not even her parents at that time... Otherwise it is far too risky to even attempt to move her from the flat, and as a stranger would have left her in situ..(imo)
The Pizza... The cider on the side, why not take the cider? if Joanna Yeates is attacked as soon as she returns home, then why not take the cider as well? How was the Dr Vincent Tabak to know that she bought them that evening? She could have got the Pizza out of the fridge ready to cook, opened cider she already had.. Dr Vincent Tabak could not have had any knowledge as to when Joanna Yeates purchased said Pizza and Cider ....
He didn't need to remove the Pizza... he could have wiped the box down to remove finger prints, or not, seeing as there were none of his finger prints in the flat after such a violent attack, why would a Pizza box be any different....
I feel that the killer didn't know that Joanna Yeates bought the cider that evening, they knew she purchased a Pizza, I believe it was the receipt that showed that it had been purchased, but if the killer only saw one receipt and not any other, then they wouldn't feel the need to remove the cider or anything else...
The Flat always seems staged to me... And I believe it was... But Dr Vincent Tabak has no need to stage the flat, he has no need to remove anything, he has no need to take Joanna Yeates from her Flat.... He could have just closed the door behind him, using the time he had to clean it down, before going to Asda no need to be therefore on Longwood Lane.. Straight to Asda, then straight home
Dr Vincent Tabak's story on the stand was just that... A story.... A story that anyone could have cobbled together with the information available in the news media and social media of the time....
So why does everyone accept it as true???
There is every advantage! If her body was left at the flat, he would have been an immediate suspect! You just don't think things though!
-
There is every advantage! If her body was left at the flat, he would have been an immediate suspect! You just don't think things though!
Why?
-
Why?
Because he lived in the building!
-
The CCTV is relevant..... whether I see it or not... It proves whether or not Joanna Yeates actually reached home... And I'll repeat, Colin Port said at the Leveson...
Full movements as seen on CCTV..... From the Ram Pub to the last sighting at The Hop house...
Vital CCTV.... did Joanna yeates actually ever reach home?? According to the last CCTV sighting .....NO!!!
DS Mark Saunders doesn't mention her being on the CCTV he's sees either.... !
Making it impossible for Dr Vincent Tabak to have killed Joanna Yeates in her Flat.... in Friday 17th December 2010... He can't have seen her as he passed the kitchen window, if she didn't ever arrive home!
https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122184118/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Witness-Statement-of-Chief-Constable-Colin-Port.pdf
Because the Tesco receipt for the pizza was later discovered there, along with the coat she had been wearing that night, her mobile phone and keys shows she reached home that night.
From his own words
More than 10 months after killing his next door neighbour, Joanna Yeates, Vincent Tabak has given his first full public account of the moment he attacked her.
Tabak said he tried to kiss Yeates after she invited him into her flat and made a flirtatious remark. He insisted he had not meant to kill or seriously harm her, adding that he had only wanted to kiss her and was not planning to try to have sex with her.
The 33-year-old Dutch engineer denied that he had lifted Yeates's top or touched her breasts. He also said he had not been spying on her before the attack, which happened on 17 December last year.
He apologised for hiding Yeates's body on a country lane three miles from her flat, where it was found eight days later, on Christmas morning, and said he was sorry for putting Yeates's parents and her boyfriend, Greg Reardon, through "hell".
So she did return home and he did kill her in her own flat!
-
Because the Tesco receipt for the pizza was later discovered there, along with the coat she had been wearing that night, her mobile phone and keys shows she reached home that night.
From his own words
More than 10 months after killing his next door neighbour, Joanna Yeates, Vincent Tabak has given his first full public account of the moment he attacked her.
Tabak said he tried to kiss Yeates after she invited him into her flat and made a flirtatious remark. He insisted he had not meant to kill or seriously harm her, adding that he had only wanted to kiss her and was not planning to try to have sex with her.
The 33-year-old Dutch engineer denied that he had lifted Yeates's top or touched her breasts. He also said he had not been spying on her before the attack, which happened on 17 December last year.
He apologised for hiding Yeates's body on a country lane three miles from her flat, where it was found eight days later, on Christmas morning, and said he was sorry for putting Yeates's parents and her boyfriend, Greg Reardon, through "hell".
So she did return home and he did kill her in her own flat!
Hi Real Justice and welcome to the thread...
I don't know how much of it you have read, but I believe the CCTV is conclusive evidence as to whether or not Joanna Yeates reached home... Anyone can admit to something that they did not do, the problem for that is the reason why...
Because the Tesco receipt for the pizza was later discovered there, along with the coat she had been wearing that night, her mobile phone and keys shows she reached home that night.
A Tesco's receipt... Which one?? It appears the Police found one and as did The Yeates, A receipt... may I add, that as far as I know did not come to trial...
There were supposed to be other receipts which were only mentioned early on in the Missing person inquiry....
* What was on this receipt??
* Was it a genuine receipt??
I didn't realise it was possible to make receipts from anywhere, but found this website:
https://expressexpense.com/view-receipts.php?page=26
How long it has been possible to make receipts from varying shops/establishments etc I do not know.....
But after finding such a website, it made me question again this image..
(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/an-interior-view-of-the-flat-of-joanna-yeates-on-october-12-2011-in-picture-id129063058)
The outlined handheld?? possibly?? behind the settee....
I wonder if it is for making receipts?
For an odd reason any gathered forensic materials didn't come to trial... Someone admitting guilt is not good enough, if it is possible to prove otherwise..
The Flat is staged, you can see that, no way is it frozen in time, I don't know why everyone is tight lipped about this, most of the information relating to this crime is with the Police I would imagine, but I do not understand why it appears it wasn't investigated properly...
Putting this image up I have just spotted something, there appears to be a childs drawing (or a kids book) on the red book case sat on the pink folder... I have asked before did Joanna Yeates have a child? Or a related child that was with her??
With The Yeates believing that their daughter had been abducted on entering the flat and Mrs Yeates banging on car boots, I had questioned whether or not the something left behind was indeed a child??
It is unclear why The Yeates would believe their daughter had been abducted on entering a flat that Joanna Yeates boyfriend had been tidying up.. It cannot be her personal items (imo) as that has the ability to be explained..
Then I wonder who CJ saw at the Gate.... two to three people.... An odd expression, either it was 2 or 3... is that him trying to intimate that the third person was a child??
The possibilities with this case are endless, and a man being on the stand telling us a story anyone following the case could tell, isn't proof of responsibility or anything else,... So why it was accepted is beyond me...
DS Mark Saunders and the CCTV are vital to this case, and I have explained what was stated at The Leveson about the CCTV and The HopHouse pub CCTV being the last known CCTV images of Joanna Yeates... even though those images are not clear to actually identify who is in them..
This case is odd..... It will forever be odd (imo).. It's never made sense, someone close to the investigation knows something.... Thats for sure.... But what this is about I still don't understand.... I believe this case needs looking at more closely... (imo)...
No-one should be satisfied with the way things stand.... (imo)
Hope you'll contribute some more Real justice...
-
Can you actually believe this Justice? @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Can you actually believe this Justice? @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Hi Caroline, it’s left me a bit puzzled I must say, I can understand the argument about false confessions, but, when someone admits in court and demonstrates how they killed her, then 10months after apologises to having killed her, the fact that DNA from Tabak was found on her body behind her knees and on her breasts, it was an open and shut case, the only argument he had was manslaughter and not murder, which thank god he got the latter. *%87
-
Hi Real Justice and welcome to the thread...
I don't know how much of it you have read, but I believe the CCTV is conclusive evidence as to whether or not Joanna Yeates reached home... Anyone can admit to something that they did not do, the problem for that is the reason why...
Because the Tesco receipt for the pizza was later discovered there, along with the coat she had been wearing that night, her mobile phone and keys shows she reached home that night.
A Tesco's receipt... Which one?? It appears the Police found one and as did The Yeates, A receipt... may I add, that as far as I know did not come to trial...
There were supposed to be other receipts which were only mentioned early on in the Missing person inquiry....
* What was on this receipt??
* Was it a genuine receipt??
I didn't realise it was possible to make receipts from anywhere, but found this website:
https://expressexpense.com/view-receipts.php?page=26
How long it has been possible to make receipts from varying shops/establishments etc I do not know.....
But after finding such a website, it made me question again this image..
(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/an-interior-view-of-the-flat-of-joanna-yeates-on-october-12-2011-in-picture-id129063058)
The outlined handheld?? possibly?? behind the settee....
I wonder if it is for making receipts?
For an odd reason any gathered forensic materials didn't come to trial... Someone admitting guilt is not good enough, if it is possible to prove otherwise..
The Flat is staged, you can see that, no way is it frozen in time, I don't know why everyone is tight lipped about this, most of the information relating to this crime is with the Police I would imagine, but I do not understand why it appears it wasn't investigated properly...
Putting this image up I have just spotted something, there appears to be a childs drawing (or a kids book) on the red book case sat on the pink folder... I have asked before did Joanna Yeates have a child? Or a related child that was with her??
With The Yeates believing that their daughter had been abducted on entering the flat and Mrs Yeates banging on car boots, I had questioned whether or not the something left behind was indeed a child??
It is unclear why The Yeates would believe their daughter had been abducted on entering a flat that Joanna Yeates boyfriend had been tidying up.. It cannot be her personal items (imo) as that has the ability to be explained..
Then I wonder who CJ saw at the Gate.... two to three people.... An odd expression, either it was 2 or 3... is that him trying to intimate that the third person was a child??
The possibilities with this case are endless, and a man being on the stand telling us a story anyone following the case could tell, isn't proof of responsibility or anything else,... So why it was accepted is beyond me...
DS Mark Saunders and the CCTV are vital to this case, and I have explained what was stated at The Leveson about the CCTV and The HopHouse pub CCTV being the last known CCTV images of Joanna Yeates... even though those images are not clear to actually identify who is in them..
This case is odd..... It will forever be odd (imo).. It's never made sense, someone close to the investigation knows something.... Thats for sure.... But what this is about I still don't understand.... I believe this case needs looking at more closely... (imo)...
No-one should be satisfied with the way things stand.... (imo)
Hope you'll contribute some more Real justice...
Thanks for that Nine of Nine, I don’t think there is a lot more to contribute, he knew the game was up the moment he found out DNA had been found on her, telling the jury he wanted to kill himself and jump of a bridge and it will haunt him for the rest of his life for what he did, your right on one thing, I’m not satisfied how things stand, he should have carried out his threat and jumped off the bridge.
-
Does anyone know where I can buy an outlined handheld?... Currys or Argos maybe? Or is there somewhere else cheaper?
-
Hi Caroline, it’s left me a bit puzzled I must say, I can understand the argument about false confessions, but, when someone admits in court and demonstrates how they killed her, then 10months after apologises to having killed her, the fact that DNA from Tabak was found on her body behind her knees and on her breasts, it was an open and shut case, the only argument he had was manslaughter and not murder, which thank god he got the latter. *%87
Hi J - good to see you posting again! X
Part of Nine's argument is that this murder never happened and that all has been created - as a conspiracy theory, it's a FIRST for me! %56&
-
Hi J - good to see you posting again! X
Part of Nine's argument is that this murder never happened and that all has been created - as a conspiracy theory, it's a FIRST for me! %56&
Hi Caroline, WOW, that’s really interesting, I think Nine is on the wrong forum for his idea to string along, maybe on the blue forum with Mike, David and Nugnug.
-
Lady of Shallott.. Digital spy
What is often forgotten, too, is that any trial connected to Joanna's murder could have been compromised because of the press coverage. If Tabak had denied killing Joanna, the coverage of Jefferies might have created doubt in jurors' minds - it it had even gone to a jury. As it was, he admitted manslaughter so that element of doubt was removed but it could have been very different.
An interesting point made by said poster....
Everything was tied up neatly in a bow before Dr Vincent Tabak went to trial in October 2011...
* We have the attorney general talking contempt December 2010
* We have CJ's arrest December 2010
* We have press coverage of CJ Dec 2010/ Jan 2011
* We Have CJ Released on Bail January 2011
* We have Parliament discussing CJ February 2011
* We have CJ being released from Police Bail March 2011
* We had a libel action taking place in April 2011,
* We have Dr Vincent Tabak apparently admitting to Manslaughter in May 2011
* We have the paper taken to court for contempt July 2011
* We have Dr Vincent Tabak been named as guilty in contempt of court July 2011
* We have CJ named as core participant at the leveson in August 2011
The libel action is taken before Dr Vincent Tabak apparently admits Manslaughter, how that was possible is beyond me...
But as the poster had pointed out all that needed to happen was for Dr Vincent Tabak to deny killing Joanna Yeates and doubt would have been created in the juries mind because of the coverage of CJ...
This has me questioning why Dr Vincent Tabak didn't deny killing Joanna Yeates if he was so cunning??
It makes me question who wanted Dr Vincent Tabak in prison so badly?? And for what reason... ??
People scoff when I have made scenario's, and they come from things like this... How would everyone interfere in one way or another with the case against Dr Vincent Tabak, surely such things shouldn't happen before a trial..
Why hasn't anyone said anything about this??
CJ should have been a witness at Dr Vincent Tabak's trial, if only to tell us Dr Vincent Tabak hadn't lied about the car changing position, but he didn't... He could have told us he'd seen Dr Vincent Tabak the evening before on his way to the gym... He could have told us if Dr Vincent Tabak was one of the people at the gate....
This is why I do not understand this case..... CJ being made a core participant before a trial... everything for CJ wrapped up tidily in a bow before the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak, and no-one bats an eye lid as to how all the coverage of CJ would effect the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak....
Therefore yes I have come to the conclusion before in other posts that this cannot be a real story, as I haven't been able to comprehend how everything to do with CJ was done and reported before Dr Vincent Tabak faced trial....
I have stated that I believe that Dr Vincent Tabak could have withdrawn his Manslaughter plea, and I have been astounded that, everyone already knew that Dr Vincent Tabak had apparently admitted Manslaughter in May 2011 and it was emphasised in the media all through the trial....
All making me ask questions as to what this case was all about....
And what is the real truth about The Joanna Yeates Case, and the apparent trial of a Dutchman named Dr Vincent Tabak???
Edit.... It makes me question WHY, Dr Vincent Tabak would admit to MANSLAUGHTER at all, if the coverage of CJ was enough to cast doubt in the juries mind...
Why would Dr Vincent Tabak admit any responsibility whatsoever??? That is beyond me!
https://forums.digitalspy.com/discussion/comment/75991129#Comment_75991129
-
Lady of Shallott.. Digital spy
An interesting point made by said poster....
Everything was tied up neatly in a bow before Dr Vincent Tabak went to trial in October 2011...
* We have the attorney general talking contempt December 2010
* We have CJ's arrest December 2010
* We have press coverage of CJ Dec 2010/ Jan 2011
* We Have CJ Released on Bail January 2011
* We have Parliament discussing CJ February 2011
* We have CJ being released from Police Bail March 2011
* We had a libel action taking place in April 2011,
* We have Dr Vincent Tabak apparently admitting to Manslaughter in May 2011
* We have the paper taken to court for contempt July 2011
* We have Dr Vincent Tabak been named as guilty in contempt of court July 2011
* We have CJ named as core participant at the leveson in August 2011
The libel action is taken before Dr Vincent Tabak apparently admits Manslaughter, how that was possible is beyond me...
But as the poster had pointed out all that needed to happen was for Dr Vincent Tabak to deny killing Joanna Yeates and doubt would have been created in the juries mind because of the coverage of CJ...
This has me questioning why Dr Vincent Tabak didn't deny killing Joanna Yeates if he was so cunning??
It makes me question who wanted Dr Vincent Tabak in prison so badly?? And for what reason... ??
People scoff when I have made scenario's, and they come from things like this... How would everyone interfere in one way or another with the case against Dr Vincent Tabak, surely such things shouldn't happen before a trial..
Why hasn't anyone said anything about this??
CJ should have been a witness at Dr Vincent Tabak's trial, if only to tell us Dr Vincent Tabak hadn't lied about the car changing position, but he didn't... He could have told us he'd seen Dr Vincent Tabak the evening before on his way to the gym... He could have told us if Dr Vincent Tabak was one of the people at the gate....
This is why I do not understand this case..... CJ being made a core participant before a trial... everything for CJ wrapped up tidily in a bow before the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak, and no-one bats an eye lid as to how all the coverage of CJ would effect the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak....
Therefore yes I have come to the conclusion before in other posts that this cannot be a real story, as I haven't been able to comprehend how everything to do with CJ was done and reported before Dr Vincent Tabak faced trial....
I have stated that I believe that Dr Vincent Tabak could have withdrawn his Manslaughter plea, and I have been astounded that, everyone already knew that Dr Vincent Tabak had apparently admitted Manslaughter in May 2011 and it was emphasised in the media all through the trial....
All making me ask questions as to what this case was all about....
And what is the real truth about The Joanna Yeates Case, and the apparent trial of a Dutchman named Dr Vincent Tabak???
Edit.... It makes me question WHY, Dr Vincent Tabak would admit to MANSLAUGHTER at all, if the coverage of CJ was enough to cast doubt in the juries mind...
Why would Dr Vincent Tabak admit any responsibility whatsoever??? That is beyond me!
https://forums.digitalspy.com/discussion/comment/75991129#Comment_75991129
He could have denied it but would then have had to explain why HIS DNA was found on the murder victim's body! There would have been no doubt in the jury's mind because it's impossible to leave your DNA on the body of someone you have never had contact with. It REALLY IS that simple!
"It makes me question who wanted Dr Vincent Tabak in prison so badly?? And for what reason... ??"
The the family and friends of JY, her partner and anyone who believes a scuzzy killer of decent people should be locked up where they can't hurt anyone else!
-
Lady of Shallott.. Digital spy
An interesting point made by said poster....
Everything was tied up neatly in a bow before Dr Vincent Tabak went to trial in October 2011...
* We have the attorney general talking contempt December 2010
* We have CJ's arrest December 2010
* We have press coverage of CJ Dec 2010/ Jan 2011
* We Have CJ Released on Bail January 2011
* We have Parliament discussing CJ February 2011
* We have CJ being released from Police Bail March 2011
* We had a libel action taking place in April 2011,
* We have Dr Vincent Tabak apparently admitting to Manslaughter in May 2011
* We have the paper taken to court for contempt July 2011
* We have Dr Vincent Tabak been named as guilty in contempt of court July 2011
* We have CJ named as core participant at the leveson in August 2011
The libel action is taken before Dr Vincent Tabak apparently admits Manslaughter, how that was possible is beyond me...
But as the poster had pointed out all that needed to happen was for Dr Vincent Tabak to deny killing Joanna Yeates and doubt would have been created in the juries mind because of the coverage of CJ...
This has me questioning why Dr Vincent Tabak didn't deny killing Joanna Yeates if he was so cunning??
It makes me question who wanted Dr Vincent Tabak in prison so badly?? And for what reason... ??
People scoff when I have made scenario's, and they come from things like this... How would everyone interfere in one way or another with the case against Dr Vincent Tabak, surely such things shouldn't happen before a trial..
Why hasn't anyone said anything about this??
CJ should have been a witness at Dr Vincent Tabak's trial, if only to tell us Dr Vincent Tabak hadn't lied about the car changing position, but he didn't... He could have told us he'd seen Dr Vincent Tabak the evening before on his way to the gym... He could have told us if Dr Vincent Tabak was one of the people at the gate....
This is why I do not understand this case..... CJ being made a core participant before a trial... everything for CJ wrapped up tidily in a bow before the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak, and no-one bats an eye lid as to how all the coverage of CJ would effect the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak....
Therefore yes I have come to the conclusion before in other posts that this cannot be a real story, as I haven't been able to comprehend how everything to do with CJ was done and reported before Dr Vincent Tabak faced trial....
I have stated that I believe that Dr Vincent Tabak could have withdrawn his Manslaughter plea, and I have been astounded that, everyone already knew that Dr Vincent Tabak had apparently admitted Manslaughter in May 2011 and it was emphasised in the media all through the trial....
All making me ask questions as to what this case was all about....
And what is the real truth about The Joanna Yeates Case, and the apparent trial of a Dutchman named Dr Vincent Tabak???
Edit.... It makes me question WHY, Dr Vincent Tabak would admit to MANSLAUGHTER at all, if the coverage of CJ was enough to cast doubt in the juries mind...
Why would Dr Vincent Tabak admit any responsibility whatsoever??? That is beyond me!
https://forums.digitalspy.com/discussion/comment/75991129#Comment_75991129
Hi Nine, probably Tabak admitted to manslaughter when he realised that the DNA matched him with a billion to one chance of it not being his, manslaughter would have carried a lesser sentence than murder, something he had already read up on in English Law.
-
Hi Nine, probably Tabak admitted to manslaughter when he realised that the DNA matched him with a billion to one chance of it not being his, manslaughter would have carried a lesser sentence than murder, something he had already read up on in English Law.
Therefore, he must have been protecting someone, if the DNA wasn't his!
As you say... It didn't belong to him....
when he realised that the DNA matched him with a billion to one chance of it NOT being his,
-
Therefore, he must have been protecting someone, if the DNA wasn't his!
As you say... It didn't belong to him....
when he realised that the DNA matched him with a billion to one chance of it NOT being his,
You're capacity for misreading is truly amazing. RJ didn't state that the DNA "didn't belong to him". They are your words. Claiming that the chances of it NOT belonging to VT are "a billion to one" against is likely to as close as any scientist will get to making a finite statement. Liken it, if you will, to the grading of the top quality diamonds, ie D-F. As quality decreases it then runs through the whole alphabet to Z. Why is there not an A-C quality? Because whilst perfection has already been found, there has to be space allowed just in case D-F is ever bettered. As diamonds have been laying in the ground for millions of years, although mined for rather less, I imagine there is every confidence that D-F will never be bettered. Nonetheless, such a find has to be allowed for. Hence the billion to one chance that the DNA found on JY's body belonged to no one OTHER than VT.
-
Therefore, he must have been protecting someone, if the DNA wasn't his!
As you say... It didn't belong to him....
when he realised that the DNA matched him with a billion to one chance of it NOT being his,
It DID belong to him!
-
You're capacity for misreading is truly amazing. RJ didn't state that the DNA "didn't belong to him". They are your words. Claiming that the chances of it NOT belonging to VT are "a billion to one" against is likely to as close as any scientist will get to making a finite statement. Liken it, if you will, to the grading of the top quality diamonds, ie D-F. As quality decreases it then runs through the whole alphabet to Z. Why is there not an A-C quality? Because whilst perfection has already been found, there has to be space allowed just in case D-F is ever bettered. As diamonds have been laying in the ground for millions of years, although mined for rather less, I imagine there is every confidence that D-F will never be bettered. Nonetheless, such a find has to be allowed for. Hence the billion to one chance that the DNA found on JY's body belonged to no one OTHER than VT.
But mixed DNA, small amount, too tiny to make a clear identification, it can therefore not be proven to be his... There's another possible reason (imo)... Dr Vincent Tabak although he didn't know Joanna Yeates was related to her in some way.... Or the killer....
Now this is only a theory....
And he isn't your diamond geezer.....
-
But mixed DNA, small amount, too tiny to make a clear identification, it can therefore not be proven to be his... There's another possible reason (imo)... Dr Vincent Tabak although he didn't know Joanna Yeates was related to her in some way.... Or the killer....
Now this is only a theory....
And he isn't your diamond geezer.....
Could you quote that part where I stated he was, please?
-
Therefore, he must have been protecting someone, if the DNA wasn't his!
As you say... It didn't belong to him....
when he realised that the DNA matched him with a billion to one chance of it NOT being his,
Mmm. Might it be possible that you're reading the "billion to one chance" of it NOT being his as "a billion to one chance" of it BEING his? It might explain the misinterpretation.
-
But mixed DNA, small amount, too tiny to make a clear identification, it can therefore not be proven to be his... There's another possible reason (imo)... Dr Vincent Tabak although he didn't know Joanna Yeates was related to her in some way.... Or the killer....
Now this is only a theory....
And he isn't your diamond geezer.....
The DNA didn’t match JY it matched Tabak, they have to be identical twins from the same egg to have a perfect match and even then a few random mutations in some cells can prove which one.
-
But mixed DNA, small amount, too tiny to make a clear identification, it can therefore not be proven to be his... There's another possible reason (imo)... Dr Vincent Tabak although he didn't know Joanna Yeates was related to her in some way.... Or the killer....
Now this is only a theory....
And he isn't your diamond geezer.....
You're making this up as you go along. You accuse others of fake news and that's what you have just done!
-
The DNA didn’t match JY it matched Tabak, they have to be identical twins from the same egg to have a perfect match and even then a few random mutations in some cells can prove which one.
You're making this up as you go along. You accuse others of fake news and that's what you have just done!
There looks as if there may be a greater degree of misinterpretation here, than I first thought.
-
The DNA didn’t match JY it matched Tabak, they have to be identical twins from the same egg to have a perfect match and even then a few random mutations in some cells can prove which one.
Twins..... ummm.....
-
Twins..... ummm.....
Seriously? You're kidding right? I guess you don't know that you can't have identical twins of different sexes - pretty obvious when you think about it! Only identical twins share the same DNA construction but you seem to have fallen down the wonderland rabbit hole!
-
A bit more info for Nine. Identical twins -ALWAYS same sex- are monozygotic (one fertilized egg resulting in shared DNA) Fraternal twins -the result of two eggs becoming fertilized, thus creating differences in DNA- aren't identical, may not be the same sex- are dizygotic. It's a fascinating subject, don't you think?
-
Seriously? You're kidding right? I guess you don't know that you can't have identical twins of different sexes - pretty obvious when you think about it! Only identical twins share the same DNA construction but you seem to have fallen down the wonderland rabbit hole!
A bit more info for Nine. Identical twins -ALWAYS same sex- are monozygotic (one fertilized egg resulting in shared DNA) Fraternal twins -the result of two eggs becoming fertilized, thus creating differences in DNA- aren't identical, may not be the same sex- are dizygotic. It's a fascinating subject, don't you think?
But is it relevant??
-
But is it relevant??
It's certainly applicable.
-
But is it relevant??
No - you made it up!
-
But is it relevant??
I would call it Educational Nine.
-
But is it relevant??
It is relevant only as a means of debunking your astounding claim that VT and JY might have been twins sharing the same DNA. Never mind that they were male and female they were seven years apart in age! @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
This is getting silly!! Very silly, IMO.
My problem with the DNA is this: was it a full profile, or was it "enhanced" DNA, that was destroyed during the "enhancing" process? If the latter, VT's defence could not have had the findings verified, so how can we know that it really was his DNA?
I don't think I am a conspiracy theorist, but I do think that VT was a broken man by the time he had been in custody for a while. I think he could have admitted to anything. Who really knows? He hardly fits the profile of a murderer, and my gut feeling tells me that he did not murder Joanna. I might be wrong, etc etc etc-----------!
-
This is getting silly!! Very silly, IMO.
My problem with the DNA is this: was it a full profile, or was it "enhanced" DNA, that was destroyed during the "enhancing" process? If the latter, VT's defence could not have had the findings verified, so how can we know that it really was his DNA?
I don't think I am a conspiracy theorist, but I do think that VT was a broken man by the time he had been in custody for a while. I think he could have admitted to anything. Who really knows? He hardly fits the profile of a murderer, and my gut feeling tells me that he did not murder Joanna. I might be wrong, etc etc etc-----------!
I certainly think it has become silly and is getting sillier yet. If what you're suggesting is true, it will surely open the door for every person to challenge a conviction of murder where their DNA is involved. My own sympathies lay with CJ who was convicted, by media and public, without trial, purely because of his unconventional looks.
-
I certainly think it has become silly and is getting sillier yet. If what you're suggesting is true, it will surely open the door for every person to challenge a conviction of murder where their DNA is involved. My own sympathies lay with CJ who was convicted, by media and public, without trial, purely because of his unconventional looks.
It would also open the door for any convicted killer to claim they only admitted to the crime because they were broken. Is he still a broken man? Terrified to state that he is really innocent after all?
The reason we don't have a full analysis of the DNA is because VT admitted to the crime and didn't dispute it was his. Anyone thinking that because we don't have a full profile means the case is suspicious, don't understand the process.
-
This is getting silly!! Very silly, IMO.
My problem with the DNA is this: was it a full profile, or was it "enhanced" DNA, that was destroyed during the "enhancing" process? If the latter, VT's defence could not have had the findings verified, so how can we know that it really was his DNA?
I don't think I am a conspiracy theorist, but I do think that VT was a broken man by the time he had been in custody for a while. I think he could have admitted to anything. Who really knows? He hardly fits the profile of a murderer, and my gut feeling tells me that he did not murder Joanna. I might be wrong, etc etc etc-----------!
Hes a convicted sex offender as well as a Murderer, if that doesn’t fit your profile I don’t know what does? A Murderer can be your average Joe they all don’t have it tattooed on their forehead. The DNA swabs matched Tabak, with a billion to one chance of it not being his, I can remember at the time the MP for Bristol gave her backing to do mass screening if need be, they didn’t need to because it matched Tabak, they must have been pretty confident with the DNA sample they had, even though they couldn’t tell if it was Saliva Or semen.
Your correct, Nine is being rather silly to suggest with the theory they were related
-
It would also open the door for any convicted killer to claim they only admitted to the crime because they were broken. Is he still a broken man? Terrified to state that he is really innocent after all?
The reason we don't have a full analysis of the DNA is because VT admitted to the crime and didn't dispute it was his. Anyone thinking that because we don't have a full profile means the case is suspicious, don't understand the process.
Good point Caroline, he never admitted it during questioning, only months later when he had been charged anyway. He had ample time after to deny it, even in court, he knew it was over for him so he tried for the manslaughter charge.
I do realise and understand some give false confessions, not on this occasion he gave his confession months after when the evidence stacked up against him.
-
I never said that Joanna Yeates and Dr Vincent Tabak were twins, you may twist what I say whatever way you choose...
I keep trying to find out what was maybe happening on that night, what event the original group of friends were arranging, people whom played music etc, Rebecca Scott.. etc etc.... I had posted on this...
I think I may have found something that points to a possible event, and that in turn makes me maybe understand why everyone tweeted at famous people...
I still have trouble understanding why the people at the gate were never found or looked for, and who the people at the gate were.... And what they may have been doing or where they may have been going...
PC Martin Faithfull, who was described as a Forensic's Officer at the trial, tweeted something on the night of Joanna Yeates disappearance, it was this tweet that has me asking what may have been taking place that evening...
Martin Faithfull
@MartinFaithfull
Replying to @DuncanBannatyne
@DuncanBannatyne welcome to our little part of the world hope you enjoy your stay
7:44 PM - 17 Dec 2010
https://twitter.com/MartinFaithfull/status/15854746745176064
Duncan Bannatyne
Verified account
@DuncanBannatyne
Landed Bristol Airport great flight thank you easyjet
5:28 PM - 17 Dec 2010
https://twitter.com/DuncanBannatyne/status/15820590623494144
Duncan is in Portishead and he doesn't mention the snow, rather refers to the weather as frosty.. Was there lots of snow in that area? Joanna Yeates was on Longwood lane, was it only frosty there too on that day? Because she was supposed to be left there since the 17th December 2010, with no-one noticing her..
Duncan Bannatyne
Verified account
@DuncanBannatyne
Good morning from the lovely Portishead in Bristol. I do hope you are all well this frosty Sunday morning
10:52 AM - 19 Dec 2010
https://twitter.com/DuncanBannatyne/status/16445681950523392
But when Duncan leaves Bristol, he mentions the snow storm in Newcastle.
Duncan Bannatyne
Verified account
@DuncanBannatyne
Just had an excellent flight from Bristol to Newcastle on Easyjet although we landed in a snowstorm. The boys are home
6:32 PM - 19 Dec 2010
https://twitter.com/DuncanBannatyne/status/16561409173225472
What were the weather conditions in Bristol that weekend??
PC Martin Faithfull for what ever reason is welcoming Duncan to Bristol, Bristol a place where I believe Duncan visits on a regular basis, and not just for events...
Is the reason that we never see the CCTV from Canygne Road that DS Mark Saunders speaks of because there may be many famous people on it? Who are these people on Canygne Road at that time? Was there an event taking place??
Duncan's daughter lived in Bristol at the time, well at least in May 2011, as this tweet shows
Duncan Bannatyne
Verified account
@DuncanBannatyne
Spending the weekend in Bristol with my lovely daughter @abibannatyne & my grandchildren. Peace & love.
11:09 am - 21 May 2011
https://twitter.com/DuncanBannatyne/status/71880397369262080
The reason I bring Duncans daughter forward is an article I found;
I'm gonna slaughter Duncan Bannatyne's daughter
DUNCAN Bannatyne faced further chilling threats yesterday when his Twitter stalker warned: “We’ll slaughter your daughter.”
By Aaron Tinney / Published 6th August 2011
The man, calling himself Yuri Vasilyev, set up another account to warn Dragons’ Den TV star Duncan Bannatyne about Hollie, 25.
And worried Duncan, 62, said he was “living in a nightmare”.
WIN £50,000: PLAY DAILY STAR FANTASY FOOTBALL NOW!
Vasilyev warned: “Dirty b........ we slaughter f***ing Hollie Bannatyne.”
He added: “Dirty b........ death to you,” and sent a message to Hollie’s Twitter saying: “You dirty whore.”
Earlier this week Vasilyev threatened to snatch and torture Hollie.
Duncan put a £50,000 bounty on his head.
When had these threats against his daughter started?
His daughter who lives in Bristol Abi.. bears a resemblance to Joanna Yeates
(https://cdn.images.dailystar.co.uk/dynamic/1/281x351/204776_1.jpg)
The person threatening Duncans daughter has some choice words for her
He added: “Dirty b........ death to you,” and sent a message to Hollie’s Twitter saying: “You dirty whore.”
And: Earlier this week Vasilyev threatened to snatch and torture Hollie
Police have banned the Scot from responding to Vasilyev’s Tweets but last night refused to comment on the case.
A spokesman for the tycoon said: “He’s aware of the new threats but he’s not going to respond. Duncan respects the police are investigating the issue and he wants to let them get on with the job.”
So in August 2011 these new threats happened, when were the original threats??
PC Martin Faithfull, did he meet Duncan? Did Duncan go to talk to the Police about threats to his daughter?
This information about threats to Duncan's daughter has me wondering if Operation Braid was maybe about the threats to Duncans daughter... The talk of snatching her and torturing her, makes me think about the talk of abduction by The Yeates of Joanna Yeates.
Was Joanna Yeates a friend of Abi or Hollie?? Was there any connection there?
If there's an ongoing threat after the murder of Joanna Yeates , did anyone check if Joanna Yeates had any connections to any daughter of Duncan?
The Investigation was over in no time, Dr Vincent Tabak was in prison at the time this threat is reported, didn't anyone think to check if Joanna Yeates had any connection to this threat?
Was the reason that Duncan arrived in Bristol on the 17th December 2010, to attend an event? Or visit his daughter? or even talk to Police about possible threats against her?
Is there any connection between Duncans daughter and Joanna Yeates? Or Canygne Road??
There must be many famous people who receive threats we know nothing about.... And many are just put down to cranks etc... But I'm just asking at the mo... were their threats received by Duncan or any of his daughters around the time or before, Joanna Yeates went Missing??
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/204776/I-m-gonna-slaughter-Duncan-Bannatyne-s-daughter
-
I never said that Joanna Yeates and Dr Vincent Tabak were twins, you may twist what I say whatever way you choose...
I keep trying to find out what was maybe happening on that night, what event the original group of friends were arranging, people whom played music etc, Rebecca Scott.. etc etc.... I had posted on this...
I think I may have found something that points to a possible event, and that in turn makes me maybe understand why everyone tweeted at famous people...
I still have trouble understanding why the people at the gate were never found or looked for, and who the people at the gate were.... And what they may have been doing or where they may have been going...
PC Martin Faithfull, who was described as a Forensic's Officer at the trial, tweeted something on the night of Joanna Yeates disappearance, it was this tweet that has me asking what may have been taking place that evening...
https://twitter.com/MartinFaithfull/status/15854746745176064
https://twitter.com/DuncanBannatyne/status/15820590623494144
Duncan is in Portishead and he doesn't mention the snow, rather refers to the weather as frosty.. Was there lots of snow in that area? Joanna Yeates was on Longwood lane, was it only frosty there too on that day? Because she was supposed to be left there since the 17th December 2010, with no-one noticing her..
https://twitter.com/DuncanBannatyne/status/16445681950523392
But when Duncan leaves Bristol, he mentions the snow storm in Newcastle.
https://twitter.com/DuncanBannatyne/status/16561409173225472
What were the weather conditions in Bristol that weekend??
PC Martin Faithfull for what ever reason is welcoming Duncan to Bristol, Bristol a place where I believe Duncan visits on a regular basis, and not just for events...
Is the reason that we never see the CCTV from Canygne Road that DS Mark Saunders speaks of because there may be many famous people on it? Who are these people on Canygne Road at that time? Was there an event taking place??
Duncan's daughter lived in Bristol at the time, well at least in May 2011, as this tweet shows
https://twitter.com/DuncanBannatyne/status/71880397369262080
The reason I bring Duncans daughter forward is an article I found;
I'm gonna slaughter Duncan Bannatyne's daughter
DUNCAN Bannatyne faced further chilling threats yesterday when his Twitter stalker warned: “We’ll slaughter your daughter.”
By Aaron Tinney / Published 6th August 2011
When had these threats against his daughter started?
His daughter who lives in Bristol Abi.. bears a resemblance to Joanna Yeates
(https://cdn.images.dailystar.co.uk/dynamic/1/281x351/204776_1.jpg)
The person threatening Duncans daughter has some choice words for her
He added: “Dirty b........ death to you,” and sent a message to Hollie’s Twitter saying: “You dirty whore.”
And: Earlier this week Vasilyev threatened to snatch and torture Hollie
So in August 2011 these new threats happened, when were the original threats??
PC Martin Faithfull, did he meet Duncan? Did Duncan go to talk to the Police about threats to his daughter?
This information about threats to Duncan's daughter has me wondering if Operation Braid was maybe about the threats to Duncans daughter... The talk of snatching her and torturing her, makes me think about the talk of abduction by The Yeates of Joanna Yeates.
Was Joanna Yeates a friend of Abi or Hollie?? Was there any connection there?
If there's an ongoing threat after the murder of Joanna Yeates , did anyone check if Joanna Yeates had any connections to any daughter of Duncan?
The Investigation was over in no time, Dr Vincent Tabak was in prison at the time this threat is reported, didn't anyone think to check if Joanna Yeates had any connection to this threat?
Was the reason that Duncan arrived in Bristol on the 17th December 2010, to attend an event? Or visit his daughter? or even talk to Police about possible threats against her?
Is there any connection between Duncans daughter and Joanna Yeates? Or Canygne Road??
There must be many famous people who receive threats we know nothing about.... And many are just put down to cranks etc... But I'm just asking at the mo... were their threats received by Duncan or any of his daughters around the time or before, Joanna Yeates went Missing??
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/204776/I-m-gonna-slaughter-Duncan-Bannatyne-s-daughter
Nope Nine, no connection you cannot link Tabak to Bannatyne’s daughter, this was a crank who just made threats and never carried it through, you could argue the other way that the threat never materialised once Tabak was locked up? The Jury was shown pictures of Joanna’s body found in snow, we don’t know when Tabak really put the body there, it was a lane that few people walked along anyway, snow Buisness a firm working on the Harry Potter movies was used to create the snowy conditions the day of her disappearance for crimewatch, you could ask them, the whole of Bristol would have said there wasn’t any snow.
Lyndsey Farmery said that on the day after Yeates went missing — December 17 — Tabak was doing research on subjects including the five-day weather forecast.
Next day he looked at online maps and images of Longwood Lane, the road three miles from her Bristol flat where her body was discovered.
In subsequent days Tabak looked at news articles on Shrien Dewani, the Bristol man accused of hiring hitmen to kill his wife in South Africa, and the case of Melanie Hall, who was murdered after leaving a nightclub in Bath in 1996.
Later, the jury was told, he researched subjects including: "How does forensic identification work?" and the location of CCTV cameras in Canynge Road, Clifton, where Tabak and Yeates lived.
He researched "body decomposition time" and an article about a man who strangled his wife and pleaded diminished responsibility.
When police revealed they were sifting tonnes of rubbish he looked up details of household waste collection in Bristol.
Tabak, who denies murder but admits manslaughter, also spent time finding out about prison life in the UK. In addition he searched online for phrases including the "definition of sexual assault", "definition sexual conduct" and "sexual offence explained".
In court he told his extraordinary story during two days in the witness box. How, after Yeates's death, he had bundled her body into his car boot before going shopping to Asda for beer and crisps and texting his girlfriend that he was "bored". He accepted that, following the killing, he had researched subjects such as the difference between murder and manslaughter and the definition of sexual assault.
-
Nope Nine, no connection you cannot link Tabak to Bannatyne’s daughter, this was a crank who just made threats and never carried it through, you could argue the other way that the threat never materialised once Tabak was locked up? The Jury was shown pictures of Joanna’s body found in snow, we don’t know when Tabak really put the body there, it was a lane that few people walked along anyway, snow Buisness a firm working on the Harry Potter movies was used to create the snowy conditions the day of her disappearance, you could ask them, the whole of Bristol would have said there wasn’t any snow.
Lyndsey Farmery said that on the day after Yeates went missing — December 17 — Tabak was doing research on subjects including the five-day weather forecast.
Next day he looked at online maps and images of Longwood Lane, the road three miles from her Bristol flat where her body was discovered.
In subsequent days Tabak looked at news articles on Shrien Dewani, the Bristol man accused of hiring hitmen to kill his wife in South Africa, and the case of Melanie Hall, who was murdered after leaving a nightclub in Bath in 1996.
Later, the jury was told, he researched subjects including: "How does forensic identification work?" and the location of CCTV cameras in Canynge Road, Clifton, where Tabak and Yeates lived.
He researched "body decomposition time" and an article about a man who strangled his wife and pleaded diminished responsibility.
When police revealed they were sifting tonnes of rubbish he looked up details of household waste collection in Bristol.
Tabak, who denies murder but admits manslaughter, also spent time finding out about prison life in the UK. In addition he searched online for phrases including the "definition of sexual assault", "definition sexual conduct" and "sexual offence explained".
In court he told his extraordinary story during two days in the witness box. How, after Yeates's death, he had bundled her body into his car boot before going shopping to Asda for beer and crisps and texting his girlfriend that he was "bored". He accepted that, following the killing, he had researched subjects such as the difference between murder and manslaughter and the definition of sexual assault.
Rarely is there a case where is obvious that the perp is 100% guilty as charged - this is one of them!
-
I never said that Joanna Yeates and Dr Vincent Tabak were twins, you may twist what I say whatever way you choose...
That's a bit rich Nine! However, you mentioned 'twins' are you suggesting that Tabak's twin killed JY? Perhaps you should make things clearer instead of randomly posting the word 'twins' or going off on a tangent as with the above post where the above quote was taken.
-
Rarely is there a case where is obvious that the perp is 100% guilty as charged - this is one of them!
Agreed Caroline, the Judge really kept the trial straight leaving no chance for appeal, he ruled out evidence that would have gone against Tabak, Tabak kept images of children being sexually abused on his laptop computer, police have discovered, it was revealed after the trial that the Dutch engineer was obsessed with images of women being strangled during sex and had perversions for violent pornography and prostitutes. Jurors in Tabak's trial were not told that videos found on his computers had chilling parallels with the way Miss Yeates died.
At the time I personally think and thought like the prosecution did, that the jury should have been made aware of this evidence, but the trial judge ruled against it. Looking back it was a clever move by the Judge, he left Tabak no grounds for appeal and we don’t have to go through all this CCRC appealing with him every year like we do with Bamber.
-
Agreed Caroline, the Judge really kept the trial straight leaving no chance for appeal, he ruled out evidence that would have gone against Tabak, Tabak kept images of children being sexually abused on his laptop computer, police have discovered, it was revealed after the trial that the Dutch engineer was obsessed with images of women being strangled during sex and had perversions for violent pornography and prostitutes. Jurors in Tabak's trial were not told that videos found on his computers had chilling parallels with the way Miss Yeates died.
At the time I personally think and thought like the prosecution did, that the jury should have been made aware of this evidence, but the trial judge ruled against it. Looking back it was a clever move by the Judge, he left Tabak no grounds for appeal and we don’t have to go through all this CCRC appealing with him every year like we do with Bamber.
Odd that... How much other evidence wasn't admitted?? And why would they want to make sure that he could never appeal?? Is that allowed??
Just a point about the Ballantyne post... I'm making a point... Based on what was or was not Investigated at the time... Or what could be a possibility... ( And his noting of the weather conditions...)
We have no idea, what they bothered to look at or not...
Another thing I have just thought about, why should it sound like it's beyond the realms of possibility?
If William Clegg can connect Napper to Rachel Nickell whilst he is representing Colin Stagg for her Murder, feeling it was more likely that Napper was a suspect than Stagg...
Then what is so different in me suggesting other possibilities, that may have been relevant to the time??
No-one says Clegg went of on a tangent.... Do they!
-
Odd that... How much other evidence wasn't admitted?? And why would they want to make sure that he could never appeal?? Is that allowed??
Just a point about the Ballantyne post... I'm making a point... Based on what was or was not Investigated at the time... Or what could be a possibility...
We have no idea, what they bothered to look at or not...
Another thing I have just thought about, why should it sound like it's beyond the realms of possibility?
If William Clegg can connect Napper to Rachel Nickell whilst he is representing Colin Stagg for her Murder, feeling it was more likely that Napper was a suspect than Stagg...
Then what is so different in me suggesting other possibilities, that may have been relevant to the time??
No-one says Clegg went of on a tangent.... Do they!
Tabak can appeal, however, with revelations that happened after the trial (noted by Justice), there would be no point.
There is no comparison between you and William Clegg, given that he represented both Stagg and Napper - his knowledge of Napper was enough to give him insight and there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Stagg was involved. However, the MO in the RN and Samantha Bissett case were strikingly similar. The man was experienced enough to make such a comparison - more to the point, HE was right!
-
Odd that... How much other evidence wasn't admitted?? And why would they want to make sure that he could never appeal?? Is that allowed??
Just a point about the Ballantyne post... I'm making a point... Based on what was or was not Investigated at the time... Or what could be a possibility... ( And his noting of the weather conditions...)
We have no idea, what they bothered to look at or not...
Another thing I have just thought about, why should it sound like it's beyond the realms of possibility?
If William Clegg can connect Napper to Rachel Nickell whilst he is representing Colin Stagg for her Murder, feeling it was more likely that Napper was a suspect than Stagg...
Then what is so different in me suggesting other possibilities, that may have been relevant to the time??
No-one says Clegg went of on a tangent.... Do they!
Well, once he admits guilt in a court of law it’s very very hard to appeal conviction anyway, all he can appeal against is length of sentence, but I would think if the judge allowed evidence that might prejudice the jury he might have been allowed to appeal the murder charge and got it retried again and gone for manslaughter, would all depend on how the appeal judges saw it. The judge was very fair in what evidence he allowed and on his instructions to the jury, leaving Tabak no grounds for appeal, this is what every judge tries to adhere to whenever they try a case.
You don’t have to do much research to see what the conditions in Bristol was at the time, just because someone doesn’t mention it was snowing means absolutely zilch.
-
Tabak can appeal, however, with revelations that happened after the trial (noted by Justice), there would be no point.
There is no comparison between you and William Clegg, given that he represented both Stagg and Napper - his knowledge of Napper was enough to give him insight and there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Stagg was involved. However, the MO in the RN and Samantha Bissett case were strikingly similar. The man was experienced enough to make such a comparison - more to the point, HE was right!
Thanks Caroline I’d seen you answered the Clegg issue.
-
Well, once he admits guilt in a court of law it’s very very hard to appeal conviction anyway, all he can appeal against is length of sentence, but I would think if the judge allowed evidence that might prejudice the jury he might have been allowed to appeal the murder charge and got it retried again and gone for manslaughter, would all depend on how the appeal judges saw it. The judge was very fair in what evidence he allowed and on his instructions to the jury, leaving Tabak no grounds for appeal, this is what every judge tries to adhere to whenever they try a case.
You don’t have to do much research to see what the conditions in Bristol was at the time, just because someone doesn’t mention it was snowing means absolutely zilch.
On another note, I do think the trial judge would have allowed other evidence in if Tabak had not admitted guilt, I think Tabak used this tactic to try and get manslaughter, thus preventing the jury from knowing about his sexual pervertions.
-
On another note, I do think the trial judge would have allowed other evidence in if Tabak had not admitted guilt, I think Tabak used this tactic to try and get manslaughter, thus preventing the jury from knowing about his sexual pervertions.
I was previously willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on the manslaughter issue but I think you may have a point Justice.
-
I was previously willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on the manslaughter issue but I think you may have a point Justice.
He seems to have done quite a bit of information fishing -something about the difference between manslaughter and murder?- it may not have been difficult to find out what could be revealed.
-
I don't believe he set out to commit murder but events overtook him and he lost control. I really don't have any sympathy for him. He will eventually get out and return home but Joanna didn't have even that chance.
-
Tabak can appeal, however, with revelations that happened after the trial (noted by Justice), there would be no point.
There is no comparison between you and William Clegg, given that he represented both Stagg and Napper - his knowledge of Napper was enough to give him insight and there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Stagg was involved. However, the MO in the RN and Samantha Bissett case were strikingly similar. The man was experienced enough to make such a comparison - more to the point, HE was right!
At 29:33 of the video Fiona Bruce says:
QC Bill Clegg was about to lead Colin Stagg's Defence.. when he first heard about the Murders of Samantha and Jasmine.
Bill Clegg
I remember Reading it in The Papers in Chambers and within about 2 or 3 hours I came out of the room and said to my clark..Um.. I reckon that's the man that killed Rachell Nickell. It seemed to me to be perfectly obvious...
Statistically it's extremely rare for a mother to be murdered in the presence of a young child.
This was whilst he was defending Stagg, if I remember correctly....
William Clegg doesn't say he knows what record Napper may or may not have Or whether or not a man named Napper killed Rachell Nickell.....
It just happens that he believed the person who killed Samantha Bisset and her child, must have been responsible for the Murder of Rachell Nickell... That person turned out to be Robert Napper.... That was based on the one identifying feature of a woman being murdered in front of her child...
Samantha Bisset's child was killed after she had been killed... But Rachell Nickell's son was not murdered and stood with his mothers body on Wimbledon Common....
Therefore the only connect was that a child was present.... and Jasmine Bisset was killed in her own home... And Rachell Nickell out in the open....
What made Clegg jump to that conclusion on reading a few papers is beyond me... But we know Staggs case was thrown out by Judge Ognall and Napper became Cleggs client for the Murder of Jasmine Bisset, I believe......
William Clegg QC, one of the most experienced criminal barristers in the country who holds the unique position of having defended both the acquitted Colin Stagg (in his trial for the murder of Rachel Nickell) and Robert Napper, who was eventually convicted of Rachel’s murder, in his trial for the murders of Samantha and Jasmine Bisset.
I keep saying I cannot understand how Clegg can defend both these men... It seems a conflict of interests.... (imo) seeing as he had already believed who ever killed Samantha Bisset had to be responsible for Rachell Nickell's murder.... (then later admitted to the manslaughter of Rachell Nickell... many many years after he was convicted of Samantha Bissets murder!)
Edit....
10th October 1995
A SERIAL sex attacker was sent to Broadmoor high security hospital for
an indefinite period yesterday after he admitted slashing to death and
mutilating Dundee-born Samantha Bisset and suffocating her young
daughter.
Scotland Yard disclosed that detectives were keeping an open mind on
whether there were links between the case and the murder of Rachel
Nickell on Wimbledon Common.
In court yesterday, Robert Napper, 29, pled not guilty to the murders
of Samantha Bisset, 28, and her four-year-old daughter, Jazmine, in
November 1993, but guilty to their manslaughter on grounds of diminished
responsibility.
So was it Scotland yard who thought Robert Napper was responsible/links or William Clegg?? Clegg states it was himself in his interview with Fiona Bruce... And I believe that whilst he was representing Stagg...
QC Bill Clegg was about to lead Colin Stagg's Defence.. when he first heard about the Murders of Samantha and Jasmine.
I remember Reading it in The Papers in Chambers and within about 2 or 3 hours I came out of the room and said to my clark..Um.. I reckon that's the man that killed Rachell Nickell. It seemed to me to be perfectly obvious...
Statistically it's extremely rare for a mother to be murdered in the presence of a young child.
https://www.itv.com/presscentre/ep1week10/rachel-nickell-untold-story
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/dec/18/rachel-nickell-robert-napper-murder-guilty
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12069046.double-killer-sent-to-broadmoor-mother-was-mutilated-beside-dead-daughter/
-
I don't believe he set out to commit murder but events overtook him and he lost control. I really don't have any sympathy for him. He will eventually get out and return home but Joanna didn't have even that chance.
I agree, but, you also have to remember Tabak had an unhealthy liking for snuff video’s which were found on his computer.
-
I agree, but, you also have to remember Tabak had an unhealthy liking for snuff video’s which were found on his computer.
How do we know that is true, if it wasn't in evidence??
-
How do we know that is true, if it wasn't in evidence??
Sorry Nine I thought you knew, he admitted in court he had them on his computer and in in 2015 he receivied 10 months jail and 10 years on the sex offenders register. Or do you think it was a false confession again like his confession to killing Joanna?
-
But it's in all the newspapers, so it can't possibly be true!!! Poor unfortunate Dr. Vincent Tabak, my heart bleeds...
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/561436/Vincent-Tabak-Jo-Yeates-child-porn-images (https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/561436/Vincent-Tabak-Jo-Yeates-child-porn-images)
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/02/vincent-tabak-admits-possessing-indecent-images-of-children (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/02/vincent-tabak-admits-possessing-indecent-images-of-children)
-
Sorry Nine I thought you knew, he admitted in court he had them on his computer and in in 2015 he receivied 10 months jail and 10 years on the sex offenders register. Or do you think it was a false confession again like his confession to killing Joanna?
The papers tell us what has happened... I do not know whats real or not, I have said before... What is accurate in the papers and what is inaccurate based on where said information has comes from..
Now when I mentioned Bannatyne yesterday, I was surprised that the tweets this person Yuri tweeted were still on twitter to this day...
Yuri Vasilyev
@YuriVasilyev_
"@DuncanBannatyne @HollieNicole85 give us £35,000: http://pastebin.com/N3x50nzN "( http://twitthis.com/b36qr9 )
1:55 pm - 31 Jul 2011
Yuri Vasilyev
@YuriVasilyev_
"@DuncanBannatyne stop your self loving and save @HollieNicole85"( http://twitthis.com/at2ptw )
3:04 pm - 31 Jul 2011
Yuri Vasilyev
@YuriVasilyev_
"Dear @DuncanBannatyne @HollieNicole85 last chance to contact us yurivasilyev@imail.ru "( http://twitthis.com/at2ptw )
1:31 am - 1 Aug 2011
Yuri Vasilyev
@YuriVasilyev_
"@DuncanBannatyne READ THIS ABOUT @HollieNicole85"( http://twitthis.com/pwrlti )
9:35 am - 1 Aug 2011
There are plenty of responses to this story, threats to kill, threats to break arms etc.... You see I don't know how much of a none story this really is.... I would have expected some Police action if this poster had threatened his daughter... The links provided work no longer, so don't know what they stated.... It could have been a joke or anything...
If it had been a real threat on the life of his daughter, the person in question would have had a knock on the door by PC whoever.... But mostly I would have expected to have seen at the very least, that twitter suspended this account.. Yet we are in 2019 and it is still visible nearly 10 years later..... I don't understand why...
82 followers this person has, they may all be just nosy I have no idea... I have no idea why the tweets are still visible... I do not know if there was another purpose for the tweets... Or was it something to do with Leveson 2 ?
What are those other issues?
Advertisement
Hancock said that “the world has changed” since Leveson 1 and that the press is under threat from new digital forces that require “urgent” attention. Traditional publishers are struggling to make up the loss of revenue from the decline in popularity of printed press with digital income. In 2015, for every £100 newspapers lost in print revenue, newspapers only gained £3 in digital revenue. More than 200 local newspapers have closed since 2005. Google and Facebook control more than 60% of the UK digital ad market, with as much as 90% of all new online ad spend going to the two giants. Hancock said the “largely unregulated” social media world threatened high quality journalism with issues including clickbait, fake news, malicious disinformation and online abuse. “These are today’s challenges and this is where we need to focus,” he said.
And because most of the information relating to the case of Joanna Yeates and Dr Vincent Tabak was on social media, I therefore wondered if that was what the case was about?
The case of Dr Vincent Tabak still doesn't make sense to me... whether anyone agrees or not... There has to be more to it...(imo)
Or did the media take their stories from social media?? Like the story of Bannatynes daughter,where we get the headline from this publication:
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/204776/I-m-gonna-slaughter-Duncan-Bannatyne-s-daughter
The man, calling himself Yuri Vasilyev, set up another account to warn Dragons’ Den TV star Duncan Bannatyne about Hollie, 25.
Police have banned the Scot from responding to Vasilyev’s Tweets but last night refused to comment on the case.
A spokesman for the tycoon said: “He’s aware of the new threats but he’s not going to respond. Duncan respects the police are investigating the issue and he wants to let them get on with the job.”
Why would the Police ban Bannatyne?? Shouldn't the action be taken against the tweeter Yuri??
Bounty hunters have tried to locate Vasilyev using traces left on computers. The fiend has also posted a Twitter picture he claims shows his face.
Bounty hunters??? Traces left on what computers??? Another odd story (imo) Another story that has started on social media it would appear...
Who actually writes on Bannatynes account? Does a tick equal authenticity? Do we know for a fact that it is he??
There is something strange going on..(imo) as I have stated, how can CJ be apart of The Leveson Inquiry, when he should and could have been a witness at Dr Vincent Tabak's trial?
When we know by CJ's own statement either written or oral, that Dr Vincent Tabak didn't lie about the car changing position... But that was seen as a factor against Dr Vincent Tabak at this apparent trial...
I go backwards and forwards all the time... I never know what to believe is true about the case.... Just because it's in social media or the media doesn't prove anything...(imo)
https://twitter.com/YuriVasilyev_/status/97772296508420096
https://twitter.com/YuriVasilyev_/status/97789783274831872
https://twitter.com/YuriVasilyev_/status/97947513784500224
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/mar/01/leveson-2-explained-what-was-it-meant-to-achieve
-
I didn't know or realise that CJ had corresponded with David Yeates... I wonder when that was??
At 1: 34 of the clip..
Chris Jefferies has been in recent correspondence with Jo Yeates father and says he was struck by the kindness of his sentiments, despite The Yeates families own tragedy.
"I was very touched by the fact that he obviously recognised that my life had been turned upside down as well, erm, by the events that had taken place, so then I think there was a very considerable feeling of mutual empathy really"
Did this happen before the trial??
Edit...
CJ, never mentions at The Leveson Joanna Yeates father corresponding with him and having empathy for his situation... I'm surprised he didn't to be honest..
This clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFgGbNtF0wA was publish ed on the 28th October 2010, don't know when it was first aired on TV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmali3F29Ss 29th October 2010
Double Edit... Question..... Is the reason that CJ wasn't called as a witness, because he had corresponded with Joanna Yeates father??
Think we need clarification of the date of this correspondence, then there are no mistakes, did they correspond more than once??
Question 2: Is Jo Yeates father one and the same as David Yeates? That question is just for clarity..
-
Sorry Nine I thought you knew, he admitted in court he had them on his computer and in in 2015 he receivied 10 months jail and 10 years on the sex offenders register. Or do you think it was a false confession again like his confession to killing Joanna?
Just to be pedantic and awkward, VT was tried for possessing indecent images of children, not "snuff videos".
He MIGHT have an unhealthy interest in children; on the other hand, IMO, he was bound to plead guilty at his second trial. He was already serving a life sentence, we don't know what his mental state was like, and perhaps he wanted the trial over as quickly as possible. Being put on the sex offenders' register for 10 years is hardly going to matter to him, since he is going to be in prison for those 10 years anyway.
I do wonder, however, why the child porn charges were not tried at the same time as the murder charge, and I find it somewhat "fishy" that they tried him for this some three years later---------but then, this case has never sat well with me.
-
Just to be pedantic and awkward, VT was tried for possessing indecent images of children, not "snuff videos".
He MIGHT have an unhealthy interest in children; on the other hand, IMO, he was bound to plead guilty at his second trial. He was already serving a life sentence, we don't know what his mental state was like, and perhaps he wanted the trial over as quickly as possible. Being put on the sex offenders' register for 10 years is hardly going to matter to him, since he is going to be in prison for those 10 years anyway.
I do wonder, however, why the child porn charges were not tried at the same time as the murder charge, and I find it somewhat "fishy" that they tried him for this some three years later---------but then, this case has never sat well with me.
I really like your choice of words HARDLY going to matter to him. Well I hope it does and I hope he realises the damage it does to young children and young girls. The jury did hear about his liking for Snuff videos in his trial in 2015 wether you think it bothers him or not, it might have an impact when the murdering, sex offender comes up for parole
Although he's serving a minimum tariff of 20 years' imprisonment, we felt it was crucial Tabak was brought to justice for possessing indecent images of children, so the full nature of his offending is on record.
"Tabak is now a convicted sex offender and this means an extensive range of protective measures can now be put in place to manage his criminal behaviour and protect those at risk.
"This conviction will have a direct impact on how he is managed in the custody system and more importantly will affect how he is monitored and managed when he's released back into the community.
"When Tabak is released, he'll be suitably risk-assessed and risk-managed according to the crimes he’s been convicted of.
"It's possible he may return to the Netherlands following release, so it’s crucial the Dutch authorities are aware of the risks he poses. This could only have been guaranteed if a relevant conviction relating to a sexual interest in children were secured.
-
I always think there are connections and reasons behind how Joanna Yeates was found.. years ago it was suggested that the fact she was an architect was something to do with her murder, having been found by the quarry on Longwood Lane.. Possible talks of disagreements of planning that had been applied for was another reason put forward in forums....
Virtually everything that had been reported in the papers had been shared on the internet, but the sexual connection had never fully been explained away in regards to earlier reports....
I suppose again it has to be in what context...
There had been a project taking place around the time of Joanna Yeates disappearance and this project was completed in July 2011
Ali Damani
@MadrasExpress
Priory repair project completed: A £4.4m project to restore St James Priory in central Bristol is completed. http://bbc.in/nd1Bbo #Bristol
2:41 am - 24 Jul 2011
St James Priory repair project completed
24 July 2011
The Priory was founded in 1129 and is Bristol's oldest standing building
A £4.4m project to repair St James Priory in central Bristol has been completed.
The Grade I listed church, which is on English Heritage's buildings at risk register, had a leaky roof and rising damp.
http://bbc.in/nd1Bbo
What had been discovered at this project was of interest to me...
By OLIVER PICKUP
UPDATED: 08:52, 22 September 2011
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/09/21/article-2039615-0DFEA2CF00000578-582_306x569.jpg)
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/09/21/article-2039615-0DFEAA9800000578-547_306x568.jpg)
Religious cover-up: The statue when it was found (left) and the figure of the goddess after being restored (right)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2039615/Wesley-church-restoration-reveals-statue-topless-woman.html#comments
This article updated on the day that Dr Vincent Tabak appeared at court....
Isn't it of interest, that architecture is at the heart of this case, and a statue with it's breast exposed was uncovered in this project... Just like Joanna Yeates breast had been exposed on Longwood Lane.. I personally find that coincidental..
There has to be a reason for Joanna Yeates breast to be exposed and maybe this is the reason, rather than an apparent attack for no reason by a neighbour who knew nothing about her... And an apparent sexual motive, with Joanna Yeates breast being exposed as she is lifted over a wall that wasn't successful... (imo)
Maybe it more to do with mimicing this piece of architecture,... something to contemplate... (imo)
https://twitter.com/MadrasExpress/status/95066049740935168
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2039615/Wesley-church-restoration-reveals-statue-topless-woman.html#comments
-
At 29:33 of the video Fiona Bruce says:
Bill Clegg
This was whilst he was defending Stagg, if I remember correctly....
William Clegg doesn't say he knows what record Napper may or may not have Or whether or not a man named Napper killed Rachell Nickell.....
It just happens that he believed the person who killed Samantha Bisset and her child, must have been responsible for the Murder of Rachell Nickell... That person turned out to be Robert Napper.... That was based on the one identifying feature of a woman being murdered in front of her child...
Samantha Bisset's child was killed after she had been killed... But Rachell Nickell's son was not murdered and stood with his mothers body on Wimbledon Common....
Therefore the only connect was that a child was present.... and Jasmine Bisset was killed in her own home... And Rachell Nickell out in the open....
What made Clegg jump to that conclusion on reading a few papers is beyond me... But we know Staggs case was thrown out by Judge Ognall and Napper became Cleggs client for the Murder of Jasmine Bisset, I believe......
I keep saying I cannot understand how Clegg can defend both these men... It seems a conflict of interests.... (imo) seeing as he had already believed who ever killed Samantha Bisset had to be responsible for Rachell Nickell's murder.... (then later admitted to the manslaughter of Rachell Nickell... many many years after he was convicted of Samantha Bissets murder!)
Edit....
10th October 1995
So was it Scotland yard who thought Robert Napper was responsible/links or William Clegg?? Clegg states it was himself in his interview with Fiona Bruce... And I believe that whilst he was representing Stagg...
QC Bill Clegg was about to lead Colin Stagg's Defence.. when he first heard about the Murders of Samantha and Jasmine.
I remember Reading it in The Papers in Chambers and within about 2 or 3 hours I came out of the room and said to my clark..Um.. I reckon that's the man that killed Rachell Nickell. It seemed to me to be perfectly obvious...
Statistically it's extremely rare for a mother to be murdered in the presence of a young child.
https://www.itv.com/presscentre/ep1week10/rachel-nickell-untold-story
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/dec/18/rachel-nickell-robert-napper-murder-guilty
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12069046.double-killer-sent-to-broadmoor-mother-was-mutilated-beside-dead-daughter/
He didn't defend Napper, he represented him - and as far as the connecton ges (again), he was right!
-
I always think there are connections and reasons behind how Joanna Yeates was found.. years ago it was suggested that the fact she was an architect was something to do with her murder, having been found by the quarry on Longwood Lane.. Possible talks of disagreements of planning that had been applied for was another reason put forward in forums....
Virtually everything that had been reported in the papers had been shared on the internet, but the sexual connection had never fully been explained away in regards to earlier reports....
I suppose again it has to be in what context...
There had been a project taking place around the time of Joanna Yeates disappearance and this project was completed in July 2011
http://bbc.in/nd1Bbo
What had been discovered at this project was of interest to me...
By OLIVER PICKUP
UPDATED: 08:52, 22 September 2011
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/09/21/article-2039615-0DFEA2CF00000578-582_306x569.jpg)
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/09/21/article-2039615-0DFEAA9800000578-547_306x568.jpg)
Religious cover-up: The statue when it was found (left) and the figure of the goddess after being restored (right)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2039615/Wesley-church-restoration-reveals-statue-topless-woman.html#comments
This article updated on the day that Dr Vincent Tabak appeared at court....
Isn't it of interest, that architecture is at the heart of this case, and a statue with it's breast exposed was uncovered in this project... Just like Joanna Yeates breast had been exposed on Longwood Lane.. I personally find that coincidental..
There has to be a reason for Joanna Yeates breast to be exposed and maybe this is the reason, rather than an apparent attack for no reason by a neighbour who knew nothing about her... And an apparent sexual motive, with Joanna Yeates breast being exposed as she is lifted over a wall that wasn't successful... (imo)
Maybe it more to do with mimicing this piece of architecture,... something to contemplate... (imo)
https://twitter.com/MadrasExpress/status/95066049740935168
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2039615/Wesley-church-restoration-reveals-statue-topless-woman.html#comments
Architecture is neither here nor there and the statu has nothing to do with the murder - Tabak was/is a pervert and it's THAT that is at the heart of the case. Why do you ant him to be innocent?
-
Too much idolatry of Noel O'Gara going on here, never mind a statue of the Virgin Mary, so no need to contemplate another load of bollocks! *%87
-
Too much idolatry of Noel O'Gara going on here, never mind a statue of the Virgin Mary*, so no need to contemplate another load of bollocks! *%87
*... or Abundantia, as the case may be.
-
A statue of a bare-breasted woman whose torso was discreetly covered for centuries has been found in a Bristol church house where John Wesley worshipped. There is speculation that the half-clad figure was considered too much of a distraction for Wesley, the founder of Methodism, and his followers. The figure, holding a cornucopia of fruit, is suspected to be Abundantia – a Roman personification of abundance and prosperity.
And from the Guardian..
The figure, holding a cornucopia of fruit, is suspected to be Abundantia – a Roman personification of abundance and prosperity.
The statue is believed to be that of Abundance a.k.a. Abundantia.....
The original painting of Abundance showed her with only one breast exposed... Ruben's C 1630
(https://c8.alamy.com/comp/PC2TJ0/abundance-abundantia-by-peter-paul-rubens-c-1630-oil-on-panel-national-PC2TJ0.jpg)
Having me wonder if someone only heard about the find of this statue of abundantia/abdundance and was aware of the Rubens painting only, not knowing the full truth behind the find at the church in Bristol where both breasts were exposed...!
The Guardian @stevenmorris20
Tue 11 Oct 2011 18.14 BST First published on Tue 11 Oct 2011 18.14 BST
Her jeans were fastened but her pink top was partially pulled up over her head, the court heard. Yeates was still wearing her bra but her right breast was exposed.
Coincidence... I don't believe so....
Edit... has someone close to the investigation just decided that there was a sexual motive to this crime because of Joanna Yeates right breast being exposed??
Did they pursue this case as a sexually motivated case, when it was probably more to do with the fact that Joanna Yeates was an architect... And the exposing of the breast, more to do with the find at the church in Bristol??
https://www.alamy.com/abundance-abundantia-by-peter-paul-rubens-c-1630-oil-on-panel-national-image213963512.html
https://www.arthistorynews.com/articles/589_No_breasts_please_were_Methodists
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/11/vincent-tabak-joanna-yeates
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2011/sep/20/bare-breasted-statue-uncovered-john-wesley
-
And from the Guardian..
The statue is believed to be that of Abundance a.k.a. Abundantia.....
The original painting of Abundance showed her with only one breast exposed... Ruben's C 1630
(https://c8.alamy.com/comp/PC2TJ0/abundance-abundantia-by-peter-paul-rubens-c-1630-oil-on-panel-national-PC2TJ0.jpg)
Having me wonder if someone only heard about the find of this statue of abundantia/abdundance and was aware of the Rubens painting only, not knowing the full truth behind the find at the church in Bristol where both breasts were exposed...!
The Guardian @stevenmorris20
Tue 11 Oct 2011 18.14 BST First published on Tue 11 Oct 2011 18.14 BST
Coincidence... I don't believe so....
https://www.alamy.com/abundance-abundantia-by-peter-paul-rubens-c-1630-oil-on-panel-national-image213963512.html
https://www.arthistorynews.com/articles/589_No_breasts_please_were_Methodists
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/11/vincent-tabak-joanna-yeates
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2011/sep/20/bare-breasted-statue-uncovered-john-wesley
Tabak was certainly fond of exposed boobs but not of the arty variety, more the porny variety!
Edit - by the way, this is the silliest theory yet!
-
And from the Guardian..
The statue is believed to be that of Abundance a.k.a. Abundantia.....
The original painting of Abundance showed her with only one breast exposed... Ruben's C 1630
(https://c8.alamy.com/comp/PC2TJ0/abundance-abundantia-by-peter-paul-rubens-c-1630-oil-on-panel-national-PC2TJ0.jpg)
Having me wonder if someone only heard about the find of this statue of abundantia/abdundance and was aware of the Rubens painting only, not knowing the full truth behind the find at the church in Bristol where both breasts were exposed...!
The Guardian @stevenmorris20
Tue 11 Oct 2011 18.14 BST First published on Tue 11 Oct 2011 18.14 BST
Coincidence... I don't believe so....
Edit... has someone close to the investigation just decided that there was a sexual motive to this crime because of Joanna Yeates right breast being exposed??
Did they pursue this case as a sexually motivated case, when it was probably more to do with the fact that Joanna Yeates was an architect... And the exposing of the breast, more to do with the find at the church in Bristol??
https://www.alamy.com/abundance-abundantia-by-peter-paul-rubens-c-1630-oil-on-panel-national-image213963512.html
https://www.arthistorynews.com/articles/589_No_breasts_please_were_Methodists
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/11/vincent-tabak-joanna-yeates
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2011/sep/20/bare-breasted-statue-uncovered-john-wesley
Here Nine, educate yourself, in Tabak’s own words from the trial he tells you how the breast was exposed,
Defence Counsel: What did you do then?
Tabak: I tried to hide the body. I tried to put the body over the fence.
Defence Counsel: Were you able to? Tabak: No, the body was too heavy.
Defence Counsel: Did the body come into contact with the wall? Tabak: Yes. But she was too heavy.
Defence Counsel: Part of her breast was exposed- how did that happen? Tabak: Perhaps when carrying her body.
Defence Counsel: Your DNA was found on the breast of the body- how did that come about?
Tabak: I think as I was trying to put the body over the wall.
My theory, Tabak probably exposed the breast for sexual pleasure and pleasured himself at the sight of it, cleaning up after him but leaving his DNA on poor Joanna.
-
Just to be pedantic and awkward, VT was tried for possessing indecent images of children, not "snuff videos".
He MIGHT have an unhealthy interest in children; on the other hand, IMO, he was bound to plead guilty at his second trial. He was already serving a life sentence, we don't know what his mental state was like, and perhaps he wanted the trial over as quickly as possible. Being put on the sex offenders' register for 10 years is hardly going to matter to him, since he is going to be in prison for those 10 years anyway.
I do wonder, however, why the child porn charges were not tried at the same time as the murder charge, and I find it somewhat "fishy" that they tried him for this some three years later---------but then, this case has never sat well with me.
Mrswah its vital he is on the Register as he is attracted to children. The 10 years wouldnt start until his release so it really does matter.
No excuses can be made for pictures , Im sure he didnt admit his guilt yet again, just to get it out of the way! He is guilty!
-
Mrswah its vital he is on the Register as he is attracted to children. The 10 years wouldnt start until his release so it really does matter.
No excuses can be made for pictures , Im sure he didnt admit his guilt yet again, just to get it out of the way! He is guilty!
Im not 100 per cent sure jixy, but as I understood it the period applies from conviction and not release? Maybe someone could verify this for us?
-
It definitely is from release. They have 3 days to sign on at the Police station. They can apply to be removed after 15 years from release not from the sentence starting.
-
Here Nine, educate yourself, in Tabak’s own words from the trial he tells you how the breast was exposed,
Defence Counsel: What did you do then?
Tabak: I tried to hide the body. I tried to put the body over the fence.
Defence Counsel: Were you able to? Tabak: No, the body was too heavy.
Defence Counsel: Did the body come into contact with the wall? Tabak: Yes. But she was too heavy.
Defence Counsel: Part of her breast was exposed- how did that happen? Tabak: Perhaps when carrying her body.
Defence Counsel: Your DNA was found on the breast of the body- how did that come about?
Tabak: I think as I was trying to put the body over the wall.
My theory, Tabak probably exposed the breast for sexual pleasure and pleasured himself at the sight of it, cleaning up after him but leaving his DNA on poor Joanna.
It was either a wall or a fence..... Apparently Joanna Yeates was found by a wall on Longwood lane, there are various arguments as to the exact location of where she was found.... having several fire service vehicles at the scene at the time of discovery tends to suggest she was in an inaccessible place...
Sounds to me that someone suggested these areas to Dr Vincent Tabak... maybe at the time of his varying interviews, who can tell...
Wall and fence would make more sense if someone was referring to the boundary of Canygne Road... But she wasn't found there.....
As for how the breast was exposed... that appears to be a guess..(imo)
I do not believe this was throughly investigated as a crime... When there were so many other lines of inquiry that could and should have been explored... They just stuck to that address and never moved from it, even though nothing conclusively proved that Joanna Yeates actually reached her home....
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/missing-woman-joanna-yeates-police-find-body-general-news-footage/688789862
Footage of Fire trucks arriving.....
-
It definitely is from release. They have 3 days to sign on at the Police station. They can apply to be removed after 15 years from release not from the sentence starting.
Ok thanks for that jixy
-
It definitely is from release. They have 3 days to sign on at the Police station. They can apply to be removed after 15 years from release not from the sentence starting.
It just had me confused that’s all?
Under the Sex Offenders Act, all convicted sex offenders must register with the police, in person, within three days of their conviction, or release from prison. The police are notified by the courts following a conviction; and both the prisons and probation service following an offenders release back into the community. This enables the police to monitor when individuals must come to register.
-
Hi Jixy... what brings you back?
-
The conviction or release from prison signing covers anyone convicted of a sex offence whether they have gone to prison or not.
Anyone with a community based sentence will sign it sooner than anyone in custody . The restrictions/monitoring can start with immediate effect unlike those in prisons.
Its not written in the most straight forward way though
-
Hi Jixy... what brings you back?
Had a spare few minutes and i dont really like people defending those who like to look at pictures of children never mind murder!
-
Im not 100 per cent sure jixy, but as I understood it the period applies from conviction and not release? Maybe someone could verify this for us?
Hi Justice, the register is to protect the public so it makes sense for it to start on release.
-
Had a spare few minutes and i dont really like people defending those who like to look at pictures of children never mind murder!
At last, couldn’t agree more. Tabak is the worst of the worst.
-
It was either a wall or a fence..... Apparently Joanna Yeates was found by a wall on Longwood lane, there are various arguments as to the exact location of where she was found.... having several fire service vehicles at the scene at the time of discovery tends to suggest she was in an inaccessible place...
Sounds to me that someone suggested these areas to Dr Vincent Tabak... maybe at the time of his varying interviews, who can tell...
Wall and fence would make more sense if someone was referring to the boundary of Canygne Road... But she wasn't found there.....
As for how the breast was exposed... that appears to be a guess..(imo)
I do not believe this was throughly investigated as a crime... When there were so many other lines of inquiry that could and should have been explored... They just stuck to that address and never moved from it, even though nothing conclusively proved that Joanna Yeates actually reached her home....
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/missing-woman-joanna-yeates-police-find-body-general-news-footage/688789862
Footage of Fire trucks arriving.....
It;s a best guess that makes sense as opposed to the notion that it is linked to a painting and or a statue @)(++(*
-
Hi Justice, the register is to protect the public so it makes sense for it to start on release.
Hi Caroline, Thanks for that, I did think that but when I read it saying from conviction I wasn’t 100 per cent. I think Tabak is unusual with the 20 years prison sentence for murder then 10 years for sex offence.
-
Hi Caroline, Thanks for that, I did think that but when I read it saying from conviction I wasn’t 100 per cent. I think Tabak is unusual with the 20 years prison sentence for murder then 10 years for sex offence.
I think they may have taken into account that it was most likely the motive for murder and that makes his more dangerous.
-
Hi Justice, the register is to protect the public so it makes sense for it to start on release.
I guess there's be no sense in them serving that sentence in prison where fellow prisoners are the only people they come into contact with.
-
Mrswah its vital he is on the Register as he is attracted to children. The 10 years wouldnt start until his release so it really does matter.
No excuses can be made for pictures , Im sure he didnt admit his guilt yet again, just to get it out of the way! He is guilty!
But the question has to be... How was he put on the website that is The Uk and Ireland data base in August 2012?? When he didn't actually go to court until March 2015??
Vincent Tabak – Bristol
20
Monday
Aug 2012
Posted by Author in Avon and Somerset & Bristol ≈ Comments Off on Vincent Tabak – Bristol
November 2011
Child porn found on Vincent Tabak’s laptop
Murderer Vincent Tabak kept images of children being sexually abused on his laptop computer, police have discovered.
The 33-year-old killer was jailed for life on Friday after a jury found him guilty of throttling 25-year-old Joanna Yeates.
Following his conviction at Bristol Crown Court it was revealed that the Dutch engineer was obsessed with images of women being strangled during sex and had perversions for violent pornography and prostitutes.
It also came to light that Tabak faced further questioning by police relating to material discovered on the hard drives of computers he used.
It has now been reported that Avon and Somerset Police discovered 30 images of youngsters being sexually abused.
An officer involved in the investigation, who asked not to be named, told the Bristol Evening Post that he and his colleagues wanted to clear up speculation surrounding these “other matters”.
He said: “Tabak had 30 images depicting child pornography on his laptop computer at home.
“They were all category four images.”
The officer said that, due to Tabak’s conviction for murder and life sentence, he did not think the Crown Prosecution Service would take action.
There are five levels of seriousness for offences involving indecent photographs of children, which start with images depicting “erotic posing with no sexual activity”.
Category four images depict penetrative sexual activity involving a child or children, or both children and adults.
Detective Chief Inspector Phil Jones, who led the murder investigation, confirmed: “During the examination of Vincent Tabak’s computer, other material was found.
“We have referred this matter to the Crown Prosecution Service for initial guidance.”
Once referred to the CPS they will consider a number of criteria before charging someone with an offence.
This includes whether it is in the public interest to do so.
Jurors in Tabak’s trial were not told that videos found on his computers had chilling parallels with the way Miss Yeates died.
His pornography depicted blonde women being throttled during sex or bundled into car boots.
Two weeks before murdering the landscape architect, he also paid for sex with a prostitute during a business trip to Los Angeles.
But despite being blocked from hearing of his depraved sex secrets, jurors still found him guilty of murdering his next-door neighbour on December 17 last year.
The frozen body of Miss Yeates, who lived with her boyfriend, Greg Reardon, in a flat in Canynge Road, Clifton, Bristol, was found on Christmas morning by a couple walking their dog on a country lane in Failand, North Somerset.
Tabak was jailed for life by Mr Justice Field and told he would serve at least 20 years in prison before he could apply for parole.
Nothing here is said about his court appearance... They have just informed everyone that it is apparently true years before a trial took place.... Now that is weird!
So how did the person who wrote this know for a fact that there were images on Dr Vincent Tabak's computer, when it hadn't been proven at the time of this post on the data base....
I keep saying this case is off.... Well that's off if someone can be named on a data base before they have even been taken to court for such a crime...
What was the court case number of Dr Vincent Tabak, for the crime of child abuse images?? Or was it just something the papers reported on that didn't happen??
Edit... You see it's always odd that Dr Vincent Tabak pleads guilty, when this data base could have been seen as prejudicial if he faced a jury.... Now no-one representing him pointed that gem out, did they!!
Please do not misinterpret my post... I do not support child abuse, I find it abhorrant.. But i find that this particular man appears to plead guilty at the drop of a hat, and if he was on a minimum of 20 years, i am sure he wouldn't want to rock the boat... So pleading guilty could be seen as a way forward...
https://theukdatabase.com/2012/08/20/vincent-tabak-bristol/
-
But the question has to be... How was he put on the website that is The Uk and Ireland data base in August 2012?? When he didn't actually go to court until March 2015??
Nothing here is said about his court appearance... They have just informed everyone that it is apparently true years before a trial took place.... Now that is weird!
So how did the person who wrote this know for a fact that there were images on Dr Vincent Tabak's computer, when it hadn't been proven at the time of this post on the data base....
I keep saying this case is off.... Well that's off if someone can be named on a data base before they have even been taken to court for such a crime...
What was the court case number of Dr Vincent Tabak, for the crime of child abuse images?? Or was it just something the papers reported on that didn't happen??
https://theukdatabase.com/2012/08/20/vincent-tabak-bristol/
The Ukdatabase you have put up isn’t the real one run by the police, it is run by paedofile hunters who name and shame, you cannot access the one run by the police.
-
The Ukdatabase you have put up isn’t the real one run by the police, it is run by paedofile hunters who name and shame, you cannot access the one run by the police.
Thanks real justice... I did realise that.... therefore who's the paedophile hunter that desperately wanted the world to know that Dr Vincent Tabak was a paedophile, an unproven paedophile in 2012??
How many other on that site are not proven??
I just think who ever set it up just read reports in the media and do not have the real facts..
This is the same data base that has Andrew Ashman listed.... I remember on here being asked if I was him, and on twitter by someone... Never heard of that man before I started writing on this website... weird or what!
https://theukdatabase.com/2015/06/18/andrew-ashman-paignton/
-
But the question has to be... How was he put on the website that is The Uk and Ireland data base in August 2012?? When he didn't actually go to court until March 2015??
Nothing here is said about his court appearance... They have just informed everyone that it is apparently true years before a trial took place.... Now that is weird!
So how did the person who wrote this know for a fact that there were images on Dr Vincent Tabak's computer, when it hadn't been proven at the time of this post on the data base....
I keep saying this case is off.... Well that's off if someone can be named on a data base before they have even been taken to court for such a crime...
What was the court case number of Dr Vincent Tabak, for the crime of child abuse images?? Or was it just something the papers reported on that didn't happen??
Edit... You see it's always odd that Dr Vincent Tabak pleads guilty, when this data base could have been seen as prejudicial if he faced a jury.... Now no-one representing him pointed that gem out, did they!!
Please do not misinterpret my post... I do not support child abuse, I find it abhorrant.. But i find that this particular man appears to plead guilty at the drop of a hat, and if he was on a minimum of 20 years, i am sure he wouldn't want to rock the boat... So pleading guilty could be seen as a way forward...
https://theukdatabase.com/2012/08/20/vincent-tabak-bristol/
Hmmmm let me think? Perhaps (and I know it's like almost impossible) - the guy typed in the wrong date? @)(++(*
-
Thanks real justice... I did realise that.... therefore who's the paedophile hunter that desperately wanted the world to know that Dr Vincent Tabak was a paedophile, an unproven paedophile in 2012??
How many other on that site are not proven??
I just think who ever set it up just read reports in the media and do not have the real facts..
I think how they work Nine, if he’s been named in the press then they have less chance of being sued if it’s wrong. It’s very hard to get someone on that data base, I’ve tried three times and they won’t except my word and this person on, purely because he was never named in the press. Although he’s on the police register for 10 years, but you cannot acces this to prove it.
-
I think how they work Nine, if he’s been named in the press then they have less chance of being sued if it’s wrong. It’s very hard to get someone on that data base, I’ve tried three times and they won’t except my word and this person on, purely because he was never named in the press.
Ah... But they actually need to be prosecuted for said crime one would think.... The author who ever he is only wants to post, posts by himself/herself it appears... Maybe they use this data base for a reason? To show their accomplishments or something.. I have no idea, and neither do they by the posts that have been posted, before proof of a crime has been committed...
-
Ah... But they actually need to be prosecuted for said crime one would think.... The author who ever he is only wants to post, posts by himself/herself it appears... Maybe they use this data base for a reason? To show their accomplishments or something.. I have no idea, and neither do they by the posts that have been posted, before proof of a crime has been committed...
I would have thought Tabak would have been able to take them to question over it at the time, he Would have been preoccupied though with other things, he probably didn’t know he had been put on it and he wouldn’t have been able to check.
-
I would have thought Tabak would have been able to take them to question over it at the time, he Would have been preoccupied though with other things, he probably didn’t know he had been put on it and he wouldn’t have been able to check.
Obviously he would have needed to know about it and being in prison that is hardly likely....
-
Hmmmm let me think? Perhaps (and I know it's like almost impossible) - the guy typed in the wrong date? @)(++(*
Perhaps the guy had seen things he shouldn't... And had been told that Dr Vincent Tabak was about to go to court in 2012..... One never knows does one!
But I believe the date is correct of the time of entry seeing as it is a wordpress website...
You can see it is... When you have tabs open and look at another tab.. , the UK and Ireland data base site is depicted by the wordpress logo
-
Martin Brunt
Verified account
@skymartinbrunt
Avon and Somerset police have brought in a top criminal profiler, a Cracker-figure, to help in Joanna Yeates murder investigation
12:26 pm - 4 Jan 2011
Profiler brought in after CJ is released and within 18 days Dr Vincent Tabak is arrested, was that the direction the profiler pointed the police in??
Bringing in a profiler smacks of desperation (imo)..
I thought that Ann Redropp had Dr Vincent Tabak in her sights since late December 2010, so why bring in a profiler in January 2011?? Or had he been brought in before January??
https://twitter.com/skymartinbrunt/status/22388419258748928
-
Ah... But they actually need to be prosecuted for said crime one would think.... The author who ever he is only wants to post, posts by himself/herself it appears... Maybe they use this data base for a reason? To show their accomplishments or something.. I have no idea, and neither do they by the posts that have been posted, before proof of a crime has been committed...
It clearly states where the information came from - have you actually read it?
-
It clearly states where the information came from - have you actually read it?
Point being, one cannot be named as a paedophile if there is no proof of said crime.....
-
It;s a best guess that makes sense as opposed to the notion that it is linked to a painting and or a statue @)(++(*
But a guess isn't good enough... An investigation should have ruled out other options and possibilities...
-
Point being, one cannot be named as a paedophile if there is no proof of said crime.....
Point being that nowhere does it state that he is a paedophile or that he will go to court, in fact the passage states that the source believed a court hearing would be unlikely. If newspaper reports informed of the contents of his HD etc. they are well with in their rights to repeat what has been reported. Once again, there is NOTHING remotely sinister about it!
-
Profiler brought in after CJ is released and within 18 days Dr Vincent Tabak is arrested, was that the direction the profiler pointed the police in??
Bringing in a profiler smacks of desperation (imo)..
I thought that Ann Redropp had Dr Vincent Tabak in her sights since late December 2010, so why bring in a profiler in January 2011?? Or had he been brought in before January??
https://twitter.com/skymartinbrunt/status/22388419258748928
Criminal profilers and forensic psychologists will probably have been called in to give an opinion on things like the body deposition site - and what, if anything, they can tell investigators about the likely offender.
-
But a guess isn't good enough... An investigation should have ruled out other options and possibilities...
Such as? They knew he was a pervert and that he breast was exposed - where should be start with the 'other possibilities'? and given that he would never admit the real reason, it could only EVER be a best guess!
-
Criminal profilers and forensic psychologists will probably have been called in to give an opinion on things like the body deposition site - and what, if anything, they can tell investigators about the likely offender.
That's right Justice, they now only assist.
-
That's right Justice, they now only assist.
They bring them in to assist like you said Caroline, with a view they must make sure the experts are not allowed to skew the inquiry.
-
Point being that nowhere does it state that he is a paedophile or that he will go to court, in fact the passage states that the source believed a court hearing would be unlikely. If newspaper reports informed of the contents of his HD etc. they are well with in their rights to repeat what has been reported. Once again, there is NOTHING remotely sinister about it!
Point being people reading said website would automatically believe that this data base is accurate, and maybe only look to see if they recognise a face.. Said website is dangerous, said website is informing people that said people can be perceived as paedophiles, most people don't read the small or large print...!
-
That's right Justice, they now only assist.
In what capacity when they already have talked to the CPs about a suspect in late December 2010??
How can a profiler be of use??
Or was the profiler looking for a sex angle?? Instead of an architectural angle... Most profilers wouldn't even look at that possibility now would they... They have there theories and stick with that...
I might have been impressed by a profiler if the same old same old motive hadn't surfaced.... Think it's time they thought outside the box...(imo) of course...
-
Point being people reading said website would automatically believe that this data base is accurate, and maybe only look to see if they recognise a face.. Said website is dangerous, said website is informing people that said people can be perceived as paedophiles, most people don't read the small or large print...!
No more than any news article available online or in print
-
In what capacity when they already have talked to the CPs about a suspect in late December 2010??
How can a profiler be of use??
Or was the profiler looking for a sex angle?? Instead of an architectural angle... Most profilers wouldn't even look at that possibility now would they... They have there theories and stick with that...
I might have been impressed by a profiler if the same old same old motive hadn't surfaced.... Think it's time they thought outside the box...(imo) of course...
outside your perceived box but that doesnt make it incorrect
-
outside your perceived box but that doesnt make it incorrect
Lots of space and options outside the box.....
people murder for various reasons.... not all covered by profilers..... (imo)
Edit.... If said profiler was needed to seal the fate of Dr Vincent Tabak seeing as the CPS had Dr Vincent Tabak in their sights since late December, where was this profiler when said trial took place??
Double Edit.. Why hasn't said profiler made himself known??
-
People also lie about why where and when they killed someone....doesnt make them innocent.
-
People also lie about why where and when they killed someone....doesnt make them innocent.
That is true Jixy.... But the lie has to fit the evidence... And the CCTV of Canygne Road was never produced to prove that Joanna yeates actually reached home on the 17th December 2010... Makes me question why the jury never saw it... omitted evidence again...
If it's only a story on the stand that is obviously a lie is taken into account, the jury cannot be blamed for coming to a conclusion.... but all the evidence should have been there and maybe the jury would have questioned why Dr Vincent Tabak plead guilty to Manslaughter in May 2011, never mind the story on the stand that was not sustanciated at Dr Vincent Tabak's trial for Murder in October 2011..
-
Point being people reading said website would automatically believe that this data base is accurate, and maybe only look to see if they recognise a face.. Said website is dangerous, said website is informing people that said people can be perceived as paedophiles, most people don't read the small or large print...!
Such as said poster! The site was accurate in that it reported what was in the press WHICH turned out to be accurate also. However, you seem more concerned about defending a perverted killer or finding an excuse for him!
-
That is true Jixy.... But the lie has to fit the evidence... And the CCTV of Canygne Road was never produced to prove that Joanna yeates actually reached home on the 17th December 2010... Makes me question why the jury never saw it... omitted evidence again...
If it's only a story on the stand that is obviously a lie is taken into account, the jury cannot be blamed for coming to a conclusion.... but all the evidence should have been there and maybe the jury would have questioned why Dr Vincent Tabak plead guilty to Manslaughter in May 2011, never mind the story on the stand that was not sustanciated at Dr Vincent Tabak's trial for Murder in October 2011..
The lies the story the murder ....all from one man!
-
In what capacity when they already have talked to the CPs about a suspect in late December 2010??
How can a profiler be of use??
Or was the profiler looking for a sex angle?? Instead of an architectural angle... Most profilers wouldn't even look at that possibility now would they... They have there theories and stick with that...
I might have been impressed by a profiler if the same old same old motive hadn't surfaced.... Think it's time they thought outside the box...(imo) of course...
What architectural angle?
Thought outside the box? What? So they should put forward an absurd motive just to please you?
-
That is true Jixy.... But the lie has to fit the evidence... And the CCTV of Canygne Road was never produced to prove that Joanna yeates actually reached home on the 17th December 2010... Makes me question why the jury never saw it... omitted evidence again...
If it's only a story on the stand that is obviously a lie is taken into account, the jury cannot be blamed for coming to a conclusion.... but all the evidence should have been there and maybe the jury would have questioned why Dr Vincent Tabak plead guilty to Manslaughter in May 2011, never mind the story on the stand that was not sustanciated at Dr Vincent Tabak's trial for Murder in October 2011..
They didn't need to produce the CCTV footage because Tabak admitted he killed her in her flat - hence she arrived home! It was never an issue!
-
Such as said poster! The site was accurate in that it reported what was in the press WHICH turned out to be accurate also. However, you seem more concerned about defending a perverted killer or finding an excuse for him!
Les make things clear here Caroline.... I never believed that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates, the trial itself made me wonder why even more, as years passed, my doubts never wavered.....
The fact that someone eventually went to court some years later on a charge that should have been dealt with after the trial in October 2011 , has me questioning the validity of said information... If Dr Vincent Tabak is on a minimum of 20 years he won't rock any boat, neither will his family or friends...
I am questioning the validity of what has been presented to the court...
I do not support child abusers...
If in reality the computer evidence is independently assessed and shows that Dr vincent Tabak had images of children he shouldn't have on his computer, then do him for that... But you cannot accept a man is imprisoned for Murder , if it can be shown, he didn't murder said person.... Whether you like it or not....
It means a Murderer has escaped punishment....
So I am not trying to find an excuse for him... I am trying to show I do not believe Dr vincent Tabak killed Joanna yeates.... that is all....!!
-
What architectural angle?
Thought outside the box? What? So they should put forward an absurd motive just to please you?
It is not just to please me.... I'm attempting to show that there were other possible angles that could have been investigated at the time... That is all....
-
You know better than the man himself....that is some box you are thinking outside of!
-
You know better than the man himself....that is some box you are thinking outside of!
well apparently the only box the man thought in was the box of newspaper/social media reports of the time.. All the evidence had been out there, so anyone could have cobbled that story together on the stand...
In a box..(imo)
-
It definitely is from release. They have 3 days to sign on at the Police station. They can apply to be removed after 15 years from release not from the sentence starting.
Thanks for that, jixy. I have learned something!!
Good to see you back.
-
well apparently the only box the man thought in was the box of newspaper/social media reports of the time.. All the evidence had been out there, so anyone could have cobbled that story together on the stand...
In a box..(imo)
But no one did - Tabak admitted the crime.
-
It is not just to please me.... I'm attempting to show that there were other possible angles that could have been investigated at the time... That is all....
Why would they investigate another angle when they know who committed the crime and why because of the evidence?
-
You know better than the man himself....that is some box you are thinking outside of!
Which man?
-
Les make things clear here Caroline.... I never believed that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates, the trial itself made me wonder why even more, as years passed, my doubts never wavered.....
The fact that someone eventually went to court some years later on a charge that should have been dealt with after the trial in October 2011 , has me questioning the validity of said information... If Dr Vincent Tabak is on a minimum of 20 years he won't rock any boat, neither will his family or friends...
I am questioning the validity of what has been presented to the court...
I do not support child abusers...
If in reality the computer evidence is independently assessed and shows that Dr vincent Tabak had images of children he shouldn't have on his computer, then do him for that... But you cannot accept a man is imprisoned for Murder , if it can be shown, he didn't murder said person.... Whether you like it or not....
It means a Murderer has escaped punishment....
So I am not trying to find an excuse for him... I am trying to show I do not believe Dr vincent Tabak killed Joanna yeates.... that is all....!!
But you can show that he didn't murder her.
-
Which man?
Tabak lol
-
Thanks for that, jixy. I have learned something!!
Good to see you back.
Thanks Mrswah...not stopping 8(0(*
-
In what capacity when they already have talked to the CPs about a suspect in late December 2010??
How can a profiler be of use??
Or was the profiler looking for a sex angle?? Instead of an architectural angle... Most profilers wouldn't even look at that possibility now would they... They have there theories and stick with that...
I might have been impressed by a profiler if the same old same old motive hadn't surfaced.... Think it's time they thought outside the box...(imo) of course...
Do you imagine profilers do their job for fun? WHY would they go off at at tangent looking for a new/different/any other motive when an obvious one might be staring them in the face? Of course, it's highly likely that a profiler's start position was psychology, not architecture, and I'm not fully convinced that architecture,even IF it can be linked to a suspect, could be said to be part of their psychology. "The box", in this instance, seems to be one you've created for your own purposes. I wonder what a profiler would make of you?
-
It is not just to please me.... I'm attempting to show that there were other possible angles that could have been investigated at the time... That is all....
Nine, there would have been lots of angles the police would have looked at. As soon as possible a list of suspects would have been drawn up, Suspect number one would have been the boyfriend, he would have been eliminated with the fact he was and verified to be in Sheffield and cctv showing Joanna alive while he was in Sheffield would reinforce this.
Neighbours, friends family and anyone who saw Joanna last would then be suspects, Jefferies was arrested all because he said he seen Joanna leave the flat with two other girls, this made him the last person to see her, after two days he was released on bail, they didn’t have any firm evidence against him. Tabak another neighbour sees an opportunity to put the blame on Jefferies, he drew attention to himself by saying Jefferies car had moved on the night of the murder. This was a lie and proven, Tabak then becomes a higher suspect. When the DNA comes back Bingo a perfect match to Tabak. One billion to one chance of it not being him, the odds of winning the euro lottery is something like one in 140 million, think how hard that is, it’s like me marking a blade of grass on a football field and blindfolding you and you picking that blade of grass, but in Tabak’s case it’s about seven football fields. They then take a closer look at Tabak and find the child porn, the snuff videos, the searches he made about DNA, the area he searched on his computer Longwood Lane, they then find Joanna’s blood in his car the evidence against Tabak was stacking up and undeniable
Now you tell me why the police should put any resources and money into looking at other avenues, Arts and archeology Bannnatynes daughter ect. It’s a bit like you winning the euro lottery with the one winning ticket and then saying I don’t want to use it I want to keeping trying again.
I just don’t understand it, you have a guy with all this evidence agains him, the odds of it not being him is billions to one, the same guy openly admits he killed Joanna, Joanna’s coat keys and phone are in her flat proving she made it home, yet because the last bit of CCTV isn’t available you have doubts.
-
Do you imagine profilers do their job for fun? WHY would they go off at at tangent looking for a new/different/any other motive when an obvious one might be staring them in the face? Of course, it's highly likely that a profiler's start position was psychology, not architecture, and I'm not fully convinced that architecture,even IF it can be linked to a suspect, could be said to be part of their psychology. "The box", in this instance, seems to be one you've created for your own purposes. I wonder what a profiler would make of you?
Great post and point April, anyone with any doubts about criminal profilers should listen to the podcast Real Crime Profile, Jim Clemente (ex FBI) and Laura Richards (ex New Scotland Yard) its unbelievable the knowledge they have and the process and elimination techniques they use, they have the ability to see what the police miss. Tabak didn’t need a profiler, he profiled himself to the police.
-
Duncan is in Portishead and he doesn't mention the snow, rather refers to the weather as frosty.. Was there lots of snow in that area? Joanna Yeates was on Longwood lane, was it only frosty there too on that day? Because she was supposed to be left there since the 17th December 2010, with no-one noticing her..
Nine you really don’t think things through, you make this statement, then produce pictures of fire engines at Longwood Lane at the crime scene with snow clearly visible, even Tabak himself said he went to take pictures of snow.
I think you need to start at the very beginning again.
-
Great post and point April, anyone with any doubts about criminal profilers should listen to the podcast Real Crime Profile, Jim Clemente (ex FBI) and Laura Richards (ex New Scotland Yard) its unbelievable the knowledge they have and the process and elimination techniques they use, they have the ability to see what the police miss. Tabak didn’t need a profiler, he profiled himself to the police.
Thank, RJ. Your post has also prompted the thought that profilers -by virtue of the work they're involved with- already have the capability of thinking outside the box. However, I think it has to be accepted and recognized that, as "the box", if they allow their imaginations to run riot, is vast and limitless. Certain restraints must, therefore, be exercised, if only to prevent time and money being wasted.
-
I think you need to start at the very beginning again.
OH NO!!! Please... don't encourage her, or we'll have to put up with same old crap forever!
-
OH NO!!! Please... don't encourage her, or we'll have to put up with same old crap forever!
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Duncan is in Portishead and he doesn't mention the snow, rather refers to the weather as frosty.. Was there lots of snow in that area? Joanna Yeates was on Longwood lane, was it only frosty there too on that day? Because she was supposed to be left there since the 17th December 2010, with no-one noticing her..
Nine you really don’t think things through, you make this statement, then produce pictures of fire engines at Longwood Lane at the crime scene with snow clearly visible, even Tabak himself said he went to take pictures of snow.
I think you need to start at the very beginning again.
How could Dr Vincent Tabak take pictures of the snow, when it didn't snow on Friday 17th December 2010..
But we then have CJ state...
From the program Countdown to Murder... at 27:41 of the video
As I was on my way out to the gym, quite by chance, erm I met Vincent Tabak and we had a very brief conversation, erm and he seemed to be in quite an elated mood and was saying what a very beautiful evening it was erm, this light dusting of snow, erm thats all the conversation consisted of...
Then at 28:45 of the video
Vincent Tabak helped me move the car that morning, erm, becawse, there was snow on the drive, and I need some help, in the car being pushed up.. erm, the slight incline, erm, from the parking area onto the main part of the drive,, so that I could get the car out.Er, when I thanked Vincent for er, doing that for me, erm, his reply was,.. well what are neighbours for
CJ Leveson...
My second statement to the police oil Wednesday 22 December 2010
,
On Tuesday 21 December 2010 1 provided a statement to the police who were at that
time searching the entire house and all the flats in it and taking statements from all the
residents. I was not being treated as a suspect. At the time the police said to all of us
that if we subsequently remembered anything that could be material we should get
back in touch,
That evening I remembered something else that I had not mentioned to
the police that I thought could possibly be material. This was that one evening, which
might have been Friday 17 December 2010, as I was coming back from fine gym at
about 9pm, I had parked my car on the road and was just walking through the gates of
the main driveway, when I became aware of what sounded like two or perhaps three
people leaving by the side gate on the other side of the house which I could not see as
there is a hedge in between and it was dark, I duly telephoned the police and relayed
this.
,
The next day, Wednesday 22 December 2010, the same officer who had taken my
first statement came back to my fiat and took a second statement about this. The
officer asked me if one of tile voices could have been a woman’s voice. I responded
that it could have been but that I could not say either way. The police have since
confirmed to me that the fact that I gave a supplementary statement raised their
suspicions in relation to me. On the basis of what ensued, I believe it is likely that the
police passed these suspicions on to rite media.
So CJ therefore must have been Mistaken as to what day he came back from the Gym, maybe it was Saturday the 18th December 2010 he went to the gym?? Saturday according to DCI Phil Jones it started snowing at around 2:00am, giving a light dusting of snow....
That morning could have been on the Saturday 18th December 2010, making Saturday the same day CJ went to the gym and CJ spoke to Dr Vincent Tabak and there was a light dusting of snow..... And Saturday being the day that Dr Vincent Tabak moved the car...
CJ's Leveson statement he must be mistaken, he states he Thinks it might have been Friday 17th December 2010..... Not that it was Friday 17th December 2010
This was that one evening, which
might have been Friday 17 December 2010, as I was coming back from fine gym at
about 9pm, I had parked my car on the road and was just walking through the gates of
the main driveway, when I became aware of what sounded like two or perhaps three
people leaving by the side gate on the other side of the house
Was this the reason that CJ was arrested?? Was it not so much the 2/3 people he apparently heard/saw... But the day he apparently saw them??
And by CJ's interview on the TV program, it could be understood he's referring to Saturday 18th December 2010, in relation to the conversations and help he received from Dr Vincent Tabak....
I do not understand why everyone is adamant that Joanna Yeates disappeared on Friday 17th December 2010, but there must be evidence of this, therefore it brings into question what CJ's statements consisted of and the dates and times that are within them..(imo)..
Looking at it, as one statement, instead of two quotes at different times in the interview.. I'll mak it one, and turn the statements the opposite way around... the statement now becomes...
Vincent Tabak helped me move the car that morning, erm, becawse, there was snow on the drive, and I need some help, in the car being pushed up.. erm, the slight incline, erm, from the parking area onto the main part of the drive,, so that I could get the car out.Er, when I thanked Vincent for er, doing that for me, erm, his reply was,.. well what are neighbours for
As I was on my way out to the gym, quite by chance, erm I met Vincent Tabak and we had a very brief conversation, erm and he seemed to be in quite an elated mood and was saying what a very beautiful evening it was erm, this light dusting of snow, erm thats all the conversation consisted of,
So was this the context it should have been in.... He asked Dr Vincent Tabak for assistance, with moving his car in the morning of Saturday 18th December 2010... Yet by the evening on that Saturday 18th December 2010, he just happened to bump into Dr Vincent Tabak on his way out to the gym.....
No snow Friday, as we see there's no snow on the Waitrose CCTV, showing Joanna Yeates walking outside the store...
Or on the Hophouse pub CCTV
So did CJ go to the gym twice? was he mistaken when he went to the gym.... Did he see someone at the gate on Saturday 18th December 2010??
And if people were at the gate on the Saturday 18th December 2010, who were they and what were they doing? had they been in Joanna Yeates Flat, or knocked on her door... what do these people know??
Why has everyone insisted that Joanna Yeates went Missing on Friday 17th December 2010?? This was believed before Dr Vincent Tabak's court trial in October 2011.. The name of the facebook page set up by her family, is dated from Missing since 17/12/2010
Joanna Yeates could have been in bed all weekend with a headache... The same headache she'd been complaining of that week, she may not have wanted to bother answering her phone or the door... no-one knows....
No-one will know what was in CJ's statement, or what conversations he says he had with Dr Vincent Tabak and whether or not Dr Vincent Tabak confirmed this...
Looking back at CJ's Leveson statement....
On Tuesday 21 December 2010, I provided a statement to the police who were at that
time searching the entire house and all the flats in it and taking statements from all the
residents. I was not being treated as a suspect. At the time the police said to all of us
that if we subsequently remembered anything that could be material we should get
back in touch,
He says the Police searched the entire house and he wasn't been treated as a suspect..... That does't mean that the Police didn't think he was a suspect... They could have easily searched the entire house as to not alert CJ as to their suspicions... And took statements from all the tenants, as they knew the neighbours would talk to each other....
I'm not pointing any fingers at CJ, I'm just making a point as how anything he stated may be interpreted...
So CJ... show us your Police statements, then there will be no confusion any longer.... thank you
-
OH NO!!! Please... don't encourage her, or we'll have to put up with same old crap forever!
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* I see what you mean, I’m off to buy a euro lottery ticket and try and win it seven times on the trot instead I’ve more chance *%87
-
Tabak lol
Then that’s pretty rich! Isn’t Nine the one who seems to know Tabak better than the rest of u? Even better than the man himself? He said he’s guilty, Nine says he isn’t! @)(++(*
-
How could Dr Vincent Tabak take pictures of the snow, when it didn't snow on Friday 17th December 2010..
But we then have CJ state...
From the program Countdown to Murder... at 27:41 of the video
Then at 28:45 of the video
CJ Leveson...
So CJ therefore must have been Mistaken as to what day he came back from the Gym, maybe it was Saturday the 18th December 2010 he went to the gym?? Saturday according to DCI Phil Jones it started snowing at around 2:00am, giving a light dusting of snow....
That morning could have been on the Saturday 18th December 2010, making Saturday the same day CJ went to the gym and CJ spoke to Dr Vincent Tabak and there was a light dusting of snow..... And Saturday being the day that Dr Vincent Tabak moved the car...
CJ's Leveson statement he must be mistaken, he states he Thinks it might have been Friday 17th December 2010..... Not that it was Friday 17th December 2010
This was that one evening, which
might have been Friday 17 December 2010, as I was coming back from fine gym at
about 9pm, I had parked my car on the road and was just walking through the gates of
the main driveway, when I became aware of what sounded like two or perhaps three
people leaving by the side gate on the other side of the house
Was this the reason that CJ was arrested?? Was it not so much the 2/3 people he apparently heard/saw... But the day he apparently saw them??
And by CJ's interview on the TV program, it could be understood he's referring to Saturday 18th December 2010, in relation to the conversations and help he received from Dr Vincent Tabak....
I do not understand why everyone is adamant that Joanna Yeates disappeared on Friday 17th December 2010, but there must be evidence of this, therefore it brings into question what CJ's statements consisted of and the dates and times that are within them..(imo)..
Looking at it, as one statement, instead of two quotes at different times in the interview.. I'll mak it one, and turn the statements the opposite way around... the statement now becomes...
Vincent Tabak helped me move the car that morning, erm, becawse, there was snow on the drive, and I need some help, in the car being pushed up.. erm, the slight incline, erm, from the parking area onto the main part of the drive,, so that I could get the car out.Er, when I thanked Vincent for er, doing that for me, erm, his reply was,.. well what are neighbours for
As I was on my way out to the gym, quite by chance, erm I met Vincent Tabak and we had a very brief conversation, erm and he seemed to be in quite an elated mood and was saying what a very beautiful evening it was erm, this light dusting of snow, erm thats all the conversation consisted of,
So was this the context it should have been in.... He asked Dr Vincent Tabak for assistance, with moving his car in the morning of Saturday 18th December 2010... Yet by the evening on that Saturday 18th December 2010, he just happened to bump into Dr Vincent Tabak on his way out to the gym.....
No snow Friday, as we see there's no snow on the Waitrose CCTV, showing Joanna Yeates walking outside the store...
Or on the Hophouse pub CCTV
So did CJ go to the gym twice? was he mistaken when he went to the gym.... Did he see someone at the gate on Saturday 18th December 2010??
And if people were at the gate on the Saturday 18th December 2010, who were they and what were they doing? had they been in Joanna Yeates Flat, or knocked on her door... what do these people know??
Why has everyone insisted that Joanna Yeates went Missing on Friday 17th December 2010?? This was believed before Dr Vincent Tabak's court trial in October 2011.. The name of the facebook page set up by her family, is dated from Missing since 17/12/2010
Joanna Yeates could have been in bed all weekend with a headache... The same headache she'd been complaining of that week, she may not have wanted to bother answering her phone or the door... no-one knows....
No-one will know what was in CJ's statement, or what conversations he says he had with Dr Vincent Tabak and whether or not Dr Vincent Tabak confirmed this...
Looking back at CJ's Leveson statement....
On Tuesday 21 December 2010, I provided a statement to the police who were at that
time searching the entire house and all the flats in it and taking statements from all the
residents. I was not being treated as a suspect. At the time the police said to all of us
that if we subsequently remembered anything that could be material we should get
back in touch,
He says the Police searched the entire house and he wasn't been treated as a suspect..... That does't mean that the Police didn't think he was a suspect... They could have easily searched the entire house as to not alert CJ as to their suspicions... And took statements from all the tenants, as they knew the neighbours would talk to each other....
I'm not pointing any fingers at CJ, I'm just making a point as how anything he stated may be interpreted...
So CJ... show us your Police statements, then there will be no confusion any longer.... thank you
He didn't say that the police didn't think he was a suspect, he said he wasn't 'treated' as such but what has this to do with Tabak who confessed?
-
Dr Vincent Tabak didn't account for the Flat looking like Joanna Yeates had been abducted, nothing accounted for that scenario that the parents of Joanna Yeates believed..
Her father talked of a washing pile, they both talk of a tidy and untidy Flat, Greg had been tidying up as he went along... What was left behind , has to be more important than a few personal items..
Her mother banging on car boots, why would she believe that would be the place to start looking for her daughter?? Why car boots??
What prompted her to bang on a car boot looking for her daughter?
There are aspects of this case that do not fit with what was said on the stand...
And the most disturbing aspect has to be that The Yeates believed that their daughter had been abducted!!
So never mind the Flat tour we have seen that show a staged Flat, what was in the Flat and what state was said flat in when The Yeates arrived there??
Had The Yeates been the people at the gate that CJ saw/heard?? Is that the reason David Yeates knows about the washing pile??
Or didn't Greg notice said washing pile...
There needs to be something that they noticed, to make them go with the idea their daughter was abducted... And we do not know of any ransom note... That was never out there....
What makes a mother react to the fact her daughter of 25 years old isn't at home, who lives with her boyfriend, whom had suffered headaches, who was an independent woman, who wasn't always good at answering the phone...
What makes Joanna Yeates mother react by banging on car boots in Canygne Road and her father talk of the fear of abduction??
There has to be something significant.... And Dr Vincent Tabak failed to provide an answer to that part of this story...
-
Dr Vincent Tabak didn't account for the Flat looking like Joanna Yeates had been abducted, nothing accounted for that scenario that the parents of Joanna Yeates believed.. Other than all her stuff still being there - like her keys, handbag and phone!
Her father talked of a washing pile, they both talk of a tidy and untidy Flat, Greg had been tidying up as he went along... What was left behind , has to be more important than a few personal items.. Like her keys and phone? The thing people take with them when they leave of their own accord? The fact that no one could contact her or knew where she was - all the very things that occur when someone goes missing or are you outside that box of of common sense again?
Her mother banging on car boots, why would she believe that would be the place to start looking for her daughter?? Why car boots?? Desperation
What prompted her to bang on a car boot looking for her daughter? Frustration, fear and worry!
There are aspects of this case that do not fit with what was said on the stand... Only in your mind
And the most disturbing aspect has to be that The Yeates believed that their daughter had been abducted!! Probably because they wanted to believe she was still ALIVE and not murdered by a sexual pervert, removed from her flat and dumped like she was just rubbish!
So never mind the Flat tour we have seen that show a staged Flat, what was in the Flat and what state was said flat in when The Yeates arrived there?? Staged according to who?
Had The Yeates been the people at the gate that CJ saw/heard?? Is that the reason David Yeates knows about the washing pile?? Distracted again?
Or didn't Greg notice said washing pile... %56&
There needs to be something that they noticed, to make them go with the idea their daughter was abducted... And we do not know of any ransom note... That was never out there.... HER KEYS AND HER PHONE AND NOT BEING ABLE TO CONTACT HER WHEN SHE SHOULD HAVE BEEN HOME!
What makes a mother react to the fact her daughter of 25 years old isn't at home, who lives with her boyfriend, whom had suffered headaches, who was an independent woman, who wasn't always good at answering the phone... Because her boyfriend told them that HE thought she was missing
What makes Joanna Yeates mother react by banging on car boots in Canygne Road and her father talk of the fear of abduction?? FFS!
There has to be something significant.... And Dr Vincent Tabak failed to provide an answer to that part of this story... How in hell would he know what her parents thought?
-
Dr Vincent Tabak didn't account for the Flat looking like Joanna Yeates had been abducted, nothing accounted for that scenario that the parents of Joanna Yeates believed..
Her father talked of a washing pile, they both talk of a tidy and untidy Flat, Greg had been tidying up as he went along... What was left behind , has to be more important than a few personal items..
Her mother banging on car boots, why would she believe that would be the place to start looking for her daughter?? Why car boots??
What prompted her to bang on a car boot looking for her daughter?
There are aspects of this case that do not fit with what was said on the stand...
And the most disturbing aspect has to be that The Yeates believed that their daughter had been abducted!!
So never mind the Flat tour we have seen that show a staged Flat, what was in the Flat and what state was said flat in when The Yeates arrived there??
Had The Yeates been the people at the gate that CJ saw/heard?? Is that the reason David Yeates knows about the washing pile??
Or didn't Greg notice said washing pile...
There needs to be something that they noticed, to make them go with the idea their daughter was abducted... And we do not know of any ransom note... That was never out there....
What makes a mother react to the fact her daughter of 25 years old isn't at home, who lives with her boyfriend, whom had suffered headaches, who was an independent woman, who wasn't always good at answering the phone...
What makes Joanna Yeates mother react by banging on car boots in Canygne Road and her father talk of the fear of abduction??
There has to be something significant.... And Dr Vincent Tabak failed to provide an answer to that part of this story...
There's little that can be said to this sad lack of empathy, other than, if ever you have a precious child who goes missing, I wonder what actions you'd take, whilst searching for them, in the hope of finding them abducted, but alive, rather than having been murdered by a pervert.
-
There's little that can be said to this sad lack of empathy, other than, if ever you have a precious child who goes missing, I wonder what actions you'd take, whilst searching for them, in the hope of finding them abducted, but alive, rather than having been murdered by a pervert.
Well, it would have to be more than their purse, keys and phone - they're all far to inside of the box! @)(++(*
-
Dr Vincent Tabak didn't account for the Flat looking like Joanna Yeates had been abducted, nothing accounted for that scenario that the parents of Joanna Yeates believed..
Her father talked of a washing pile, they both talk of a tidy and untidy Flat, Greg had been tidying up as he went along... What was left behind , has to be more important than a few personal items..
Her mother banging on car boots, why would she believe that would be the place to start looking for her daughter?? Why car boots??
What prompted her to bang on a car boot looking for her daughter?
There are aspects of this case that do not fit with what was said on the stand...
And the most disturbing aspect has to be that The Yeates believed that their daughter had been abducted!!
So never mind the Flat tour we have seen that show a staged Flat, what was in the Flat and what state was said flat in when The Yeates arrived there??
Had The Yeates been the people at the gate that CJ saw/heard?? Is that the reason David Yeates knows about the washing pile??
Or didn't Greg notice said washing pile...
There needs to be something that they noticed, to make them go with the idea their daughter was abducted... And we do not know of any ransom note... That was never out there....
What makes a mother react to the fact her daughter of 25 years old isn't at home, who lives with her boyfriend, whom had suffered headaches, who was an independent woman, who wasn't always good at answering the phone...
What makes Joanna Yeates mother react by banging on car boots in Canygne Road and her father talk of the fear of abduction??
There has to be something significant.... And Dr Vincent Tabak failed to provide an answer to that part of this story...
I seriously think Nine is ON ?>)()< to something &%%6
-
I seriously think Nine is ON ?>)()< to something &%%6
@)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Dr Vincent Tabak didn't account for the Flat looking like Joanna Yeates had been abducted, nothing accounted for that scenario that the parents of Joanna Yeates believed..
Her father talked of a washing pile, they both talk of a tidy and untidy Flat, Greg had been tidying up as he went along... What was left behind , has to be more important than a few personal items..
Her mother banging on car boots, why would she believe that would be the place to start looking for her daughter?? Why car boots??
What prompted her to bang on a car boot looking for her daughter?
There are aspects of this case that do not fit with what was said on the stand...
And the most disturbing aspect has to be that The Yeates believed that their daughter had been abducted!!
So never mind the Flat tour we have seen that show a staged Flat, what was in the Flat and what state was said flat in when The Yeates arrived there??
Had The Yeates been the people at the gate that CJ saw/heard?? Is that the reason David Yeates knows about the washing pile??
Or didn't Greg notice said washing pile...
There needs to be something that they noticed, to make them go with the idea their daughter was abducted... And we do not know of any ransom note... That was never out there....
What makes a mother react to the fact her daughter of 25 years old isn't at home, who lives with her boyfriend, whom had suffered headaches, who was an independent woman, who wasn't always good at answering the phone...
What makes Joanna Yeates mother react by banging on car boots in Canygne Road and her father talk of the fear of abduction??
There has to be something significant.... And Dr Vincent Tabak failed to provide an answer to that part of this story...
Makes you wonder what they were up to Nine, why didn’t they just go for a Chinese or watch a movie or something chill a little and take Vinnie with them, some people just look for anything now days just to kick off.
-
Another one finally admits to murder, when the evidence is overwhelming.
The 16-year-old schoolboy convicted of the murder of Alesha MacPhail has finally admitted his crime.
During his trial, Aaron Campbell had repeatedly denied he abducted, raped and killed the six-year-old on the Isle of Bute last July.
However, his lawyer told the High Court in Glasgow ahead of sentencing that Campbell had admitted the crimes.
The judge passed a life sentence and set a minimum of 27 years before he could be considered for release.
Passing sentence at the High Court in Glasgow, Lord Matthews said Campbell's crime had caused revulsion and disbelief.
He said Alesha had been violated and murdered in the most brutal fashion.
The judge said Campbell had shown breathtaking arrogance and callousness during the trial and had failed to plead guilty despite overwhelming evidence against him.
Lord Matthews said the crimes carried a mandatory life sentence and set the "punishment part" at 27 years.
-
Another one finally admits to murder, when the evidence is overwhelming.
The 16-year-old schoolboy convicted of the murder of Alesha MacPhail has finally admitted his crime.
During his trial, Aaron Campbell had repeatedly denied he abducted, raped and killed the six-year-old on the Isle of Bute last July.
However, his lawyer told the High Court in Glasgow ahead of sentencing that Campbell had admitted the crimes.
The judge passed a life sentence and set a minimum of 27 years before he could be considered for release.
Passing sentence at the High Court in Glasgow, Lord Matthews said Campbell's crime had caused revulsion and disbelief.
He said Alesha had been violated and murdered in the most brutal fashion.
The judge said Campbell had shown breathtaking arrogance and callousness during the trial and had failed to plead guilty despite overwhelming evidence against him.
Lord Matthews said the crimes carried a mandatory life sentence and set the "punishment part" at 27 years.
I wonder how the Defence will state this case which occurred in Germany; Because of the haemorrhage a young mother caused her baby son for, what's alleged to be, her sexual gratification, he's had to be fitted with an artificial anus and is now in the care of foster parents. The mother has since given birth again. Her trial, and that of the little boy's father, is scheduled for May. It will be interesting to see what sentence the German courts hand down.
-
Another one finally admits to murder, when the evidence is overwhelming.
The 16-year-old schoolboy convicted of the murder of Alesha MacPhail has finally admitted his crime.
During his trial, Aaron Campbell had repeatedly denied he abducted, raped and killed the six-year-old on the Isle of Bute last July.
However, his lawyer told the High Court in Glasgow ahead of sentencing that Campbell had admitted the crimes.
The judge passed a life sentence and set a minimum of 27 years before he could be considered for release.
Passing sentence at the High Court in Glasgow, Lord Matthews said Campbell's crime had caused revulsion and disbelief.
He said Alesha had been violated and murdered in the most brutal fashion.
The judge said Campbell had shown breathtaking arrogance and callousness during the trial and had failed to plead guilty despite overwhelming evidence against him.
Lord Matthews said the crimes carried a mandatory life sentence and set the "punishment part" at 27 years.
I think the death was initially stated as unexplained, it surprised me at the time to be honest, when it turned out to be murder.
Mark Williams-Thomas
Verified account
@mwilliamsthomas
Very sad news : police have found the body of 6year old Alesha Macphail who went missing this morning from her grandparents house in Rothesay, Isle of Bute #Scotland . He body was found on the site of a former hotel & her death is being treated as unexplained
12:19 pm - 2 Jul 2018
I remember seeing this tweeters tweet with the typo, he was visiting Bute that day..
Mark Williams-Thomas
Verified account
@mwilliamsthomas
I have been to Rothesay , Isle of Bute as my fiends family live there , it’s a beautiful place. Small community
2:03 pm - 2 Jul 2018
Edit.. Sorry I may have mis-interpreted the tweeters post, he said he'd been to Bute, not that he was in Bute that day...
https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/1013864802685419521
https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/1013890919718883330
-
I think the death was initially stated as unexplained, it surprised me at the time to be honest, when it turned out to be murder.
I remember seeing this tweeters tweet with the typo, he was visiting Bute that day..
Edit.. Sorry I may have mis-interpreted the tweeters post, he said he'd been to Bute, not that he was in Bute that day...
https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/1013864802685419521
https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/1013890919718883330
Hi Nine, yes he’s an investigate journalist, ex policeman, he’s the guy that exposed Jimmy Saville.
-
Hi Nine, yes he’s an investigate journalist, ex policeman, he’s the guy that exposed Jimmy Saville.
Yes..... No disrespect intended, but I do not understand how an Ex Policeman finds out so much, he must have many friends telling him whats happening around and abouts.
-
Hi Nine, yes he’s an investigate journalist, ex policeman, he’s the guy that exposed Jimmy Saville.
I don't rate the man at all.
-
Yes..... No disrespect intended, but I do not understand how an Ex Policeman finds out so much, he must have many friends telling him whats happening around and abouts.
Im with Caroline on this, I don’t like or rate the man
-
I don't rate the man at all.
Why's that caroline? He confuses me to be honest...
Now I am wondering if it was he whom the police brought in as the profiler?? Is a Profiler and Criminologist the same thing??
Odd thing.. I thought he did just cases on Children, then I wondered after the trial if someone had mentioned to him about child abuse images and that was why he was there.... But it couldn't have been because he was on Canygne Road on the 24th December 2010, or at least should I say he did a report outside Canygne Road on that date....
I don't remember this report, I found it whilst I have been writing about the case on here...
I try to be accurate so I'll link it.. the getty clip states the 24th December 2010.. So I don't know the exact date the report was on TV..
Details
Restrictions: No use by regional TV or radio in UK and Ireland until 3 days after date of creation. Prior approval required if clip features ITN newsreader or reporter, please contact your local Getty Images representative.No use by regional TV or radio in UK and Ireland until 3 days after date of creation. Prior approval required if clip features ITN newsreader or reporter, please contact your local Getty Images representative.
Credit: ITN
Clip #: 659221138 SD
Collection: ITN
Date created: 24 December, 2010
Licence type: Rights-ready
Release info: Not released. More information
Clip length: 00:00:14:16
Location: United Kingdom
Mastered to: QuickTime 8-bit Photo-JPEG SD 720x576 25i More information
Originally shot on: 576 25i
Source: ITN
Object name: t24121002_1450.mov
Missing person Joanna Yeates: Police release new CCTV pictures; Missing person Joanna Yeates: Police release new CCTV pictures
Mark Williams-Thomas (Criminologist) interview SOT
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/mark-williams-thomas-interview-sot-news-footage/659221138
There is snow there, so I am guessing the dates correct.....
So as a Criminologist, had the Police asked him there?? I just wondered...
What did he do in the Police Caroline?
-
Don’t think it was him they bought in Nine, he gets his face anywhere. this was the report
forensic clinical psychologist, who is understood to have taken part in several high-profile investigations, is helping Avon and Somerset Police, build up a better picture of the person responsible. So it rules MWT out
MWT was the one who reported celebrities to police, even Cliff Richard and we know what he went throught.
I think he was a family liaison officer at first, I think he gets info from his ex police mates?
There’s a site on Facebook dedicated to who, they don’t like him either Nine
-
Don’t think it was him they bought in Nine, he gets his face anywhere. this was the report
forensic clinical psychologist, who is understood to have taken part in several high-profile investigations, is helping Avon and Somerset Police, build up a better picture of the person responsible.
MWT was the one who reported celebrities to police, even Cliff Richard and we know what he went throught.
I think he was a family liaison officer at first, I think he gets info from his ex police mates?
There’s a site on Facebook dedicated to who, they don’t like him either Nine
Yes, I thought he'd be interested in this case, as I had seen a few of his reports on Getty to do with this case... I had heard he was some sort of Investigator, but he wasn't interested.. I have posted about that before.
-
Yes, I thought he'd be interested in this case, as I had seen a few of his reports on Getty to do with this case... I had heard he was some sort of Investigator, but he wasn't interested.. I have posted about that before.
Looks like he was working for ITN at the time Nine. He likes to push his Profile, but he isn’t a profiler
Here’s what someone wrote about him on Facebook
He's a 24ct fraud. Ex PC Mouthwash. Not ever a police detective & never in child protection! Surrey police constable from 1989-2000 & never led any inquiry as only DI or above leads an investigation. Biggest Narcissistic idiot who's being pulled off our TV screens at last :))
-
Don’t think it was him they bought in Nine, he gets his face anywhere. this was the report
forensic clinical psychologist, who is understood to have taken part in several high-profile investigations, is helping Avon and Somerset Police, build up a better picture of the person responsible.
MWT was the one who reported celebrities to police, even Cliff Richard and we know what he went throught.
I think he was a family liaison officer at first, I think he gets info from his ex police mates?
There’s a site on Facebook dedicated to who, they don’t like him either Nine
Real Justice I hope you don't mind, but I like links for the information... so I found a report so I'll link it..
The forensic clinical psychologist, who is understood to have taken part in several high-profile investigations, is helping Avon and Somerset Police, build up a better picture of the person responsible.
The profiler will assess all the evidence collected so far in an effort to offer some insight into the killer’s background mentality and motive.
Police use profilers to help narrow down their range of suspects.
But they have also proved useful in advising detectives in the best way to approach questioning, once a suspect has been arrested.
The role of criminal psychologists was made famous through the 1990s television series Cracker starring Robbie Coltrane.
The Senior Investigating Officer leading the Joanna Yeates murder inquiry, Detective Chief Inspector Phil Jones said: “We will use any specialists we feel can help in the investigation.”
It is almost three weeks since the 25-year-old landscape architect disappeared from her flat in the Clifton area of Bristol.
Miss Yeates's body was discovered around three miles away on Christmas Day. She had been strangled.
Police have revealed that she had been missing one sock when her snow-covered body was found on a secluded road in Failand, North Somerset.
The report confused me, CJ had been released, but was on bail... So did they bring the profiler in for CJ??
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8241559/Joanna-Yeates-murder-detectives-call-in-criminal-profiler.html
-
Looks like he was working for ITN at the time Nine. He likes to push his Profile, but he isn’t a profiler
Here’s what someone wrote about him on Facebook
He's a 24ct fraud. Ex PC Mouthwash. Not ever a police detective & never in child protection! Surrey police constable from 1989-2000 & never led any inquiry as only DI or above leads an investigation. Biggest Narcissistic idiot who's being pulled off our TV screens at last :))
Oh wow.... someone doesn't like him... Has he been pulled off TV?? Why's that??
-
Oh wow.... someone doesn't like him... Has he been pulled off TV?? I must admit the Jimmy Savile thing has always concerned me.. Dead men don't talk, or defend themselves, so that aspect bothered me... I never saw anything on TV about the Savile doc, but obviously had heard about it...
Whilst dead men may not speak, their money, whilst they lived, may have paid for a lot of silence.
-
Real Justice I hope you don't mind, but I like links for the information... so I found a report so I'll link it..
The report confused me, CJ had been released, but was on bail... So did they bring the profiler in for CJ??
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8241559/Joanna-Yeates-murder-detectives-call-in-criminal-profiler.html
At a guess I would say not Nine, they would bring him in to have a look while they were questioning so if he was released probably not. With CJ, they could only hold him for so long without charging, obviously they didn’t have the evidence to charge him so they have to release him on bail. Tabak they questioned him once they got the DNA result, but he was a suspect anyway, with strong evidence like DNA the CPS would have been involved straight away (usual cases like robbery, fighting and lower cases, it takes ages to go to cps, but murder is fast tracked) so the CPS would have given the police the go ahead.
Because they released CJ, the police bought the profiler in to assist and to try and leave no stone unturned, they work more with evidence done and left at the scene and see if there is a link to past crimes and other offenders, trust me they see things the police miss. If you have podcast, listen to Real Crime Profile, it’s my favourite.
-
If you read it Nine, it says evidence collected, this covers a wide range, I honestly don’t think he would have been bought in for CJ, if you read it, they advise on questioning once a suspect is arrested, as you point out CJ had been released.
-
If you read it Nine, it says evidence collected, this covers a wide range, I honestly don’t think he would have been bought in for CJ, if you read it, they advise on questioning once a suspect is arrested, as you point out CJ had been released.
So what evidence collected pointed to Dr Vincent Tabak, that would need a profiler?? As no evidence was at trial, other than a statement on stand... Why the need for a profiler then??
-
Why's that caroline? He confuses me to be honest...
Now I am wondering if it was he whom the police brought in as the profiler?? Is a Profiler and Criminologist the same thing??
Odd thing.. I thought he did just cases on Children, then I wondered after the trial if someone had mentioned to him about child abuse images and that was why he was there.... But it couldn't have been because he was on Canygne Road on the 24th December 2010, or at least should I say he did a report outside Canygne Road on that date....
I don't remember this report, I found it whilst I have been writing about the case on here...
I try to be accurate so I'll link it.. the getty clip states the 24th December 2010.. So I don't know the exact date the report was on TV..
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/mark-williams-thomas-interview-sot-news-footage/659221138
There is snow there, so I am guessing the dates correct.....
So as a Criminologist, had the Police asked him there?? I just wondered...
What did he do in the Police Caroline?
Like Justice said 'he gets his face in everywhere. I just think people like him and David Wilson are more interested in being a celebrity. As to his rank, there seems to be some confusion over that but for whatever reason, some people seem to be going at great length to find out. Personally, I couldn't care less - I just think he (and DW) is a bit of a wind bag.
You might find this interesting - don't you just love the internet? %56&
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/mr_mark_williams_thomas_and_holm
-
Real Justice I hope you don't mind, but I like links for the information... so I found a report so I'll link it..
The report confused me, CJ had been released, but was on bail... So did they bring the profiler in for CJ??
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8241559/Joanna-Yeates-murder-detectives-call-in-criminal-profiler.html
They don't bring in a profiler for anyone, that would defeat the object. That's what happened to Colin Stagg! A profiler is supposed to develop a picture of a person unknown not make his profile fit a suspect.
-
So what evidence collected pointed to Dr Vincent Tabak, that would need a profiler?? As no evidence was at trial, other than a statement on stand... Why the need for a profiler then??
Hi Nine, you have to remember the profiler was bought in after CJ release, they would have had a number of suspects, known sex offenders in the area, neighbours, associates, last persons who seen her ect. The profiler would have been bought in to go over the evidence they had and to give them a insight into what type or person to look for, remember he’s only their to help, his word isn’t be all and end all, it’s to assist. In the meantime autopsy results lab results from the body and crime scene would be coming back to the headquarters. When they first arrested CJ, they would have been all over his flat, all over his car, checking all local road traffic cctv for his car movements and it would have been proved his car never moved.
Now Tabak makes his mistake, like all killers do, Tabak sees an opportunity to either derail the investigation and pin the the blame onto CJ, it was all over the press about CJ arrest, so he phones up and says about CJ’s car moving. This would have alerted the headquarters, because either it didn’t match up or it was going to help with a case against CJ. They felt strong on this lead they sent a detective over to Holland. The Detective isn’t happy about his answers ect and asks for a DNA sample to eliminate him from the inquiry. It comes back later and it’s a match ect..
I would say the profiler wouldn’t have had much imput into Tabak being charged/arrested, maybe the profiler was giving an impression that the attacker lived close by ect. If you read Tabak I think he said he lost about 7kg from when his DNA sample was taken to being arrested, he knew the game was up, My guess he knew because, he’d masturbated over her bare breasts and didn’t know if he’d cleaned it all off. He also left DNA behind her knees this was probably sweat, from carrying her and he admitted trying to lift her over a fence/wall, probably left sweat because he would be worried now. The problem recognising the exact source of DNA would be the weather playing a part and he covered her body with leaves, then the snow fell ect so it might have deteriorated the dna sample but not enough for a match, He knew it was going to snow, he was constantly checking the weather on his computer.
Sometimes, it’s luck they get their man, but killers close to home always make mistakes, they try and be in the know with the police inquiry and try to be one step in front. Once Tabak is arrested and charged it gives them loads of opportunity to look more in depth at him. There was a lot of detectives/police put into this inquiry don’t think they only looked at CJ and Tabak.
-
Losing 7kg over Christamas, at a time people usually put weight on says a lot, he’s worried and not eating for some reason. He expected being arrested when he came back from Holland but DNA results hadn’t come back. He’s waiting and worrying for that knock on the door, imagine what’s going through his head, he knows they have found the body, he knows he left his DNA on Joanna, just a matter of time. This is when he’s done searches for difference between manslaughter/murder on his computer and researched about DNA.
-
So what evidence collected pointed to Dr Vincent Tabak, that would need a profiler?? As no evidence was at trial, other than a statement on stand... Why the need for a profiler then??
The evidence was presented at trial but it's not the kind of evidence you think ..... it's more things like
Was the crime scene (organised or disorganised).
How the victim was killed/how the body was treated after death.
Was there a sexual element?
Did the offender take a souvenir?
Etc.
This helps build up a picture of what the offender may be like which is why it's important for the profiler not to have knowledge of any suspects because it could influence his/her judgement as with Colin Stagg.
-
The evidence was presented at trial but it's not the kind of evidence you think ..... it's more things like
Was the crime scene (organised or disorganised).
How the victim was killed/how the body was treated after death.
Was there a sexual element?
Did the offender take a souvenir?
Etc.
This helps build up a picture of what the offender may be like which is why it's important for the profiler not to have knowledge of any suspects because it could influence his/her judgement as with Colin Stagg.
(1): Crime Scene: That must have been impossible to determine in relation to Dr Vincent Tabak, or anyone else for that matter. Greg had returned home at 8:30pm Sunday 19th December 2010, he had taken to tidying up as he went along, he had had food and drink, he had not noticed the rucksack on the table for several hours, even though he had rung Joanna Yeates mobile phone and it had rung in her pocket at 9:00pm.
The Yeates would have no idea as to how tidy or untidy Greg was, and what he would do in any circumstances, so whatever the flat looked like when The Yeates arrived, could not determine anything. And as we have the flat tour that show a striped flat with nothing there, it doesn't mirror what the flat looked like at the time, when people lived there and items were in place....
(2): How the killing happened, or body was treated afterwards: Can be applied in many ways, that could , would be based on whether or not the victim was related to said killer, or whether or not the victim was sexually assaulted, type of murder etc, etc,...
Concealing? Joanna Yeates was out in the open, leaves were placed upon her, and a covering of snow, is said to be on top of said leaves.. That is hardly concealment, (imo) and it is all based on interpretation... And anyones view point based on a possible suspect..(imo)
Joanna Yeates T-shirt for instance was raised above her head, she was in the feotal position, leaves covered her body, she was on a grass verge, where many cars passed and dog walkers etc, she could have been found at anytime..
One could interpret that scenario as a person who knew Joanna Yeates did this, they removed her from her home to distance themselves, they pulled her T- shirt up over her head because they didn't want to look at her, or her stare back at them, they were being caring and covering her with leaves to keep her warm... The fact that she was not sexually assaulted, could also be interpreted as it being someone who knew Joanna Yeates.. Strangulation, could be seen as something personal, which could be a build up of anger, jealousy...
(3): Was there a sexual element: There was no sexual assault, there was nothing to determine as far as we know that any sexual activity had taken place, all we have left is the raising of the T-shirt and Joanna Yeates breast exposed, which could be explained away. The T-shirt I have shown, could have been used to hide Joanna Yeates face, her bra, may have rode up, Or if staged ,could have been to mimic something else..
Unless the said killer admits that he was driven by a sexual impulse, nothing points to a sexual element in this case, with the information we know...
(4):Did the Offender take a souvenir: The sock was the apparent souvenir, why? why a sock? why not a pair of knickers or a bra, if it was sexual.. Why not a piece of jewellery... The sock the apparent souvenir was thrown away, apparently... Hardly a souvenir... We do not even know for a fact whether or not they were a pair, Joanna Yeates could have worn odd socks..
Profiling a tool..... It may look good for a TV program, but it is only opinion based on certain factors, which common sense could be applied to... The idea that the spouse is the first port of call for instance, is based on a likely hood percentage wise, of who the perpetrator, could be, and a basic elimination of those closest to the victim as suspects.... Dependant of the type of victim..
Having no idea as to the type of victim that Joanna Yeates was in reality, we have just a few peoples opinions as to who she was.. We do not know if she had in anyway partaken in drug use for instance, whether she had an open relationship... Whether she gambled, or borrowed money... We have no idea of what type of friends she may have had, whether or not she volunteered at any establishment.. Whether she came into contact with unsavoury characters..
Did she have a drink issue, not saying she was alcoholic, but was she a regular drinker... Her personality also is largely unknown, was she too trusting? Was she determined in her work approach, would she find ways in which to apply her knowledge and say contacts to help her achieve her goals? Peoples work ethic and ethics in general, may differ or contradict each other, so not knowing enough about the victims own character in any sense, makes it difficult to determine what could make her a victim...
She in her working relationships could have upset someone that day, or before, and a person was just waiting for an opportunity to take revenge, knowing that she would be on her own that weekend, it gave many who were aware of this fact the opportunity not to be disturbed..
I say this because, removing a body from a flat is risky, removing a body from a flat on ones own is even more difficult, that why I say the killer needed to know what both Greg and Joanna Yeates plans were for that weekend. And that Joanna Yeates was not expecting any visitors that weekend, or had a friend that may just pop in.... Rebecca Scott for instance... Could quite as easily decided on the off chance to see her friend on her way back home, that could have been a random decision, brought on by a sudden urge..
Rebecca we have been told said that Joanna Yeates wanted to go and see her in wales that weekend... So if the weather was the reason for not going, nothing stopped Rebecca stopping off at Joanna Yeates flat on her way home, to what may be seen as making up for the fact her friend couldn't see her on the Friday 17th December 2010..
Dr Vincent Tabak not knowing Joanna Yeates or her friends would not know if any friends of Joanna yeates may or may not appear on the off chance... He would need to know them and Joanna Yeates, to be sure that didn't happen..(imo)..
This is why him apparently removing Joanna Yeates from her flat seems too risky...
The combinations of circumstances that could or could not apply to Joanna Yeates, and the possible reasons for someone to kill her are endless, based on the information known or Investigated.. If every avenue has not been exhausted and everyone close to Joanna Yeates eliminated, then concluding that a neighbour is the next most likely suspect, appears to me to be slack....
We have been told there was no sexual assault... And that finding i have to take on face value... So how would you jump from that to it having to be a neighbour?
The so called evidence of trying to kiss someone to make it appear it was sexual, is ridiculous to me... It may sort of fit, but fit what? The evidence that was already out in the public domain.... many may have forgotten or may not have seen it, but one of the tabloids had said that DNA was found on Joanna Yeates lip.... That report I cannot find now, but I do remember it and have seen it...
If we are looking at the idea of the kiss... then it would fit with the newspaper report... But if we want to use what a profiler may say, they may attribute that action as someone who cares for Joanna Yeates kissing her goodbye....
As I have said, nothing on the stand hadn't been any different to what had already been in the public domain...
But if Dr Vincent Tabak's reasoning was sexual, then what stopped him?? Nothing really, he had all the time in the world... A whole weekend... But no physical evidence of a sexual assault was presented at trial, just a wishy washy story anyone could cobble together..(imo)
The bringing in of a profiler so soon after Joanna Yeates had been found seems rushed... She was Missing until they found her on the 25th December 2010, she could have run away, had enough of her life, people really do not know... The only way one would know would be to have a full an frank picture from those that knew her and maybe her doctors opinion...
The profiler is brought in on the 5th January 2011, or should I say that was the date of the media report, that is just 11 days after Joanna Yeates was found, not enough time to exhaust many possiblities of what happened to Joanna Yeates and why.....
Thats 11 days in which to rule out so many possibilities and so many people who knew Joanna Yeates.... 11 days in which to confirm the movements of all of these people... 11 days in which someone who maybe stated something when Joanna yeates was Missing, just didn't quite ring true...
11 Days in which, to check all facebook contacts and messages, all social media contact and all messages and phone calls Joanna Yeates may have made within the weekend, or weeks even months before, when she had possibly upset someone with her correspondence...
11 days in which to eliminated so many people before a profiler is brought in...
There needs to be aspects of the case that are similar to other cases to conclude a serial killer is involved, but what aspects one decides is only relative depending on what parts of each case appears to connect them..
Melanie Hall for instance.... wasn't killed at home... Her body being found years later, there was no way to determine whether or not it was a sexually motivated attack, and unless there was a ligature around her neck, no way in which to determine how she was killed.... found on a grass verge....
Glenis Carruthers... No sexual assault, found in the open by the zoo, shoe missing, left a party, for what ever reason...
Joanna Yeates, strangled in her home (apparently) found on a grass verge , no sexual assault....
-
Continued...
The lack of sexual activity connects, only Joanna Yeates and Glenis Carruthers, as it cannot be determined what happened to Melanie Hall... All found on grass verges....
Well that connects them all in away, apart from Joanna Yeates, whom was supposed to have been killed at home and then moved to a grass verge... The other two victims were already out of their homes..
College, has been mentioned as a connection, but many many women attend college/univercity... So that is a bit of a stretch...
There has to be something more concrete to connect the victims, an MO and that isn't apparent with those 3 victims... Sexual attacks are what can and has connected a lot of victims and a serial perpetrator, but none of these women were sexually assaulted as far as we know, so that reason is lacking....
They all could be random attacks, as the person responsible for all would need to be of a certain age... That is one of the reasons I believe that they arrested CJ... His age....
But if they are looking for the wrong connection, because someone has directed the Police in a certain way, then the opportunity to catch the real killer is lost.... The concentration is based on someone elses interpretation of the evidence, and that also means that that someone needs to have access to all that evidence....
If someone is looking for a sexual connection, they will find one, dependant on how they wish to interpret said information... Doesn't make it correct...
That's why supporting evidence is essential, for starters the CCTV that DS Mark Saunders viewed of Canygne Road for the weekend of 17th December 2010 to the 19th December 2010, it could have covered even more time I do not know... But this would be evidence to prove when Joanna Yeates arrived home, or whether Joanna Yeates arrived home... important evidence that should not have been ignored....
All CCTV featuring Joanna Yeates journey should have been made available, it would show direction of journey, whether or not she stopped, spoke to anyone, whether she went directly somewhere or not... The Cafe Nero CCTV was not presented at trial either, I only know of it's existence because of Colin Ports Leveson statement.... Which Direction and which Cafe Nero we don't know... It isn't clear, nor the timing of this CCTV...
Many elements missing from the trial... many elements missing from the investigation, many elements a profiler may not take into account....
A profiler needs to prove themselves, it's all about them..(imo).. you never hear of failures of a profiler, just how successful they are , they use vague references, and pigeon hole people to suit whatever the situation is at the time... (imo) A random set of characteristics that could be applied to many people, is therefore used as an exact apparent science in which to determine who committed said crime and why....
It makes the Police force appear inadaquate, useless, unable to collect evidence to find a killer, by resorting to a profiler... Of course there maybe ideas that the Police hadn't considered... But that should be after all points have been exhausted and maybe fresh eyes could help...
But using a profiler who themselves have a bias as to what type of person commits what crime and why... limits looking at other possibilities... There view may be tainted by their own experiences, or views and no-one questions whether or not, what they have witnessed hasn't had a physiological effect on their views of the world...
We are expected to accept that these people are well rounded and almost none human, unbiased and invincible, to be able to look objectively at crime scene after crime scene.. Not to be effected by their own beliefs or their own standing and reputation...
There are a whole host of profilers and psychologists available on TV giving us their expert opinion, based on what ever evidence available to them, a money making occupation for some... And a compelling TV viewing for others whom are fascinated with crime and what makes people tick...
This also affects juries, many jurors may have seen endless TV programs showing them the success rate of these profilers and putting these profilers in an elevated position of respect, based on a TV's re-enactment of a crime... A re-enactment that may or may not be accurate...
Profilers are fallible like anyone else, they make errors in judgement, they generalise and use language that the ordinary person doesn't know about and because they do not understand the language , based on this person education, they decide they must know what they are talking about....
We could all agree that the basic's are reasons for Murder/Manslaughter... Jealousy... greed... hatred... sexual... opportunity... Compassion... accident...
Basic's that form any starting point of any investigation... For instance someone is terminally ill, assisting someone in taking their life, may be seen as compassion... But it is still a crime...
Without investigating fully why someone has died, exhausting all possible avenues, a profiler, is not going to come up with a solution that determines a complex reason.. especially if they are only expert in one field.....
For instance... (A) was terminally ill... and (B) agreed to assist.... If (A) committed suicide (A) wouldn't get paid out by (A's) insurance company... So (B) came up with a plan to make it look like (A) had been attacked by a stranger and removed (A) from their home and placed (A) on a verge, covering (A) with leaves and kissing (A) goodbye...
The amount of information that needed sifting through, with the internet and friends etc, should have taken a great deal of time... 200 plus facebook friends, work colleagues, friends from college, friends from school days etc, family members, spouse, many many inquiries needing checking and verifying...
All taking longer than 11 days...(imo)
One train of thought or investigation, when followed, may not bare fruit, but if another train of thought comes forth, any statements or messages, would need to be looked at again, because the context has changed...
All I see is a profiler, helps to add substance to an idea, based on said profilers reputation, but all a profiler is doing is pointing the Police in a direction... It may be the wrong direction... But no-one question this... and I do not understand why...
Yes.. The crime rate, gets cleared up, but don't you need more than someones opinion, more than a story or a confession... Don't you need evidence to support said story, don't you need evidence to support someones opinion.... Especially if someones opinion helps in capturing, arresting and convicting someone of a crime....
I could point the finger at many people whom we have come to know with this crime... And to be honest, I fell into that catergory of stating it could be someone.. But what had I based that on.... What I had heard in the papers, or on forums, social media etc...
I also do not know the full circumstances of this case, I am not privy to the information collected, I am not privy to the CCTV, I am not privy to peoples movements, or any correspondence of any type that happened, before that weekend or during that weekend....
Many aspects that make it impossible for me to point the finger, at anyone.. As I do not know enough about each persons own characteristics, to be able to determine anything... Or any other person opportunities that weekend...
To randomly choose the next door neighbour as a suspect, who didn't know his neighbour, had not met his neighbour, had no idea, if anyone was due at the flat at anytime that weekend, who's movements could be seen by the CCTV on Canygne Road and who's window of opportunity was so minute, that it seems ridiculous to even suggest that it was he....
No-one knew when Joanna Yeates died... No-one knew whether or not she reached home... Nothing put Joanna Yeates at home other than Dr Vincent Tabak, in his statement on the stand, she could have been at home or elsewhere... But the CCTV, should put Joanna Yeates in Canygne Road and arriving home, yet it was omitted from trial....
Me using different scenario's and possibilities through out my posting, only goes to show what possible lines of inquiry could be looked at and what reason they also may have been for this crime....
I find it highly suspicious, that Dr Vincent Tabak, said nothing until trial, yet was held without what appears to be evidence... That Low copy DNA cannot prove guilt, nor a minute drop of blood in a car,prove guilt... both as I have stated being able to be explained away by any competent lawyer...
Admitting guilt, isn't enough, if the reason isn't because you did it, but maybe it's because you were protecting someone else.... Or you were stupid enough to play games with the Police, and try cause them a problem with their investigation...
If the only evidence is someone stating they did it, is that enough to go to trial, when it must be able to be shown that Joanna yeates did not reach her home on the Friday 17th December 2010, if Colin Ports Leveson statement is anything to go by... If the last sighting was The Hop House pub, then we need to know the date and time of this last sighting.... We need to exhaust every possibility as to what Joanna Yeates movements were....
We need to know for a fact that Joanna Yeates reached home in the first place... And whether she left again at any point that weekend.... There are far to many unanswered questions (imo).. And none of us should be satisfied, with a story on a stand, without supporting evidence... Physical evidence that supports anyones story... (imo)
And if a profiler, pointed them in the direction of Dr Vincent Tabak, should the said profiler have been at trial to explain why he had come to his conclusions....
Everyone should be worried that Dr Vincent Tabak's story was believed and accepted as the evidence without any physical evidence supporting this tale... That this case wasn't thrown out or the jury directly differently..
It's implied Dr Vincent Tabak lied on the stand, it is implied that a sexual motive was the reasoning behind Dr Vincent Tabak killing Joanna yeates... It is accepted that Dr vincent tabak lied on the stand....
So why is it accepted that when Dr Vincent Tabak said he was responsible for the death of Joanna Yeates, then that must be true??
Why are people happy to accept that he said, he was responsible, yet we at the same time call him a liar...
If he is a liar, then his testimony on the stand should be disregarded, it cannot be trusted... But we seem happy to trust it when it sends someone to prison ,apparently...
So no testimony, no conviction... nothing supports that Dr Vincent Tabak committed this crime..(imo).. No physical evidence and no motive... Only parts of a testimony that supports someones idea of what may or may not have happened to Joanna yeates, spoken by the accused on the stand...
And everyone seems to wonder why I question this case.....
-
I find this piece of evidence very interesting, this is from someone, who’s supporters claim was not thinking straight. Not only does he correct his Council he’s reliving the events in his head, he had no need to correct his Council he could have just replied yes to each question if he was making it up.
Defence Counsel: Then you took the body out to the street? Tabak: No. I backed the car into the drive.
Defence Counsel: Was the car facing Canynge Road? Tabak: No. The back of the car was facing Canynge Road.
-
I find this piece of evidence very interesting, this is from someone, who’s supporters claim was not thinking straight. Not only does he correct his Council he’s reliving the events in his head, he had no need to correct his Council he could have just replied yes to each question if he was making it up.
Defence Counsel: Then you took the body out to the street? Tabak: No. I backed the car into the drive.
Defence Counsel: Was the car facing Canynge Road? Tabak: No. The back of the car was facing Canynge Road.
The only address that this statement would make accurate, is 42, Canygne Road, as there are two gates on 2 different roads for that address,, by backing a car into the gate on the Percival Road side, the back of the car would then be facing Canygne Road..
So did Dr Vincent Tabak live at 42, Caygne Road? that should be a question...
And why Clegg didn't question that statement by Dr Vincent Tabak, is strange.. to say the least.... (imo)
-
Here again, he’s reliving the scene, he mentions sweat,
Defence Counsel: How were you feeling then?
Tabak: I was exhausted at carrying the body- my body was in a state of sweat. I took off my black jacket.
Here again he’s re living his experience, this was on the stand.
Tabak: I realised that I still had the bicycle cover in my car and the pizza and sock in my flat.
Defence Counsel: What did you decide to do? Tabak: I decided to dispose of them.
Defence Counsel: What did you do then?
Tabak: I remembered that there were some disposal containers on the road in Clifton.
Defence Counsel: What colour were these containers? Tabak: Green I think.
Defence Counsel: Were they on wheels? Tabak: I can’t remember.
Defence Counsel: Were they private or Council containers? Tabak: I don’t know.
Defence Counsel: Why were you researching about rubbish?
Tabak: I read that police were sifting through rubbish and I was afraid they would find the pizza.
If he was making things up, he would have said Green not I think, yes or no to where they on wheels, same with private or Council containers. When he is re living the scene and what happened his brain doesn’t let him tell lies.
-
Here again, he’s reliving the scene, he mentions sweat,
Defence Counsel: How were you feeling then?
Tabak: I was exhausted at carrying the body- my body was in a state of sweat. I took off my black jacket.
Here again he’s re living his experience, this was on the stand.
Tabak: I realised that I still had the bicycle cover in my car and the pizza and sock in my flat.
Defence Counsel: What did you decide to do? Tabak: I decided to dispose of them.
Defence Counsel: What did you do then?
Tabak: I remembered that there were some disposal containers on the road in Clifton.
Defence Counsel: What colour were these containers? Tabak: Green I think.
Defence Counsel: Were they on wheels? Tabak: I can’t remember.
Defence Counsel: Were they private or Council containers? Tabak: I don’t know.
Defence Counsel: Why were you researching about rubbish?
Tabak: I read that police were sifting through rubbish and I was afraid they would find the pizza.
If he was making things up, he would have said Green not I think, yes or no to where they on wheels, same with private or Council containers. When he is re living the scene and what happened his brain doesn’t let him tell lies.
You say reliving...
He could be recalling information he was told, therefore explaining why detail is Missing and his inability to answer over 80 questions..
-
When someone is telling the truth they use the pronoun “I” to describe their actions.
Defence Counsel: What did you do?
Tabak: I put her on her bed in her bedroom.
Defence Counsel: Where did you go? Tabak: I went back to my flat.
Defence Counsel: How did you leave her door? Tabak: Open.
Defence Counsel: How long were you in your flat? Tabak: Only a couple of minutes maybe.
Defence Counsel: Where did you go then? Tabak: I went back to Joanna’s flat.
Defence Counsel: What did you do next?
Tabak: I decided to put her body in my bicycle cover.
Defence Counsel: Why did you put her body in the bicycle cover?
Tabak: I didn’t want anyone to find out and I put the body in my car.
Defence Counsel: After you put the body in the boot of your car, what did you do next? Tabak: I went back to Joanna’s flat and switched off the TV and the oven; I took away the sock and the pizza.
Defence Counsel: Why did you take the pizza and sock? Tabak: I was not thinking straight.
Defence Counsel: Then what did you do? Tabak: I went back to my flat.
Defence Counsel: Then what did you do? Tabak: I put the body into the car.
Defence Counsel: Was it easy to put the body into the car? Tabak: No.
Defence Counsel: How many attempts did you make at placing the body into the boot of the car?
Tabak: I think two.
Defence Counsel: Then when you put the body into the boot of your car, what did you do? Tabak: I went into the car.
Defence Counsel: Look at our timeline 89. Did you drive with the body in the boot of your car?
Tabak: Yes.
Defence Counsel: Look at our timeline 90-96. Why did you go to the Asda supermarket? Tabak: I was not thinking straight. I think I took upon my original plan to go to Asda.
Defence Counsel: At our timeline 100, you sent a text message to Tanja ‘How are you? I am at Asda. Buying some crisis.’ How did you feel?
Tabak: I just wanted to hear her voice; to get support and comfort.
Defence Counsel: When you left where did you drive then?
Tabak: I drove away from home; I drove in the direction of the airport; and ended up in Longwood lane.
Defence Counsel: Did you know Longwood Lane at all? Tabak: No.
Defence Counsel: Was it a quiet area, did you think? What did you decide to do? Tabak: I did something horrendous. I decided to leave her there.
Defence Counsel: Did you park your car? Tabak: Yes.
Defence Counsel: What did you do then? Tabak: I took the body out of the boot.
Defence Counsel: Having got it out of the boot, what did you do with the cover? Tabak: I put the cover eventually back into the car.
Defence Counsel: Did the cover become inverted? Tabak: I can’t remember.
Defence Counsel: What did you do then?
Tabak: I tried to hide the body. I tried to put the body over the fence.
Defence Counsel: Were you able to? Tabak: No, the body was too heavy.
Defence Counsel: Did the body come into contact with the wall? Tabak: Yes. But she was too heavy.
Defence Counsel: Part of her breast was exposed- how did that happen? Tabak: Perhaps when carrying her body.
Defence Counsel: Your DNA was found on the breast of the body- how did that come about?
Tabak: I think as I was trying to put the body over the wall.
Defence Counsel: There were many marks on the body. How did that happen?
Tabak: I at first left her by the roadside and two or 3 cars went past and I was in a state of complete panic. I’m sorry for doing that. I put her parents though hell. I’m so sorry for that. I can’t believe I did that.
Defence Counsel: How were you feeling then?
Tabak: I was exhausted at carrying the body- my body was in a state of sweat. I took off my black jacket.
-
(1): Crime Scene: That must have been impossible to determine in relation to Dr Vincent Tabak, or anyone else for that matter. Greg had returned home at 8:30pm Sunday 19th December 2010, he had taken to tidying up as he went along, he had had food and drink, he had not noticed the rucksack on the table for several hours, even though he had rung Joanna Yeates mobile phone and it had rung in her pocket at 9:00pm.
The Yeates would have no idea as to how tidy or untidy Greg was, and what he would do in any circumstances, so whatever the flat looked like when The Yeates arrived, could not determine anything. And as we have the flat tour that show a striped flat with nothing there, it doesn't mirror what the flat looked like at the time, when people lived there and items were in place....
(2): How the killing happened, or body was treated afterwards: Can be applied in many ways, that could , would be based on whether or not the victim was related to said killer, or whether or not the victim was sexually assaulted, type of murder etc, etc,...
Concealing? Joanna Yeates was out in the open, leaves were placed upon her, and a covering of snow, is said to be on top of said leaves.. That is hardly concealment, (imo) and it is all based on interpretation... And anyones view point based on a possible suspect..(imo)
Joanna Yeates T-shirt for instance was raised above her head, she was in the feotal position, leaves covered her body, she was on a grass verge, where many cars passed and dog walkers etc, she could have been found at anytime..
One could interpret that scenario as a person who knew Joanna Yeates did this, they removed her from her home to distance themselves, they pulled her T- shirt up over her head because they didn't want to look at her, or her stare back at them, they were being caring and covering her with leaves to keep her warm... The fact that she was not sexually assaulted, could also be interpreted as it being someone who knew Joanna Yeates.. Strangulation, could be seen as something personal, which could be a build up of anger, jealousy...
(3): Was there a sexual element: There was no sexual assault, there was nothing to determine as far as we know that any sexual activity had taken place, all we have left is the raising of the T-shirt and Joanna Yeates breast exposed, which could be explained away. The T-shirt I have shown, could have been used to hide Joanna Yeates face, her bra, may have rode up, Or if staged ,could have been to mimic something else..
Unless the said killer admits that he was driven by a sexual impulse, nothing points to a sexual element in this case, with the information we know...
(4):Did the Offender take a souvenir: The sock was the apparent souvenir, why? why a sock? why not a pair of knickers or a bra, if it was sexual.. Why not a piece of jewellery... The sock the apparent souvenir was thrown away, apparently... Hardly a souvenir... We do not even know for a fact whether or not they were a pair, Joanna Yeates could have worn odd socks..
Profiling a tool..... It may look good for a TV program, but it is only opinion based on certain factors, which common sense could be applied to... The idea that the spouse is the first port of call for instance, is based on a likely hood percentage wise, of who the perpetrator, could be, and a basic elimination of those closest to the victim as suspects.... Dependant of the type of victim..
Having no idea as to the type of victim that Joanna Yeates was in reality, we have just a few peoples opinions as to who she was.. We do not know if she had in anyway partaken in drug use for instance, whether she had an open relationship... Whether she gambled, or borrowed money... We have no idea of what type of friends she may have had, whether or not she volunteered at any establishment.. Whether she came into contact with unsavoury characters..
Did she have a drink issue, not saying she was alcoholic, but was she a regular drinker... Her personality also is largely unknown, was she too trusting? Was she determined in her work approach, would she find ways in which to apply her knowledge and say contacts to help her achieve her goals? Peoples work ethic and ethics in general, may differ or contradict each other, so not knowing enough about the victims own character in any sense, makes it difficult to determine what could make her a victim...
She in her working relationships could have upset someone that day, or before, and a person was just waiting for an opportunity to take revenge, knowing that she would be on her own that weekend, it gave many who were aware of this fact the opportunity not to be disturbed..
I say this because, removing a body from a flat is risky, removing a body from a flat on ones own is even more difficult, that why I say the killer needed to know what both Greg and Joanna Yeates plans were for that weekend. And that Joanna Yeates was not expecting any visitors that weekend, or had a friend that may just pop in.... Rebecca Scott for instance... Could quite as easily decided on the off chance to see her friend on her way back home, that could have been a random decision, brought on by a sudden urge..
Rebecca we have been told said that Joanna Yeates wanted to go and see her in wales that weekend... So if the weather was the reason for not going, nothing stopped Rebecca stopping off at Joanna Yeates flat on her way home, to what may be seen as making up for the fact her friend couldn't see her on the Friday 17th December 2010..
Dr Vincent Tabak not knowing Joanna Yeates or her friends would not know if any friends of Joanna yeates may or may not appear on the off chance... He would need to know them and Joanna Yeates, to be sure that didn't happen..(imo)..
This is why him apparently removing Joanna Yeates from her flat seems too risky...
The combinations of circumstances that could or could not apply to Joanna Yeates, and the possible reasons for someone to kill her are endless, based on the information known or Investigated.. If every avenue has not been exhausted and everyone close to Joanna Yeates eliminated, then concluding that a neighbour is the next most likely suspect, appears to me to be slack....
We have been told there was no sexual assault... And that finding i have to take on face value... So how would you jump from that to it having to be a neighbour?
The so called evidence of trying to kiss someone to make it appear it was sexual, is ridiculous to me... It may sort of fit, but fit what? The evidence that was already out in the public domain.... many may have forgotten or may not have seen it, but one of the tabloids had said that DNA was found on Joanna Yeates lip.... That report I cannot find now, but I do remember it and have seen it...
If we are looking at the idea of the kiss... then it would fit with the newspaper report... But if we want to use what a profiler may say, they may attribute that action as someone who cares for Joanna Yeates kissing her goodbye....
As I have said, nothing on the stand hadn't been any different to what had already been in the public domain...
But if Dr Vincent Tabak's reasoning was sexual, then what stopped him?? Nothing really, he had all the time in the world... A whole weekend... But no physical evidence of a sexual assault was presented at trial, just a wishy washy story anyone could cobble together..(imo)
The bringing in of a profiler so soon after Joanna Yeates had been found seems rushed... She was Missing until they found her on the 25th December 2010, she could have run away, had enough of her life, people really do not know... The only way one would know would be to have a full an frank picture from those that knew her and maybe her doctors opinion...
The profiler is brought in on the 5th January 2011, or should I say that was the date of the media report, that is just 11 days after Joanna Yeates was found, not enough time to exhaust many possiblities of what happened to Joanna Yeates and why.....
Thats 11 days in which to rule out so many possibilities and so many people who knew Joanna Yeates.... 11 days in which to confirm the movements of all of these people... 11 days in which someone who maybe stated something when Joanna yeates was Missing, just didn't quite ring true...
11 Days in which, to check all facebook contacts and messages, all social media contact and all messages and phone calls Joanna Yeates may have made within the weekend, or weeks even months before, when she had possibly upset someone with her correspondence...
11 days in which to eliminated so many people before a profiler is brought in...
There needs to be aspects of the case that are similar to other cases to conclude a serial killer is involved, but what aspects one decides is only relative depending on what parts of each case appears to connect them..
Melanie Hall for instance.... wasn't killed at home... Her body being found years later, there was no way to determine whether or not it was a sexually motivated attack, and unless there was a ligature around her neck, no way in which to determine how she was killed.... found on a grass verge....
Glenis Carruthers... No sexual assault, found in the open by the zoo, shoe missing, left a party, for what ever reason...
Joanna Yeates, strangled in her home (apparently) found on a grass verge , no sexual assault....
Seriously, I can't be bothered to read all of that Nine but the list I gave was general and not specific. Those are the KIND of things that are considered but each case is different with it's own specific list.
-
Continued...
The lack of sexual activity connects, only Joanna Yeates and Glenis Carruthers, as it cannot be determined what happened to Melanie Hall... All found on grass verges....
Well that connects them all in away, apart from Joanna Yeates, whom was supposed to have been killed at home and then moved to a grass verge... The other two victims were already out of their homes..
College, has been mentioned as a connection, but many many women attend college/univercity... So that is a bit of a stretch...
There has to be something more concrete to connect the victims, an MO and that isn't apparent with those 3 victims... Sexual attacks are what can and has connected a lot of victims and a serial perpetrator, but none of these women were sexually assaulted as far as we know, so that reason is lacking....
They all could be random attacks, as the person responsible for all would need to be of a certain age... That is one of the reasons I believe that they arrested CJ... His age....
But if they are looking for the wrong connection, because someone has directed the Police in a certain way, then the opportunity to catch the real killer is lost.... The concentration is based on someone elses interpretation of the evidence, and that also means that that someone needs to have access to all that evidence....
If someone is looking for a sexual connection, they will find one, dependant on how they wish to interpret said information... Doesn't make it correct...
That's why supporting evidence is essential, for starters the CCTV that DS Mark Saunders viewed of Canygne Road for the weekend of 17th December 2010 to the 19th December 2010, it could have covered even more time I do not know... But this would be evidence to prove when Joanna Yeates arrived home, or whether Joanna Yeates arrived home... important evidence that should not have been ignored....
All CCTV featuring Joanna Yeates journey should have been made available, it would show direction of journey, whether or not she stopped, spoke to anyone, whether she went directly somewhere or not... The Cafe Nero CCTV was not presented at trial either, I only know of it's existence because of Colin Ports Leveson statement.... Which Direction and which Cafe Nero we don't know... It isn't clear, nor the timing of this CCTV...
Many elements missing from the trial... many elements missing from the investigation, many elements a profiler may not take into account....
A profiler needs to prove themselves, it's all about them..(imo).. you never hear of failures of a profiler, just how successful they are , they use vague references, and pigeon hole people to suit whatever the situation is at the time... (imo) A random set of characteristics that could be applied to many people, is therefore used as an exact apparent science in which to determine who committed said crime and why....
It makes the Police force appear inadaquate, useless, unable to collect evidence to find a killer, by resorting to a profiler... Of course there maybe ideas that the Police hadn't considered... But that should be after all points have been exhausted and maybe fresh eyes could help...
But using a profiler who themselves have a bias as to what type of person commits what crime and why... limits looking at other possibilities... There view may be tainted by their own experiences, or views and no-one questions whether or not, what they have witnessed hasn't had a physiological effect on their views of the world...
We are expected to accept that these people are well rounded and almost none human, unbiased and invincible, to be able to look objectively at crime scene after crime scene.. Not to be effected by their own beliefs or their own standing and reputation...
There are a whole host of profilers and psychologists available on TV giving us their expert opinion, based on what ever evidence available to them, a money making occupation for some... And a compelling TV viewing for others whom are fascinated with crime and what makes people tick...
This also affects juries, many jurors may have seen endless TV programs showing them the success rate of these profilers and putting these profilers in an elevated position of respect, based on a TV's re-enactment of a crime... A re-enactment that may or may not be accurate...
Profilers are fallible like anyone else, they make errors in judgement, they generalise and use language that the ordinary person doesn't know about and because they do not understand the language , based on this person education, they decide they must know what they are talking about....
We could all agree that the basic's are reasons for Murder/Manslaughter... Jealousy... greed... hatred... sexual... opportunity... Compassion... accident...
Basic's that form any starting point of any investigation... For instance someone is terminally ill, assisting someone in taking their life, may be seen as compassion... But it is still a crime...
Without investigating fully why someone has died, exhausting all possible avenues, a profiler, is not going to come up with a solution that determines a complex reason.. especially if they are only expert in one field.....
For instance... (A) was terminally ill... and (B) agreed to assist.... If (A) committed suicide (A) wouldn't get paid out by (A's) insurance company... So (B) came up with a plan to make it look like (A) had been attacked by a stranger and removed (A) from their home and placed (A) on a verge, covering (A) with leaves and kissing (A) goodbye...
The amount of information that needed sifting through, with the internet and friends etc, should have taken a great deal of time... 200 plus facebook friends, work colleagues, friends from college, friends from school days etc, family members, spouse, many many inquiries needing checking and verifying...
All taking longer than 11 days...(imo)
One train of thought or investigation, when followed, may not bare fruit, but if another train of thought comes forth, any statements or messages, would need to be looked at again, because the context has changed...
All I see is a profiler, helps to add substance to an idea, based on said profilers reputation, but all a profiler is doing is pointing the Police in a direction... It may be the wrong direction... But no-one question this... and I do not understand why...
Yes.. The crime rate, gets cleared up, but don't you need more than someones opinion, more than a story or a confession... Don't you need evidence to support said story, don't you need evidence to support someones opinion.... Especially if someones opinion helps in capturing, arresting and convicting someone of a crime....
I could point the finger at many people whom we have come to know with this crime... And to be honest, I fell into that catergory of stating it could be someone.. But what had I based that on.... What I had heard in the papers, or on forums, social media etc...
I also do not know the full circumstances of this case, I am not privy to the information collected, I am not privy to the CCTV, I am not privy to peoples movements, or any correspondence of any type that happened, before that weekend or during that weekend....
Many aspects that make it impossible for me to point the finger, at anyone.. As I do not know enough about each persons own characteristics, to be able to determine anything... Or any other person opportunities that weekend...
To randomly choose the next door neighbour as a suspect, who didn't know his neighbour, had not met his neighbour, had no idea, if anyone was due at the flat at anytime that weekend, who's movements could be seen by the CCTV on Canygne Road and who's window of opportunity was so minute, that it seems ridiculous to even suggest that it was he....
No-one knew when Joanna Yeates died... No-one knew whether or not she reached home... Nothing put Joanna Yeates at home other than Dr Vincent Tabak, in his statement on the stand, she could have been at home or elsewhere... But the CCTV, should put Joanna Yeates in Canygne Road and arriving home, yet it was omitted from trial....
Me using different scenario's and possibilities through out my posting, only goes to show what possible lines of inquiry could be looked at and what reason they also may have been for this crime....
I find it highly suspicious, that Dr Vincent Tabak, said nothing until trial, yet was held without what appears to be evidence... That Low copy DNA cannot prove guilt, nor a minute drop of blood in a car,prove guilt... both as I have stated being able to be explained away by any competent lawyer...
Admitting guilt, isn't enough, if the reason isn't because you did it, but maybe it's because you were protecting someone else.... Or you were stupid enough to play games with the Police, and try cause them a problem with their investigation...
If the only evidence is someone stating they did it, is that enough to go to trial, when it must be able to be shown that Joanna yeates did not reach her home on the Friday 17th December 2010, if Colin Ports Leveson statement is anything to go by... If the last sighting was The Hop House pub, then we need to know the date and time of this last sighting.... We need to exhaust every possibility as to what Joanna Yeates movements were....
We need to know for a fact that Joanna Yeates reached home in the first place... And whether she left again at any point that weekend.... There are far to many unanswered questions (imo).. And none of us should be satisfied, with a story on a stand, without supporting evidence... Physical evidence that supports anyones story... (imo)
And if a profiler, pointed them in the direction of Dr Vincent Tabak, should the said profiler have been at trial to explain why he had come to his conclusions....
Everyone should be worried that Dr Vincent Tabak's story was believed and accepted as the evidence without any physical evidence supporting this tale... That this case wasn't thrown out or the jury directly differently..
It's implied Dr Vincent Tabak lied on the stand, it is implied that a sexual motive was the reasoning behind Dr Vincent Tabak killing Joanna yeates... It is accepted that Dr vincent tabak lied on the stand....
So why is it accepted that when Dr Vincent Tabak said he was responsible for the death of Joanna Yeates, then that must be true??
Why are people happy to accept that he said, he was responsible, yet we at the same time call him a liar...
If he is a liar, then his testimony on the stand should be disregarded, it cannot be trusted... But we seem happy to trust it when it sends someone to prison ,apparently...
So no testimony, no conviction... nothing supports that Dr Vincent Tabak committed this crime..(imo).. No physical evidence and no motive... Only parts of a testimony that supports someones idea of what may or may not have happened to Joanna yeates, spoken by the accused on the stand...
And everyone seems to wonder why I question this case.....
What on earth are you talking about? Her keys put her at home, her handbag, her phone! How can you not see this? And his motive was SEXUAL, his DNA was on her exposed breast for gods sake! Yes, she did leave the flat again, her dead body was carried out by one Vincent Tabak after he killed her because he couldn't control his sexual urges. He doesn't deserve the title of 'Dr' which you keep furnishing him with. Doctors preserve life where they can and respect it when they can't. Tabak is simply a filthy pervert who took the life of a young woman because he was an inadequate human being! I have no idea why you have a fascination for this man but it is clouding you ability to see and understand the basic facts.
Someone comes home expecting to see their partner there, initially they aren't worried but as time goes on, they become concerned and call said person - they hear the familiar sound of said persons phone. The worry deepens and only escalates as they find said persons bag and keys! Then they don't come home! Where do you imagine was the last place said person might have been and where the investigation to find said person should start? Don't think inside or outside of a box - just apply some common sense! I'll give you a clue, it wouldn't start with what they 'don't know'!
-
One of the great unfathomable mysteries of the Universe is... who keeps giving nine a like for everything she posts? *%87
-
Who forced him to say this if he was innocent
Defence Counsel: You and Tanja continued living at Flat 2. How did you manage? Tabak: I was drinking a lot of alcohol and doing a lot of Internet research.
Defence Counsel: What did you think would happen?
Tabak: I was sure I would be arrested. Tanya kept me going. Can I say that I am really sorry for being responsible for her death. I am really sorry for putting her parents through all that worry that week before she was found.
He’s admitting again that he is responsible, he had no need to say this if he was innocent, why mention her parents? This isn’t rehearsed it’s spontaneous statement by him.
All this theory about Joanna being alive for the weekend crap, the pathology indicated the last melal she ever ate was Cheesey chips with her boyfriend at lunch time, sadly she never got to eat the Pizza she bought home.
-
What on earth are you talking about? Her keys put her at home, her handbag, her phone! How can you not see this? And his motive was SEXUAL, his DNA was on her exposed breast for gods sake! Yes, she did leave the flat again, her dead body was carried out by one Vincent Tabak after he killed her because he couldn't control his sexual urges. He doesn't deserve the title of 'Dr' which you keep furnishing him with. Doctors preserve life where they can and respect it when they can't. Tabak is simply a filthy pervert who took the life of a young woman because he was an inadequate human being! I have no idea why you have a fascination for this man but it is clouding you ability to see and understand the basic facts.
Someone comes home expecting to see their partner there, initially they aren't worried but as time goes on, they become concerned and call said person - they hear the familiar sound of said persons phone. The worry deepens and only escalates as they find said persons bag and keys! Then they don't come home! Where do you imagine was the last place said person might have been and where the investigation to find said person should start? Don't think inside or outside of a box - just apply some common sense! I'll give you a clue, it wouldn't start with what they 'don't know'!
Nine is defendeding the undefendable and using the same tactic we’ve seen in the Bamber case, attacking anyone involved, police, Jefferies, Joanna’s parents, boyfriend, profilers ect. It’s called deflecting any blame of Tabak, Nine claims to have a problem with this conviction, I don’t think Nine has a problem with the conviction, Nine’s problem lies with the fact Tabak got caught!
-
Nine is defendeding the undefendable and using the same tactic we’ve seen in the Bamber case, attacking anyone involved, police, Jefferies, Joanna’s parents, boyfriend, profilers ect. It’s called deflecting any blame of Tabak, Nine claims to have a problem with this conviction, I don’t think Nine has a problem with the conviction, Nine’s problem lies with the fact Tabak got caught!
Her "Uncle Tom Cobley and All" stance is certainly reminiscent of some of JB's unwavering supporters, who, I'm confident would accuse him of lying if he admitted his guilt now, however, I can recall a time when I was one of them. I don't know that the evidence available, then, was any different, from what it is, now. What has changed is my mindset and how I've come to view his actions, and what I believe to be his motives. Here, in this case, we have something very similar. Tabak has admitted guilt! Confessed!! Yet we have a supporter, who, despite the weight of evidence against him, is convinced he's innocent.
-
One of the great unfathomable mysteries of the Universe is... who keeps giving nine a like for everything she posts? *%87
No idea but it will all come out in the wash @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Her "Uncle Tom Cobley and All" stance is certainly reminiscent of some of JB's unwavering supporters, who, I'm confident would accuse him of lying if he admitted his guilt now, however, I can recall a time when I was one of them. I don't know that the evidence available, then, was any different, from what it is, now. What has changed is my mindset and how I've come to view his actions, and what I believe to be his motives. Here, in this case, we have something very similar. Tabak has admitted guilt! Confessed!! Yet we have a supporter, who, despite the weight of evidence against him, is convinced he's innocent.
I think the Bamber case is different because he has never admitted guilt. Although I no longer agree that he is innocent, I can see why people might believe he is given that he has always denied it. What I can't understand is WHY ANYONE can argue that this bloke is innocent when he himself has admitted it and has never retracted that admission.
-
Whatever... Doesn't matter does it... life will go on whatever, I think or believe... I think the countries government, has shown the world what a shower of shit we are.... So my little stance will have no effect....
I have lost faith in everything... The justice system, the government, voting, what the point... I give up... I give up on it all.... I can make no difference, no-one can make any difference, it doesn't matter a jot.... those who are happy to put innocent people behind bars will continue to do so....
And those who fight for them will get nowhere.... I understand your comments are not personal.. they cannot be, you don't know me... It's just your opinion, as I have mine....
Maybe you need someone else to joust with.... Because that has whats been going on I think.... I have done what I can... I have written what I believe, I have tried my best... unfortunately it isn't good enough....
What ever this case has been about... no admittance will happen.... Nothing will come of my attempts to point out the oddities of this case....
It will always be with me... It's just one of those things... But differences cannot be made in this country, it never could be.... I foolishly believed I lived in a democracy... And in a fair and just system.... Well I now know it isn't true... But knowing something and being able to change something are two different things altogether....
I can't change anything... I can do nothing...
I was going to say again I have wasted my time... But not really, it has been a learning curve if nothing else...
I cannot say anything more than I have already said.... I have tried... I have failed.... end of..... maybe someone out there may have more success...
An opinion is pointless... A belief is also pointless...
For me it has never been anything to do with money or notoriety , more to so with having a concern about someones conviction... I was brought up to believe in right and wrong, fair and unfair.... Shame I took it to heart... It doesn't matter in the society we live in... that is more than obvious... And over the recent government squabblings has become more apparent....
So I may have made a complete fool of myself... and so what.... doesn't matter, because nothing will change..... I think my only real problem, was I thought that people in positions of power cared, and could and would change things... But leave those at the top in a room and all hell breaks loose, all manipulation and distractions take place, as if we are not watching.... (We have seen them in action)
You can watch all you want... you can believe all you want... But nothing will ever change...
And thats the real problem.....
The problem is not whether I believe that Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent..... The problem is why anyone would really care what I think or believe... As what I think or believe matters not a jot!!
Actually no, life doesn't 'just go on' - the life of Joanna Yeates certainly isn't going on. It was ended by someone unable to control his urges and who tried to hide behind a cloak of respectability when he was anything but!
Tabak isn't innocent by his own admission - the is no conspiracy.
In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter what any of us think but as this is forum for debate, that's what we're doing.
-
Whatever... Doesn't matter does it... life will go on whatever, I think or believe... I think the countries government, has shown the world what a shower of shit we are.... So my little stance will have no effect....
I have lost faith in everything... The justice system, the government, voting, what the point... I give up... I give up on it all.... I can make no difference, no-one can make any difference, it doesn't matter a jot.... those who are happy to put innocent people behind bars will continue to do so....
And those who fight for them will get nowhere.... I understand your comments are not personal.. they cannot be, you don't know me... It's just your opinion, as I have mine....
Maybe you need someone else to joust with.... Because that has whats been going on I think.... I have done what I can... I have written what I believe, I have tried my best... unfortunately it isn't good enough....
What ever this case has been about... no admittance will happen.... Nothing will come of my attempts to point out the oddities of this case....
It will always be with me... It's just one of those things... But differences cannot be made in this country, it never could be.... I foolishly believed I lived in a democracy... And in a fair and just system.... Well I now know it isn't true... But knowing something and being able to change something are two different things altogether....
I can't change anything... I can do nothing...
I was going to say again I have wasted my time... But not really, it has been a learning curve if nothing else...
I cannot say anything more than I have already said.... I have tried... I have failed.... end of..... maybe someone out there may have more success...
An opinion is pointless... A belief is also pointless...
For me it has never been anything to do with money or notoriety , more to so with having a concern about someones conviction... I was brought up to believe in right and wrong, fair and unfair.... Shame I took it to heart... It doesn't matter in the society we live in... that is more than obvious... And over the recent government squabblings has become more apparent....
So I may have made a complete fool of myself... and so what.... doesn't matter, because nothing will change..... I think my only real problem, was I thought that people in positions of power cared, and could and would change things... But leave those at the top in a room and all hell breaks loose, all manipulation and distractions take place, as if we are not watching.... (We have seen them in action)
You can watch all you want... you can believe all you want... But nothing will ever change...
And thats the real problem.....
The problem is not whether I believe that Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent..... The problem is why anyone would really care what I think or believe... As what I think or believe matters not a jot!!
I could -perhaps- accept what you're saying if Tabak was claiming innocence, but he's not. It could be argued that by insisting that he is you take away his right to speak for himself. In fact, you might as well call him a liar. Sadly, it's your stance on this, versus his own admission, which makes it rather difficult to believe you're being serious. However, reading your last post fully, you sound sincere in your beliefs, which given that you appear to be the only one who holds this belief, is a difficult position to hold. Touching on something else you mention. I think it's a touch naive to believe that anyone in government actually cares. We're probably no more than the sum of our NI and NH numbers.
-
I'll leave you with one of my favourite tracks..
and the lyrics of course...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lK69c2_TYo
It was a hard task
To take on
To make us all believe
To rescue us from evil cause
They wanted to achieve
Avenge to gain respect
Defend ourselves to the end
Patriots of dark continent
I give all of my confidence
Redemption
Weh dem gone
weh dem deh
Tribute to the martyrs
Which part dem gone
A weh dem deh, Heh
When Martyrs died they save our lives
They had an early grave
Sacrifice has taken place
For the chosen race heh
(2) Which part dem gone
Which part dek ...
There was one they crucified
Dead man tell no tales
There were some they hung so high
We know the reason why
Caught, and tried, bound and beat
Locked, locked away inside
But won their war of words
Patriots lost their lives
Yet no-one cries
The whole world stands accused.
Which part dem gone
Which part dem deh
A multitude of people
Dem try dem best to convince
Only to capture the heart of a few
The truth you can't dismiss
They are telling me silent waters run deep
So their knowledge I'II always seek
They are telling me,
A nation without its past history
Is like a tree without roots
Which part dem gone
Which part dem deh ...
Best to strike when irons hot,
It will not bend when cold....
Not to late to learn my friend
Wisdom ripes with old age, if you got it
Now wake up you distressed, yeh yeh yeh
Under, under oppressor man affliction
Hell fire can't be quenched with water no sah!
Though it once had a dreadful shower of rain
We who are blessed they just can't put us under
Martyrs golden text is bondage never again
If not by free will it then by force
Break the bondage plot that course.
Remember.........
Message preach to all, you hear something
Doctrine for the soul, you feel something
The story has been told, you know something
Now answer, martyrs call, do something -
Prophesise the fall
Backs against the wall no more, be something
Which part dem gone
Which part dem deh
Homage to the Martyrs
Tribute to the Martyrs
Love it, it suit a man
To set example like
Toussaint L'Overture chase all
Oppressor man out of his land.
Quick.
Hey stepper is what happen to Bogle?
Morant Bay rebellion
Standing up feh 'I'm rights
Dem decide fe hang 'I'm up
WHAT?
Truly
865
So Greyseed what you hear
'bout Jackson.
George Jackson
Imprisonment
- solitary confinement.
Pow! Pow! Aaaaakhhhhhh!
197I
Bumbo ....
Yes Greyseed?
WHAT happen to Marcus?
Marcus say a thing sah.
ONE GOD, ONE AIM,
ONE DESTINY
Starliner
BLACK
Hey is wha happen to Biko
Biko detainee
In detention - Vank
What?
1977
South Africa
The Black Panthers
Freedom Fighters!
They tried them died
Luther King
He had a dream grizzly -
He had a dream
Believe you me
Malcolm X
LIFT STRUGGLE
In pool of blood I965
But wait -
Nobody don't leave?
Is only we Rasta.
Yes I
I and I was not born
Rich nor poor.
I and I was born naked.
You hear something
Feel something
Know something
Do something
See something
BE SOMEONE ....
.... (fade)
So your humour of Uncle Tom Cobley, may be apt.. A list... well I have provided a list... A list most will no nothing about...
I am unfortunately not going to try interpret what you may or may not have meant... Dependant of what may be in your head... Just like you cannot possibly know what I mean by this song, whether it is relevant to my beliefs whether any part of it s relevant...
But it's a great album... It makes me smile... And after all this time I need a smile or two...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgcFgQSS_X8&list=PLDCC16C0D7231BF8F
Whilst that genre of music is alien to me, the poetry/lyric is powerful and thought provoking. Whether or not the words are relevant to your belief is irrelevant. That the album makes you smile is what's important. Smiles are good for us. Continue to enjoy them.
-
I'll leave you with one of my favourite tracks..
and the lyrics of course...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lK69c2_TYo
It was a hard task
To take on
To make us all believe
To rescue us from evil cause
They wanted to achieve
Avenge to gain respect
Defend ourselves to the end
Patriots of dark continent
I give all of my confidence
Redemption
Weh dem gone
weh dem deh
Tribute to the martyrs
Which part dem gone
A weh dem deh, Heh
When Martyrs died they save our lives
They had an early grave
Sacrifice has taken place
For the chosen race heh
(2) Which part dem gone
Which part dek ...
There was one they crucified
Dead man tell no tales
There were some they hung so high
We know the reason why
Caught, and tried, bound and beat
Locked, locked away inside
But won their war of words
Patriots lost their lives
Yet no-one cries
The whole world stands accused.
Which part dem gone
Which part dem deh
A multitude of people
Dem try dem best to convince
Only to capture the heart of a few
The truth you can't dismiss
They are telling me silent waters run deep
So their knowledge I'II always seek
They are telling me,
A nation without its past history
Is like a tree without roots
Which part dem gone
Which part dem deh ...
Best to strike when irons hot,
It will not bend when cold....
Not to late to learn my friend
Wisdom ripes with old age, if you got it
Now wake up you distressed, yeh yeh yeh
Under, under oppressor man affliction
Hell fire can't be quenched with water no sah!
Though it once had a dreadful shower of rain
We who are blessed they just can't put us under
Martyrs golden text is bondage never again
If not by free will it then by force
Break the bondage plot that course.
Remember.........
Message preach to all, you hear something
Doctrine for the soul, you feel something
The story has been told, you know something
Now answer, martyrs call, do something -
Prophesise the fall
Backs against the wall no more, be something
Which part dem gone
Which part dem deh
Homage to the Martyrs
Tribute to the Martyrs
Love it, it suit a man
To set example like
Toussaint L'Overture chase all
Oppressor man out of his land.
Quick.
Hey stepper is what happen to Bogle?
Morant Bay rebellion
Standing up feh 'I'm rights
Dem decide fe hang 'I'm up
WHAT?
Truly
865
So Greyseed what you hear
'bout Jackson.
George Jackson
Imprisonment
- solitary confinement.
Pow! Pow! Aaaaakhhhhhh!
197I
Bumbo ....
Yes Greyseed?
WHAT happen to Marcus?
Marcus say a thing sah.
ONE GOD, ONE AIM,
ONE DESTINY
Starliner
BLACK
Hey is wha happen to Biko
Biko detainee
In detention - Vank
What?
1977
South Africa
The Black Panthers
Freedom Fighters!
They tried them died
Luther King
He had a dream grizzly -
He had a dream
Believe you me
Malcolm X
LIFT STRUGGLE
In pool of blood I965
But wait -
Nobody don't leave?
Is only we Rasta.
Yes I
I and I was not born
Rich nor poor.
I and I was born naked.
You hear something
Feel something
Know something
Do something
See something
BE SOMEONE ....
.... (fade)
So your humour of Uncle Tom Cobley, may be apt.. A list... well I have provided a list... A list most will no nothing about...
I am unfortunately not going to try interpret what you may or may not have meant... Dependant of what may be in your head... Just like you cannot possibly know what I mean by this song, whether it is relevant to my beliefs whether any part of it s relevant...
But it's a great album... It makes me smile... And after all this time I need a smile or two...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgcFgQSS_X8&list=PLDCC16C0D7231BF8F
Try listening to unseen guest... And see if the idea of hanging would have been a good idea... It was never a good idea... lynching was never a good idea... Hanging anyone in any capacity has never been a good idea...
But hey ho if thats what rocks ya boat... who am I to say otherwise....
Just a taste from the lyrics of unseen guest:..
Down in the dungeon
I heard them constructing, the scaffold
Where . . . I'll be lynched aloft high
The thoughts of me to die
Rocking like a pendulum,
Anyway it does'nt matter cause
I'll be swinging to the rhythms of heh.
Jah Jah watch over I
Evil, what you Gonna do. Jah Jah
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgcFgQSS_X8
I think it's plain... Nothing has ever changed... has it... try asking a few NATIVE Americans....
Can't accept that those who fought to end slavery or for Freedom to own their own lands can be likened to the vicious pervert that IS Vincent Tabak.
Don't think anyone mentioned the death penalty did they?
Here's another song ..... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-dl9KTYAVk
What's it got to do with Tabak? Nowt but neither does martyrdom and ulike Tabak - it's funny! 8((()*/
Lyrics ....
The Sultans of Ping FC
My brother knows Karl Marx
He met him eating mushrooms in the public park
He said: "What do you think of my manifesto?"
"I like your manifesto, put it to the testo"
Took me down to meet the anarchist party
Met a groovy guy, he was arty farty
Said: "I know a little Latin, a kissen an a kai
Said: "I dunno what it means", I said: "Neither do I"
Eat natural food baked twice daily
Fill your nostrils up with gravy
Don't drink tea and don't drink coffee
Cover your chin in Yorkshire toffee
Dancing in the disco, bumper to bumper
Wait a minute:
"Where's me jumper? Where's me jumper? Where's me jumper?"
Dancing in the disco, bumper to bumper
Wait a minute:
"Where's me jumper? Where's me jumper? Where's me jumper?
Where's me jumper? Where's me jumper? Oh no!"
Dancing in the disco, go go go
Dancing in the disco, oh no, oh no, oh no
Dancing in the disco, go go go
Dancing in the disco, oh no, oh no
It's all right to say things can only get better
If you haven't just lost your brand new sweater
I know I had it on when I had my tea
And I'm sure I had it on in the lavatory
Dancing in the disco, go go go
Dancing in the disco, oh no, oh no
Dancing in the disco, bumper to bumper
Wait a minute:
"Where's me jumper? Where's me jumper? Where's me jumper?
Where's me jumper? Where's me jumper?"
It's all right to say things can only get better
If you haven't just lost your brand new sweater
Pure new wool and perfect stitches
Not the type of jumper that makes you itch, oh no
Dancing in the disco, go go go
Dancing in the disco, oh no, oh no
And my mother will be so, so angry
And my brother will be so, so angry
And my girlfriend will be so, so angry
And my dog will be so, so angry
Dancing in the disco, bumper to bumper
Wait a minute:
"Where's me jumper? Where's me jumper? Where's me jumper?
Where's me jumper? Where's me jumper? Oh no!"
-
I personally think Tabak was a serial killer in the making, this reinforced by experts. He’d crossed the line obviously lead up to it with his perverted interest in child porn and snuff videos. The police revealed he’d been looking at the snuff videos on the morning he killed Joanna. The blood in the boot of his car was such a significant find. I never have believed in hanging but when you think what Joanna went through and her parents and boyfriend it fuels the anger for such. Such a lovely innocent girl taken by a perverted monster.
-
I personally think Tabak was a serial killer in the making, this reinforced by experts. He’d crossed the line obviously lead up to it with his perverted interest in child porn and snuff videos. The police revealed he’d been looking at the snuff videos on the morning he killed Joanna. The blood in the boot of his car was such a significant find. I never have believed in hanging but when you think what Joanna went through and her parents and boyfriend it fuels the anger for such. Such a lovely innocent girl taken by a perverted monster.
I think you might be right Justice!
-
i have gone past caring... no offence intended... 8)--))
Only just? That ship sailed a while back.
-
The point I made, was there's no point.. based on what you have been taught... Hanging was mentioned in the media about Dr Vincent Tabak...
I have decided that what `I have spent time on trying to highlight is pointless... based on what is taught to anyone and everyone.. What as a nation we are lead to believe is the true history or facts...
And as as I have started the music theme... here's another one to try..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SK9-i62yktg
I and I old I know
I and I old I say
I and I reconsider
I and I see upfully that
Christopher Columbus is a damn blasted liar
Christopher Columbus is a damn blasted liar
Yes Jah
He's saying that, he is the first one
Who discover Jamaica
I and I say that,
What about the Arawak Indians and the few Black man
Who were around here, before him
The Indians couldn't hang on no longer
Here comes first Black man and woman and children,
In a Jam Down Land ya
A whole heap of mix up and mix up
A whole heap a ben up, ben up,
We have fi straighten out,
Christopher Columbus is a damn blasted liar
Christopher Columbus is a damn blasted liar
Yes Jah
What a long way from home
I and I longing to go home
Within a Red, Green, and Gold Robe
Come on Twelve Tribe of Isreal
Come on Twelve Tribe of Isreal
Out a Jam Down land ya
A whole heap of mix up mix up
A whole heap a ben up, ben up,
Come on Twelve Tribe of Isreal
Come on Twelve Tribe of Isreal
Out a Jam Down land ya
Christopher Columbus is a damn blasted liar
Christopher Columbus is a damn blasted liar
Yes Jah, he is a liar
Yes Jah, he is a liar
Yes Jah, he is a liar
Columbus is a liar
Yes jah Christopher Columbus is a damn blasted liar
Columbus
One of the best concerts I watched on tv, the Bob Marley tribute with Tracey Chapman, there was another girl singer can’t remeber her name she was brill
-
The point I made, was there's no point.. based on what you have been taught... Hanging was mentioned in the media about Dr Vincent Tabak...
I have decided that what `I have spent time on trying to highlight is pointless... based on what is taught to anyone and everyone.. What as a nation we are lead to believe is the true history or facts...
And as as I have started the music theme... here's another one to try..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SK9-i62yktg
I and I old I know
I and I old I say
I and I reconsider
I and I see upfully that
Christopher Columbus is a damn blasted liar
Christopher Columbus is a damn blasted liar
Yes Jah
He's saying that, he is the first one
Who discover Jamaica
I and I say that,
What about the Arawak Indians and the few Black man
Who were around here, before him
The Indians couldn't hang on no longer
Here comes first Black man and woman and children,
In a Jam Down Land ya
A whole heap of mix up and mix up
A whole heap a ben up, ben up,
We have fi straighten out,
Christopher Columbus is a damn blasted liar
Christopher Columbus is a damn blasted liar
Yes Jah
What a long way from home
I and I longing to go home
Within a Red, Green, and Gold Robe
Come on Twelve Tribe of Isreal
Come on Twelve Tribe of Isreal
Out a Jam Down land ya
A whole heap of mix up mix up
A whole heap a ben up, ben up,
Come on Twelve Tribe of Isreal
Come on Twelve Tribe of Isreal
Out a Jam Down land ya
Christopher Columbus is a damn blasted liar
Christopher Columbus is a damn blasted liar
Yes Jah, he is a liar
Yes Jah, he is a liar
Yes Jah, he is a liar
Columbus is a liar
Yes jah Christopher Columbus is a damn blasted liar
Columbus
I never me Mr Columbus Nine so I couldn't comment on his truthfulness.
-
Only just? That ship sailed a while back.
Was that the Housemartins Caroline 😂😂😂
-
Was that the Housemartins Caroline 😂😂😂
No, The Sultans of Ping - pretty much a one hit wonder but it cracks me up @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
I Smile in an acknowledgement of understanding nothing changes... the album is part of my youth.... The struggles, the difficulties never change.... Thats why the album makes me smile... Maybe I should have been more pacific... Not a smile as in happy happy... more of a wry smile as we have been there before...
But nothing is new. The same old comes around time and again. We depose and DISpose of one despot and another takes their place. Slavery was banned in 1806. We have invented other ways of creating slaves. We no longer send children up chimneys. We've 'refined' ways to make them suffer. Pete Seger wrote protest songs in the 1950's. Bob Dylan, Joan Baez and others of the 1960's generation wrote others. There was the wonderfully inspiring "I Have a Dream" speech. I wonder what Dr King, who worked so hard to bring equality to everyone, would make of the world now?
-
No, The Sultans of Ping - pretty much a one hit wonder but it cracks me up @)(++(* @)(++(*
Ha Ha I got the title wrong, it’s “ I’ll sail this ship alone “. I liked them better as beautiful south with my favourite Jacqui Abbot 8(>(( 8(>((
-
Which one?? The Black or the White Starliner??
Marcus Garveys words come to pass... Maybe it's not noted in English circles.. But ask me if I give a flying !!
Nah, I won't ask that but I would suggest that Mr Garvey would probably be a little hacked off at being used to back up a freedom fight for a perverted killer.
I guess there are just no more heroes anymore! 8((()*/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pg2np37JNEg
No More Heroes
The Stranglers
Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an ice pick
That made his ears burn
Whatever happened to
Dear old Lenin?
The great Elmyra
And Sancho Panza?
Whatever happened to the heroes?
Whatever happened to the heroes?
Whatever happened to
All of the heroes?
All the Shakespearoes?
They watched their Rome burn
Whatever happened to the heroes?
Whatever happened to the heroes?
No more heroes any more
No more heroes any more
Whatever happened to
All of the heroes?
All the Shakespearoes?
They watched their Rome burn
Whatever happened to the heroes?
Whatever happened to the heroes?
No more heroes any more
No more heroes any more
No more heroes any more
No more heroes any more
-
Which one?? The Black or the White Starliner??
Marcus Garveys words come to pass... Maybe it's not noted in English circles.. But ask me if I give a flying !!
Nice to see you chillin Nine, we’re not going to change anything, to me the evidence is overwhelming and if they wanted to frame anyone they would have framed CJ, easy target, they had access to his flat and car the press would have loved it. The dna ruled him out though.
-
I cannot speak for him... my imagination of his reaction may differ...
Slavery cannot be categorised by race alone.. those disgraceful times should have been enough to teach one and all , but slavery is alive today as it has always been, but in a different guise...
And you can add Buffy Saint Marie to your list...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlrOaJFf6tg
Wounded knee, another atrocity that has been swept under that big carpet... Oh I forgot... the carpets were removed from the scene of crime...
I am sure you think there is a connection to Tabak in all of this but there really isn't
-
Maybe this song is more apt 8()-000( 8)--))
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzIuZ-mrIL0
Psycho Killer
Talking Heads
I can't seem to face up to the facts
I'm tense and nervous and I can't relax
I can't sleep 'cause my bed's on fire
Don't touch me I'm a real live wire
Psycho Killer
Qu'est-ce que c'est
Fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-far better
Run run run run run run run away oh oh
Psycho Killer
Qu'est-ce que c'est
Fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-far better
Run, run, run, run, run, run, run, away oh oh oh
Yeah yeah yeah yeah!
You start a conversation you can't even finish it
You're talking a lot, but you're not saying anything
When I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed
Say something once, why say it again?
Psycho Killer
Qu'est-ce que c'est
Fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-far better
Run run run run run run run away oh oh oh
Psycho Killer
Qu'est-ce que c'est
Fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-far…
-
Love tha tsong...... 8)--))
8((()*/
-
(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/police-surround-the-area-where-a-dead-body-was-discovered-at-the-edge-picture-id107779949)
Then it moves position...
(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/police-surround-the-area-where-a-dead-body-was-discovered-at-the-edge-picture-id107779943)
There's two....
(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/more-forensic-tents-are-errected-at-the-scene-where-joanna-yeates-picture-id808703594?k=6&m=808703594&s=612x612&w=0&h=Yq_xfcWaFBF8MWNOCNu2vHwPQJLYPe1IHi_u_amESaA=)
-
My honest opinion as I sit here right now... Is................ how alone I feel.............. And I am not in prison right now...!!
You're never alone on a forum Nine!
-
(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/police-surround-the-area-where-a-dead-body-was-discovered-at-the-edge-picture-id107779949)
Then it moves position...
(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/police-surround-the-area-where-a-dead-body-was-discovered-at-the-edge-picture-id107779943)
There's two....
(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/more-forensic-tents-are-errected-at-the-scene-where-joanna-yeates-picture-id808703594?k=6&m=808703594&s=612x612&w=0&h=Yq_xfcWaFBF8MWNOCNu2vHwPQJLYPe1IHi_u_amESaA=)
The bottom picture looks like a totally different scene, there’s no snow, the tree line looks different, the
Roadside kerbing looks different and obviously vehicles have changed? When they have found a body Nine, they just don’t search within a square metre , they do an extensive search of the whole area looking for vital clues.
-
.................
Still, look on the bright side, Nine. You're sharing dialogue. Whilst we may not share your views, we're happy to discuss them with you.
-
(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/police-surround-the-area-where-a-dead-body-was-discovered-at-the-edge-picture-id107779949)
Then it moves position...
(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/police-surround-the-area-where-a-dead-body-was-discovered-at-the-edge-picture-id107779943)
There's two....
(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/more-forensic-tents-are-errected-at-the-scene-where-joanna-yeates-picture-id808703594?k=6&m=808703594&s=612x612&w=0&h=Yq_xfcWaFBF8MWNOCNu2vHwPQJLYPe1IHi_u_amESaA=)
What you haven’t done Nine is study the pictures, the top photo is after the middle photo and there is proof, the middle picture number ends in 43 and the top picture number ends in 49 so the top was taken after the middle picture, thus they were moving it in position.
-
What on earth are you talking about? Her keys put her at home, her handbag, her phone! How can you not see this? And his motive was SEXUAL, his DNA was on her exposed breast for gods sake! Yes, she did leave the flat again, her dead body was carried out by one Vincent Tabak after he killed her because he couldn't control his sexual urges. He doesn't deserve the title of 'Dr' which you keep furnishing him with. Doctors preserve life where they can and respect it when they can't. Tabak is simply a filthy pervert who took the life of a young woman because he was an inadequate human being! I have no idea why you have a fascination for this man but it is clouding you ability to see and understand the basic facts.
Someone comes home expecting to see their partner there, initially they aren't worried but as time goes on, they become concerned and call said person - they hear the familiar sound of said persons phone. The worry deepens and only escalates as they find said persons bag and keys! Then they don't come home! Where do you imagine was the last place said person might have been and where the investigation to find said person should start? Don't think inside or outside of a box - just apply some common sense! I'll give you a clue, it wouldn't start with what they 'don't know'!
I have asked this question on several occasions, but rarely are there enough posters on this board to answer it for me. If VT killed Joanna in her flat (as he said in court), why was there no DNA or fingerprints from VT in the flat, and why was there no DNA from Joanna in his flat if (as he said) he took her body there? Why no bloodstains in either flat? Why no blood on the ground outside? Why no fingerprints on that front door that VT was so worried about?
VT pled guilty, so nobody needed to mention the forensic evidence? Nonsense---it would have helped the prosecution . Why mention a spot of blood on the seal of a car boot, but not the forensic evidence from both flats? And, there were plenty of forensic personnel going in and out.
VT wore gloves, as it was a cold night? Has any violent pervert ever got sexual thrills wearing gloves???
One more question: why have we never heard of a psychiatric report being done on VT?
-
I have asked this question on several occasions, but rarely are there enough posters on this board to answer it for me. If VT killed Joanna in her flat (as he said in court), why was there no DNA or fingerprints from VT in the flat, and why was there no DNA from Joanna in his flat if (as he said) he took her body there? Why no bloodstains in either flat? Why no blood on the ground outside? Why no fingerprints on that front door that VT was so worried about?
VT pled guilty, so nobody needed to mention the forensic evidence? Nonsense---it would have helped the prosecution . Why mention a spot of blood on the seal of a car boot, but not the forensic evidence from both flats? And, there were plenty of forensic personnel going in and out.
VT wore gloves, as it was a cold night? Has any violent pervert ever got sexual thrills wearing gloves???
One more question: why have we never heard of a psychiatric report being done on VT?
One might see a liking for wearing gloves as a kind of sexual deviancy. There are most certainly those who 'get off' on wearing them.
-
(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/police-surround-the-area-where-a-dead-body-was-discovered-at-the-edge-picture-id107779949)
Then it moves position...
(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/police-surround-the-area-where-a-dead-body-was-discovered-at-the-edge-picture-id107779943)
There's two....
(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/more-forensic-tents-are-errected-at-the-scene-where-joanna-yeates-picture-id808703594?k=6&m=808703594&s=612x612&w=0&h=Yq_xfcWaFBF8MWNOCNu2vHwPQJLYPe1IHi_u_amESaA=)
There certainly is.
-
I have asked this question on several occasions, but rarely are there enough posters on this board to answer it for me. If VT killed Joanna in her flat (as he said in court), why was there no DNA or fingerprints from VT in the flat, and why was there no DNA from Joanna in his flat if (as he said) he took her body there? Why no bloodstains in either flat? Why no blood on the ground outside? Why no fingerprints on that front door that VT was so worried about?
VT pled guilty, so nobody needed to mention the forensic evidence? Nonsense---it would have helped the prosecution . Why mention a spot of blood on the seal of a car boot, but not the forensic evidence from both flats? And, there were plenty of forensic personnel going in and out.
VT wore gloves, as it was a cold night? Has any violent pervert ever got sexual thrills wearing gloves???
One more question: why have we never heard of a psychiatric report being done on VT?
If it was a frenzied attack then I could understand there being DNA present in the flat but why would you expect them to find his DNA? How much was Joanna bleeding? There may have been traces however, once he admitted the crime, why would they even look for blood or DNA? It was on her body and in his car. The absence of it in his and her flat, doesn't exonerate him, nor does it mean that because they didn't find any that none was present. His trial was never about whether he killed her, it was to determine murder or manslaughter. And the DID mention the forensic evidence, it being present on her body was all they needed.
Why would they need a psychiatric report? If none exists it's because it wasn't requested.
-
If it was a frenzied attack then I could understand there being DNA present in the flat but why would you expect them to find his DNA? How much was Joanna bleeding? There may have been traces however, once he admitted the crime, why would they even look for blood or DNA? It was on her body and in his car. The absence of it in his and her flat, doesn't exonerate him, nor does it mean that because they didn't find any that none was present. His trial was never about whether he killed her, it was to determine murder or manslaughter. And the DID mention the forensic evidence, it being present on her body was all they needed.
Why would they need a psychiatric report? If none exists it's because it wasn't requested.
Well, they were certainly looking for forensics in Joanna's flat( and probably in VT's too. ). Why remove the front door? Why have all those forensic experts going in and out? They had a sample of VT's DNA well before he told the chaplain that he was going to plead guilty, and Joanna's flat had been examined well before he decided to plead guilty. I remember reading (somewhere) that the DNA samples they found would not have been enough to convict him, so why wouldn't they have looked for better forensic evidence? He might have pleaded not guilty, after all.
The fact that none was found in the flat doesn't necessarily mean that VT is innocent, but It could well mean that he lied about where he killed Joanna. If he lied about that on the stand, what else might he have lied about? His testimony could be a complete fabrication, for all we know. He could have been covering for somebody. He could have been given medication in prison that led him to believe he did it when he didn't. Anything is possible.
The lack of forensics in both flats is a big sticking point for me.
-
Well, they were certainly looking for forensics in Joanna's flat( and probably in VT's too. ). Why remove the front door? Why have all those forensic experts going in and out? They had a sample of VT's DNA well before he told the chaplain that he was going to plead guilty, and Joanna's flat had been examined well before he decided to plead guilty. I remember reading (somewhere) that the DNA samples they found would not have been enough to convict him, so why wouldn't they have looked for better forensic evidence? He might have pleaded not guilty, after all.
The fact that none was found in the flat doesn't necessarily mean that VT is innocent, but It could well mean that he lied about where he killed Joanna. If he lied about that on the stand, what else might he have lied about? His testimony could be a complete fabrication, for all we know. He could have been covering for somebody. He could have been given medication in prison that led him to believe he did it when he didn't. Anything is possible.
The lack of forensics in both flats is a big sticking point for me.
"He could have been given medication in prison that led him to believe it when he didn't"? Really?!!!!! Are you suggesting he was A) suffering some sort of illness which required him to be medicated with mind altering drugs B) ensuring he confessed to a crime he didn't commit? Surely, had they wanted a culprit, Christopher Jefferys would have been the obvious answer. The media and general public had already tried him and found him guilty.
-
Well, they were certainly looking for forensics in Joanna's flat( and probably in VT's too. ). Why remove the front door? Why have all those forensic experts going in and out? They had a sample of VT's DNA well before he told the chaplain that he was going to plead guilty, and Joanna's flat had been examined well before he decided to plead guilty. I remember reading (somewhere) that the DNA samples they found would not have been enough to convict him, so why wouldn't they have looked for better forensic evidence? He might have pleaded not guilty, after all.
The fact that none was found in the flat doesn't necessarily mean that VT is innocent, but It could well mean that he lied about where he killed Joanna. If he lied about that on the stand, what else might he have lied about? His testimony could be a complete fabrication, for all we know. He could have been covering for somebody. He could have been given medication in prison that led him to believe he did it when he didn't. Anything is possible.
The lack of forensics in both flats is a big sticking point for me.
Looking for it and finding it are two different things, they still work the case once they have charged someone you know, they look for more evidence to beef up their original charge and to try and get a better understanding of want went off, Tabak would not have told them the whole truth because he was trying for manslaughter, so the detectives would be looking further into events to beef up the murder charge. The DNA samples coupled with the blood in the car and the findings on the computer would easy have convicted Tabak, make no mistake about that, there is a lot of bartering goes on between prosecution and defence (With Tabak’s approval) as to what they will try and get put to jury then it’s up to the judge, so with Tabak confessing to manslaughter I would say the judge dropped the computer (porn and snuff) evidence from the jury for Tabak admitting he had killed her . It was his only chance to try for a lighter sentence 8 years instead of life, if he had not confessed to his crime it would have been straight murder trial or not murder, which based on all the evidence thrown at him he knows he had no chance.
Hope this helps
-
"He could have been given medication in prison that led him to believe it when he didn't"? Really?!!!!! Are you suggesting he was A) suffering some sort of illness which required him to be medicated with mind altering drugs B) ensuring he confessed to a crime he didn't commit? Surely, had they wanted a culprit, Christopher Jefferys would have been the obvious answer. The media and general public had already tried him and found him guilty.
He was on suicide watch, so there must have been some fears for his mental health. I dare say he was medicated with something, and quite possibly sleep deprived too. People who are "new" to prison are not likely to be in a good way.
He might even have been mentally ill-----that is why I wondered about aa psychiatric report.
-
Looking for it and finding it are two different things, they still work the case once they have charged someone you know, they look for more evidence to beef up their original charge and to try and get a better understanding of want went off, Tabak would not have told them the whole truth because he was trying for manslaughter, so the detectives would be looking further into events to beef up the murder charge. The DNA samples coupled with the blood in the car and the findings on the computer would easy have convicted Tabak, make no mistake about that, there is a lot of bartering goes on between prosecution and defence (With Tabak’s approval) as to what they will try and get put to jury then it’s up to the judge, so with Tabak confessing to manslaughter I would say the judge dropped the computer (porn and snuff) evidence from the jury for Tabak admitting he had killed her . It was his only chance to try for a lighter sentence 8 years instead of life, if he had not confessed to his crime it would have been straight murder trial or not murder, which based on all the evidence thrown at him he knows he had no chance.
Hope this helps
Have you read William Clegg's book "Under the Wig"? He says that it was actually him who persuaded the judge to rule the porn evidence inadmissible.
I would have thought that, had he killed Joanna in her flat, there would be rather a lot of forensic evidence there, to be honest.
-
He was on suicide watch, so there must have been some fears for his mental health. I dare say he was medicated with something, and quite possibly sleep deprived too. People who are "new" to prison are not likely to be in a good way.
He might even have been mentally ill-----that is why I wondered about aa psychiatric report.
Without a doubt he had a personality disorder, but such doesn't necessarily equate with mental illness. and no amount of medication will cure it.
-
Have you read William Clegg's book "Under the Wig"? He says that it was actually him who persuaded the judge to rule the porn evidence inadmissible.
I would have thought that, had he killed Joanna in her flat, there would be rather a lot of forensic evidence there, to be honest.
Thanks for that Mrswah, I haven’t read his book but it was obvious what went on. To me that makes it very clear, Tabak would have been told and he would have known the evidence against him was very very strong and his only option was to try for manslaughter. It was a clever move by Clegg and it nearly paid off with a 10 to 2 verdict, but you imagine what the majority would have been if, the jury was told that Tabak had been viewing snuff videos the morning of the murder, girls resembling Joanna being strangled and they would have seen these videos, then they are told about the child porn images, the prosecution would have had a field day with this evidence.
So before any case goes before a jury or court, there is a lot of bartering goes on, defence will ask prosecution will they accept certain verdicts or can they have evidence removed if their client accepts lower charges and depending on how strong the evidence the prosecution will either accept or refuse. So in Tabak’s case they would have been asked, if he pleads guilty to killing Joanna will you accept manslaughter, they refused and went for murder, but this then allowed Tabak to try for manslaughter.
I don’t think Tabak was in the flat long enough or put himself about to leave any DNA, the DNA would probably only been on the body, he probably didn’t touch anything else, we only have Tabak’s word so part of what he says will be true and some will be near to the truth. There are parts that only Tabak knows about, that is why the police would still be searching for evidence even after charging him. The actual killing was the thrill for him and what he did after who knows, but once the thrill has gone the panic would start and the cover up. He could have took her body straight into his flat and got his sexual kick in there, it would have given him a better chance of clean up. Some things on stand he would have said to the jury to gain a bit of sympathy, “I put her body on the bed” meaning I was looking after her, but I bet he didn’t.
-
He was on suicide watch, so there must have been some fears for his mental health. I dare say he was medicated with something, and quite possibly sleep deprived too. People who are "new" to prison are not likely to be in a good way.
He might even have been mentally ill-----that is why I wondered about aa psychiatric report.
I would say most first timers are put on suicide watch, it’s a big shock for them, every prisoner who sexually assault or kill women plus the fact because he was high profile and a target would have special attention, remember being on remand is slightly different to being in prison, he can wear his own clothes and he can have his own doctor visit him, of course he would be depressed and upset so the doctors would prescribe medication for this.
-
Thanks for that Mrswah, I haven’t read his book but it was obvious what went on. To me that makes it very clear, Tabak would have been told and he would have known the evidence against him was very very strong and his only option was to try for manslaughter. It was a clever move by Clegg and it nearly paid off with a 10 to 2 verdict, but you imagine what the majority would have been if, the jury was told that Tabak had been viewing snuff videos the morning of the murder, girls resembling Joanna being strangled and they would have seen these videos, then they are told about the child porn images, the prosecution would have had a field day with this evidence.
So before any case goes before a jury or court, there is a lot of bartering goes on, defence will ask prosecution will they accept certain verdicts or can they have evidence removed if their client accepts lower charges and depending on how strong the evidence the prosecution will either accept or refuse. So in Tabak’s case they would have been asked, if he pleads guilty to killing Joanna will you accept manslaughter, they refused and went for murder, but this then allowed Tabak to try for manslaughter.
I don’t think Tabak was in the flat long enough or put himself about to leave any DNA, the DNA would probably only been on the body, he probably didn’t touch anything else, we only have Tabak’s word so part of what he says will be true and some will be near to the truth. There are parts that only Tabak knows about, that is why the police would still be searching for evidence even after charging him. The actual killing was the thrill for him and what he did after who knows, but once the thrill has gone the panic would start and the cover up. He could have took her body straight into his flat and got his sexual kick in there, it would have given him a better chance of clean up. Some things on stand he would have said to the jury to gain a bit of sympathy, “I put her body on the bed” meaning I was looking after her, but I bet he didn’t.
He did say that he turned off the oven and the TV, and that he hung his coat on the stand in the hall, so he would have , at least, left fingerprints.
-
He did say that he turned off the oven and the TV, and that he hung his coat on the stand in the hall, so he would have , at least, left fingerprints.
He may well have done but fingerprints are easily smudged and so not always identifiable. He made much of being in the hallway of JY's flat before the murders. He said he said he was there with CJ - perhaps most of what happened happened in the hallway which is why he introduced that fact so if DNA etc. was found there, there would be a reason.
-
He did say that he turned off the oven and the TV, and that he hung his coat on the stand in the hall, so he would have , at least, left fingerprints.
Caroline has explained the coat, but fibres of his black coat were found on Joanna.
But Lickley said traces of DNA matching Tabak's were found on Yeates's breast and on her jeans, underneath her knees, indicating he probably held her by the legs as he carried her body.
Traces of Yeates's blood were discovered in the boot of Tabak's car, the court heard. Fibres found on Yeates's body indicated she had come into contact with Tabak's black coat and his silver Renault Mégane, the prosecution claimed
I would say He killed her, then went back to his flat to plan his cover up, he had got a decision to make does he leave her body there or does he remove it from the flat. Removing it distances himself from the scene. The narrative being he’s left the door open, he tells you this in his statement, if he shuts it he can’t get back in, he then carriy’s her body into his flat, if he didn’t do this he would have said “I took the bicycle bag to put her body in inside the flat” so he’s telling the truth about bringing the body to the flat because then he would have said “ I then carried it to the car” but no he took the body into his flat and then put the body inside the cover then he takes it to the car. He then leaves the door open so he can go back in to switch the oven off and tv off. This would be Easy for him to switch off and not leave prints, either with a remote control, or at the plug socket switch, or at source, wearing gloves or with an instrument.
By Leaving the body in the flat it would have been risky and would have been a murder investigation straight away, crime scene evidence sought and looked for straight away, but Joanna was a missing person and lots of people go missing so it wasn’t as urgent straight away, so vital evidence would have been lost due to this.. This gives him time to distance himself from the crime and scene, but he would still worried what evidence he might have left inside the flat because once he had closed the door to the flat he would not be able to get back in.
Joanna must have made it back to the flat, her coat boots keys and phone and the Tesco receipt all being found in the flat, items she had on her in the evening, she still had the same clothing on what she went out in that night when she was found, minus her coat and boots ect,it was freezing cold and snow, not a chance would she have gone out with these items and forget the rubbish about a receipt making device and Tabak being related, because that tells me, this is someone not wanting to believe what happened, I’m sorry but there is a big difference in not understanding what happened and not wanting to believe what happened.
If you want to Forget about his confession, forget the DNA and the fibres and the blood in the car, I think the evidence on the computer would have been damaging enough for him, he knew this and so did his defence that’s why he tried for manslaughter, once he admitted guilt they didn’t need to show he had done it, they had to prove it was murder and not manslaughter. The police would have know down to the second when he had looked at things on his computer, Caroline is the computer expert, they would only have to check with his service provider the searches he had done as well on the device. His computer revealied he searched about Jo’s murder before she was reported missing, six days later he’d searched how fast does a body begin to decompose, days after he’d googled the area she was found, he checked local rubbish collection, extradidition arrangements between Holland and UK, hourly updates on the investigation, don’t forget the snuff video the morning of the murder. But do Forget this monster and don’t feel sorry for him, instead Feel sorry for poor Joanna and her parents boyfriend and friends, they are the victims not this monster who decided to take the life of a poor innocent young girl for his own gratification.
-
Caroline has explained the coat, but fibres of his black coat were found on Joanna.
But Lickley said traces of DNA matching Tabak's were found on Yeates's breast and on her jeans, underneath her knees, indicating he probably held her by the legs as he carried her body.
Traces of Yeates's blood were discovered in the boot of Tabak's car, the court heard. Fibres found on Yeates's body indicated she had come into contact with Tabak's black coat and his silver Renault Mégane, the prosecution claimed
I would say He killed her, then went back to his flat to plan his cover up, he has a decision to make does he leave her body there or does he remove it. Removing it distances himself from the scene. The narrative being he’s left the door open, he tells you this, if he shuts it he can’t get back in, he then carriy’s her body into his flat, if he didn’t do this he would have said “I took the bicycle bag to put her body in inside the flat” so he’s telling the truth then he would have said “ I then carried it to the car” but no he took the body into his flat and then put the body inside the cover. He then leaves the door open so he can go back in to switch the oven off and tv off. This would be Easy to switch off and not leave prints, with a remote control, or at plug socket switch, or at source, wearing gloves or with an instrument.
Leaving the body in the flat , would be risky and would have been a murder investigation straight away, crime scene evidence sought straight away, but Joanna was a missing person lots of people go missing and it wasn’t an urgency straight away, so vital evidence could have been lost due to this.. This gives him time to distance himself from the crime and scene, he would be still worried what evidence he had left, because once he closed the door to the flat he can’t get back in.
Joanna made it back to the flat, her coat boots keys and phone and the Tesco receipt all being found in the flat, something she had on her in the evening, she still had the same clothing on what she went out in that night, minus her coat and boots ect, freezing cold and snow, not a chance and forget the rubbish about a receipt making device and being related, because that tells me, this is someone not wanting to believe what happened,I’m sorry but there is a big difference in not understanding what happened and not wanting to believe what happened.
If you want to Forget about his confession, forget the DNA the fibres the blood in the car, the evidence on the computer would have been damaging for him, he knew this and so did his defence, once he admitted guilt they didn’t need to show he had done it, they had to prove it was murder and not manslaughter. The police would have know down to the second when he had looked at things on his computer, Caroline is the computer expert, they would only have to check with his service provider the searches he had done as well on the device. His computer revealied he searched about Jo’s murder before she was reported missing, six days later he’d searched how fast does a body begin to decompose, days after he’d googled the area she was found, he checked local rubbish collection, extradidition arrangements between Holland and UK, hourly updates on the investigation, don’t forget the snuff video the morning of the murder. But do Forget this monster and don’t feel sorry for him, instead Feel sorry for poor Joanna and her parents boyfriend and friends, they are the victims not this monster who decided to take the life of a poor innocent young girl for his own gratification.
Well said Justice!
-
Well said Justice!
Thanks Caroline, it’s all a big coincidence, he’s phsycic as well and it never snowed.
The court heard that on December 19 – before police knew she was missing – he looked at Google maps of Longwood Lane, Failand, where Jo’s body was found on a snow-covered verge.
Tabak, 33, also looked up satellite images of the site where he dumped Jo’s body and a timelapse video of a body decomposing, Bristol Crown Court heard.
He also Googled ‘definition sexual conduct’ and then ‘definition of sexual assault’ a few weeks later on January 11.
A story about CCTV footage was viewed ‘almost hourly’ a day before his arrest on January 20, Mr Lickley said.
Internet use analyst Lyndsey Farmery explained Tabak’s online activity to the jury today, showing them dozens of internet pages said to have been viewed by the defendant.
Lyndsey Farmery said that on the day after Yeates went missing — December 17 — Tabak was doing research on subjects including the five-day weather forecast.
Next day he looked at online maps and images of Longwood Lane, the road three miles from her Bristol flat where her body was discovered.
In subsequent days Tabak looked at news articles on Shrien Dewani, the Bristol man accused of hiring hitmen to kill his wife in South Africa, and the case of Melanie Hall, who was murdered after leaving a nightclub in Bath in 1996.
Later, the jury was told, he researched subjects including: "How does forensic identification work?" and the location of CCTV cameras in Canynge Road, Clifton, where Tabak and Yeates lived.
He researched "body decomposition time" and an article about a man who strangled his wife and pleaded diminished responsibility.
When police revealed they were sifting tonnes of rubbish he looked up details of household waste collection in Bristol.
Tabak, who denies murder but admits manslaughter, also spent time finding out about prison life in the UK. In addition he searched online for phrases including the "definition of sexual assault", "definition sexual conduct" and "sexual offence explained".
-
Thanks Caroline, it’s all a big coincidence, he’s phsycic as well and it never snowed.
The court heard that on December 19 – before police knew she was missing – he looked at Google maps of Longwood Lane, Failand, where Jo’s body was found on a snow-covered verge.
Tabak, 33, also looked up satellite images of the site where he dumped Jo’s body and a timelapse video of a body decomposing, Bristol Crown Court heard.
He also Googled ‘definition sexual conduct’ and then ‘definition of sexual assault’ a few weeks later on January 11.
A story about CCTV footage was viewed ‘almost hourly’ a day before his arrest on January 20, Mr Lickley said.
Internet use analyst Lyndsey Farmery explained Tabak’s online activity to the jury today, showing them dozens of internet pages said to have been viewed by the defendant.
Lyndsey Farmery said that on the day after Yeates went missing — December 17 — Tabak was doing research on subjects including the five-day weather forecast.
Next day he looked at online maps and images of Longwood Lane, the road three miles from her Bristol flat where her body was discovered.
In subsequent days Tabak looked at news articles on Shrien Dewani, the Bristol man accused of hiring hitmen to kill his wife in South Africa, and the case of Melanie Hall, who was murdered after leaving a nightclub in Bath in 1996.
Later, the jury was told, he researched subjects including: "How does forensic identification work?" and the location of CCTV cameras in Canynge Road, Clifton, where Tabak and Yeates lived.
He researched "body decomposition time" and an article about a man who strangled his wife and pleaded diminished responsibility.
When police revealed they were sifting tonnes of rubbish he looked up details of household waste collection in Bristol.
Tabak, who denies murder but admits manslaughter, also spent time finding out about prison life in the UK. In addition he searched online for phrases including the "definition of sexual assault", "definition sexual conduct" and "sexual offence explained".
Well researched, RJ. I thinks it's asking rather too much of us to expect us to believe that all those links are the result of nothing more than coincidence.
-
Well researched, RJ. I thinks it's asking rather too much of us to expect us to believe that all those links are the result of nothing more than coincidence.
Thanks April, you can see why he chose this area there’s a quarry either side, he tried to lift her over the wall, if he had succeeded she may never have been found.
https://mapper.acme.com/?ll=51.43922,-2.66885&z=15&t=SL&marker0=51.43922,-2.66885,Location%20at%20which%20Joanna%20Yeates%27%20body%20was%20found
There was two ways to get to this area, either over the suspension bridge, or the Brunal way bridge. The suspension bridge had cctv but I don’t think they could make much out from it?
-
Thanks April, you can see why he chose this area there’s a quarry either side, he tried to lift her over the wall, if he had succeeded she may never have been found.
https://mapper.acme.com/?ll=51.43922,-2.66885&z=15&t=SL&marker0=51.43922,-2.66885,Location%20at%20which%20Joanna%20Yeates%27%20body%20was%20found
There was two ways to get to this area, either over the suspension bridge, or the Brunal way bridge. The suspension bridge had cctv but I don’t think they could make much out from it?
Great link, once you know whats beyond the fence, it's obvious why he chose that spot.
-
Great link, once you know whats beyond the fence, it's obvious why he chose that spot.
Yes, looking at his testimony on the stand, he traveled across the Suspension bridge going, and the Brunel way coming back.
His computer shows that he googled surveylance for the Suspension bridge, and then later he googled rubbish collection in York place Clifton Bristol, I think this is where he disposed of the sock/bycycle cover, York place is nearer the other bridge I think.
Another interesting piece of evidence and I’m suprised it’s not been picked up on or investigated. It’s reported he has been to America LOS Angeles prior and he does a search for LOS Angeles murder case (interesting)
Defence Counsel: When did you leave for Los Angeles?
Tabak: I left for Los Angeles on 14 Nov and returned on 14 Dec 2010.
Line 292 of the prosecution chart
Tabak Googled the words
‘manslaughter sentencing’
Then he went to Wikipedia website to search the words ‘manslaughter in English law murder in English law’ Tabak left work at 5.06pm \on 22 Dec 2010
and at home he Googled ‘Los Angeles murder case’
At Line 340 of the prosecution chart
Tabak Googled on 26 Dec 2010
‘Yeates’
At 3.00 pm he search the Telegraph Newspaper online At 3:43 pm he searched online global newspapers
At 3.45 pm he searched the words
‘Suspension bridge police footage’
AtTabak Googled the words
‘Rubbish collection York Place Clifton Bristol’ ‘Jo Yeates rubbish’
This was after numerous searches for rubbish collection, all of a sudden he puts a name to a street?
-
Further to RJ's location reference, perhaps a clearer Google Maps version...
https://www.google.com/maps/place/51%C2%B026'21.2%22N+2%C2%B040'07.9%22W/@51.4369763,-2.6688199,294a,35y,39.37t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d51.43922!4d-2.66885 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/51%C2%B026'21.2%22N+2%C2%B040'07.9%22W/@51.4369763,-2.6688199,294a,35y,39.37t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d51.43922!4d-2.66885)
The quarry is located on both sides of Longwood Lane and its maintenance road appears to pass under it from SW to NE.
Entrance to the quarry in Google Street View...
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4384975,-2.6682751,3a,75y,298.98h,78.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srVbcx_gKiT490xR-PQuOwg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4384975,-2.6682751,3a,75y,298.98h,78.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srVbcx_gKiT490xR-PQuOwg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
... and the location further north where Joanna Yeates' body was found on the left (western) side of Longwood Lane ...
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4391094,-2.6687508,3a,50.3y,316.08h,78.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7GNCZL6M_TdB9-r1bQYrHA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4391094,-2.6687508,3a,50.3y,316.08h,78.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7GNCZL6M_TdB9-r1bQYrHA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Article on the dog walker who found Joanna Yeates...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8826662/Joanna-Yeates-trial-snow-covered-body-found-by-dog-walker.html (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8826662/Joanna-Yeates-trial-snow-covered-body-found-by-dog-walker.html)
Vincent Tabak's possible travel route to and from Longwood Lane (red pointer), passing over the Clifton Suspension Bridge and the Brunel Way Bridge, i.e. the next bridge upriver to the south-east but not indicated...
https://www.google.com/maps/place/51%C2%B026'21.2%22N+2%C2%B040'07.9%22W/@51.4201484,-2.6470982,3406a,35y,38.7t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d51.43922!4d-2.66885 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/51%C2%B026'21.2%22N+2%C2%B040'07.9%22W/@51.4201484,-2.6470982,3406a,35y,38.7t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d51.43922!4d-2.66885)
-
Further to RJ's location reference, perhaps a clearer Google Maps version...
https://www.google.com/maps/place/51%C2%B026'21.2%22N+2%C2%B040'07.9%22W/@51.4369763,-2.6688199,294a,35y,39.37t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d51.43922!4d-2.66885 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/51%C2%B026'21.2%22N+2%C2%B040'07.9%22W/@51.4369763,-2.6688199,294a,35y,39.37t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d51.43922!4d-2.66885)
The quarry is located on both sides of Longwood Lane and its maintenance road appears to pass under it from SW to NE.
Entrance to the quarry in Google Street View...
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4384975,-2.6682751,3a,75y,298.98h,78.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srVbcx_gKiT490xR-PQuOwg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4384975,-2.6682751,3a,75y,298.98h,78.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srVbcx_gKiT490xR-PQuOwg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
... and the location further north where Joanna Yeates' body was found on the left (western) side of Longwood Lane ...
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4391094,-2.6687508,3a,50.3y,316.08h,78.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7GNCZL6M_TdB9-r1bQYrHA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4391094,-2.6687508,3a,50.3y,316.08h,78.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7GNCZL6M_TdB9-r1bQYrHA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Article on the dog walker who found Joanna Yeates...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8826662/Joanna-Yeates-trial-snow-covered-body-found-by-dog-walker.html (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8826662/Joanna-Yeates-trial-snow-covered-body-found-by-dog-walker.html)
Vincent Tabak's possible travel route to and from Longwood Lane (red pointer), passing over the Clifton Suspension Bridge and the Brunel Way Bridge, i.e. the next bridge upriver to the south-east but not indicated...
https://www.google.com/maps/place/51%C2%B026'21.2%22N+2%C2%B040'07.9%22W/@51.4201484,-2.6470982,3406a,35y,38.7t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d51.43922!4d-2.66885 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/51%C2%B026'21.2%22N+2%C2%B040'07.9%22W/@51.4201484,-2.6470982,3406a,35y,38.7t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d51.43922!4d-2.66885)
Thanks for that Myster, how awful for fhe dog walkers that found her, I can’t believe the posters on here that believe either it never happened or some sort of a cover up, the only cover up was by him, Vincent Tabak, till he got caught.
This map shows the Bristol Triangle, popular for its bars ect.
https://mapper.acme.com/?ll=51.45991,-2.62372&z=15&t=SL&marker0=51.45991,-2.62372,Home%20-%2044%20Canynge%20Road%2C%20Bristol
A) Tesco
C)This is the flat
D)waitrose
E) The Ram pub
It’s plain to see Myster with your Google road version of Longwood Lane, that there are no pavements either side, that’s why it wasn’t frequented by pedestrians (walkers) and why it laid hidden for days.
-
Thanks for that Myster, how awful for fhe dog walkers that found her, I can’t believe the posters on here that believe either it never happened or some sort of a cover up, the only cover up was by him, Vincent Tabak, till he got caught.
This map shows the Bristol Triangle, popular for its bars ect.
https://mapper.acme.com/?ll=51.45991,-2.62372&z=15&t=SL&marker0=51.45991,-2.62372,Home%20-%2044%20Canynge%20Road%2C%20Bristol
A) Tesco
C)This is the flat
D)waitrose
E) The Ram pub
It’s plain to see Myster with your Google road version of Longwood Lane, that there are no pavements either side, that’s why it wasn’t frequented by pedestrians (walkers) and why it laid hidden for days.
Yes, thanks Myster. Excellent links.
I have been to Longwood Lane. No pavements, as you say. There are not many pedestrians, but there can be a fair amount of traffic. I have a dog, and no way would I walk her on the side of the road where (it is said that) Joanna was found, as it is far too dangerous (IMO). However, on the opposite side of the road, there is a car park, and a wood----good dog walking area.
For this reason, I have always wondered whether Joanna was found on the opposite side. No doubt, you will all be raising your eyebrows and sighing, in my absence!!!
Whoever killed Joanna, whether VT or somebody else, must have known in advance where to dump the body, and, IMO, would have planned to put it over the wall. If VT was the killer, there would have been no need for him to google Longwood Lane for this reason-----all my opinion, of course.
-
Yes, thanks Myster. Excellent links.
I have been to Longwood Lane. No pavements, as you say. There are not many pedestrians, but there can be a fair amount of traffic. I have a dog, and no way would I walk her on the side of the road where (it is said that) Joanna was found, as it is far too dangerous (IMO). However, on the opposite side of the road, there is a car park, and a wood----good dog walking area.
For this reason, I have always wondered whether Joanna was found on the opposite side. No doubt, you will all be raising your eyebrows and sighing, in my absence!!!
Whoever killed Joanna, whether VT or somebody else, must have known in advance where to dump the body, and, IMO, would have planned to put it over the wall. If VT was the killer, there would have been no need for him to google Longwood Lane for this reason-----all my opinion, of course.
Thanks for that mrswah, no raised eyebrows from me ha ha. I’ve not been to that area I’ve walked over the Suspension bridge and been underneath, I walked the dog on the grassy area around the Suspension bridge before going over. We have stopped at your beautiful area on the Baltic Wharf on numerous occasions, catching the ferry or walking to town centre.
I don’t think there is any doubt that Tabak did not google Longwood Lane,
The police analyst gave evidence on Wednesday 19 October and claimed that the following (partly set out below in blue) is the result of her analysis of the metadata from Buro Happold’s computers and Tabak’s laptops at Flat 2. Prosecuting counsel related to the witness and she confirmed that her analysis shows that Tabak researched ‘police’, ‘missing persons’, ‘recycling’, etc.
The jury were told that some webpages couldn’t now be recovered as they had been changed but that some webpages had not changed, and so the prosecution showed films of some pages that had not been changed.
The jury looked at pages that have not been changed, allegedly (as the defence did not dispute (by defence forensic analysis or otherwise) any of the police computer evidence whatsoever.
So the defence forensic analysis would have checked these out. Who knows what goes on in the mind of a Murderer, mrswah, they are outside the realms of normality anyway, once the reality kicked in with him and the consequences he faced, all he was bothered about was trying to stay one step ahead and prepare himself, virtually all his computer checks both at home and work showed this. He said he didn’t know the area and he drove towards the airport, probably passed Longwood Lane and seen it was a quarry and thought it would be ideal to hide the body, he couldn’t lift the body over the wall so he covered her with leaves and I hoped the snow would continue. Two days later he checks the area on his computer, could be looking for references, alibi’s, anything to give him more knowledge if he ever was questioned?
.
-
like I said mrswah, survival with no empathy would be his only thoughts.
He scoured the internet for clues to how he could get off the hook before and after her snow-covered body was found by dog walkers on Christmas Day.
It is believed he may even have been getting sexual satisfaction from looking up pictures of Miss Yeates.
Detectives who recovered his laptops found he was looking at pornographic websites within seconds of looking at pages surrounding the inquiry into the death of Miss Yeates.
-
Thanks for that mrswah, no raised eyebrows from me ha ha. I’ve not been to that area I’ve walked over the Suspension bridge and been underneath, I walked the dog on the grassy area around the Suspension bridge before going over. We have stopped at your beautiful area on the Baltic Wharf on numerous occasions, catching the ferry or walking to town centre.
I don’t think there is any doubt that Tabak did not google Longwood Lane,
The police analyst gave evidence on Wednesday 19 October and claimed that the following (partly set out below in blue) is the result of her analysis of the metadata from Buro Happold’s computers and Tabak’s laptops at Flat 2. Prosecuting counsel related to the witness and she confirmed that her analysis shows that Tabak researched ‘police’, ‘missing persons’, ‘recycling’, etc.
The jury were told that some webpages couldn’t now be recovered as they had been changed but that some webpages had not changed, and so the prosecution showed films of some pages that had not been changed.
The jury looked at pages that have not been changed, allegedly (as the defence did not dispute (by defence forensic analysis or otherwise) any of the police computer evidence whatsoever.
So the defence forensic analysis would have checked these out. Who knows what goes on in the mind of a Murderer, mrswah, they are outside the realms of normality anyway, once the reality kicked in with him and the consequences he faced, all he was bothered about was trying to stay one step ahead and prepare himself, virtually all his computer checks both at home and work showed this. He said he didn’t know the area and he drove towards the airport, probably passed Longwood Lane and seen it was a quarry and thought it would be ideal to hide the body, he couldn’t lift the body over the wall so he covered her with leaves and I hoped the snow would continue. Two days later he checks the area on his computer, could be looking for references, alibi’s, anything to give him more knowledge if he ever was questioned?
.
Sorry to sound ignorant, but what's the "Baltic Wharf"??
-
Oh, and RJ, please could you include links. Many thanks!
-
Oh, and RJ, please could you include links. Many thanks!
http://www.balticwharfbristol.co.uk/
-
http://www.balticwharfbristol.co.uk/
Thanks Caroline
We used to stop here mrswah, sometimes on our way to Cornwall or for a holiday, it was the most popular CC site so bookings had to be made early. Outside the main gates you could see the flats they used to film Only Fools and Horses and just down the road was the pub they shot the filming when Del Boy fell through the bar when he was chatting with Trigger. Brunel SS Great Britain is near bye. You might know it better as Spike Island.
https://www.caravanclub.co.uk/club-sites/england/southern-england/bristol/baltic-wharf-caravan-club-site/
https://www.caravanclub.co.uk/club-sites/england/southern-england/bristol/baltic-wharf-caravan-club-site/
-
Thanks Caroline
We used to stop here mrswah, sometimes on our way to Cornwall or for a holiday, it was the most popular CC site so bookings had to be made early. Outside the main gates you could see the flats they used to film Only Fools and Horses and just down the road was the pub they shot the filming when Del Boy fell through the bar when he was chatting with Trigger. Brunel SS Great Britain is near bye. You might know it better as Spike Island.
https://www.caravanclub.co.uk/club-sites/england/southern-england/bristol/baltic-wharf-caravan-club-site/
https://www.caravanclub.co.uk/club-sites/england/southern-england/bristol/baltic-wharf-caravan-club-site/
I never knew OFAH was made in Bristol (the outside anyway) &%%6 - cheers for that RJ! 8((()*/
-
I never knew OFAH was made in Bristol (the outside anyway) &%%6 - cheers for that RJ! 8((()*/
I didn't know that either! I liked OFAH! Thanks for the info.
-
I never knew OFAH was made in Bristol (the outside anyway) &%%6 - cheers for that RJ! 8((()*/
I think they changed from London to Bristol so far through the series Caroline, we caught the open top tour bus outside the park gates and they gave all the information, they took us past the studios that made Wallace and Grommit as well. Love Bristol and the close proximity to Wales the coast, Bath and Cheddar Gorge.
https://britmovietours.com/bookings/only-fools-and-horses-tour-of-locations/
-
I didn't know that either! I liked OFAH! Thanks for the info.
I would be suspicious of anyone who didn't @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
I think they changed from London to Bristol so far through the series Caroline, we caught the open top tour bus outside the park gates and they gave all the information, they took us past the studios that made Wallace and Grommit as well. Love Bristol and the close proximity to Wales the coast, Bath and Cheddar Gorge.
https://britmovietours.com/bookings/only-fools-and-horses-tour-of-locations/
I've only ever been to the station. Love OFAH though. I know it's tacky as hell but if I could live anywhere in the world - real or fictional, would live to live there for a while @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
I've only ever been to the station. Love OFAH though. I know it's tacky as hell but if I could live anywhere in the world - real or fictional, would live to live there for a while @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Brilliant, something you could watch over and over again. Many favourite ones but, the best for me was the Batman and Robin scene and the hang glider one 😂😂😂
-
Brilliant, something you could watch over and over again. Many favourite ones but, the best for me was the Batman and Robin scene and the hang glider one 😂😂😂
Love the hang glider and of course the classic scenes from A Touch of Glass (the chandelier) and Yuppy Love (the bar scene) but I also love Mother Natures Son (Peckham Spring) and Danger UXD. It might be cliche but there aren't any comedies like that anymore and I doubt there ever will be. Thank god for repeats on Gold! 8((()*/
-
Love the hang glider and of course the classic scenes from A Touch of Glass (the chandelier) and Yuppy Love (the bar scene) but I also love Mother Natures Son (Peckham Spring) and Danger UXD. It might be cliche but there aren't any comedies like that anymore and I doubt there ever will be. Thank god for repeats on Gold! 8((()*/
Danger UXD, the blow up dolls 😂😂😂😂 loved it
-
What exactly was 'Operation Braid'??
GMP Didsbury
Verified account
@GMPDidsbury
Follow Follow @GMPDidsbury
More
Fallowfield/Didsbury PCSOs have carried out 157 Home Security Visits around Granville Rd and Lombard Rd area as part of Operation Braid.
8:59 am - 22 Feb 2011
https://twitter.com/GMPDidsbury/status/40093411696578560
We have been lead to believe that Operation Braid was about Joanna Yeates, yet as this tweet tells us it was more about 'Home Security Visits'...
So the Police were looking at addresses in relation to Operation Braid on the 22nd February 2011, when Dr Vincent Tabak was in prison charged with the Murder of Joanna Yeates...
So if the Police stopped Investigating, why are they active when Dr Vincent Tabak is in prison?? And why are they active in Manchester??
Here's a tweet from Sean O'Neal of The Times
Sean O'Neill
Verified account
@TimesONeill
Follow Follow @TimesONeill
More
Police inquiry into Joanna Yeates case is Operation Braid: contact http://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/newsroom/helpfindjo/index.aspx
2:32 am - 26 Dec 2010
https://twitter.com/TimesONeill/status/18977398078832640
Operation Braid is about Home Security Visits, So how does that relate to Joanna Yeates??
Or should we question did Joanna Yeates get a Home Security Visit, or was due a Home Security Visit?? Is that why the Police and everyone else insists that Joanna Yeates went Missing on the 17th December 2010??
The tweet is intriguing... Mysterious... And brings more questions to the fore.....
What is it about??
Edit
Derbyshire Police
Verified account
@DerbysPolice
Follow Follow @DerbysPolice
More
Fairfield residents receive home security visits from police http://dlvr.it/KQzCD #police
2:26 am - 16 Mar 2011
https://twitter.com/DerbysPolice/status/47951763550113792
When I look on google maps, it just shows a golf course.... Don't know what else is there ... Difficult to see what houses had home security visits..
Double Edit.....
So is Operation Braid..
(A): The Investigation into Joanna yeates
(B): Home Security Visits
Or
(C): A Tax Probe ?/
More than £500,000 has been confiscated from an island businessman suspected of money laundering and a £21m VAT fraud in the UK.
The cash was seized during raids at the Onchan home of Paul Anthony Bell and at his business premises in Hill Street, Douglas.
Police and customs officers executed search warrants at the two addresses in March 2015 as part of an inquiry codenamed Operation Braid being carried out jointly in the island, the UK and Guernsey.
http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=33538&headline=%C2%A3500,000%20confiscated%20in%20tax%20probe§ionIs=news&searchyear=2017
The choices are many, when it shouldn't be...
(https://helpfindjo.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/profile_findjo.jpg?w=167&h=300)
-
What exactly was 'Operation Braid'??
https://twitter.com/GMPDidsbury/status/40093411696578560
We have been lead to believe that Operation Braid was about Joanna Yeates, yet as this tweet tells us it was more about 'Home Security Visits'...
So the Police were looking at addresses in relation to Operation Braid on the 22nd February 2011, when Dr Vincent Tabak was in prison charged with the Murder of Joanna Yeates...
So if the Police stopped Investigating, why are they active when Dr Vincent Tabak is in prison?? And why are they active in Manchester??
Here's a tweet from Sean O'Neal of The Times
https://twitter.com/TimesONeill/status/18977398078832640
Operation Braid is about Home Security Visits, So how does that relate to Joanna Yeates??
Or should we question did Joanna Yeates get a Home Security Visit, or was due a Home Security Visit?? Is that why the Police and everyone else insists that Joanna Yeates went Missing on the 17th December 2010??
The tweet is intriguing... Mysterious... And brings more questions to the fore.....
What is it about??
Edit
https://twitter.com/DerbysPolice/status/47951763550113792
When I look on google maps, it just shows a golf course.... Don't know what else is there ... Difficult to see what houses had home security visits..
Double Edit.....
So is Operation Braid..
(A): The Investigation into Joanna yeates
(B): Home Security Visits
Or
(C): A Tax Probe ?/
http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=33538&headline=%C2%A3500,000%20confiscated%20in%20tax%20probe§ionIs=news&searchyear=2017
The choices are many, when it shouldn't be...
Because there is more than ONE operation braid.
-
Answer: There is a computer in Scotland Yard that throws out these names randomly. Previously, it would be up to the Senior Investigating Officer to pick a name, but sometimes they would be inappropriate, for example Operation Money Spinner being used because everyone was earning loads of overtime. So they set up a computer that gives out random names from an approved list.
So how do police decide what each investigation will be called?
Over the years there have been a number of methods used to label operations.
Currently, a random name generator churns out a name from the ether and police assign it to the case.
The generator has been specifically designed for naming police investigations.
This is why the operation names never seem to have anything to do with the actual subject of the crime.
-
Answer: There is a computer in Scotland Yard that throws out these names randomly. Previously, it would be up to the Senior Investigating Officer to pick a name, but sometimes they would be inappropriate, for example Operation Money Spinner being used because everyone was earning loads of overtime. So they set up a computer that gives out random names from an approved list.
So how do police decide what each investigation will be called?
Over the years there have been a number of methods used to label operations.
Currently, a random name generator churns out a name from the ether and police assign it to the case.
The generator has been specifically designed for naming police investigations.
This is why the operation names never seem to have anything to do with the actual subject of the crime.
Similar queries were posed in connection to the Bamber case - it's simply that people over think things
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=1391.0
-
Similar queries were posed in connection to the Bamber case - it's simply that people over think things
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=1391.0
Or they're scraping the bottom OUT of the barrel!!!!
-
Or they're scraping the bottom OUT of the barrel!!!!
It’s called “Operation Tesko” April
-
With Julian Assange being on the news this morning, it had me re-thinking what this is about....
I had pointed out that Julian Assange had been to court and the magistrate allowed for his case to be tweeted in December 2010, now I do not know of any other case where this was allowed at the time.
Coincidences like website taken down in 2012, when Assange went to The Embassy, not being allowed to use the internet..
The Case always being referred too, but never really being talked about, apart from my crazy posts...
The hacking references always being there....
I 'm unsure what or whether it was some type of sting operation... I don't know... I'm forever torn as to what this has been about, I'm forever torn as to what is real or isn't and I'm forever torn as to why it has never made any sense to me....
I know you all probably think I am crazy... But no crazier than this case....
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/8955530/Top-judge-relaxes-rules-on-Twitter-in-court.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/8957972/Tweeting-in-court-shows-judges-modern-side.html
-
With Julian Assange being on the news this morning, it had me re-thinking what this is about....
I had pointed out that Julian Assange had been to court and the magistrate allowed for his case to be tweeted in December 2010, now I do not know of any other case where this was allowed at the time.
Coincidences like website taken down in 2012, when Assange went to The Embassy, not being allowed to use the internet..
The Case always being referred too, but never really being talked about, apart from my crazy posts...
The hacking references always being there....
I 'm unsure what or whether it was some type of sting operation... I don't know... I'm forever torn as to what this has been about, I'm forever torn as to what is real or isn't and I'm forever torn as to why it has never made any sense to me....
I know you all probably think I am crazy... But no crazier than this case....
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/8955530/Top-judge-relaxes-rules-on-Twitter-in-court.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/8957972/Tweeting-in-court-shows-judges-modern-side.html
Not sure what link you're trying to make?
-
Not sure what link you're trying to make?
Ultimately I am unsure.... For me... there are dates... And times that have been stated, and not always on this site...
Most and nearly everyone has had a scenario about this case... And most do not speak of it.... And I mean to this day... There were theories that the boyfriend was responsible at the beginning in forums... But it cannot be so simple... (imo)...
When looking at what is available... no-one can come to the conclusion that Dr Vincent Tabak is responsible, without questioning, every video, cctv, statement, image or media report from the time and since, including the Leveson...... and...all those at the heart of this case should honestly question the apparent trial of Dr Vincent Tabak...
If you cannot see... I might as well get 'Jaffa Israel' on the case.... He bends pipes with his mind, apparently..
https://www.express.co.uk/videos/6020367238001/Gogglebox-John-mistakes-Uri-Geller-s-name-for-Jaffa-Israel
-
Rupert Evelyn
@rupertevelyn
Follow Follow @rupertevelyn
More
Jo #yeates landlord to sue police over his arrest. Maybe offended by way it was announced. Here's the press release http://ow.ly/i/bkid
9:50 PM - 8 May 2011
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/67330616538054656
The tiny url leads to this image
(http://static.ow.ly/photos/original/bkid.jpg)
An email was sent by the looks of things, where it appears that Rupert Evelyn has a folder of emails relating to Joanna Yeates, if I am not mistaken, where it appears he has received 132 emails in relation to that case, possibly not directly, he could have made his own folder about the case.. The Folder being named Jo Yeates Murder...
The date and time of that folder, would be interesting, when was it made?
I thought press briefings were done in person, by someone at Avon and Somerset, so I am amazed that it appears to be an email that has been sent... But what do I know...
Question has to be, how many of these type of emails did the press receive, and who actually sent them?
Is this how certain leaks occurred?
Rupert Evelyn
@rupertevelyn
Joanna Yates murder. Police have arrested a 65 year old man on suspicion of murder.
8:24 am - 30 Dec 2010
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/20394822145671168
Rupert Evelyn appears to be the first reporter, to share this information, it is not until later in the day that other news outlets let us know, he was quick of the mark with that scoop...
Did or does Rupert Evelyn know CJ or CJ's friends? his comment that he may be offended at the way it was announced, suggest to me he may know him or knows of him....
I'm still trying to get to grips if this image, is a circular, or Rupert Evelyn email, or some other message service?
The Police message was added at 8:19 and Ruperts tweet is at 8:24, so within 5 minutes he has read it and tweeted it to one and all, spelling Yeates incorrectly.. A massive scoop... he appears to be one of the first to know...
But not one re-tweet of this scoop he has... odd that...(imo)
Was someone giving Rupert exclusives??
Or should I rephrase that, was someone giving Rupert the heads up?
The media were parked outside Canygne Road 24/7, so why were there not early reports from the media on site? Or where there?
There is also the question of when and how Dr Vincent Tabak or Tanja Morson heard about the arrest of CJ... If Rupert Evelyns tweet is anything to go by, they could have found out as early as 8:24am uk time...
Now what time was the phone call from Holland? If it was before the arrest hits the mainstream media, it could have made the Police suspicious as to how Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson were aware of this info, that in itself, may have been a reason the Police were desperate to go to Holland to interview Dr Vincent Tabak..
It cannot be just the fact that he said a car changed position... (imo) Because they could have waited for him to arrive back home to question him in relation to that...
This is why the time of all the phone calls that were made to the Police are recorded and are available for us to know... Making sense of the events unfolding... (imo)
http://ow.ly/i/bkid/original
-
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/67330616538054656
The tiny url leads to this image
(http://static.ow.ly/photos/original/bkid.jpg)
An email was sent by the looks of things, where it appears that Rupert Evelyn has a folder of emails relating to Joanna Yeates, if I am not mistaken, where it appears he has received 132 emails in relation to that case, possibly not directly, he could have made his own folder about the case.. The Folder being named Jo Yeates Murder...
The date and time of that folder, would be interesting, when was it made?
I thought press briefings were done in person, by someone at Avon and Somerset, so I am amazed that it appears to be an email that has been sent... But what do I know...
Question has to be, how many of these type of emails did the press receive, and who actually sent them?
Is this how certain leaks occurred?
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/20394822145671168
Rupert Evelyn appears to be the first reporter, to share this information, it is not until later in the day that other news outlets let us know, he was quick of the mark with that scoop...
Did or does Rupert Evelyn know CJ or CJ's friends? his comment that he may be offended at the way it was announced, suggest to me he may know him or knows of him....
I'm still trying to get to grips if this image, is a circular, or Rupert Evelyn email, or some other message service?
The Police message was added at 8:19 and Ruperts tweet is at 8:24, so within 5 minutes he has read it and tweeted it to one and all, spelling Yeates incorrectly.. A massive scoop... he appears to be one of the first to know...
But not one re-tweet of this scoop he has... odd that...(imo)
Was someone giving Rupert exclusives??
Or should I rephrase that, was someone giving Rupert the heads up?
The media were parked outside Canygne Road 24/7, so why were there not early reports from the media on site? Or where there?
There is also the question of when and how Dr Vincent Tabak or Tanja Morson heard about the arrest of CJ... If Rupert Evelyns tweet is anything to go by, they could have found out as early as 8:24am uk time...
Now what time was the phone call from Holland? If it was before the arrest hits the mainstream media, it could have made the Police suspicious as to how Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson were aware of this info, that in itself, may have been a reason the Police were desperate to go to Holland to interview Dr Vincent Tabak..
It cannot be just the fact that he said a car changed position... (imo) Because they could have waited for him to arrive back home to question him in relation to that...
This is why the time of all the phone calls that were made to the Police are recorded and are available for us to know... Making sense of the events unfolding... (imo)
http://ow.ly/i/bkid/original
Why don’t you write to him and ask him, it might help you get to grips with things or clear your uncertainty, or write to Jaffa and get his help, he might recommend what fruit cake you try?
-
Ultimately I am unsure.... For me... there are dates... And times that have been stated, and not always on this site...
Most and nearly everyone has had a scenario about this case... And most do not speak of it.... And I mean to this day... There were theories that the boyfriend was responsible at the beginning in forums... But it cannot be so simple... (imo)...
When looking at what is available... no-one can come to the conclusion that Dr Vincent Tabak is responsible, without questioning, every video, cctv, statement, image or media report from the time and since, including the Leveson...... and...all those at the heart of this case should honestly question the apparent trial of Dr Vincent Tabak...
If you cannot see... I might as well get 'Jaffa Israel' on the case.... He bends pipes with his mind, apparently..
https://www.express.co.uk/videos/6020367238001/Gogglebox-John-mistakes-Uri-Geller-s-name-for-Jaffa-Israel
"Ultimately, I am unsure." For me, this is the only part of your lengthy post which makes any sense. I think -though I hope it doesn't- it may say much about you -NO! I'm not being snide. If this whole thing isn't a game to you, and I can't actually believe anyone would go to such lengths just for sport, I'm seriously concerned for you- you seem to spend vast amounts of time attempting to make links where there are probably none to be made. All that cross referencing! For what, exactly? -you confess you're unsure- the hope that you MAY find something everyone else has missed? Such may well be the path, if not to paranoia, certainly to brain ache.
-
Ultimately I am unsure.... For me... there are dates... And times that have been stated, and not always on this site...
Most and nearly everyone has had a scenario about this case... And most do not speak of it.... And I mean to this day... There were theories that the boyfriend was responsible at the beginning in forums... But it cannot be so simple... (imo)...
When looking at what is available... no-one can come to the conclusion that Dr Vincent Tabak is responsible, without questioning, every video, cctv, statement, image or media report from the time and since, including the Leveson...... and...all those at the heart of this case should honestly question the apparent trial of Dr Vincent Tabak...
If you cannot see... I might as well get 'Jaffa Israel' on the case.... He bends pipes with his mind, apparently..
https://www.express.co.uk/videos/6020367238001/Gogglebox-John-mistakes-Uri-Geller-s-name-for-Jaffa-Israel
YES! They CAN! - It was eve his conclusion. He did it 100%!
-
"Ultimately, I am unsure." For me, this is the only part of your lengthy post which makes any sense. I think -though I hope it doesn't- it may say much about you -NO! I'm not being snide. If this whole thing isn't a game to you, and I can't actually believe anyone would go to such lengths just for sport, I'm seriously concerned for you- you seem to spend vast amounts of time attempting to make links where there are probably none to be made. All that cross referencing! For what, exactly? -you confess you're unsure- the hope that you MAY find something everyone else has missed? Such may well be the path, if not to paranoia, certainly to brain ache.
Brain ache..... probably.. I do not understand this, everyone is happy with a man being a prison and doesn't want to question aspects that do not add up.... I have stated that I do not know what is real or not simply because things do not make sense...
Operation Braid... I question time and time again... It had to be an ongoing Operation and was used in the Missing Posters of Joanna Yeates.... But what is Operation Braid??
I believe it's about keeping the community clean and tidy, getting rid of the rubbish, drugs, drink drivers and it's a general term for keeping a community safe and clean....
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BlZ1GZXCIAAQ0sw.jpg)
https://twitter.com/gmpgorton/status/456681165164793856
Talking of tons of rubbish in this case, appears to be an in joke, (imo) So I do not know what the connection to Joanna Yeates is, in relation to Operation Braid.... I can see CJ's connection, as a member of the neighbourhood watch, wanting his community safe, clean and tidy....
https://twitter.com/MCCGortonAHey/status/573906459840352256 (image attached)
But everything else??
Were the Police just taking rubbish out of Canygne Road?? Was this a Police Operation gone too far? I don't understand how Joanna Yeates Missing is part of Operation Braid??
The post I did prior about the 3 options of what Operation Braid was about,
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg518581#msg518581
But I suppose it depends on whether the Police look at criminals as rubbish, which would be a conclusion one could make... But that throws out Joanna Yeates Missing...!!
What's the connection to Joanna Yeates and Operation Braid? An operation that has always been talked about as looking for rubbish, Joanna yeates being talked of as being discarded like rubbish... a Missing Pizza and box , the boxes left outside Joanna Yeates flat when we have forensic Officers going to and fro...
Was Dr Vincent Tabak seen as rubbish? Was that property seen in that light?
Ms Yeates’s body was discovered near a golf club in north Somerset on 25 December and identified the following day.
If you have any information which could help the police investigation, please contact the Operation Braid incident room online or call 0845 456 7000
https://www.channel4.com/news/joanna-yeates-police-release-new-cctv-film
If I think of this Operation as clearing rubbish, and put Joanna Yeates Missing for a moment, then the Fire Trucks and Winch being at Longwood Lane would make sense... If they are clearing rubbish that has been thrown into the quarry pond...
But I still have the issue of why a Missing persons Inquiry and Murder is part of Operation Braid?
Twitter has some invaluable information and is used by the police all the time, It brings me lines to look at and more questions to ask in relation to this case...
-
Over that period of time in Avon and Somerset The Police had a live tweeting session of what they were doing at the time...
@ASPolice #xmasudeserve a hashtag that they used at the time and since....
Made on Saturn
@hatsandbikes
Follow Follow @hatsandbikes
More
#xmasudeserve U1 Op Tonic officers about to start pulling over cars looking for drink drivers bit.ly/v4MK4e <<@ASPolice PaveParking is wrong
7:26 pm - 16 Dec 2011
https://twitter.com/hatsandbikes/status/147759447140352002
Avon&Somerset Police
Verified account
@ASPolice
Follow Follow @ASPolice
More
#xmasudeserve Live Tweets and video stream from night time operation (Forcewide): Live video streaming of Avon a... http://bit.ly/hSt3j6
1:09 pm - 17 Dec 2010
https://twitter.com/ASPolice/status/15755363991166976
Avon&Somerset Police
Verified account
@ASPolice
Follow Follow @ASPolice
More
#xmasudeserve Live video won't be running tonight. Apologies. However live tweets from control room will from 8pm http://bit.ly/hvXJFh
5:28 pm - 17 Dec 2010
https://twitter.com/ASPolice/status/15820724086243328
Avon&Somerset Police
Verified account
@ASPolice
Follow Follow @ASPolice
More
#xmasudeserve Live tweets from the control room about to start
7:59 pm - 17 Dec 2010
https://twitter.com/ASPolice/status/15858759075106816
Sarah Mudford
@Sarah_Mudford
Follow Follow @Sarah_Mudford
More
RT @ASPolice: HQ: We received a 999 call earlier from a man reporting that his wife has been spending all his money #xmasudeserve
8:45 pm - 16 Dec 2011
https://twitter.com/Sarah_Mudford/status/147779494235750402
This appears to be a game that the Police were playing whilst working at the time,...
Rupert Evelyn
@rupertevelyn
Follow Follow @rupertevelyn
More
“@ASPolice: #xmasudeserve re: Party in Hartcliffe police on scene” could read police goto party in hartcliffe
9:25 pm - 17 Dec 2010
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/15880246637101056
Avon&Somerset Police
Verified account
@ASPolice
Follow Follow @ASPolice
More
#xmasudeserve Report of a man wandering around in the middle of the road in an unlit fast section of the A369 Portbury - Unit en route
9:12 pm - 17 Dec 2010
https://twitter.com/ASPolice/status/15877124145549312
Avon&Somerset Police
Verified account
@ASPolice
Follow Follow @ASPolice
More
#xmasudeserve: re: horse on the loose - Owner now at scene assisting officers trying to capture
9:10 pm - 17 Dec 2010
https://twitter.com/ASPolice/status/15876593226354688
Avon&Somerset Police
Verified account
@ASPolice
Follow Follow @ASPolice
More
#xmasudeserve: With help from dog unit and air support four men have been detained on suspicion of burglary in the Trinity area of Bristol
9:09 pm - 17 Dec 2010
https://twitter.com/ASPolice/status/15876137779470336
Avon&Somerset Police
Verified account
@ASPolice
Follow Follow @ASPolice
More
#xmasudeserve **Stay safe tonight - don't drink and drive: http://bit.ly/gZ9Yw1
9:07 pm - 17 Dec 2010
https://twitter.com/ASPolice/status/15875664741666816
Avon&Somerset Police
Verified account
@ASPolice
Follow Follow @ASPolice
More
#xmasudeserve **626 - 999 calls received so far today**
8:52 pm - 17 Dec 2010
https://twitter.com/ASPolice/status/15872021699239936
Avon&Somerset Police
Verified account
@ASPolice
Follow Follow @ASPolice
More
#xmasudeserve re: Man in river in Bristol incident: Officer being taken to hospital due to effects of jumping into cold river.
8:42 pm - 17 Dec 2010
https://twitter.com/ASPolice/status/15869579125325825
Avon&Somerset Police
Verified account
@ASPolice
Follow Follow @ASPolice
More
#xmasudeserve Information from security firm two people have breached their curfew, one in Weston-super-Mare one in Bristol
8:38 pm - 17 Dec 2010
https://twitter.com/ASPolice/status/15868344485810176
Avon&Somerset Police
Verified account
@ASPolice
Follow Follow @ASPolice
More
#xmasudeserve re: M5 car in ditch - both driver and passenger reported to be ok. Attended to by passing driver. Passed to Highways Agency.
8:20 pm - 17 Dec 2010
https://twitter.com/ASPolice/status/15864020191940608
Avon&Somerset Police
Verified account
@ASPolice
Follow Follow @ASPolice
More
#xmasudeserve Reports of male threatening to jump into the river in Bristol. Ambulance and fire called. Man in water swimming.
8:23 pm - 17 Dec 2010
https://twitter.com/ASPolice/status/15864586930487297
Avon&Somerset Police
Verified account
@ASPolice
Follow Follow @ASPolice
More
#xmasudeserve Report of stray horse in road on Shakespear Road in Radstock - unit on route
8:27 pm - 17 Dec 2010
https://twitter.com/ASPolice/status/15865581215424512
Avon&Somerset Police
Verified account
@ASPolice
Follow Follow @ASPolice
More
#xmasudeserve Reports of RTC - car in ditch - no injuries reported, mother and young child in car with male driver - ambulance en route
8:29 pm - 17 Dec 2010
https://twitter.com/ASPolice/status/15866286852538369
Avon&Somerset Police
Verified account
@ASPolice
Follow Follow @ASPolice
More
#xmasudeserve re: Horse in Radstock - officers have secured horse and are trying to move it to a field
8:35 pm - 17 Dec 2010
https://twitter.com/ASPolice/status/15867733933559808
Avon&Somerset Police
Verified account
@ASPolice
Follow Follow @ASPolice
More
#xmasudeserve: With help from dog unit and air support four men have been detained on suspicion of burglary in the Trinity area of Bristol
9:09 pm - 17 Dec 2010
https://twitter.com/ASPolice/status/15876137779470336
Avon&Somerset Police
Verified account
@ASPolice
Follow Follow @ASPolice
More
#xmasudeserve Report of a man wandering around in the middle of the road in an unlit fast section of the A369 Portbury - Unit en route
9:12 pm - 17 Dec 2010
https://twitter.com/ASPolice/status/15877124145549312
Avon&Somerset Police
Verified account
@ASPolice
Follow Follow @ASPolice
More
#xmasudeserve Report of around 12 youths drinking alcohol on the street in South Bristol. Causing a disturbance. #police
8:03 PM - 17 Dec 2010
https://twitter.com/ASPolice/status/15859627325390849
Avon&Somerset Police
Verified account
@ASPolice
Follow Follow @ASPolice
More
#xmasudeserve Suspicious vehicle sighted in Stoke Gifford #police
8:04 PM - 17 Dec 2010
https://twitter.com/ASPolice/status/15859818203975680
The point of posting all of these tweets, is to show what was happening on the night that Joanna yeates went Missing, the night that Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have killed Joanna Yeates then moved her to his flat, then into the boot of his car and drove around with her, finally depositing her on a grass verge on Longwood lane...
Are we supposed to believe that??
Christmas a time when the Police are visible and active stopping drivers for what may be drink driving offences, with Operation Tonic, where they are driving around Bristol, watching and making sure all is well....
Where we can see that there was even a report of a suspicious vehicle on that evening, drunk youths, loose horses and someone jumping into a river....
The suspicious vehicle, why did the Police not come back to that one, when they were looking for vehicles when Joanna yeates was found on Longwood Lane??
The had a report, did they follow it up?? What other suspicious vehicles did they stop that evening??
There is a huge Police presence that evening all back and forth, watching and waiting for drunk driver and anything suspicious, yet Dr Vincent Tabak having apparently committed his first murder, felt, it would be a good idea, to find a place to dump Joanna Yeates and not leave her in her flat, whilst the Police are out and about on this busy evening protecting the public... An extremely risky move by Dr Vincent tabak.... He could have been stopped at any moment!
#xmasudeserve Information from security firm two people have breached their curfew, one in Weston-super-Mare one in Bristol
8:38 pm - 17 Dec 2010
Two people breaching their curfew.... Which one would imagine that the Police were out looking for.... And we have no idea what these people had done criminally, Were they dangerous for instance?? The tweet is at a time that Joanna Yeates is in Tesco's, did any of these people pose a threat to Joanna Yeates?
We have no idea of Joanna Yeates history at all, and I could put a scenario forward, that it was Joanna Yeates the Police were looking for because she had broken her curfew... Hence "Missing since 17th December 2010..
I am not saying it is the case, but anything is a possibility....
This case is weird... This case is off.... And the truth should be known....
Even on the 18th December odd things were happening in Bristol..
Emma
@helloemsy
Follow Follow @helloemsy
More
That's gotta be painful RT @ASPolice: #xmasudeserve Reports of a man trying to ride a bicycle whilst carrying a circular saw on the saddle
1:08 am - 18 Dec 2010
https://twitter.com/helloemsy/status/15936453783588864
All I know is this case has never made sense, and is Dr Vincent Tabak really in prison... Have i been fooled as I often think....
Many many options and scenario's with this case, so how did they wrap it up in days, without any evidence??
-
Joanna Yeates Missing.......
A phrase we saw across social media at the time.... But what was it about??
Police tweet about may things and the tweet appears to be about someones welfare, when in reality they are busy trying to locate them for another reason....
Bristol24/7
Verified account
@bristol247
Follow Follow @bristol247
More
#bristol #news Police looking for TV presenter Peter Rowell who went missing yesterday and described as 'vulnerable' http://ow.ly/4pn3X
11:39 am - 30 Mar 2011
https://twitter.com/bristol247/status/53043664267640832
BBC Somerset
Verified account
@bbcsomerset
Follow Follow @bbcsomerset
More
Concern for missing BBC presenter: Police are concerned for missing BBC Somerset radio presenter Peter Rowell wh... http://bbc.in/fun1Ss
9:19 am - 30 Mar 2011
https://twitter.com/bbcsomerset/status/53008390967922688
ELIZABETH WEBSTER
@lizwebster
Follow Follow @lizwebster
More
BBC Radio Bristol presenter Peter Rowell has gone missing. Last seen parking his car at Morrisons in Yate #helpfindpeter
8:48 am - 30 Mar 2011
https://twitter.com/lizwebster/status/53000566065987584
Rupert Evelyn
@rupertevelyn
Follow Follow @rupertevelyn
More
#helpfindpeter. Many many media colleagues across west are very concerned for safety of Peter Rowell tonight. Police say he's missing.
10:39 pm - 29 Mar 2011
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/52847486083137538
Jon Kay
Verified account
@jonkay01
Follow Follow @jonkay01
More
Police search for Peter Rowell - tv and radio presenter in West of England. Missing since Tues am following bereavement.
10:36 pm - 29 Mar 2011
https://twitter.com/jonkay01/status/52846670706253824
Mark Williams-Thomas
Verified account
@mwilliamsthomas
Following Following @mwilliamsthomas
More
Let's hope the power of Twitter will help find Tv/radio presenter Peter Rowell who is missing http://ow.ly/1sh5ch PLEASE RT
10:33 pm - 29 Mar 2011
https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/52845798085500928
Rupert Evelyn
@rupertevelyn
Follow Follow @rupertevelyn
More
#helpfindpeter. Tv & radio presenter Peter Rowell is missing. Friends say he's deleted lots of them from his facebook account.
10:32 pm - 29 Mar 2011
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/52845556204179456
ITV News WestCountry
Verified account
@itvwestcountry
Follow Follow @itvwestcountry
More
Broadcaster Peter Rowell found safe tonight in Lake District. Thanks to everyone for their efforts...
10:17 pm - 30 Mar 2011
https://twitter.com/itvwestcountry/status/53204311919951872
We go from apparent concern for said presenter to this:..
DaKeB
@Dakeb_MCFC
Follow Follow @Dakeb_MCFC
More
BBC Radio presenter Peter Rowell facing sex offence inquiry http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/PETER-ROWELL-FACING-SEX-OFFENCE-INQUIRY/article-3402873-detail/article.html … <- guilty until proven innocent with irresponsible reporting
12:51 pm - 4 Apr 2011
https://twitter.com/Dakeb_MCFC/status/54873762692202496
Sir Jombie Ikpeba
@shamblesman
Follow Follow @shamblesman
More
BBC News - Former BBC man Peter Rowell arrested in rape inquiry - http://bbc.in/mtHl4K i see his future as: chokey..then suicide or worse
1:30 pm - 9 Jun 2011
https://twitter.com/shamblesman/status/78801168482041856
Sam Parsons
@gas700girl
Follow Follow @gas700girl
More
strange how radio bristol glossed over the news this morning that their presenter Peter Rowell was arrested for accused child rape.
12:13 pm - 9 Jun 2011
https://twitter.com/gas700girl/status/78781710577315841
To this...
Mark Williams-Thomas
Verified account
@mwilliamsthomas
Following Following @mwilliamsthomas
More
Ex BBC & ITV presenter Peter Rowell has pleaded guilty to 12 charges of indecent assault on girls under the age of 16 http://goo.gl/5iGrt
8:02 pm - 13 Jan 2012
https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/157915522313363457
ITV News WestCountry
Verified account
@itvwestcountry
Follow Follow @itvwestcountry
More
Presenter Peter Rowell has pleaded guilty to 12 counts of indecent assault involving 5 different children under the age of 16.
12:50 pm - 13 Jan 2012
https://twitter.com/itvwestcountry/status/157806704522825728
The Joanna Yeates case turned out to be connected to indecent images of children, having Dr Vincent Tabak pleading guilty in March 2015..
So my question has to be, what and why were they originally looking for Joanna Yeates?? was she simply a Missing persons case, or was there more to it, as these tweets show about another person...
Because lets face it from the beginning paedo's were of interest... When no-one could understand why.... Was she a decoy? what was it about?
Did Joanna Yeates die because of a Police Operation?? Many questions still to be answered....
-
No there aren't! The case is done and dusted... end of.
I do wish you'd stop wasting your time AND life trying to make a rightly convicted murderer appear innocent.
-
Brain ache..... probably.. I do not understand this, everyone is happy with a man being a prison and doesn't want to question aspects that do not add up.... I have stated that I do not know what is real or not simply because things do not make sense...
Operation Braid... I question time and time again... It had to be an ongoing Operation and was used in the Missing Posters of Joanna Yeates.... But what is Operation Braid??
I believe it's about keeping the community clean and tidy, getting rid of the rubbish, drugs, drink drivers and it's a general term for keeping a community safe and clean....
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BlZ1GZXCIAAQ0sw.jpg)
https://twitter.com/gmpgorton/status/456681165164793856
Talking of tons of rubbish in this case, appears to be an in joke, (imo) So I do not know what the connection to Joanna Yeates is, in relation to Operation Braid.... I can see CJ's connection, as a member of the neighbourhood watch, wanting his community safe, clean and tidy....
https://twitter.com/MCCGortonAHey/status/573906459840352256 (image attached)
But everything else??
Were the Police just taking rubbish out of Canygne Road?? Was this a Police Operation gone too far? I don't understand how Joanna Yeates Missing is part of Operation Braid??
The post I did prior about the 3 options of what Operation Braid was about,
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg518581#msg518581
But I suppose it depends on whether the Police look at criminals as rubbish, which would be a conclusion one could make... But that throws out Joanna Yeates Missing...!!
What's the connection to Joanna Yeates and Operation Braid? An operation that has always been talked about as looking for rubbish, Joanna yeates being talked of as being discarded like rubbish... a Missing Pizza and box , the boxes left outside Joanna Yeates flat when we have forensic Officers going to and fro...
Was Dr Vincent Tabak seen as rubbish? Was that property seen in that light?
https://www.channel4.com/news/joanna-yeates-police-release-new-cctv-film
If I think of this Operation as clearing rubbish, and put Joanna Yeates Missing for a moment, then the Fire Trucks and Winch being at Longwood Lane would make sense... If they are clearing rubbish that has been thrown into the quarry pond...
But I still have the issue of why a Missing persons Inquiry and Murder is part of Operation Braid?
Twitter has some invaluable information and is used by the police all the time, It brings me lines to look at and more questions to ask in relation to this case...
Perfectly happy that Tabak is in Prison, my only regret, he didn’t get longer than 20years, hope and prey that this ugly perverted Murderer never ever gets released. The only thing that doesn’t make sense is your nonsense 😂😂😂
-
Over that period of time in Avon and Somerset The Police had a live tweeting session of what they were doing at the time...
@ASPolice #xmasudeserve a hashtag that they used at the time and since....
https://twitter.com/hatsandbikes/status/147759447140352002
https://twitter.com/ASPolice/status/15755363991166976
https://twitter.com/ASPolice/status/15820724086243328
https://twitter.com/ASPolice/status/15858759075106816
https://twitter.com/Sarah_Mudford/status/147779494235750402
This appears to be a game that the Police were playing whilst working at the time,...
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/15880246637101056
https://twitter.com/ASPolice/status/15877124145549312
https://twitter.com/ASPolice/status/15876593226354688
https://twitter.com/ASPolice/status/15876137779470336
https://twitter.com/ASPolice/status/15875664741666816
https://twitter.com/ASPolice/status/15872021699239936
https://twitter.com/ASPolice/status/15869579125325825
https://twitter.com/ASPolice/status/15868344485810176
https://twitter.com/ASPolice/status/15864020191940608
https://twitter.com/ASPolice/status/15864586930487297
https://twitter.com/ASPolice/status/15865581215424512
https://twitter.com/ASPolice/status/15866286852538369
https://twitter.com/ASPolice/status/15867733933559808
https://twitter.com/ASPolice/status/15876137779470336
https://twitter.com/ASPolice/status/15877124145549312
https://twitter.com/ASPolice/status/15859627325390849
https://twitter.com/ASPolice/status/15859818203975680
The point of posting all of these tweets, is to show what was happening on the night that Joanna yeates went Missing, the night that Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have killed Joanna Yeates then moved her to his flat, then into the boot of his car and drove around with her, finally depositing her on a grass verge on Longwood lane...
Are we supposed to believe that??
Christmas a time when the Police are visible and active stopping drivers for what may be drink driving offences, with Operation Tonic, where they are driving around Bristol, watching and making sure all is well....
Where we can see that there was even a report of a suspicious vehicle on that evening, drunk youths, loose horses and someone jumping into a river....
The suspicious vehicle, why did the Police not come back to that one, when they were looking for vehicles when Joanna yeates was found on Longwood Lane??
The had a report, did they follow it up?? What other suspicious vehicles did they stop that evening??
There is a huge Police presence that evening all back and forth, watching and waiting for drunk driver and anything suspicious, yet Dr Vincent Tabak having apparently committed his first murder, felt, it would be a good idea, to find a place to dump Joanna Yeates and not leave her in her flat, whilst the Police are out and about on this busy evening protecting the public... An extremely risky move by Dr Vincent tabak.... He could have been stopped at any moment!
#xmasudeserve Information from security firm two people have breached their curfew, one in Weston-super-Mare one in Bristol
8:38 pm - 17 Dec 2010
Two people breaching their curfew.... Which one would imagine that the Police were out looking for.... And we have no idea what these people had done criminally, Were they dangerous for instance?? The tweet is at a time that Joanna Yeates is in Tesco's, did any of these people pose a threat to Joanna Yeates?
We have no idea of Joanna Yeates history at all, and I could put a scenario forward, that it was Joanna Yeates the Police were looking for because she had broken her curfew... Hence "Missing since 17th December 2010..
I am not saying it is the case, but anything is a possibility....
This case is weird... This case is off.... And the truth should be known....
Even on the 18th December odd things were happening in Bristol..
https://twitter.com/helloemsy/status/15936453783588864
All I know is this case has never made sense, and is Dr Vincent Tabak really in prison... Have i been fooled as I often think....
Many many options and scenario's with this case, so how did they wrap it up in days, without any evidence??
Yep, Tabak really is in Prison, you can rest now, your children are safe for now. While the police were tweeting Tabak was killing and viewing child porn and masturbating to snuff video’s. Yes you have been fooled and will continue to be fooled without fooling others. Hope Tabak wastes another 20 years of his followers lives.
-
Joanna Yeates Missing.......
A phrase we saw across social media at the time.... But what was it about??
Police tweet about may things and the tweet appears to be about someones welfare, when in reality they are busy trying to locate them for another reason....
https://twitter.com/bristol247/status/53043664267640832
https://twitter.com/bbcsomerset/status/53008390967922688
https://twitter.com/lizwebster/status/53000566065987584
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/52847486083137538
https://twitter.com/jonkay01/status/52846670706253824
https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/52845798085500928
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/52845556204179456
https://twitter.com/itvwestcountry/status/53204311919951872
We go from apparent concern for said presenter to this:..
https://twitter.com/Dakeb_MCFC/status/54873762692202496
https://twitter.com/shamblesman/status/78801168482041856
https://twitter.com/gas700girl/status/78781710577315841
To this...
https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/157915522313363457
https://twitter.com/itvwestcountry/status/157806704522825728
The Joanna Yeates case turned out to be connected to indecent images of children, having Dr Vincent Tabak pleading guilty in March 2015..
So my question has to be, what and why were they originally looking for Joanna Yeates?? was she simply a Missing persons case, or was there more to it, as these tweets show about another person...
Because lets face it from the beginning paedo's were of interest... When no-one could understand why.... Was she a decoy? what was it about?
Did Joanna Yeates die because of a Police Operation?? Many questions still to be answered....
Seriously Nine, you SEEM to have an inability to look at things in a logical fashion. The guy referred to in the tweets went missing and as the police investigated his disappearance, they found out that he had issues - those issues were related to the offence he was later convicted of.
In the case of JY, a similar thing happened, they investigated a suspect (VT) and found out he was a complete sick pervert - turned on by violent images and video's. YES! He most certainly IS in prison and should stay there for a VERY LONG TIME! Have you been fooled? Well, I would say so and continue to be.
-
Seriously Nine, you SEEM to have an inability to look at things in a logical fashion.
In the case of JY, a similar thing happened, they investigated a suspect (VT) and found out he was a complete sick pervert - turned on by violent images and video's. YES! He most certainly IS in prison and should stay there for a VERY LONG TIME! Have you been fooled? Well, I would say so and continue to be.
Logical fashion dictates, I have wasted my time , on fake news for an extremely long time, As I have stated countless times, nothing makes sense , and the logical conclusion I can come to is it was all fake news that was on the Internet at the time...
Total tosh.....
Reality being... I am as gullible as the next person... 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
Logical fashion dictates, I have wasted my time , on fake news for an extremely long time, As I have stated countless times, nothing makes sense , and the logical conclusion I can come to is it was all fake news that was on the Internet at the time...
Total tosh.....
Reality being... I am as gullible as the next person... 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
It does ALL make sense, perfect sense - it's your interpretation that doesn't.
-
Yep, Tabak really is in Prison, you can rest now, your children are safe for now. While the police were tweeting Tabak was killing and viewing child porn and masturbating to snuff video’s. Yes you have been fooled and will continue to be fooled without fooling others. Hope Tabak wastes another 20 years of his followers lives.
Who says he was "masturbating to snuff videos"??? Pure speculation, IMO.
-
It does ALL make sense, perfect sense - it's your interpretation that doesn't.
It doesn't make sense though. An intelligent man, in a stable relationship, with a responsible job, who has recently spent six weeks abroad working, lives a perfectly normal day , then decides to spend the evening killing the girl next door and disposing of her body. Surely, had he been "compelled" to murder someone, he wouldn't have chosen his next door neighbour. He was bright enough to know he would automatically be a suspect. He might have done it, obviously, but it makes no sense to me at all, which is precisely why I question whether he actually did!!!!!
-
It doesn't make sense though. An intelligent man, in a stable relationship, with a responsible job, who has recently spent six weeks abroad working, lives a perfectly normal day , then decides to spend the evening killing the girl next door and disposing of her body. Surely, had he been "compelled" to murder someone, he wouldn't have chosen his next door neighbour. He was bright enough to know he would automatically be a suspect. He might have done it, obviously, but it makes no sense to me at all, which is precisely why I question whether he actually did!!!!!
Deviants and murderers come in all guises:
"Judge Philip Parker QC said Falder had enjoyed every advantage in life, having been brought up by a loving family and benefiting from a world class education".
"Despite the appalling nature of the offences Falder's long-term girlfriend was said to be "standing by" him, according to his barrister".
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/19/cambridge-graduate-used-web-abuse-humiliate-victims-jailed-32/
And
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3865944/British-banker-31-goes-trial-accused-murdering-two-Indonesian-sex-workers-filming-attacks-iPhone.html
I made a couple of posts when this thread first started up and will not be wasting time here. Tabak guilty as charged 100% imo. Since I nearly always support the defendant I just thought it would be make a nice change to make a counter post!
-
Who says he was "masturbating to snuff videos"??? Pure speculation, IMO.
My speculation will be a lot lot closer to yours and Nine’s speculation I’m quite confident in that!
-
It doesn't make sense though. An intelligent man, in a stable relationship, with a responsible job, who has recently spent six weeks abroad working, lives a perfectly normal day , then decides to spend the evening killing the girl next door and disposing of her body. Surely, had he been "compelled" to murder someone, he wouldn't have chosen his next door neighbour. He was bright enough to know he would automatically be a suspect. He might have done it, obviously, but it makes no sense to me at all, which is precisely why I question whether he actually did!!!!!
What doesn’t make sense to you makes perfect sense to most people, why do husbands kill their wife’s when they know they would be a prime suspect? Some killers will feel such a strong compulsion to murder, choosing victims largely by who is available at that time, his desire to act out his perverted fantasy would have overcome any other thought process. Having a stable relationship and a good job and being intelligent, would not help his perverted mind. Ted Buddy had a IQ of 136. Jeffery Dahmer IQ144, Harold Shipman was in a loving stable relationship, family doctor and responsible job, who knows how many he killed
-
What doesn’t make sense to you makes perfect sense to most people, why do husbands kill their wife’s when they know they would be a prime suspect? Some killers will feel such a strong compulsion to murder, choosing victims largely by who is available at that time, his desire to act out his perverted fantasy would have overcome any other thought process. Having a stable relationship and a good job and being intelligent, would not help his perverted mind. Ted Buddy had a IQ of 136. Jeffery Dahmer IQ144, Harold Shipman was in a loving stable relationship, family doctor and responsible job, who knows how many he killed
You're absolutely correct RJ. Most of us will never experience how that primal urge can grip until it's appeased. How it might fill someone's every waking moment until their blood lust or sexual perversion is assuaged, but just because we don't experience it, it doesn't mean others don't. It's perfectly possible, that having sated their perversion and returned to 'normal', they may not recognize what they've done................until the urge hits them next time.
-
You're absolutely correct RJ. Most of us will never experience how that primal urge can grip until it's appeased. How it might fill someone's every waking moment until their blood lust or sexual perversion is assuaged, but just because we don't experience it, it doesn't mean others don't. It's perfectly possible, that having sated their perversion and returned to 'normal', they may not recognize what they've done................until the urge hits them next time.
True April, he watched the videos for one reason, to get off on them until this wasn’t enough to satisfy him, then he wanted to turn it into reality. He would not have stopped even if he got away with killing Joanna, his uncontrollable urges would have got stronger. It was a perfect setting for him, his girlfriend out all night, Joanna on her own, computer experts found he had been viewing porn on the day he killed Joanna, you have to understand how a sex offender thinks and acts, even though he was in a stable relationship men still do attack women, I think the thing he wanted more than anything was the power over his victim, both in fantasy and action, Tabak found it most exciting to use force in making his conquest.
It’s funny how some people view this seemingly devoted boyfriend, but was in fact a fan of submission pornography. His computers revealed violent images of females being held by the neck, degraded and sexually abused. He surfed sex sites for escorts, using the cover of business trips.
Even Just two weeks before murdering the landscape architect he also paid for sex with a prostitute during a business trip to Los Angeles, police discovered.
Was he thinking about his girlfriend when he did this?
-
It doesn't make sense though. An intelligent man, in a stable relationship, with a responsible job, who has recently spent six weeks abroad working, lives a perfectly normal day , then decides to spend the evening killing the girl next door and disposing of her body. Surely, had he been "compelled" to murder someone, he wouldn't have chosen his next door neighbour. He was bright enough to know he would automatically be a suspect. He might have done it, obviously, but it makes no sense to me at all, which is precisely why I question whether he actually did!!!!!
Yes it does. Many killers are intelligent, many are in a relationship but you're speculating as to the stability of his. Not sure what his working abroad has to do with anything? What kind of day does a killer have? Most murders are committed by someone close (family, friends, neighbours). He was arrogant enough be believe he wouldn't be caught but did some research just in case!!!!
-
Facebook..... Just like to put everything into context....
We had the forum and we had the group... We also had the confusion.... Which was which...
I'm still unsure, but the forum on the poster of Joanna yeates Missing was this
https://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=169097479794933
The link that leads no where
But we also have the facebook group, which was different to The Missing forum by the family.....
Now today I came across this tweet by Rupert Evelyn..
Rupert Evelyn
@rupertevelyn
Follow Follow @rupertevelyn
More
4000 people join facebook group in search for Jo yeates. http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_169097479794933
10:26 am - 23 Dec 2010
That leads you too the Missing group.... Yet it is a slightly different to the web address that is on the poster,... So were there 2 forums of similar address about Joanna Yeates at the time?? Why does Rupert Evelyns link, go to the Missing group, which has a forum type address?
I Don't understand how Rupert Evelyn's link goes to the Missing group how it looks today, but the link from The Missing poster goes to a dead page..
(a): https://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=169097479794933 (from Missing Poster, leads nowhere)
(b): https://www.facebook.com/groups/169097479794933/ (Missing Group)
(c): https://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_169097479794933 (Rupert Evelyns link)(leads to
Missing Group)
Was (a) The forum that mrswah and myself have spoken about? And why was it on the poster? Something slightly strange about the facebook forums/groups (imo)
Someone who knows about forum address please explain to me... thank you...
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15444;image)
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15446;image)
Edit.. So I therefore would conclude, that the forum mrswah and myself know of, must be the same as the facebook address on the Missing Poster, that being [Joanna Yeates Discussion of the Case] so who started which forums?? And why the similar addresses??
I may be wrong... as mrswah says...
Double Edit... Now this is the facebook [Discussion of The case group]...
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Joanna-Yeates-discussion-of-the-case/128719860525280
It's a dead link...
What I remember was that The Facebook forum which mrswah and myself have spoken of got transferred to the group... ( Meaning started completely afresh..)
Where as what appears to be the Missing forum, just became a group, if you follow what I mean...
So was The Missing person Poster link, The original forum that has been spoken of??
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15454;image)
-
Attached are the images of the Facebook forum/groups
My opinion hasn't changed... Something is off... Fake News etc etc... Too bizarre for words...
-
I was thinking about the sentencing of Dr Vincent Tabak and how quickly the Judge passed sentence, there was NO medical reports made as mitigating circumstances.. No leniency for a plea of guilty.. I don't remember any victim impact statements..
How did the Judge come to his decision based on what??? Surely Dr Vincent Tabaks behaviour whilst in custody was without fault..
Why didn't the judge defer sentencing whilst all the reports came in????
Where were the background reports???
https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/verdicts-and-sentencing
Not quite sure what your getting at Nine, you complain about fake news, yet you follow and research one of the biggest internet providers of fake news FACEBOOK, i have a friend who died recently and went to his funeral, yet he still has a Facebook page, why? Because know one can be bothered to remove it. My Dad died 5 years back, he still has one, does that mean he’s still alive?
-
You talk utter nonesense and crap, move on in life and let the murdering perverted monster rot in prison.
Thanks for that Real Justice... Too kind of you...
-
Thanks for that Real Justice... Too kind of you...
Im trying to help you Nine, nothing you bring up has any bearing on this case and any possibility being a MOJ, you complain about Fake news, yet your the messenger of such, without evidence.
-
Im trying to help you Nine, nothing you bring up has any bearing on this case and any possibility being a MOJ, you complain about Fake news, yet your the messenger of such, without evidence.
Therefore I have wasted my time.... and any possible MOJ that anyone has concerns over, will also be wasting their time, by what you say...
If the real evidence is Missing..eg.. The CCTV that DS Mark Saunders speaks of, and any and all of the witness statements that were made online... As I do not have the ability to see these, I cannot bring these as evidence, but I can show that they apparently existed.. If Dr Vincent Tabak or his family are not speaking about this, I cannot bring that either... I can show the video's of The Yeates talking of washing piles of clothes on entering Joanna yeates flat... I can show video of CJ talking of speaking to Dr Vincent Tabak that weekend....
If it has taken me this long to find out all of the information I have found and posted about, how was it possible to arrest Dr Vincent Tabak within days of CJ being released, when there was no evidence.... Surely they would need to check information etc.....
All I keep saying is this case makes no sense.... And I understand no-one else but a few ever have questioned this....
I will stay with my belief, that Dr Vincent Tabak is innocent, until someone proves otherwise, and with the belief that this case makes no sense....
And if you think I talk crap and nonsense , then so be it....
Edit..... Where was "THE EVIDENCE" at trial??
Oops... There wasn't any.... All the forensics from Joanna Yeates and Dr Vincent Tabaks flat apparently Missing... No witness's whom had seen Dr Vincent Tabak that weekend were at trial either..... Odd that...!!
-
Therefore I have wasted my time.... and any possible MOJ that anyone has concerns over, will also be wasting their time, by what you say...
If the real evidence is Missing..eg.. The CCTV that DS Mark Saunders speaks of, and any and all of the witness statements that were made online... As I do not have the ability to see these, I cannot bring these as evidence, but I can show that they apparently existed.. If Dr Vincent Tabak or his family are not speaking about this, I cannot bring that either... I can show the video's of The Yeates talking of washing piles of clothes on entering Joanna yeates flat... I can show video of CJ talking of speaking to Dr Vincent Tabak that weekend....
If it has taken me this long to find out all of the information I have found and posted about, how was it possible to arrest Dr Vincent Tabak within days of CJ being released, when there was no evidence.... Surely they would need to check information etc.....
All I keep saying is this case makes no sense.... And I understand no-one else but a few ever have questioned this....
I will stay with my belief, that Dr Vincent Tabak is innocent, until someone proves otherwise, and with the belief that this case makes no sense....
And if you think I talk crap and nonsense , then so be it....
Edit..... Where was "THE EVIDENCE" at trial??
Oops... There wasn't any.... All the forensics from Joanna Yeates and Dr Vincent Tabaks flat apparently Missing... No witness's whom had seen Dr Vincent Tabak that weekend were at trial either..... Odd that...!!
How much evidence do you have to show, when someone has admitted he murdered the victim? The case was and never will be about proving Tabak was responsible for jY death, it was about either manslaughter or murder; so, the prosecution didn’t need to prove or bring witnesses in to prove Tabak did it, you just don’t get it and understand the legal system, your arguments are meaningless. Why waste time and effort to prove responsibility when he admitted it?
-
d any possible MOJ that anyone has concerns over, will also be wasting their time, by what you say...
I’m not saying that at all, I’m involved with and follow two MOJ myself, I was referencing to Tabak’s case, nice try of twisting things though Nine.
-
d any possible MOJ that anyone has concerns over, will also be wasting their time, by what you say...
I’m not saying that at all, I’m involved with and follow two MOJ myself, I was referencing to Tabak’s case, nice try of twisting things though Nine.
I'm not trying to twist anything... I take thing literally... that is all...
How do you view the 2 MOJ's you follow? Do you believe that they are MOJ's or not... Are they just for interest??
-
How much evidence do you have to show, when someone has admitted he murdered the victim? The case was and never will be about proving Tabak was responsible for jY death, it was about either manslaughter or murder; so, the prosecution didn’t need to prove or bring witnesses in to prove Tabak did it, you just don’t get it and understand the legal system, your arguments are meaningless. Why waste time and effort to prove responsibility when he admitted it?
Admitting to something, doesn't mean someone has done something... There could be many reasons someone admits to a crime they haven't done.... The question is why?
And shouldn't the evidence support someones admittance, and not just their say so...!
-
Therefore I have wasted my time.... and any possible MOJ that anyone has concerns over, will also be wasting their time, by what you say...
If the real evidence is Missing..eg.. The CCTV that DS Mark Saunders speaks of, and any and all of the witness statements that were made online... As I do not have the ability to see these, I cannot bring these as evidence, but I can show that they apparently existed.. If Dr Vincent Tabak or his family are not speaking about this, I cannot bring that either... I can show the video's of The Yeates talking of washing piles of clothes on entering Joanna yeates flat... I can show video of CJ talking of speaking to Dr Vincent Tabak that weekend....
If it has taken me this long to find out all of the information I have found and posted about, how was it possible to arrest Dr Vincent Tabak within days of CJ being released, when there was no evidence.... Surely they would need to check information etc.....
All I keep saying is this case makes no sense.... And I understand no-one else but a few ever have questioned this....
I will stay with my belief, that Dr Vincent Tabak is innocent, until someone proves otherwise, and with the belief that this case makes no sense....
And if you think I talk crap and nonsense , then so be it....
Edit..... Where was "THE EVIDENCE" at trial??
Oops... There wasn't any.... All the forensics from Joanna Yeates and Dr Vincent Tabaks flat apparently Missing... No witness's whom had seen Dr Vincent Tabak that weekend were at trial either..... Odd that...!!
There wasn't any? There was the DNA evidence, the evidence from his computer and oh ........... his admission. The only thing missing is a video of his actually committing the crime!
-
Admitting to something, doesn't mean someone has done something... There could be many reasons someone admits to a crime they haven't done.... The question is why?
And shouldn't the evidence support someones admittance, and not just their say so...!
It did - his DNA was on he naked skin.
-
Therefore I have wasted my time.... and any possible MOJ that anyone has concerns over, will also be wasting their time, by what you say...
If the real evidence is Missing..eg.. The CCTV that DS Mark Saunders speaks of, and any and all of the witness statements that were made online... As I do not have the ability to see these, I cannot bring these as evidence, but I can show that they apparently existed.. If Dr Vincent Tabak or his family are not speaking about this, I cannot bring that either... I can show the video's of The Yeates talking of washing piles of clothes on entering Joanna yeates flat... I can show video of CJ talking of speaking to Dr Vincent Tabak that weekend....
If it has taken me this long to find out all of the information I have found and posted about, how was it possible to arrest Dr Vincent Tabak within days of CJ being released, when there was no evidence.... Surely they would need to check information etc.....
All I keep saying is this case makes no sense.... And I understand no-one else but a few ever have questioned this....
I will stay with my belief, that Dr Vincent Tabak is innocent, until someone proves otherwise, and with the belief that this case makes no sense....
And if you think I talk crap and nonsense , then so be it....
Edit..... Where was "THE EVIDENCE" at trial??
Oops... There wasn't any.... All the forensics from Joanna Yeates and Dr Vincent Tabaks flat apparently Missing... No witness's whom had seen Dr Vincent Tabak that weekend were at trial either..... Odd that...!!
If the convicted's admission of guilt isn't enough by way of evidence, nothing else will be. I can't think why you're surprised witnesses to the sighting of Tabac weren't present. Their presence wasn't required. The judge wasn't in need of victim statements to help him make up his mind about the sentence he handed down, Tabac had admitted guilt. You admit to having wasted your time but like a dog with a bone you refuse to let it go. In fact, you seem not to possess the humility to accept Tabac's own word for it that he's guilty.
-
There wasn't any? There was the DNA evidence, the evidence from his computer and oh ........... his admission. The only thing missing is a video of his actually committing the crime!
Oh Yes.... And the CCTV of the comings and goings on Canygne Road from that weekend, that DS Mark Saunders speaks of.... One that should show if Joanna Yeates actually reached home....
Oh I forgot, Colin Port states that The Hophouse pub, was the last known sighting of Joanna Yeates...
-
Admitting to something, doesn't mean someone has done something... There could be many reasons someone admits to a crime they haven't done.... The question is why?
And shouldn't the evidence support someones admittance, and not just their say so...!
By that, it seems as if you'd be prepared to release every convict who admits their guilt just in case there was another reason for their admission.
-
Admitting to something, doesn't mean someone has done something... There could be many reasons someone admits to a crime they haven't done.... The question is why?
And shouldn't the evidence support someones admittance, and not just their say so...!
So, a family member of yours gets murdered, the police find the culprit through DNA being on the body, they find blood in the car, he’s a next door neighbour, he likes child porno and snuff videos resembling how your family member got killed, the culprit admits he killed your family member, you would turn around and say, I don’t believe him 😂😂😂😂.
-
If the convicted's admission of guilt isn't enough by way of evidence, nothing else will be. I can't think why you're surprised witnesses to the sighting of Tabac weren't present. Their presence wasn't required. The judge wasn't in need of victim statements to help him make up his mind about the sentence he handed down, Tabac had admitted guilt. You admit to having wasted your time but like a dog with a bone you refuse to let it go. In fact, you seem not to possess the humility to accept Tabac's own word for it that he's guilty.
Evidence supporting said admission of guilt....
If there is evidence to the contrary to the statement made, then should an admission of guilt be accepted.... I would say not....
If we cannot establish if Joanna yeates actually reached home, why would we accept that Dr Vincent Tabak killed her there??
Because he said so??? Not good enough (imo)
-
Oh Yes.... And the CCTV of the comings and goings on Canygne Road from that weekend, that DS Mark Saunders speaks of.... One that should show if Joanna Yeates actually reached home....
Oh I forgot, Colin Port states that The Hophouse pub, was the last known sighting of Joanna Yeates...
Just because there is CCTV in a street, it doesn't mean that EVERY angle is covered. If people had personal CCTV camera's they aren't allowed to point them at the street - they are to capture comings and goings on their own property!
There isn't any question of JY not returning to her flat, he keys were there, her phone, her coat and the receipt for the shopping she was seen carrying. Your problem is that you rely on gossip and other conspiracy theorists for your infomation and as Jane said, you even refuse to believe the 'intelligent' Mr Tabak.
-
By that, it seems as if you'd be prepared to release every convict who admits their guilt just in case there was another reason for their admission.
Or maybe they don't exist at all and prisons are actually empty? &%%6
-
Evidence supporting said admission of guilt....
If there is evidence to the contrary to the statement made, then should an admission of guilt be accepted.... I would say not....
If we cannot establish if Joanna yeates actually reached home, why would we accept that Dr Vincent Tabak killed her there??
Because he said so??? Not good enough (imo)
Her coat was at home, her phone her keys, the Tesco receipt her boots, you haven’t got a argument, your going round in circles and it’s not sinking in.
-
Evidence supporting said admission of guilt....
If there is evidence to the contrary to the statement made, then should an admission of guilt be accepted.... I would say not....
If we cannot establish if Joanna yeates actually reached home, why would we accept that Dr Vincent Tabak killed her there??
Because he said so??? Not good enough (imo)
We KNOW for a FACT she reached home @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
So, a family member of yours gets murdered, the police find the culprit through DNA being on the body, they find blood in the car, he’s a next door neighbour, he likes child porno and snuff videos resembling how your family member got killed, the culprit admits he killed your family member, you would turn around and say, I don’t believe him 😂😂😂😂.
Bit flimsy that mind Justice @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Just because there is CCTV in a street, it doesn't mean that EVERY angle is covered. If people had personal CCTV camera's they aren't allowed to point them at the street - they are to capture comings and goings on their own property!
There isn't any question of JY not returning to her flat, he keys were there, her phone, her coat and the receipt for the shopping she was seen carrying. Your problem is that you rely on gossip and other conspiracy theorists for your infomation and as Jane said, you even refuse to believe the 'intelligent' Mr Tabak.
DS Mark Saunders stated that cars were up and down the street, and people were Milling about....
But if as you have just pointed out that people are not allowed to take CCTV of the street and people Milling about, then that would answer the question as to why we haven't seen the CCTV...
We agree to disagree, that is simple to see, and I will stick with what I believe.... It shouldn't matter to anyone in any case....
-
We KNOW for a FACT she reached home @)(++(* @)(++(*
How do you know for a FACT!!
What evidence other than keys, coat and phone states otherwise as proof she arrived home?? It had been suggested that someone could have returned those items....
So what was left behind Caroline?? What was it that beyond a doubt shows that Joanna Yeates reached home??
-
Evidence supporting said admission of guilt....
If there is evidence to the contrary to the statement made, then should an admission of guilt be accepted.... I would say not....
If we cannot establish if Joanna yeates actually reached home, why would we accept that Dr Vincent Tabak killed her there??
Because he said so??? Not good enough (imo)
You don’t accept evidence from the prosecution and you don’t accept evidence from the defence or Tabak himself, now we are getting somewhere 😂😂😂
-
How do you know for a FACT!!
What evidence other than keys, coat and phone states otherwise as proof she arrived home?? It had been suggested that someone could have returned those items....
So what was left behind Caroline?? What was it that beyond a doubt shows that Joanna Yeates reached home??
Some idiot might have suggested someone else returned the items but it's a bonkers suggestion.
-
Some idiot might have suggested someone else returned the items but it's a bonkers suggestion.
And you're willing to believe that might have happened with absolutely no evidence whatsoever but dismiss she returned home due to items showing she returned being found at the scene? %56&
-
How do you know for a FACT!!
What evidence other than keys, coat and phone states otherwise as proof she arrived home?? It had been suggested that someone could have returned those items....
So what was left behind Caroline?? What was it that beyond a doubt shows that Joanna Yeates reached home??
Have you ever stopped to consider what YOU would do if -God forbid- a close relative of yours is raped and/or murdered? I wonder, despite the convicted admitting their guilt, would you stand up in court and demand a retrial/further investigation/their immediate release JUST IN CASE.................?
-
You don’t accept evidence from the prosecution and you don’t accept evidence from the defence or Tabak himself, now we are getting somewhere 😂😂😂
Yes, RJ. Lost in LaLa land!
-
Admitting to something, doesn't mean someone has done something... There could be many reasons someone admits to a crime they haven't done.... The question is why?
And shouldn't the evidence support someones admittance, and not just their say so...!
It wasn’t a false confession, he never admitted under police questioning that he was responsible, he admitted within his defence he had done it, there’s a very big difference from admitting under police questioning and admitting after evidence submitted.
-
It wasn’t a false confession, he never admitted under police questioning that he was responsible, he admitted within his defence he had done it, there’s a very big difference from admitting under police questioning and admitting after evidence submitted.
Good point! 8((()*/
-
Thanks for that Real Justice... Too kind of you...
Have edited your post, RJ. It isn't necessary to be rude!!
-
Some idiot might have suggested someone else returned the items but it's a bonkers suggestion.
How can you possibly know that for sure, Caroline?
-
Some idiot might have suggested someone else returned the items but it's a bonkers suggestion.
How can you possibly know that for sure, Caroline?
It had been mentioned on forums at the time, but they may have gotten the idea from this man...
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/mark-williams-thomas-interview-sot-news-footage/659221138
Or did he get the idea from the forums??
Origin, I keep saying... where is the origin...
-
I'm not trying to twist anything... I take thing literally... that is all...
How do you view the 2 MOJ's you follow? Do you believe that they are MOJ's or not... Are they just for interest??
One I follow, I’m pretty sure was a MOJ and will be proved soon I think. The other is at early stages and the evidence available is not fully disclosed as of yet, but has gained support of a high profile attorney, both are in the USA. I used to follow the Jeremy Bamber case, with a view it might be a MOJ, but when you gain access to material and study the case, my view is he was responsible, I’m not the only one to come to this conclusion after years of research.
-
It had been mentioned on forums at the time, but they may have gotten the idea from this man...
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/mark-williams-thomas-interview-sot-news-footage/659221138
Or did he get the idea from the forums??
Origin, I keep saying... where is the origin...
And naturally, it's impossible that the multitudinous 'inhabitants' of forums would EVER get things wrong/make things up.
-
I'm not trying to twist anything... I take thing literally... that is all...
I believe there are some branches of the Church which take literally -and believe- everything that's said in the Bible, without taking on board how many times it's been translated from the original and how much becomes lost in -changed by- translation. The same applies today in the way we interpret what someone says. SUCH a shame, don't you think, as it contradicts your claim, that you didn't take literally, Tabak's confession?
-
It had been mentioned on forums at the time, but they may have gotten the idea from this man...
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/mark-williams-thomas-interview-sot-news-footage/659221138
Or did he get the idea from the forums??
Origin, I keep saying... where is the origin...
If you look closely, his report was before the body was found, why do you think the video was cut short Nine?
This is what he had to say,
Mr Williams-Thomas said: "The key to the flat is that she either went back home or someone went back to the flat with her property. It is more likely that she went back home."
He also said, There's no sense that she was pulled off the street by a stranger."
-
One I follow, I’m pretty sure was a MOJ and will be proved soon I think. The other is at early stages and the evidence available is not fully disclosed as of yet, but has gained support of a high profile attorney, both are in the USA. I used to follow the Jeremy Bamber case, with a view it might be a MOJ, but when you gain access to material and study the case, my view is he was responsible, I’m not the only one to come to this conclusion after years of research.
You obviously have more at your disposal than me... I... as I have stated many times am nobody... Just someone who has stated is concerned about the case....
One I follow, I’m pretty sure was a MOJ and will be proved soon I think. The other is at early stages and the evidence available is not fully disclosed as of yet, but has gained support of a high profile attorney, both are in the USA.
Good luck with your cases Real Justice.... We may not agree about this case, but I only can wish you luck in what you are doing.. ?{)(**
-
You obviously have more at your disposal than me... I... as I have stated many times am nobody... Just someone who has stated is concerned about the case....
I don’t profess to being anyone Nine, I think Caroline and April will back me up on this, but, I was taken in with the Bamber case and by my ex Son in law, so I’m not infallible myself.
-
I don’t profess to being anyone Nine, I think Caroline and April will back me up on this, but, I was taken in with the Bamber case and by my ex Son in law, so I’m not infallible myself.
I can't comment on the Bamber case, I do not know enough about it, and there are many people fighting his cause..
The Case that has always concerned me is this one... And there is more to it than what we have been told... It may make sense to you and everyone else, but it doesn't make sense to me...
And for what ever reason it stays with me.... So if I am wrong so be it.... But for one moment, just think if I am right.... What would that actually mean??
-
How can you possibly know that for sure, Caroline?
Because the notion is ridiculous. Why would someone (else) return those things to her flat?
-
It had been mentioned on forums at the time, but they may have gotten the idea from this man...
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/mark-williams-thomas-interview-sot-news-footage/659221138
Or did he get the idea from the forums??
Origin, I keep saying... where is the origin...
I wasn't far wrong with the above post then.
-
I can't comment on the Bamber case, I do not know enough about it, and there are many people fighting his cause..
The Case that has always concerned me is this one... And there is more to it than what we have been told... It may make sense to you and everyone else, but it doesn't make sense to me...
And for what ever reason it stays with me.... So if I am wrong so be it.... But for one moment, just think if I am right.... What would that actually mean??
Nine you can apply what if I’m right to anything, “I predict the world is going to end tomorrow”. What if I’m right?
-
I don’t profess to being anyone Nine, I think Caroline and April will back me up on this, but, I was taken in with the Bamber case and by my ex Son in law, so I’m not infallible myself.
Of course you are someone Justice! 8((()*/
We all got conned by Bamber in the beginning - not no more though!
-
I can't comment on the Bamber case, I do not know enough about it, and there are many people fighting his cause..
The Case that has always concerned me is this one... And there is more to it than what we have been told... It may make sense to you and everyone else, but it doesn't make sense to me...
And for what ever reason it stays with me.... So if I am wrong so be it.... But for one moment, just think if I am right.... What would that actually mean??
So what would you like to happen, Nine? You say you are nothing -as I recall, that's how Mary, the Mother of Jesus and Jeanne D'Arc saw themselves- you'd certainly be remembered if you managed, single handed, to persuade a man, who's freely confessed his guilt, that actually, he's made a mistake.
-
I don’t profess to being anyone Nine, I think Caroline and April will back me up on this, but, I was taken in with the Bamber case and by my ex Son in law, so I’m not infallible myself.
Not anyone, RJ? You're SOMEONE deserving of the utmost respect. We're allowed to forgive ourselves for being taken in. Evil people don't have "Evil Person" tattooed on their foreheads.
-
Nine you can apply what if I’m right to anything, “I predict the world is going to end tomorrow”. What if I’m right?
True....
But... nothing will happen with this case... I believe that to be true... And I go around in circles again... Wondering if I have wasted my time... And wondering if it was fake news or not..!
-
True....
But... nothing will happen with this case... I believe that to be true... And I go around in circles again... Wondering if I have wasted my time... And wondering if it was fake news or not..!
Do you live in the area Nine and what bought your attention to this case? Do you like to study crime, true crime? This website was born from the Bamber case, many who joined the Bamber forum after realising it wasn’t a MOJ, probably believing it was a MOJ at first, set up this site to counter the Bamber forum site.
-
True....
But... nothing will happen with this case... I believe that to be true... And I go around in circles again... Wondering if I have wasted my time... And wondering if it was fake news or not..!
What do you mean about Fake news, the whole thing is Fake and it never happened?
-
You don’t accept evidence from the prosecution and you don’t accept evidence from the defence or Tabak himself, now we are getting somewhere 😂😂😂
The Defence was hardly a Defence...(imo)
-
The Defence was hardly a Defence...(imo)
Nine, anyone who gets convicted always blame the defence,
It’s an easy get out, I think Tabak’s defence did well, it managed to keep damming evidence from the trial, it nearly got a Murderer conviction to a manslaughter conviction big difference in years served.
-
The Defence was hardly a Defence...(imo)
I imagine it's very difficult to defend someone who owns up to their guilt.
-
I imagine it's very difficult to defend someone who owns up to their guilt.
They should have told him he wasn't.
-
They should have told him he wasn't.
Oh! Is that where they went wrong?
-
OK... I'm an idiot...........
-
I really don't know were to begin to address what you've said. It sounds, very much like a plea of desperation. It's full of emotion -"a Placid Dutchman"? How would you know who is the real person?- I understand why your journey has been a lonely one.
Do you have any concrete evidence? ie anything which hasn't come from newspapers, blogs or forums? I suspect, for the most part, all we accrue from these is others' opinions -whether or not it's the truth, and from experience I know that much isn't, is up for grabs. There are always agendas and the gullible -of which I was once of their number- get reeled in. I wonder, is it the man or the case which keeps you tied to where you are?
I'm not certain why you make so much of why various people weren't called to give evidence? It's my understanding that a guilty plea negates the necessity/reduces it to a minimum, although I feel certain those with more knowledge that I will refute or corroborate. You say Tabak wasn't defended well. We know that the guilty are entitled to a defence and that their counsel will do the best job possible on their behalf with the information they're given. Have you stopped to consider that's what happened? Have you considered that, if Tabac's counsel was aware of his guilt, some sort of deal may have been worked out with the prosecutors? I'm afraid that the black or white position you claim as your stance may be holding you back and blinding you to all other possibilities. That which you say is obvious to you, is, I imagine, ONLY obvious to you.
I think if I address this further, I'll end up as muddled as I feel you are.
-
PLACID Dutchman? The man had violent porn and snuff movies! Dear god! 8()(((@#
-
PLACID Dutchman? The man had violent porn and snuff movies! Dear god! 8()(((@#
Suppressed emotions, Caroline!!!
-
Suppressed emotions, Caroline!!!
I wasn't really angry, I just like that emoticon @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
I wasn't really angry, I just like that emoticon @)(++(* @)(++(*
I wasn't talking about yours @)(++(*.................but it's good to let off steam 8()(((@#
-
I wasn't talking about yours @)(++(*.................but it's good to let off steam 8()(((@#
Yes I know but didn't want Nine to think I was being serious 8((()*/
-
OK... I'm an idiot...........
I wouldn’t call you that Nine, your Different and interesting that’s all.
-
OK... I'm an idiot...........
It wasn't your suggestion.
-
OK... I'm an idiot...........
I don’t understand why you wanted the Yeates to take the stand Nine, what benefit would that have been?
The Computer evidence wasn’t allowed in the trial for reasons, the Judge ruled against them on the grounds that,
But at the start of the trial Mr Justice Field ruled the evidence inadmissible, saying: "In my judgment the watching and the possession of porn showing violence and the threat of violence is reprehensible conduct. But the fact there could be a sexual motive does not explain why Tabak intended to kill or cause serious injury. In my judgment a fair trial would be put seriously at risk if it was to be admitted."
This has nothing to do with police, the police gather the evidence and then it’s between the defence, prosecution and Judge to what evidence is allowed. The prosecution will try and get as much evidence as possible admissible at trial, while the defence will try and throw out as much as possible, anything that could put the trial in jeopardy of being a fair trial will be ruled out by the Judge, it limits the grounds for any appeal after on the grounds of unfair trial.
There is no doubt whatsoever Tabak had high quality titles of sex and submission porn depicting violence towards women with their tops raised and violent images of women being held by the neck, then being sexually abused,". As well as child porn ect. They know this because they were found not only on his Laptop, his works computer and two hard drives at home. Now I’m no computer expert, But, Caroline is, how hard would it be for someone to plant this evidence on all these devices, at the correct times and some of these videos way before the murder actually happened, I would say it’s virtully impossible to do this by anyone other than Tabak himself? It wouldn’t just be on his devices, it would show up on the internet provider as well, the police wouldn’t need to go down this road because the evidence was there. Because the prosecution could not use the Child porn at his trial, they decided to charge him separately for that, it was in the public’s interest, it serves as a deterrent, no one is above the law on viewing child porn images even if your locked up for twenty years, the fact he is a convicted sex offender means he will be monitored.
Evidence not disclosed to the jury revealed that:
A film on his laptop showed a woman saying "choke me".
Another featured a victim dressed in a pink top and jeans,just like 25-year-old Miss Yeates was wearing when she died.
The laptop held three images of a woman with a striking resemblance to Miss Yeates with her top pushed up - as her body was when it was discovered.
In another echo of the murder, a computer image showed two naked women bound and gagged in the boot of a man's car.
Tabak's DNA was found on Miss Yeates's breasts, chest and arm.
Her parents David and Teresa Yeates were too traumatised to Attend, would you want to be at trial and view images of your dead daughter?
-
I don’t understand why you wanted the Yeates to take the stand Nine, what benefit would that have been?
The Computer evidence wasn’t allowed in the trial for reasons, the Judge ruled against them on the grounds that,
But at the start of the trial Mr Justice Field ruled the evidence inadmissible, saying: "In my judgment the watching and the possession of porn showing violence and the threat of violence is reprehensible conduct. But the fact there could be a sexual motive does not explain why Tabak intended to kill or cause serious injury. In my judgment a fair trial would be put seriously at risk if it was to be admitted."
This has nothing to do with police, the police gather the evidence and then it’s between the defence, prosecution and Judge to what evidence is allowed. The prosecution will try and get as much evidence as possible admissible at trial, while the defence will try and throw out as much as possible, anything that could put the trial in jeopardy of being a fair trial will be ruled out by the Judge, it limits the grounds for any appeal after on the grounds of unfair trial.
There is no doubt whatsoever Tabak had high quality titles of sex and submission porn depicting violence towards women with their tops raised and violent images of women being held by the neck, then being sexually abused,". As well as child porn ect. They know this because they were found not only on his Laptop, his works computer and two hard drives at home. Now I’m no computer expert, But, Caroline is how hard would it be for someone to plant this evidence on all these devices, at the correct times and some of these videos way before the murder actually happened, I would say it’s virtully impossible to do this by anyone other than Tabak himself? It wouldn’t just be on his devices, it would show up on the internet provider as well, the police wouldn’t need to go down this road because the evidence was there. Because the prosecution could not use the Child porn at his trial, they decided to charge him separately for that, it was in the public’s interest, it serves as a deterrent, no one is above the law on viewing child porn images even if your locked up for twenty years, the fact he is a convicted sex offender means he will be monitored.
Evidence not disclosed to the jury revealed that:
A film on his laptop showed a woman saying "choke me".
Another featured a victim dressed in a pink top and jeans,just like 25-year-old Miss Yeates was wearing when she died.
The laptop held three images of a woman with a striking resemblance to Miss Yeates with her top pushed up - as her body was when it was discovered.
In another echo of the murder, a computer image showed two naked women bound and gagged in the boot of a man's car.
Tabak's DNA was found on Miss Yeates's breasts, chest and arm.
Her parents David and Teresa Yeates were too traumatised to Attend, would you want to be at trial and view images of your dead daughter?
It's only possible if a person had access to all of his computers and passwords etc. It's not like the stuff could be just emailed and downloaded - someone would have to physically login to his machine and access those sites. But to suggest someone else had all of that access, then killed JY to frame him (even though he admitted it) would be more fanciful than a real life Mary Poppin's!
-
It's only possible if a person had access to all of his computers and passwords etc. It's not like the stuff could be just emailed and downloaded - someone would have to physically login to his machine and access those sites. But to suggest someone else had all of that access, then killed JY to frame him (even though he admitted it) would be more fanciful than a real life Mary Poppin's!
OMG! That sounds like the policeman and the civilian who decided to withhold an alleged phone call from NB in case the police wanted to frame JB!!!
-
It's only possible if a person had access to all of his computers and passwords etc. It's not like the stuff could be just emailed and downloaded - someone would have to physically login to his machine and access those sites. But to suggest someone else had all of that access, then killed JY to frame him (even though he admitted it) would be more fanciful than a real life Mary Poppin's!
Thanks Caroline, they would have to have access to all computers before the murders as well as after, because it can be proved to the minute when they were downloaded and viewed am I right? Not only on the hard drive but with the internet company as well?
-
Thanks Caroline, they would have to have access to all computers before the murders as well as after, because it can be proved to the minute when they were downloaded and viewed am I right? Not only on the hard drive but with the internet company as well?
Exactly.
-
Joanna Yeates
It started as a missing person inquiry on December 18, 2010, says Lindsey Lennen, a body fluids and DNA specialist (who, like many forensic scientists, says the work is "all I ever wanted to do"). The team started by examining items from Joanna's home, looking for foreign DNA. Then on Christmas Day, Yeates was found dead, on a country road.
A colleague went down to supervise the removal of her clothing and preserve any body fluids: "The body was frozen, so that was quite tricky." Under the media glare, the work was flat-out: clothing, swabs, suspect's clothing, all analysed and turned round in 48 hours.
"Eventually, we found something," Lennen says. "On swabs and tapes from her breasts, and tapes from three areas of her jeans. There were DNA components that matched one of the suspects, Vincent Tabak." But there wasn't enough, of enough quality, to evaluate – perhaps because of the high salt levels where the body was found, following heavy snowfall.
So the team deployed an LGC technique known as DNA SenCE, which purifies, concentrates and enhances otherwise unusable DNA: "We couldn't say whether the DNA was from saliva, or semen, or even touch. But we could say that the probability of it not being a match with Tabak was less than one in a billion."
With the killer's confession, Lennen's DNA evidence was not further tested. "It happens, in court," she says. "You get called biased, in the police's pay. You have to tell the truth, not stretch what you have. If you don't know which of two alternatives is more likely, you must say so."
Lindsey Lennen was the DNA specialist who worked for LGC forensics. Angela Gallop was the driving force to setting up LGC, this woman is amazing in her dedication to forensics, she was the instigator to setting private forensic testing company away from FSS a government owned company who would normally do testing for the prosecution. This allowed the defence to call on and enable to do their own testing with a private company. LGC was called upon by the defence and prosecution for testing in various cases and murders over a number of years. Angela Gallop has a book out called “When theDogs don’t bark”. I read this about two months back, very good read if your interested in forensics.
-
Joanna Yeates
It started as a missing person inquiry on December 18, 2010, says Lindsey Lennen, a body fluids and DNA specialist (who, like many forensic scientists, says the work is "all I ever wanted to do"). The team started by examining items from Joanna's home, looking for foreign DNA. Then on Christmas Day, Yeates was found dead, on a country road.
A colleague went down to supervise the removal of her clothing and preserve any body fluids: "The body was frozen, so that was quite tricky." Under the media glare, the work was flat-out: clothing, swabs, suspect's clothing, all analysed and turned round in 48 hours.
"Eventually, we found something," Lennen says. "On swabs and tapes from her breasts, and tapes from three areas of her jeans. There were DNA components that matched one of the suspects, Vincent Tabak." But there wasn't enough, of enough quality, to evaluate – perhaps because of the high salt levels where the body was found, following heavy snowfall.
So the team deployed an LGC technique known as DNA SenCE, which purifies, concentrates and enhances otherwise unusable DNA: "We couldn't say whether the DNA was from saliva, or semen, or even touch. But we could say that the probability of it not being a match with Tabak was less than one in a billion."
With the killer's confession, Lennen's DNA evidence was not further tested. "It happens, in court," she says. "You get called biased, in the police's pay. You have to tell the truth, not stretch what you have. If you don't know which of two alternatives is more likely, you must say so."
Lindsey Lennen was the DNA specialist who worked for LGC forensics. Angela Gallop was the driving force to setting up LGC, this woman is amazing in her dedication to forensics, she was the instigator to setting private forensic testing company away from FSS a government owned company who would normally do testing for the prosecution. This allowed the defence to call on and enable to do their own testing with a private company. LGC was called upon by the defence and prosecution for testing in various cases and murders over a number of years. Angela Gallop has a book out called “When theDogs don’t bark”. I read this about two months back, very good read if your interested in forensics.
A sentence jumps out at me viz ".........the probability of it (DNA) not being a match with Tabak was less than one in a billion". It occurs to me that if Nine wants to take on board the full impact of the meaning of those words, a good exercise might be to write the numbers numerically, however, I suspect it more likely that she'll set off to find it!!!
-
A sentence jumps out at me viz ".........the probability of it (DNA) not being a match with Tabak was less than one in a billion". It occurs to me that if Nine wants to take on board the full impact of the meaning of those words, a good exercise might be to write the numbers numerically, however, I suspect it more likely that she'll set off to find it!!!
The likelihood of it coming from the defendant (Tabak) is 1000000000/1000000001. 🤓
-
The likelihood of it coming from the defendant (Tabak) is 1000000000/1000000001. 🤓
Ah! But did they really find DNA or was it fake news? Think I had better investigate Twitter to find out the answer! 8((()*/
-
Ah! But did they really find DNA or was it fake news? Think I had better investigate Twitter to find out the answer! 8((()*/
You're certain sure to find the answer there &^^&* *&^^& *%87
-
Ah! But did they really find DNA or was it fake news? Think I had better investigate Twitter to find out the answer! 8((()*/
You need to be famous and have a Twitter account though... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eq2NWBjOgiw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eq2NWBjOgiw)
-
You need to be famous and have a Twitter account though... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eq2NWBjOgiw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eq2NWBjOgiw)
There's always a snag! ?8)@)-)
-
Spot The Difference...
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/12/22/article-1340586-0C8DB790000005DC-440_306x935.jpg)
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/12/26/article-1341626-0C924A0C000005DC-707_634x611.jpg)
Answer
Footwear..... How is that possible???
You forgot the shrug, but what's the problem? I've frequently attended "do's" with a spare pair of shoes in case one pair becomes uncomfortable.
-
Spot The Difference...
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/12/22/article-1340586-0C8DB790000005DC-440_306x935.jpg)
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/12/26/article-1341626-0C924A0C000005DC-707_634x611.jpg)
Answer
Footwear..... How is that possible???
And you wonder why no one takes you seriously. %56&
You go to a do, you look great in your f..koff shoes, then after the speeches you want to dance but your dogs are barking. So you put your flips on and dance the night away. That's what normal people do. Normal people.
At the risk of the wrath of Mrs Wah, I don't think that you're operating on the same planet as other,people. You are haunting a family who have lost everything yet live with their loss with grace and dignity.
I wish that you would stop now.
-
And you wonder why no one takes you seriously. %56&
You go to a do, you look great in your f..koff shoes, then after the speeches you want to dance but your dogs are barking. So you put your flips on and dance the night away. That's what normal people do. Normal people.
At the risk of the wrath of Mrs Wah, I don't think that you're normal, or operating on the same planet as other, normal people. I find you unkind, blinkered and strange. You are haunting a family who have lost everything yet live with their loss with grace and dignity. And still you blunder into their lives with your clumsy rubbish.
I wish that you would stop now. Your misguided hope is cruel and hateful.
And seriously, Mrs Wah, if you mod or remove this, I'll kick off a storm, because I've been here since day one, and I'm entitled to give my opinion. So don't baby me or patronise.
-
And seriously, Mrs Wah, if you mod or remove this, I'll kick off a storm, because I've been here since day one, and I'm entitled to give my opinion. So don't baby me or patronise.
I don't baby or patronise anyone, Puglove, especially a fellow dog lover!!!
I don't care if you've been here since day one, to be honest, and, yes, you are entitled to give your opinion, but you are not entitled to be rude to other posters , who are also entitled to give their opinions, however way out you think they are. So, I will edit your post and remove the rude bits. You may kick off a storm if you must, and I suggest you discuss my moderating with someone more senior than me.
-
You forgot the shrug, but what's the problem? I've frequently attended "do's" with a spare pair of shoes in case one pair becomes uncomfortable.
Now changing shoes is part of the conspiracy?
-
Now changing shoes is part of the conspiracy?
Possibly so. It's not something I'd factored in, but then I'd not allowed for Uncle Tom et al, either!!!
-
Possibly so. It's not something I'd factored in, but then I'd not allowed for Uncle Tom et al, either!!!
I went to a wedding a few years ago, wore totally inappropriate shoes (like you do) and they were off my feet more times than on. I wish I had thought about taking a spare pair rather than having to walk about bare foot.
-
Perhaps the photos were taken at two different events? In any case, I can imagine taking two pairs of shoes.
-
Perhaps the photos were taken at two different events? In any case, I can imagine taking two pairs of shoes.
Two different venues is as perfectly reasonable a suggestion as taking show shoes and comfort shoes to the same one...................UNlike the suggestion that there may be something sinister afoot (pun intended)
-
I went to a wedding a few years ago, wore totally inappropriate shoes (like you do) and they were off my feet more times than on. I wish I had thought about taking a spare pair rather than having to walk about bare foot.
I have a spare pair of walking boots and walking shoes in my car all the time, my wife has extra pairs as well, we swap and change if we call at a pub for lunch. I can’t help but feel such sadness for this family and esp Joanna, such a beautiful innocent girl, my heart bleeds for them and I know any normal person has this same feeling. It’s what nightmare’s are made of, your daughter coming across a perverted monster such as Tabak.
-
What or whom is Joanna Yeates?
I find the oddest things by accident as I read reports in the media, then go looking for a tweet they say was posted... It brings you too the most random people, whom I cannot understand why they would tweet...
These tweets in some cases have disappeared, but are there on the basis that someone re-tweetd said tweet...
"Please spread the word about my missing cousin Joanna Yeates on twitter. Please copy the following and retweet - focus especially on celebrities," she writes.
"Joanna Yeates has been missing from her home in Bristol for 6 days. Any info, please call police. Thanks xx"
https://news.sky.com/story/twitter-spreads-word-about-missing-joanna-10490311
The part I have highlighted in bold is what I was looking for on twitter, and it turned up these 2 tweets...
Cal Flyn
@calflyn
Follow Follow @calflyn
More
#helpfindjo Joanna Yeates has been missing from her home in Bristol for 6 days. Any info, please call police. @SallyBercow @caitlinmoran
10:05 am - 23 Dec 2010
https://twitter.com/calflyn/status/18004194241810432
Cheshire SAR Team
@CheshireSar
Follow Follow @CheshireSar
More
Joanna Yeates has been missing from her home in Bristol for 6 days. If you have any information call Operation... http://fb.me/PguNA4mI
2:50 pm - 23 Dec 2010
https://twitter.com/CheshireSar/status/18076091474247680
Maybe all search and rescue services tweeted about Joanna yeates, but I do not know.... I was more interested in why someone would tweet at Sally Bercow??
So I went to see if she had tweeted anything to do with the case, odd thing being, her account states it started in 2013... And i couldn't find anything directly to do with the case and Sally Bercow.... But I found these retweets from the time..
Andy Hicks
@andyjameshicks
Follow Follow @andyjameshicks
More
RT @SallyBercow: Chris Jefferies: It's a worrying insight into police work - arrest nearest oddball and see what the tabloids dig up.
8:59 am - 2 Jan 2011
https://twitter.com/andyjameshicks/status/21611591057285120
Andy Hicks
@andyjameshicks
Follow Follow @andyjameshicks
More
RT @SallyBercow: Daily Mail article on Christopher Jefferies uses the word 'bachelor' EIGHT times. Because murderers are never married.
8:58 am - 2 Jan 2011
https://twitter.com/andyjameshicks/status/21611240551878656
I'm slightly confused.... It is an apparent simple murder.... Yet we have every Tom , Dick and Harry being informed of the fact that Joanna Yeates is Missing... And that CJ has been arrested....
Why would it be relevant to The Speakers wife?? Did the speakers wife tweet about `jefferies originally as, the re-tweet suggests??
Why all this interest from politicians?? I don't get it....
What happened to Sally Bercows account??
I have noticed many twitter users whom have made tweets about this case, that when I go and look at their profile, they have joined twitter years later... Someone who knows about twitter please explain....
But I go back to ... who is Joanna Yeates?? Or what does Joanna Yeates mean??
I just find it odd that is all.....
Or Have I misinterpreted it??
https://twitter.com/SallyBercow?lang=en-gb
Edit... I don't understand why when Joanna Yeates was a Missing person, people would be aiming their tweets at The Speakers wife? Very strange..
-
What or whom is Joanna Yeates?
I find the oddest things by accident as I read reports in the media, then go looking for a tweet they say was posted... It brings you too the most random people, whom I cannot understand why they would tweet...
These tweets in some cases have disappeared, but are there on the basis that someone re-tweetd said tweet...
https://news.sky.com/story/twitter-spreads-word-about-missing-joanna-10490311
The part I have highlighted in bold is what I was looking for on twitter, and it turned up these 2 tweets...
https://twitter.com/calflyn/status/18004194241810432
https://twitter.com/CheshireSar/status/18076091474247680
Maybe all search and rescue services tweeted about Joanna yeates, but I do not know.... I was more interested in why someone would tweet at Sally Bercow??
So I went to see if she had tweeted anything to do with the case, odd thing being, her account states it started in 2013... And i couldn't find anything directly to do with the case and Sally Bercow.... But I found these retweets from the time..
https://twitter.com/andyjameshicks/status/21611591057285120
https://twitter.com/andyjameshicks/status/21611240551878656
I'm slightly confused.... It is an apparent simple murder.... Yet we have every Tom , Dick and Harry being informed of the fact that Joanna Yeates is Missing... And that CJ has been arrested....
Why would it be relevant to The Speakers wife?? Did the speakers wife tweet about `jefferies originally as, the re-tweet suggests??
Why all this interest from politicians?? I don't get it....
What happened to Sally Bercows account??
I have noticed many twitter users whom have made tweets about this case, that when I go and look at their profile, they have joined twitter years later... Someone who knows about twitter please explain....
But I go back to ... who is Joanna Yeates?? Or what does Joanna Yeates mean??
I just find it odd that is all.....
Or Have I misinterpreted it??
https://twitter.com/SallyBercow?lang=en-gb
Edit... I don't understand why when Joanna Yeates was a Missing person, people would be aiming their tweets at The Speakers wife? Very strange..
Sally Bercow deleted her Twitter account in 2012 https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/283534/Sally-Bercow-deletes-Twitter-account-after-yet-ANOTHER-gaffe
She obviously opened another one in 2013. She obviously expressed an interest in Joanna's disappearance. Again no mystery.
-
I'm making an observation that is all...
Here's another observation from twitter, but this time it's from Ben Birchall PA photographer..
Ben Birchall
Verified account
@BenBirchallUK
Follow Follow @BenBirchallUK
More
New flash batteries, cards formatted and an early night. Bring on the game mr Vincent Tabak...
7:37 am - 23 Jan 2011
https://twitter.com/BenBirchallUK/status/29200998736076800
What an odd statement.... Who is Vincent Tabak,?? whom is he referring too?? Why say Bring on the game Mr Vincent Tabak??
And why the formatting of cards??
Ben Birchall
Verified account
@BenBirchallUK
Follow Follow @BenBirchallUK
More
Judge in Tabak case has ordered contempt of court photographing outside the pen. And I have a signed letter in my pocket to prove it!
7:13 am - 14 Oct 2011
https://twitter.com/BenBirchallUK/status/124850440704765952
Why would that be an issue??
I am presuming he means the pen that the media are gathered in.... Therefore, whom were they not allowed to take images of??
Why would he tweet these tweets? why would he ask for Dr Vincent Tabak to Bring on the game?? This game beginning and starting on the 23rd January 2011, the day after Dr Vincent Tabak's charge!!
And you wonder why I say it doesn't make sense!
Ben Birchall
Verified account
@BenBirchallUK
Follow Follow @BenBirchallUK
More
Tabak case is getting a bit..... Well, you know....
3:52 am - 14 Oct 2011
https://twitter.com/BenBirchallUK/status/124799852075945984
Getting a bit what?? Because I do not know....
Edit.... At this point being the 23rd January 2011 no-one is supposed to know whom this Dutch national is... So why ask him to bring on the game??
-
Lucy Smith (Tegg!)
@teggster
Follow Follow @teggster
More
Thinking of Jo Yeates' family as Tabak admits manslaughter. After reporting on Xmas Day that police had found Jo, my heart goes out to them.
3:28 am - 5 May 2011
https://twitter.com/teggster/status/66086943473139712
This tweet from BBC's radio Bristol, had me wondering if this was a reason that Dr Vincent Tabak was a suspect in late December 2010 as Ann Reddrop had stated.
I could never understand why Ann Reddrop had Dr Vincent Tabak in her sights since late December 2010, but if this tweet is as I read it, then Dr Vincent Tabak, had reported somewhere that the Police had found Joanna Yeates body...
Where was this information reported??
Or have I got this wrong?? Is she talking about herself? or the Yeates? Tweets are difficult to interpret sometimes.
Edit.. quoting myself here..
then Dr Vincent Tabak, had reported somewhere that the Police had found Joanna Yeates body...
That is my error... It doesn't say body... It just says found Jo....
So how do I take that??
-
What or whom is Joanna Yeates?
I find the oddest things by accident as I read reports in the media, then go looking for a tweet they say was posted... It brings you too the most random people, whom I cannot understand why they would tweet...
These tweets in some cases have disappeared, but are there on the basis that someone re-tweetd said tweet...
https://news.sky.com/story/twitter-spreads-word-about-missing-joanna-10490311
The part I have highlighted in bold is what I was looking for on twitter, and it turned up these 2 tweets...
https://twitter.com/calflyn/status/18004194241810432
https://twitter.com/CheshireSar/status/18076091474247680
Maybe all search and rescue services tweeted about Joanna yeates, but I do not know.... I was more interested in why someone would tweet at Sally Bercow??
So I went to see if she had tweeted anything to do with the case, odd thing being, her account states it started in 2013... And i couldn't find anything directly to do with the case and Sally Bercow.... But I found these retweets from the time..
https://twitter.com/andyjameshicks/status/21611591057285120
https://twitter.com/andyjameshicks/status/21611240551878656
I'm slightly confused.... It is an apparent simple murder.... Yet we have every Tom , Dick and Harry being informed of the fact that Joanna Yeates is Missing... And that CJ has been arrested....
Why would it be relevant to The Speakers wife?? Did the speakers wife tweet about `jefferies originally as, the re-tweet suggests??
Why all this interest from politicians?? I don't get it....
What happened to Sally Bercows account??
I have noticed many twitter users whom have made tweets about this case, that when I go and look at their profile, they have joined twitter years later... Someone who knows about twitter please explain....
But I go back to ... who is Joanna Yeates?? Or what does Joanna Yeates mean??
I just find it odd that is all.....
Or Have I misinterpreted it??
https://twitter.com/SallyBercow?lang=en-gb
Edit... I don't understand why when Joanna Yeates was a Missing person, people would be aiming their tweets at The Speakers wife? Very strange..
What or whom is Joanna Yeates.
Is that about the best you have to offer a poor innocent beautiful woman, murdered by a perverted monster.
-
What or whom is Joanna Yeates.
Is that about the best you have to offer a poor innocent beautiful woman, murdered by a perverted monster.
I meant in the context of her not being just an ordinary person.... Therefore her Missing becoming high profile, others were Missing at the time....
Also with parliament discussing CJ on 4th Feb 2011, I was trying to understand why they were so front and centre...
-
I meant in the context of her not being just an ordinary person.... Therefore her Missing becoming high profile, others were Missing at the time....
Also with parliament discussing CJ on 4th Feb 2011, I was trying to understand why they were so front and centre...
Joanna Yeates is just one of a group in becoming a "high profile missing person". I imagine what sets all of them apart from the countless other, probably now forgotten, missing is a certain je ne c'est quoi. In Joanna's case, it was on top of the Christmas holiday period, a highly emotive time when traditionally families are together and celebrating. For the Yeates', there was the potential of an empty chair at their table.
-
I meant in the context of her not being just an ordinary person.... Therefore her Missing becoming high profile, others were Missing at the time....
Also with parliament discussing CJ on 4th Feb 2011, I was trying to understand why they were so front and centre...
Because it was clear that something untoward had happened to her!
-
https://twitter.com/teggster/status/66086943473139712
This tweet from BBC's radio Bristol, had me wondering if this was a reason that Dr Vincent Tabak was a suspect in late December 2010 as Ann Reddrop had stated.
I could never understand why Ann Reddrop had Dr Vincent Tabak in her sights since late December 2010, but if this tweet is as I read it, then Dr Vincent Tabak, had reported somewhere that the Police had found Joanna Yeates body...
Where was this information reported??
Or have I got this wrong?? Is she talking about herself? or the Yeates? Tweets are difficult to interpret sometimes.
Edit.. quoting myself here..
That is my error... It doesn't say body... It just says found Jo....
So how do I take that??
How do you take that?!!!!! I read it as that by addressing her by her given name, she was being awarded the dignity that Tabak had robbed her of when he took her life and ignominiously dumped her body.
-
How do you take that?!!!!! I read it as that by addressing her by her given name, she was being awarded the dignity that Tabak had robbed her of when he took her life and ignominiously dumped her body.
Depends on context,... eg..
* Had they found her barely alive?
* Had the information been released before we were officially told?
I have posted before that BDP had on their website dated 24th December 2010, that Joanna Yeates was dead...
JO YEATES
24/12/2010
Our thoughts are with the family and friends and colleagues of Jo Yeates, landscape architect in our Bristol studio, whose disappearance and tragic death over the Christmas period remain a mystery.
http://www.bdp.com/en/latest/news/2010/Jo-Yeates/
Does this support an idea, that the police were informed that Joanna yeates had been found??
Did Dr Vincent Tabak read BDP's website and say something to the Police about it??
Who posted said post on BDP's website...??
That should have been evidence brought to trial, proving that Dr Vincent Tabak knew exactly what was going on.... But he was away at the time,... Of course he could have had access to a computer, but I do not know if he had log-in access to this web page of BDP... So someone appears to have been in the know... And I have asked whether the Longwood Lane activities were staged`? Or, delayed??
As we get the massive amounts of Fire Brigade appliances attending, without an apparent reason, seeing as the Police and scientific services could manage to remove a body from a grass verge, without the help of around 7 different fire appliances...winches.. etc... ...
At 2:07 of the video we can see the beginning of the Fire Trucks arriving..
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/missing-woman-joanna-yeates-police-find-body-general-news-footage/688789862?adppopup=true
-
https://twitter.com/teggster/status/66086943473139712
This tweet from BBC's radio Bristol, had me wondering if this was a reason that Dr Vincent Tabak was a suspect in late December 2010 as Ann Reddrop had stated.
I could never understand why Ann Reddrop had Dr Vincent Tabak in her sights since late December 2010, but if this tweet is as I read it, then Dr Vincent Tabak, had reported somewhere that the Police had found Joanna Yeates body...
Where was this information reported??
Or have I got this wrong?? Is she talking about herself? or the Yeates? Tweets are difficult to interpret sometimes.
Edit.. quoting myself here..
That is my error... It doesn't say body... It just says found Jo....
So how do I take that??
That's NOT what it says - the person is saying that THEY reported it - as in a news broadcast!
-
I have a spare pair of walking boots and walking shoes in my car all the time, my wife has extra pairs as well, we swap and change if we call at a pub for lunch. I can’t help but feel such sadness for this family and esp Joanna, such a beautiful innocent girl, my heart bleeds for them and I know any normal person has this same feeling. It’s what nightmare’s are made of, your daughter coming across a perverted monster such as Tabak.
I understand, but I find things odd with this case.....
Joanna Yeates murder: Clifton suspension bridge and body site
Joanna Yeates murder: Clifton suspension bridge and body site; Police vehicles parked in lane as officer along and forensics tent covering site where body was found just visible / police car along / police officers and vehicles in lane
Forensic tent visible to left hand side...
DETAILS
Restrictions:
No use by regional TV or radio in UK and Ireland until 3 days after date of creation. Prior approval required if clip features ITN newsreader or reporter, please contact your local Getty Images representative.
Credit:
ITN
Clip #:
688036836
Collection:
ITN
Date created:
27 December, 2010
Licence type:
Rights-ready
Release info:
Not released. More information
Clip length:
00:01:28:18
Location:
United Kingdom
Mastered to:
QuickTime 8-bit Photo-JPEG SD 720x576 25i
Originally shot on:
576 25i
Source:
ITN
Object name:
r27121001_17120.mov
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/clifton-suspension-bridge-and-body-site-police-vehicles-news-footage/688036836?adppopup=true
Joanna Yeates murder trial: defendant Vincent Tabak gives evidence
Joanna Yeates murder trial: defendant Vincent Tabak gives evidence; 27.12.2010 EXT Family along at scene where Joanna Yeates body was found
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/joanna-yeates-murder-trial-defendant-vincent-tabak-gives-news-footage/656414346?adppopup=true
This video was shot when the Yeates visited Longwood Lane on the 27th December 2010..
I do still not understand why they were allowed to walk around a potential crime scene... If you again look to the left under the vehicle you can see that the forensic tent is still in place whilst they are allowed to walk around the area...
I find it extraordinary, that is all... Why would you want to cause the victims family more distress whilst under the glare of the media, at a crime scene with forensic tent still in situ, and no-one with a brain cell thought to protect, the scene of crime, or The Yeates from such an experience?
It strikes me as odd that is all...
-
I understand, but I find things odd with this case.....
Forensic tent visible to left hand side...
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/clifton-suspension-bridge-and-body-site-police-vehicles-news-footage/688036836?adppopup=true
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/joanna-yeates-murder-trial-defendant-vincent-tabak-gives-news-footage/656414346?adppopup=true
This video was shot when the Yeates visited Longwood Lane on the 27th December 2010..
I do still not understand why they were allowed to walk around a potential crime scene... If you again look to the left under the vehicle you can see that the forensic tent is still in place whilst they are allowed to walk around the area...
I find it extraordinary, that is all... Why would you want to cause the victims family more distress whilst under the glare of the media, at a crime scene with forensic tent still in situ, and no-one with a brain cell thought to protect, the scene of crime, or The Yeates from such an experience?
It strikes me as odd that is all...
Her parents must have wanted to visit the scene and they were protecting the scene - that's what the tents are for!
-
Frankly, you come over as being determined to make, as many as possible, two plus twos make five. What doesn't, you twist until it does. How is, for instance, you find acceptable that a poster here, as so many of us do, keeps a spare pair of shoes in his car, yet question/find it worthy of comment, that Joanna Yeates does the same? You seem equally determined that pictures taken at the crime scene have, in some way, been falsified. If you had access to every s.o.c. which involved murder -rather than the ones which hit the headlines and you become obsessed with- you'd probably find that they're all treated in the same way, ie there probably isn't a competent pathologist on hand to determine method/T.O.D.and it's perfectly possible that, at some point, the scene may become disturbed because when operatives are human, errors have been known to occur. This isn't the slick, competent, always do it correctly exercises carried out by the NCIS and other television series. This is real life and it isn't always run the way we imagine.
-
Depends on context,... eg..
* Had they found her barely alive?
* Had the information been released before we were officially told?
I have posted before that BDP had on their website dated 24th December 2010, that Joanna Yeates was dead...
http://www.bdp.com/en/latest/news/2010/Jo-Yeates/
Does this support an idea, that the police were informed that Joanna yeates had been found??
Did Dr Vincent Tabak read BDP's website and say something to the Police about it??
Who posted said post on BDP's website...??
That should have been evidence brought to trial, proving that Dr Vincent Tabak knew exactly what was going on.... But he was away at the time,... Of course he could have had access to a computer, but I do not know if he had log-in access to this web page of BDP... So someone appears to have been in the know... And I have asked whether the Longwood Lane activities were staged`? Or, delayed??
As we get the massive amounts of Fire Brigade appliances attending, without an apparent reason, seeing as the Police and scientific services could manage to remove a body from a grass verge, without the help of around 7 different fire appliances...winches.. etc... ...
At 2:07 of the video we can see the beginning of the Fire Trucks arriving..
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/missing-woman-joanna-yeates-police-find-body-general-news-footage/688789862?adppopup=true
What other reason could the fire brigade be in attendance for? Other than to assist,
The fire brigade and police work hand in hand a lot of times, they assist and are trained with body bags and carrying, there’s a drop behind the wall on one side of the road, they have specialist rope teams that would be able to look for any clues over there, they could assist with tent erecting moving, searching ect. It was Christmas Day and Christmas period, staff would be short so assistance would be called for from all departments. Fire brigade don’t just put fires out.
The police just don’t search the patch where the body was found, they would have done an extensive search of the whole area looking for clues, do you want them to do a running commentary just for you, so you understand every decision they make when they find a dead body or erect a tent and move it and then erect another tent.
It would be great answering your questions all day, “Oh look I think Joanna changed her shoes in a photo I seen when she was socialising” So bloody what! It’s none of your Buisness.
-
It’s none of your Buisness.
Ok... Thank you for pointing that out...
No more needed... I thought I was being helpful... I'll refrain.. No need to keep my posts... A pointless exercise...
-
Ok... Thank you for pointing that out...
No more needed... I thought I was being helpful... I'll refrain.. No need to keep my posts... A pointless exercise...
You always say this @)(++(*
-
What?
-
Ok... Thank you for pointing that out...
No more needed... I thought I was being helpful... I'll refrain.. No need to keep my posts... A pointless exercise...
Helpful to whom, nameless one? Those dots don't obliterate your existence. If you were to stick to your word, ie to "refrain" -something you've said many times- you wouldn't have to be humbling yourself, which does nothing for one's sense of selfworth -as evidenced by the removal of your 'name'- by suggesting that it's not necessary to keep your posts.
-
.........
At last, ......... the first post you have made that makes sense 8@??)(
-
.........
There is someone out there who is searching this case like you and finding it odd that you have deleted your last post. Whoever wrote those posts claimed that we now know 100% that Tabak made a false confession - which just isn't true! It's ironic that you would use fake news to claim the JY case is fake news.
-
There is someone out there who is searching this case like you and finding it odd that you have deleted your last post. Whoever wrote those posts claimed that we now know 100% that Tabak made a false confession - which just isn't true! It's ironic that you would use fake news to claim the JY case is fake news.
HaHa, I just seen the dots and thought that makes more sense than what Nine usually posts @)(++(*
-
HaHa, I just seen the dots and thought that makes more sense than what Nine usually posts @)(++(*
Could be that .........=dotty?
-
HaHa, I just seen the dots and thought that makes more sense than what Nine usually posts @)(++(*
You have to admire her tenacity @)(++(*
-
You always say this @)(++(*
Yes, through sheer frustration... I am flummoxed as to how nothing is questioned...
I am confused as to what is real or not... As I keep saying it doesn't make sense...
-
Yes, through sheer frustration... I am flummoxed as to how nothing is questioned...
I am confused as to what is real or not... As I keep saying it doesn't make sense...
&^^&* &^^&* &^^&* &^^&* &^^&* &^^&* &^^&* &^^&* &^^&* &^^&*
-
Nine - check out the murder of Bill Williamson by callous gold digger Anne Browning. She eventually admitted to his murder stating that it was a crime of passion because he had threatened to leave her. The police weren't happy with her story because it was clear she killed him for his money and proceeded to help herself whilst he was still a missing person. His body was found in a deep grave in her garden, his head bashed in with a base ball bat.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8688550/Woman-jailed-for-beating-widower-to-death-for-his-savings.html
Like Tabak, she thought admitting to the killing was enough and admitting to a crime of passion would get her less time inside. Admitting to a killing isn't the end of it - motive is also an important factor for obvious reasons.
-
Nine - check out the murder of Bill Williamson by callous gold digger Anne Browning. She eventually admitted to his murder stating that it was a crime of passion because he had threatened to leave her. The police weren't happy with her story because it was clear she killed him for his money and proceeded to help herself whilst he was still a missing person. His body was found in a deep grave in her garden, his head bashed in with a base ball bat.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8688550/Woman-jailed-for-beating-widower-to-death-for-his-savings.html (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8688550/Woman-jailed-for-beating-widower-to-death-for-his-savings.html)
Like Tabak, she thought admitting to the killing was enough and admitting to a crime of passion would get her less time inside. Admitting to a killing isn't the end of it - motive is also an important factor for obvious reasons.
Her confession was faked though, wasn't it? 8((()*/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aHJ9bUp2Sg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aHJ9bUp2Sg)
-
Nine - check out the murder of Bill Williamson by callous gold digger Anne Browning. She eventually admitted to his murder stating that it was a crime of passion because he had threatened to leave her. The police weren't happy with her story because it was clear she killed him for his money and proceeded to help herself whilst he was still a missing person. His body was found in a deep grave in her garden, his head bashed in with a base ball bat.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8688550/Woman-jailed-for-beating-widower-to-death-for-his-savings.html
Like Tabak, she thought admitting to the killing was enough and admitting to a crime of passion would get her less time inside. Admitting to a killing isn't the end of it - motive is also an important factor for obvious reasons.
Had a quick look at this and it makes no sense.... Is it more fake news??
Her confession was faked though, wasn't it? 8((()*/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aHJ9bUp2Sg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aHJ9bUp2Sg)
It's like its a training video..... (imo)
Edit The video on youtube leads to a company called
https://www.youtube.com/user/surreyandberksmedia/about
I have found one Surrey and Berks media at Companies House, don't know if its the same... but I suspect it could be..
SURREY & BERKSHIRE MEDIA LIMITED
Company number 07146286
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07146286/filing-history?page=2
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07146286/officers
Seriously... I'm not chasing this lot around the net.. But I'm surprised the video release is from what appears to be a media outlet and not the Police...
So is it a staged interview?
Honestly... The stories in the media, I struggle to believe anymore...
-
Nine - check out the murder of Bill Williamson by callous gold digger Anne Browning. She eventually admitted to his murder stating that it was a crime of passion because he had threatened to leave her. The police weren't happy with her story because it was clear she killed him for his money and proceeded to help herself whilst he was still a missing person. His body was found in a deep grave in her garden, his head bashed in with a base ball bat.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8688550/Woman-jailed-for-beating-widower-to-death-for-his-savings.html
Like Tabak, she thought admitting to the killing was enough and admitting to a crime of passion would get her less time inside. Admitting to a killing isn't the end of it - motive is also an important factor for obvious reasons.
The BBC also did an article... They have a link to another dead end
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-14405199
http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/
Then we have this BBC report
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-14447461/ann-browning-confesses-to-murder-of-bill-williamson
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15491;image)
The CCTV of Ann Browning shopping is incredible.... A Purple time stamp.... @)(++(*
16/09/2010 18:24:44
Don't know who wrote this for BBC Surrey or where the video clip came from.. But I do not believe it, to be honest.....
-
Godalming woman charged with murdering widower
10 October 2010
A 53-year-old woman has been charged with murdering an 82-year-old widower from Surrey following the discovery of a body in a garden in Godalming.
Ann Browning was charged on Saturday with murdering Bill Williamson, who had been missing since 10 September.
The body was found in the garden of her home on Miltons Crescent, Ockford Ridge, Godalming on Friday.
It has not yet been formally identified and a post mortem examination carried out on Friday was inconclusive.
Ms Browning is due to appear before Guildford magistrates on Monday.
A 30-year-old man also arrested in connection with the investigation has been released on police bail pending further inquiries.
Mr Williamson used to live in Church Road, Milford, near Godalming, but moved to Ockford Ridge in early September after selling his own home.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-11509756
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/304/media/images/49405000/jpg/_49405542_billwilliamson.jpg)
(https://secure.i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01966/AnneWilliam_1966574c.jpg)
Date of taped confession...
07/10/2010 11:55:11
So why not charge her on Thursday when she confessed??
Ah... so she confessed on the Thursday.... They dug him up on the Friday and charged her on the Saturday.....
And the post mortem was inconclusive.... So where were the head injuries, if she apparently hit him over the head??
This is total rubbish... (imo)
Edit....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-11509756
Related Internet links
Surrey Police
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites
So it was linked?? From Surrey Police?? Interesting...
-
Had a quick look at this and it makes no sense.... Is it more fake news??
It's like its a training video..... (imo)
Edit The video on youtube leads to a company called
https://www.youtube.com/user/surreyandberksmedia/about
I have found one Surrey and Berks media at Companies House, don't know if its the same... but I suspect it could be..
SURREY & BERKSHIRE MEDIA LIMITED
Company number 07146286
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07146286/filing-history?page=2
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07146286/officers
Seriously... I'm not chasing this lot around the net.. But I'm surprised the video release is from what appears to be a media outlet and not the Police...
So is it a staged interview?
Honestly... The stories in the media, I struggle to believe anymore...
Simple solution, don’t read the media then ?>)()<
-
Simple solution, don’t read the media then ?>)()<
Exactly... It's full of rubbish....
Therefore.. I do not need to look at The Case anymore... my time wasted.... gullible idiot.com
And all this because i believed a real person was in prison and wanted to help him..... OMG... numpty.com 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
Exactly... It's full of rubbish....
Therefore.. I do not need to look at The Case anymore... my time wasted.... gullible idiot.com
And all this because i believed a real person was in prison and wanted to help him..... OMG... numpty.com 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
Don't be too hard on yourself. It sounds as if your heart was in the right place. We can all become -and have been!!!- incensed by the thought of an innocent person being incarcerated. You might want to give some thought to questioning everything that comes your way via the media. There are usually agendas at work. Very little is completely unbiased.
-
Had a quick look at this and it makes no sense.... Is it more fake news??
It's like its a training video..... (imo)
Edit The video on youtube leads to a company called
https://www.youtube.com/user/surreyandberksmedia/about
I have found one Surrey and Berks media at Companies House, don't know if its the same... but I suspect it could be..
SURREY & BERKSHIRE MEDIA LIMITED
Company number 07146286
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07146286/filing-history?page=2
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07146286/officers
Seriously... I'm not chasing this lot around the net.. But I'm surprised the video release is from what appears to be a media outlet and not the Police...
So is it a staged interview?
Honestly... The stories in the media, I struggle to believe anymore...
I watched the documentary last night, the confession was part of the documentary and woman made the confession - you could see her lips move in time with the words. NOT STAGED FFS!
I think you imagine yourself to be in some kind of Truman Show!
-
Her confession was faked though, wasn't it? 8((()*/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aHJ9bUp2Sg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aHJ9bUp2Sg)
You're not helping @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
I watched the documentary last night, the confession was part of the documentary and woman made the confession - you could see her lips move in time with the words. NOT STAGED FFS!
I think you imagine yourself to be in some kind of Truman Show!
Which Documentary?? And no her lips do not move in time with the footage...
-
Which Documentary?? And no her lips do not move in time with the footage...
OK, it's not real - the whole thing is made up. Bill Williamson is the figment of someone's imagination - just like Tabak. In fact, I'm not real, I suspect you aren't either. How do I know you are? How do I know I am? Where does reality end and fake news begin? I changed my shoes today so there must be something funny going on! Perhaps there are no real criminals, they're all just made up - on the plus side of that, no criminals means no victims. The whole world is just a big propaganda machine ........ I need a lie down ................. or do I?
-
Exactly... It's full of rubbish....
Therefore.. I do not need to look at The Case anymore... my time wasted.... gullible idiot.com
And all this because i believed a real person was in prison and wanted to help him..... OMG... numpty.com 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
You mean there are no REAL people in prison? &%%6
-
Had a quick look at this and it makes no sense.... Is it more fake news??
It's like its a training video..... (imo)
Edit The video on youtube leads to a company called
https://www.youtube.com/user/surreyandberksmedia/about
I have found one Surrey and Berks media at Companies House, don't know if its the same... but I suspect it could be..
SURREY & BERKSHIRE MEDIA LIMITED
Company number 07146286
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07146286/filing-history?page=2
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07146286/officers
Seriously... I'm not chasing this lot around the net.. But I'm surprised the video release is from what appears to be a media outlet and not the Police...
So is it a staged interview?
Honestly... The stories in the media, I struggle to believe anymore...
Did some clown make this all up??? SurreyPolices twitter account has no mention of Ann Browning and they have been on twitter since 2009... should have been a big case.... (imo)
https://twitter.com/search?q=%40surreypolice%20ann%20browning&src=typd
Nor william williamson!
https://twitter.com/search?q=%40surreypolice%20william%20williamson&src=typd
-
Did some clown make this all up??? SurreyPolices twitter account has no mention of Ann Browning and they have been on twitter since 2009... should have been a big case.... (imo)
https://twitter.com/search?q=%40surreypolice%20ann%20browning&src=typd
Nor william williamson!
https://twitter.com/search?q=%40surreypolice%20william%20williamson&src=typd
https://twitter.com/search?q=%40surreypolice%2C%20bill%20williamson&src=typd
-
Did some clown make this all up??? SurreyPolices twitter account has no mention of Ann Browning and they have been on twitter since 2009... should have been a big case.... (imo)
https://twitter.com/search?q=%40surreypolice%20ann%20browning&src=typd
Nor william williamson!
https://twitter.com/search?q=%40surreypolice%20william%20williamson&src=typd
No one made it all up but only a clown would think they had. Why would they?
-
https://twitter.com/search?q=%40surreypolice%2C%20bill%20williamson&src=typd
And surprise surprise......
Surrey Police
Verified account
@SurreyPolice
8 Aug 2011
More
Woman jailed for life for murder of Godalming pensioner Bill Williamson
http://www.surrey.police.uk/media/news_item.asp?area=12&itemID=14275 …
https://twitter.com/SurreyPolice/status/100552137355968512
Page doesn't exist anymore..... for the link.... @)(++(*
Touchee @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Touchee clown....
Always a friendly name... Bill... just like Jo....
Edit... No mention of Ann Browning...
-
And surprise surprise......
https://twitter.com/SurreyPolice/status/100552137355968512
Page doesn't exist anymore..... for the link.... @)(++(*
Touchee @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Touchee clown....
Always a friendly name... Bill... just like Jo....
Edit... No mention of Ann Browning...
Ann Browning is the WOMAN! It's worrying that you're now applying the same illogical thinking to this case.
-
Ann Browning is the WOMAN! It's worrying that you're now applying the same illogical thinking to this case.
STOP... Just stop now......
I do not give a flying monkeys about that case... No disrespect intended...
I have wasted years of my life on the case against Dr Vincent Tabak... I do not know what is real or not about it.... I came from the original forum on facebook, that most KNOW NOTHING about...... and have ended up here some nearly 9 years later...!!!
Still not knowing what is real or not about it, because it makes no sense at all!!
I had concerns for a man I felt had not been represented fairly... and I have made a complete DICK of myself!!
Wasting over 2 years on here arguing the case and pointing out inconsistances.... (Can't spell... don't care...)
And it will never make any difference.......!!!!!!!!
-
STOP... Just stop now......
I do not give a flying monkeys about that case... No disrespect intended...
I have wasted years of my life on the case against Dr Vincent Tabak... I do not know what is real or not about it.... I came from the original forum on facebook, that most KNOW NOTHING about...... and have ended up here some nearly 9 years later...!!!
Still not knowing what is real or not about it, because it makes no sense at all!!
I had concerns for a man I felt had not been represented fairly... and I have made a complete DICK of myself!!
Wasting over 2 years on here arguing the case and pointing out inconsistances.... (Can't spell... don't care...)
And it will never make any difference.......!!!!!!!!
It makes perfect sense and when these 'inconsistencies' have been explained, just just ignore it. It won't make a difference because Tabak himself isn't claiming innocence!
-
STOP... Just stop now......
I do not give a flying monkeys about that case... No disrespect intended...
I have wasted years of my life on the case against Dr Vincent Tabak... I do not know what is real or not about it.... I came from the original forum on facebook, that most KNOW NOTHING about...... and have ended up here some nearly 9 years later...!!!
Still not knowing what is real or not about it, because it makes no sense at all!!
I had concerns for a man I felt had not been represented fairly... and I have made a complete DICK of myself!!
Wasting over 2 years on here arguing the case and pointing out inconsistances.... (Can't spell... don't care...)
And it will never make any difference.......!!!!!!!!
9 years of your life? Tying yourself up in ever tightening knots!!!!!? I was right to feel concern for you. It's not surprising you don't know what's real and what isn't.
-
STOP... Just stop now......
I do not give a flying monkeys about that case... No disrespect intended...
I have wasted years of my life on the case against Dr Vincent Tabak... I do not know what is real or not about it.... I came from the original forum on facebook, that most KNOW NOTHING about...... and have ended up here some nearly 9 years later...!!!
Still not knowing what is real or not about it, because it makes no sense at all!!
I had concerns for a man I felt had not been represented fairly... and I have made a complete DICK of myself!!
Wasting over 2 years on here arguing the case and pointing out inconsistances.... (Can't spell... don't care...)
And it will never make any difference.......!!!!!!!!
Is that the forum that was removed because of the threat of legal action?
-
Is that the forum that was removed because of the threat of legal action?
Ok... here we go... The FORUM.... stopped APPARENTLY because facebook had stopped doing forums... now the real reason may have been because it had been challenged legally... I have no idea of that...
The Forum... then transferred to being "The Discussion Group" about the case ... which I said I joined, then left... (was removed)..Later I became aware somehow that The Discussion Group was apparently removed because of a legal issue...
I have no idea why the group was removed... All I know is that I was part of the original forum... How.. I can't remember... but I was...
Maybe it had something to do with the way I used to search everything.... links etc... I'd go about things in an adhock way... Put in web addresses etc....
-
Is that the forum that was removed because of the threat of legal action?
What proof was there that this group faced legal action?? I have no idea... it was rumoured that this was the case... it may be true... I personally do not know...
-
What proof was there that this group faced legal action?? I have no idea... it was rumoured that this was the case... it may be true... I personally do not know...
Read it here https://www.facebook.com/vincenttabak/ - this person seems to have been a member of the same page? Or maybe it's another one. They also believe the Yorkshire Ripper case was a conspiracy. %56&
-
CJ Leveson statement...
This was that one evening, which
might have been Friday 17 December 2010, as I was coming back from fine gym at
about 9pm, I had parked my car on the road and was just walking through the gates of
the main driveway, when I became aware of what sounded like two or perhaps three
people leaving by the side gate on the other side of the house
CJ's TV statements in "Countdown to Murder program"
From the program Countdown to Murder... at 27:41 of the video
As I was on my way out to the gym, quite by chance, erm I met Vincent Tabak and we had a very brief conversation, erm and he seemed to be in quite an elated mood and was saying what a very beautiful evening it was erm, this light dusting of snow, erm thats all the conversation consisted of...
Tweet from the trial..
Harriet Tolputt
@HarrietTolputt
Follow Follow @HarrietTolputt
More
#Tabak told police he had seen landlord Chris Jefferies on the night of 17th Dec as he returned from a walk in the snow.
6:54 am - 18 Oct 2011
https://twitter.com/HarrietTolputt/status/126295120072032256
So Both CJ and Dr Vincent Tabak had the same answer..... No implication....
Then at 28:45 of the video
Vincent Tabak helped me move the car that morning, erm, becawse, there was snow on the drive, and I need some help, in the car being pushed up.. erm, the slight incline, erm, from the parking area onto the main part of the drive,, so that I could get the car out.Er, when I thanked Vincent for er, doing that for me, erm, his reply was,.. well what are neighbours for
I have stated that Dr Vincent Tabak didn't lie... CJ himself explains here that Dr Vincent Tabak didn't lie,
I've come back to this because of a Times article.... I haven't subscribed to The Times, so I have only what you can see on the page....
Tabak’s bid to blame Jo Yeates’s landlord led to his own arrest
October 29 2011, 1:01am,
The Times
Vincent Tabak’s victims did not just include Jo Yeates, her parents and her boyfriend. His entirely innocent landlord, who had been arrested for a murder he did not commit, had his ordeal prolonged because of lies told by Tabak.
Christopher Jefferies, a 65-year-old retired public school master with eccentrically wispy white hair, was questioned for three days. While he was in police custody Tabak, who was in Holland spending new year with his family, told police that his landlord’s Volvo had been moved on the night of Jo’s murder, something Mr Jefferies would have denied.
Tabak offered to make a statement on his return to the UK at the beginning of January but to his surprise two detectives immediately flew to the Netherlands to take…
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tabaks-bid-to-blame-jo-yeatess-landlord-led-to-his-own-arrest-h2lnbpkcvjw
Two points about the article... Whoever wrote this article appears to know what CJ would have stated...
* Tabak, who was in Holland spending new year with his family, told police that his landlord’s Volvo had been moved on the night of Jo’s murder, something Mr Jefferies would have denied.
How would The Times Know that CJ would have denied this happening.... I believe CJ explains what happened when he saw Dr Vincent Tabak and what he told the Leveson, therefore I conclude that the car had moved from the road onto the drive.. But the volvo, wasn't the only car that CJ had access too, and in Dr Vincent Tabak's statement/phone call he doesn't say the type of car, he just states car... Maybe CJ needs to state which car he drove that evening to avoid confusion... Or is The Times article telling us CJ didn't drive the Volvo that evening , but the other car... We know that 2 cars were taken from the drive of Canygne Road, when CJ was arrested...
The other point is:
* Tabak offered to make a statement on his return to the UK at the beginning of January but to his surprise two detectives immediately flew to the Netherlands to take…
Dr Vincent Tabak offering to make said statement on his return to the UK,... I have always questioned why this didn't happen, but now I am questioning how The Times were aware that Dr Vincent Tabak offered to make a statement on his return to the UK??
I cannot find anything on the internet that states this was what Dr Vincent Tabak had said, and wondered where The Times got their information from...
Again back to these statements of CJ's...
As I was on my way out to the gym, quite by chance, erm I met Vincent Tabak and we had a very brief conversation,
Then......
told police that his landlord’s Volvo had been moved on the night of Jo’s murder,
Dr Vincent Tabak does not say what time these events happened, and the two statements in themselves prove that what apparently Dr Vincent Tabak said was accurate... The car had moved...
We do not know the time of the conversation or whether or not Dr Vincent Tabak was arriving or leaving the building at the time he saw CJ... We do not know how long Dr Vincent Tabak was outside, and we do not know if Dr Vincent Tabak was still outside when CJ went to the gym...
So of course the car had moved on the night of the 17th December 2010, because CJ went to the GYM... CJ tells us so in his Leveson statement and the program he confirms that he saw Dr Vincent Tabak on his way out to the gym...
We do not know what questions that were put to Dr Vincent Tabak by the police in relation to CJ's movements.... As far as Dr Vincent Tabak was aware, when he arrived home from work, CJ's car could have been in the drive, then when he and Tanja returned after Dr Vincent Tabak had collected her from the party, the car was on the road, showing that CJ had gone out that evening... And CJ confirming that he indeed went out that evening in his Leveson statement...
We do not know how long Dr Vincent Tabak was outside when he spoke to CJ, simply he could have seen CJ leave in his car after the brief conversation... This is bugging me now.... The car situation, is bugging me...
The Police must have contacted Dr Vincent Tabak, to verify what ever answers CJ gave when he was being questioned at the Police station... I believe this is why Dr Vincent Tabak talks of the car... They could have asked him where CJ's car was parked.... They could have asked him if he saw CJ at all that weekend or evening...
I believe that they went to coroberate what information CJ gave at The Police station ,when he was being interviewed...
Tanja we are told rings the Police after CJ's arrest and informs them about the car, they also speak to Dr Vincent Tabak... And the difference between Tanja and Dr Vincent Tabak is... Tanja would have seen where the car was when she left for the party and when she returned from the party... Or whether or not the car was there earlier on that evening before she left...
But..CJ, doesn't mention seeing Tanja... She has never said she saw CJ...
Dr Vincent Tabak on the other hand by CJ's own statement apparently spoke to him that evening... So I would say that Dr Vincent Tabak was CJ's witness, and the Police wanted THIS information immediately, to see if CJ was telling them the truth... In a signed statement from Dr Vincent Tabak.... Now we do not know if Dr Vincent Tabak signed anything that the Police took notes on when they interviewed him in Holland.... So we cannot say for a fact what Dr Vincent Tabak told the Police the same version of events as CJ has told us... But the tweet above tells us that Dr Vincent Tabak did indeed see CJ and it was mentioned at trial....
Jon Kay
Verified account
@jonkay01
DC Thomas: After landlord Christopher Jefferies arrested, Tabak rang police from Holland. He now "remembered" seeing CJ's car that night.
6:55 am - 17 Oct 2011
https://twitter.com/jonkay01/status/125932996971872256
Martin Brunt
Verified account
@skymartinbrunt
Follow Follow @skymartinbrunt
More
Joanna Yeates murder trial: Pros says Tabak called police to report movement of neighbour/landlord Chris Jefferies's car movement
7:39 am - 10 Oct 2011
https://twitter.com/skymartinbrunt/status/123407313582305280
Depending how ones reads the tweets or interprets what they should mean, when one is on trial, they appear damning,, yet I believe Dr Vincent Tabak was telling the police what he knew, and again by CJ's own admission the car had moved obviously as he had gone to the gym.. And that Dr Vincent Tabak had indeed seen CJ that evening..
So how did Dr Vincent Tabak lie about the car??
How was he supposed to have implicated CJ.... The Times tells us..
His entirely innocent landlord, who had been arrested for a murder he did not commit, had his ordeal prolonged because of lies told by Tabak.
What lies??
We have the car moving that evening and the next day, we have the mention that Dr Vincent Tabak saw CJ and these are the only statement I know of, but they wasn't a lie as I have demonstrated.. And by CJ's own admissions..
This next flummoxing statement..
*Tabak offered to make a statement on his return to the UK at the beginning of January
That statement in itself shows that what Dr Vincent Tabak had to say about CJ's car was unimportant, he shows that by his offer of what he knew about CJ's movements that evening/weekend could wait until he came back to the UK, it was not important enough to have the Police fly out to see him in Holland..
Far from him wanting to implicate CJ, I believe he was CJ's alibi as to CJ's movements, as The Police had CJ under arrest at that time. I believe the Police spoke to anyone whom had seen CJ that weekend..(imo)
Had The Times been the only source of information that knew that Dr Vincent Tabak had offered to give his statement about the car on his return to the UK??
If anyone has access to the full story at The Times and whom wrote it, I would appreciate if you could copy and paste, also if you don't mind screenshot the article also... And of course any other publication speaking of Dr Vincent Tabak offering to make a statement on his return to the UK....
-
Harriet Tolputt
@HarrietTolputt
Follow Follow @HarrietTolputt
More
#Tabak told police he had seen landlord Chris Jefferies on the night of 17th Dec as he returned from a walk in the snow.
6:54 am - 18 Oct 2011
https://twitter.com/HarrietTolputt/status/126295120072032256
CJ's Leveson statement..
This was that one evening, which
might have been Friday 17 December 2010, as I was coming back from fine gym at
about 9pm, I had parked my car on the road and was just walking through the gates of
the main driveway, when I became aware of what sounded like two or perhaps three
people leaving by the side gate on the other side of the house
CJ's TV statements in "Countdown to Murder program"
From the program Countdown to Murder... at 27:41 of the video
As I was on my way out to the gym, quite by chance, erm I met Vincent Tabak and we had a very brief conversation, erm and he seemed to be in quite an elated mood and was saying what a very beautiful evening it was erm, this light dusting of snow, erm thats all the conversation consisted of...
Then at 28:45 of the video
Vincent Tabak helped me move the car that morning, erm, becawse, there was snow on the drive, and I need some help, in the car being pushed up.. erm, the slight incline, erm, from the parking area onto the main part of the drive,, so that I could get the car out.Er, when I thanked Vincent for er, doing that for me, erm, his reply was,.. well what are neighbours for
#Tabak told police he had seen landlord Chris Jefferies on the night of 17th Dec as he returned from a walk in the snow.
This could be construed as a lie (or a mistake).... But If this is a lie or mistake then, CJ was Mistaken on which night he went to the gym...
I say construed as a lie, because I made a post before, when DCI Phil Jones states that it did not start snowing until around 2:00am on the 18th December 2010 and another forum member also confirms it was the 18th December 2010 that it snowed..
From the Countdown to Murder Program at 28:21 DCI Philip Jones says...
We know from local CCTV at sports clubs that it started to snow at 2:30am on the Saturday morning and it
was heavy snow fall then up until around 8'O'clock.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8239.msg456650#msg456650
(6) Did it snow on Friday 17th December 2010? ........ No, it started snowing heavily approx. 1.30am Saturday 18th December.
Like most towns Bristol Council clear the main roads of snow, the rest is left to residents or the shops to clear or not to clear. Park Street is a hill and also a main thoroughfare so it was cleared of snow. Waitrose is on the triangle at the top of Park Street and so that too was cleared of snow.
Bristol did have snow, off the top of my head, about 4-5 days before the 17th, but remember it was icy cold and snow cleared or not turned to ice.
Hope this helps a little.
Therefore who was mistaken? Both CJ and Dr Vincent Tabak as to which night CJ went to the gym? If it had been the 18th December 2010, surely Tanja would have been around...
Or is it the fact that Dr Vincent Tabak mentioned the snow, which therefore couldn't back up what CJ stated he did on the 17th December 2010??
Because as far as I know it didn't snow on Friday 17th December 2010 and CJ's Leveson statement says he thinks it may have been the 17th December 2010 he went to the gym..
So if it was Friday he went to the gym, no-one saw him.... But with CJ talking of snow also, he must have meant the 18th December 2010
The trouble being the Missing forum on facebook have always insisted that Joanna Yeates was Missing from the 17th December 2010, when there is no evidence to prove this....
CJ's 2nd witness statement therefore contains when he saw people at the path, that must have therefore been Saturday 18th December 2010, making these people even more important, if they have left the flat area on that day...
CJ and Dr Vincent Tabak apparently both talk of snow... both say the 17th December 2010, but how could Dr Vincent tabak know for sure that was the day it snowed?? When had his statement about snow been taken??
When he was in Holland, some 14 days later??
Easy for him to get the day wrong when thinking back...
Without seeing CJ or Dr Vincent Tabak's statements, we will not know what they actually state, as for CJ, I can only go on what he has stated at The Leveson and what he has stated on various TV programs...
The people at the path on the opposite side of the drive... should have been important, but they appear to have been forgotten about....
I go round in circles.... It doesn't make any sense as I keep saying... It's like it has been made up to me...
-
What we know of CJ's Leveson statement it appear to start from when he arrives home from the gym... He says around 9:00pm he believes it to be the 17th December 2010
Now if it didn't snow on the 17th December 2010, CJ may have mistaken the wrong date...
That evening I remembered something else that I had not mentioned to
the police that I thought could possibly be material. This was that one evening, which
might have been Friday 17 December 2010, as I was coming back from the gym at
about 9pro, I had parked my car on the road and was just walking through the gates of
the main driveway, when I became aware of what sounded like two or perhaps three
people leaving by the side gate on the other side of the house which I could not see as
there is a hedge in between and it was dark, I duly telephoned the police and relayed
this.
https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122175642/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Second-Witness-Statement-of-Christopher-Jefferies.pdf
What is noticeable, is it starts from 9:00pm, beside whether or not we are confused as to which day CJ means...
* Friday 17th December 2010 Peter Stanley and CJ help Greg Reardon start his car so he can go on his journey to
Sheffield anywhere between 5:00 and 7:00pm
( CJ doesn't mention this fact in his Leveson statement)
* CJ states at Leveson it may have been Friday he went to the gym at 9:00pm
* CJ also states this was the day he saw 2/3 people at the gate..
* CJ states he saw Dr Vincent Tabak in an elated mood when there was a light dusting of snow..
( This has to be on the Saturday 18th December 2010, as it hadn't started snowing until then..
You then have to question why on the 18th December 2010 Dr Vincent Tabak would be elated, if he had murdered his next door neighbour the day before? His apparent first Murder..)
* Dr Vincent Tabak mentions snow... that too must be the 18th December 2010
So is CJ confused as to the date being the 17th December 2010 when he came back from the gym and saw 2/3 people??
I ask this because he could have mentioned that this was the very same evening that he had assisted in starting Greg Reardons car with the aid of Peter Stanley..
But with him unsure in his Leveson statement and him talking of the gym and snow, I conclude it has to be the 18th December 2010, as he could have mentioned Greg and Peter Stanley in his statement to give a fuller account of that evenings events...
He remembers on the TV program that he saw Dr Vincent Tabak on his way out to the Gym, we do not know the time, he doesn't mention starting the car either that evening...
The starting of Greg's car, and the event which is CJ seeing Dr Vincent Tabak on his way to the gym, and the event of seeing 2/3 people at the gate, should all be in the statement CJ makes, about what should be Friday 17th December 2010.. ( But they appear to happen on different dates) (imo)
So now I am confused.... are the 3 events all on the same day? Did Greg go to Sheffield on the Friday or the Saturday?
If Greg's car is started on the Friday 17th December 2010, then why if CJ was at home on that evening,, as this is the conclusion I come to based on the talking of snow and lack of snow on Friday 17th December 2010 and his visit to the gym.. Why therefore did CJ not hear Joanna Yeates scream??
At 44, Canygne Road that evening of the 17th December 2010 we should have Geoffrey Hardyman, Dr Vincent Tabak, Joanna Yeates, and CJ...
Unless CJ went elsewhere on that evening after helping Greg get his car started... And CJ may have a witness to what he did Friday also.....
But if he was not elsewhere, he was at home at 44,Canygne Road and should have been aware of any disturbance at the property, he should have heard Dr Vincent Tabak apparently start his car to go to ASDA.... There were screams and people Milling about, cars etc... he was a member of the neighbourhood watch, did he not twitch his curtains??
We need to fully establish which day Joanna Yeates was last seen, we need to fully establish who CJ saw at the gate, we need to fully establish, which day CJ meant... Because Saturday 18th December 2010 appears to be the important date, as CJ has seen people leaving from Joanna Yeates Flat on returning from the gym, and I can only reiterate, the gym visit had to be the day it snowed, It had to be the day after everyone had had their parties, otherwise, I would have expected CJ to mention many people around and about at that time.. And not just the people at the gate...
These many people whom also could have been alibi witness's as to what CJ did on Friday 17th December 2010
-
https://twitter.com/HarrietTolputt/status/126295120072032256
CJ's Leveson statement..
CJ's TV statements in "Countdown to Murder program"
From the program Countdown to Murder... at 27:41 of the video
Then at 28:45 of the video
#Tabak told police he had seen landlord Chris Jefferies on the night of 17th Dec as he returned from a walk in the snow.
This could be construed as a lie (or a mistake).... But If this is a lie or mistake then, CJ was Mistaken on which night he went to the gym...
I say construed as a lie, because I made a post before, when DCI Phil Jones states that it did not start snowing until around 2:00am on the 18th December 2010 and another forum member also confirms it was the 18th December 2010 that it snowed..
From the Countdown to Murder Program at 28:21 DCI Philip Jones says...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8239.msg456650#msg456650
Therefore who was mistaken? Both CJ and Dr Vincent Tabak as to which night CJ went to the gym? If it had been the 18th December 2010, surely Tanja would have been around...
Or is it the fact that Dr Vincent Tabak mentioned the snow, which therefore couldn't back up what CJ stated he did on the 17th December 2010??
Because as far as I know it didn't snow on Friday 17th December 2010 and CJ's Leveson statement says he thinks it may have been the 17th December 2010 he went to the gym..
So if it was Friday he went to the gym, no-one saw him.... But with CJ talking of snow also, he must have meant the 18th December 2010
The trouble being the Missing forum on facebook have always insisted that Joanna Yeates was Missing from the 17th December 2010, when there is no evidence to prove this....
CJ's 2nd witness statement therefore contains when he saw people at the path, that must have therefore been Saturday 18th December 2010, making these people even more important, if they have left the flat area on that day...
CJ and Dr Vincent Tabak apparently both talk of snow... both say the 17th December 2010, but how could Dr Vincent tabak know for sure that was the day it snowed?? When had his statement about snow been taken??
When he was in Holland, some 14 days later??
Easy for him to get the day wrong when thinking back...
Without seeing CJ or Dr Vincent Tabak's statements, we will not know what they actually state, as for CJ, I can only go on what he has stated at The Leveson and what he has stated on various TV programs...
The people at the path on the opposite side of the drive... should have been important, but they appear to have been forgotten about....
I go round in circles.... It doesn't make any sense as I keep saying... It's like it has been made up to me...
Never mind only another 12 years on the merry go round for you then, the only thing you should worry about is, it’s a shame the Judge only gave this perverted monster 20 years. If you want to spend the rest of your life confused about this animal, so be it and I hope you enjoy the rest of your life. Fingers crossed he will get turned down for parole and you can go round in plenty more circles, have fun 8@??)(
-
CJ Leveson statement...
CJ's TV statements in "Countdown to Murder program"
From the program Countdown to Murder... at 27:41 of the video
Tweet from the trial..
https://twitter.com/HarrietTolputt/status/126295120072032256
So Both CJ and Dr Vincent Tabak had the same answer..... No implication....
Then at 28:45 of the video
I have stated that Dr Vincent Tabak didn't lie... CJ himself explains here that Dr Vincent Tabak didn't lie,
I've come back to this because of a Times article.... I haven't subscribed to The Times, so I have only what you can see on the page....
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tabaks-bid-to-blame-jo-yeatess-landlord-led-to-his-own-arrest-h2lnbpkcvjw
Two points about the article... Whoever wrote this article appears to know what CJ would have stated...
* Tabak, who was in Holland spending new year with his family, told police that his landlord’s Volvo had been moved on the night of Jo’s murder, something Mr Jefferies would have denied.
How would The Times Know that CJ would have denied this happening.... I believe CJ explains what happened when he saw Dr Vincent Tabak and what he told the Leveson, therefore I conclude that the car had moved from the road onto the drive.. But the volvo, wasn't the only car that CJ had access too, and in Dr Vincent Tabak's statement/phone call he doesn't say the type of car, he just states car... Maybe CJ needs to state which car he drove that evening to avoid confusion... Or is The Times article telling us CJ didn't drive the Volvo that evening , but the other car... We know that 2 cars were taken from the drive of Canygne Road, when CJ was arrested...
The other point is:
* Tabak offered to make a statement on his return to the UK at the beginning of January but to his surprise two detectives immediately flew to the Netherlands to take…
Dr Vincent Tabak offering to make said statement on his return to the UK,... I have always questioned why this didn't happen, but now I am questioning how The Times were aware that Dr Vincent Tabak offered to make a statement on his return to the UK??
I cannot find anything on the internet that states this was what Dr Vincent Tabak had said, and wondered where The Times got their information from...
Again back to these statements of CJ's...
As I was on my way out to the gym, quite by chance, erm I met Vincent Tabak and we had a very brief conversation,
Then......
told police that his landlord’s Volvo had been moved on the night of Jo’s murder,
Dr Vincent Tabak does not say what time these events happened, and the two statements in themselves prove that what apparently Dr Vincent Tabak said was accurate... The car had moved...
We do not know the time of the conversation or whether or not Dr Vincent Tabak was arriving or leaving the building at the time he saw CJ... We do not know how long Dr Vincent Tabak was outside, and we do not know if Dr Vincent Tabak was still outside when CJ went to the gym...
So of course the car had moved on the night of the 17th December 2010, because CJ went to the GYM... CJ tells us so in his Leveson statement and the program he confirms that he saw Dr Vincent Tabak on his way out to the gym...
We do not know what questions that were put to Dr Vincent Tabak by the police in relation to CJ's movements.... As far as Dr Vincent Tabak was aware, when he arrived home from work, CJ's car could have been in the drive, then when he and Tanja returned after Dr Vincent Tabak had collected her from the party, the car was on the road, showing that CJ had gone out that evening... And CJ confirming that he indeed went out that evening in his Leveson statement...
We do not know how long Dr Vincent Tabak was outside when he spoke to CJ, simply he could have seen CJ leave in his car after the brief conversation... This is bugging me now.... The car situation, is bugging me...
The Police must have contacted Dr Vincent Tabak, to verify what ever answers CJ gave when he was being questioned at the Police station... I believe this is why Dr Vincent Tabak talks of the car... They could have asked him where CJ's car was parked.... They could have asked him if he saw CJ at all that weekend or evening...
I believe that they went to coroberate what information CJ gave at The Police station ,when he was being interviewed...
Tanja we are told rings the Police after CJ's arrest and informs them about the car, they also speak to Dr Vincent Tabak... And the difference between Tanja and Dr Vincent Tabak is... Tanja would have seen where the car was when she left for the party and when she returned from the party... Or whether or not the car was there earlier on that evening before she left...
But..CJ, doesn't mention seeing Tanja... She has never said she saw CJ...
Dr Vincent Tabak on the other hand by CJ's own statement apparently spoke to him that evening... So I would say that Dr Vincent Tabak was CJ's witness, and the Police wanted THIS information immediately, to see if CJ was telling them the truth... In a signed statement from Dr Vincent Tabak.... Now we do not know if Dr Vincent Tabak signed anything that the Police took notes on when they interviewed him in Holland.... So we cannot say for a fact what Dr Vincent Tabak told the Police the same version of events as CJ has told us... But the tweet above tells us that Dr Vincent Tabak did indeed see CJ and it was mentioned at trial....
https://twitter.com/jonkay01/status/125932996971872256
https://twitter.com/skymartinbrunt/status/123407313582305280
Depending how ones reads the tweets or interprets what they should mean, when one is on trial, they appear damning,, yet I believe Dr Vincent Tabak was telling the police what he knew, and again by CJ's own admission the car had moved obviously as he had gone to the gym.. And that Dr Vincent Tabak had indeed seen CJ that evening..
So how did Dr Vincent Tabak lie about the car??
How was he supposed to have implicated CJ.... The Times tells us..
His entirely innocent landlord, who had been arrested for a murder he did not commit, had his ordeal prolonged because of lies told by Tabak.
What lies??
We have the car moving that evening and the next day, we have the mention that Dr Vincent Tabak saw CJ and these are the only statement I know of, but they wasn't a lie as I have demonstrated.. And by CJ's own admissions..
This next flummoxing statement..
*Tabak offered to make a statement on his return to the UK at the beginning of January
That statement in itself shows that what Dr Vincent Tabak had to say about CJ's car was unimportant, he shows that by his offer of what he knew about CJ's movements that evening/weekend could wait until he came back to the UK, it was not important enough to have the Police fly out to see him in Holland..
Far from him wanting to implicate CJ, I believe he was CJ's alibi as to CJ's movements, as The Police had CJ under arrest at that time. I believe the Police spoke to anyone whom had seen CJ that weekend..(imo)
Had The Times been the only source of information that knew that Dr Vincent Tabak had offered to give his statement about the car on his return to the UK??
If anyone has access to the full story at The Times and whom wrote it, I would appreciate if you could copy and paste, also if you don't mind screenshot the article also... And of course any other publication speaking of Dr Vincent Tabak offering to make a statement on his return to the UK....
It doesn't really matter nine, he confessed and his DNA was on her cold, dead flesh.
-
https://twitter.com/HarrietTolputt/status/126295120072032256
CJ's Leveson statement..
CJ's TV statements in "Countdown to Murder program"
From the program Countdown to Murder... at 27:41 of the video
Then at 28:45 of the video
#Tabak told police he had seen landlord Chris Jefferies on the night of 17th Dec as he returned from a walk in the snow.
This could be construed as a lie (or a mistake).... But If this is a lie or mistake then, CJ was Mistaken on which night he went to the gym...
I say construed as a lie, because I made a post before, when DCI Phil Jones states that it did not start snowing until around 2:00am on the 18th December 2010 and another forum member also confirms it was the 18th December 2010 that it snowed..
From the Countdown to Murder Program at 28:21 DCI Philip Jones says...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8239.msg456650#msg456650
Therefore who was mistaken? Both CJ and Dr Vincent Tabak as to which night CJ went to the gym? If it had been the 18th December 2010, surely Tanja would have been around...
Or is it the fact that Dr Vincent Tabak mentioned the snow, which therefore couldn't back up what CJ stated he did on the 17th December 2010??
Because as far as I know it didn't snow on Friday 17th December 2010 and CJ's Leveson statement says he thinks it may have been the 17th December 2010 he went to the gym..
So if it was Friday he went to the gym, no-one saw him.... But with CJ talking of snow also, he must have meant the 18th December 2010
The trouble being the Missing forum on facebook have always insisted that Joanna Yeates was Missing from the 17th December 2010, when there is no evidence to prove this....
CJ's 2nd witness statement therefore contains when he saw people at the path, that must have therefore been Saturday 18th December 2010, making these people even more important, if they have left the flat area on that day...
CJ and Dr Vincent Tabak apparently both talk of snow... both say the 17th December 2010, but how could Dr Vincent tabak know for sure that was the day it snowed?? When had his statement about snow been taken??
When he was in Holland, some 14 days later??
Easy for him to get the day wrong when thinking back...
Without seeing CJ or Dr Vincent Tabak's statements, we will not know what they actually state, as for CJ, I can only go on what he has stated at The Leveson and what he has stated on various TV programs...
The people at the path on the opposite side of the drive... should have been important, but they appear to have been forgotten about....
I go round in circles.... It doesn't make any sense as I keep saying... It's like it has been made up to me...
What do you mean by "It's like it has been made up............"? It has, or at least, the interpretation has, by YOU.
-
What's with the the call for witnesses to CJ's behaviour/actions and "We don't know................."? What makes you believe that WE have a God given right to the information to "know"? We know all it's necessary for us to know. A heinous crime was committed. A beautiful young woman's life, which was so full of promise, was cruelly taken from her. An innocent man was hounded, almost out of his mind, damned and incriminated simply because, visually, he didn't conform to accepted norms. Thankfully, the real culprit was weeded out, and at least in part, confessed because his DNA, perhaps I should call it his lust, was found on her body and he could hardly do otherwise. Yet here you STILL are, so obsessed with this monster's innocence, that, even now, it sounds as if you'd be willing to exchange him with an innocent man.
-
What's with the the call for witnesses to CJ's behaviour/actions and "We don't know................."? What makes you believe that WE have a God given right to the information to "know"? We know all it's necessary for us to know. A heinous crime was committed. A beautiful young woman's life, which was so full of promise, was cruelly taken from her. An innocent man was hounded, almost out of his mind, damned and incriminated simply because, visually, he didn't conform to accepted norms. Thankfully, the real culprit was weeded out, and at least in part, confessed because his DNA, perhaps I should call it his lust, was found on her body and he could hardly do otherwise. Yet here you STILL are, so obsessed with this monster's innocence, that, even now, it sounds as if you'd be willing to exchange him with an innocent man.
Just an excellent post. But I can't believe that this is still a thing. Tilting at windmills, chasing an elusive, bleak hope that a guilty man who has admitted his guilt and has ACCEPTED his guilt might not be guilty because nine, not nine, dot dot dot...wants to free an obviously GUILTY man.
Tabak killed Jo Yeates. He stole all that lovely promise from her, her family and her boyfriend. Nine, I hope life never bites you on the arse like it does for some people.
-
What's with the the call for witnesses to CJ's behaviour/actions and "We don't know................."? What makes you believe that WE have a God given right to the information to "know"? We know all it's necessary for us to know. A heinous crime was committed. A beautiful young woman's life, which was so full of promise, was cruelly taken from her. An innocent man was hounded, almost out of his mind, damned and incriminated simply because, visually, he didn't conform to accepted norms. Thankfully, the real culprit was weeded out, and at least in part, confessed because his DNA, perhaps I should call it his lust, was found on her body and he could hardly do otherwise. Yet here you STILL are, so obsessed with this monster's innocence, that, even now, it sounds as if you'd be willing to exchange him with an innocent man.
I was just trying to clarify, what appears to be an error made, that is all.... What ever the day is any event happened is important, I am not trying to switch one person for another, as I do not know who killed Joanna yeates.. I am just clarifying or trying to understand what is already in the public domain...
Just an excellent post. But I can't believe that this is still a thing. Tilting at windmills, chasing an elusive, bleak hope that a guilty man who has admitted his guilt and has ACCEPTED his guilt might not be guilty because nine, not nine, dot dot dot...wants to free an obviously GUILTY man.
Tabak killed Jo Yeates. He stole all that lovely promise from her, her family and her boyfriend. Nine, I hope life never bites you on the arse like it does for some people.
When you say tilting windmills, I say is this all made up??
I wonder if Dr Vincent Tabak is made up? And i have been chasing an imaginary man...
I have tried to clarify if each of these people are separate real individuals, based on many forum members reactions here..
* Dr Vincent Tabak
* Tanja Morson
* Greg Reardon
* Joanna Yeates
* Chris Yeates
* CJ
* Rebecca Scott
* Laurence Penney
* Peter Stanley
* Teresa Yeates
* David Yeates
These are the people we know in this case, I try to be rational about this, and I do not understand why no-one will even contemplate anything I have said, which makes me believe that someone is not real...
And have wasted my time...
Everyone appears to know something that I do not.... Everyone appears to believe without a shadow of a doubt a mans story on the stand, that just doesn't stack up...
If the day of the conversation between CJ and Dr Vincent Tabak cannot be fully established, but can be concluded upon based on when it snowed ..... Then how can anything that was stated on the stand be accurate, if we know not of which day for a fact that Joanna Yeates was Murdered??
Is Dr Vincent Tabak, one in the same person as someone else? Is this why everyone keeps telling me he is guilty?
Is the entire case true?
I feel I have made a complete arse of myself... I have tried to look at everything as to why it doesn't make sense and I come to the same conclusion.. That it cannot be real...
So why all the hype with CJ.. why all the plastering over papers...
I sometimes feel that i am being cruel, but I don't wish to be, The Yeates for instance, if they have lost their daughter, that is shocking, but I come back to why are they allowed at a crime scene, when forensic tents are there,
when a crime scene should be kept sterile... And with everything else that hasn't appeared to follow the correct course, I then come to the conclusion it is made up.... Or there is something else amiss...
I need to stop chasing the Windmills, I need to stay with my conclusions, I need to go no further....
As for the trial.... was that just media hype??
-
How many more times have we got to read this endlessly repetitive drivel? I think it's best to ignore and hope that she finds another home elsewhere on the net.
-
I was just trying to clarify, what appears to be an error made, that is all.... What ever the day is any event happened is important, I am not trying to switch one person for another, as I do not know who killed Joanna yeates.. I am just clarifying or trying to understand what is already in the public domain...
When you say tilting windmills, I say is this all made up??
I wonder if Dr Vincent Tabak is made up? And i have been chasing an imaginary man...
I have tried to clarify if each of these people are separate real individuals, based on many forum members reactions here..
* Dr Vincent Tabak
* Tanja Morson
* Greg Reardon
* Joanna Yeates
* Chris Yeates
* CJ
* Rebecca Scott
* Laurence Penney
* Peter Stanley
* Teresa Yeates
* David Yeates
These are the people we know in this case, I try to be rational about this, and I do not understand why no-one will even contemplate anything I have said, which makes me believe that someone is not real...
And have wasted my time...
Everyone appears to know something that I do not.... Everyone appears to believe without a shadow of a doubt a mans story on the stand, that just doesn't stack up...
If the day of the conversation between CJ and Dr Vincent Tabak cannot be fully established, but can be concluded upon based on when it snowed ..... Then how can anything that was stated on the stand be accurate, if we know not of which day for a fact that Joanna Yeates was Murdered??
Is Dr Vincent Tabak, one in the same person as someone else? Is this why everyone keeps telling me he is guilty?
Is the entire case true?
I feel I have made a complete arse of myself... I have tried to look at everything as to why it doesn't make sense and I come to the same conclusion.. That it cannot be real...
So why all the hype with CJ.. why all the plastering over papers...
I sometimes feel that i am being cruel, but I don't wish to be, The Yeates for instance, if they have lost their daughter, that is shocking, but I come back to why are they allowed at a crime scene, when forensic tents are there,
when a crime scene should be kept sterile... And with everything else that hasn't appeared to follow the correct course, I then come to the conclusion it is made up.... Or there is something else amiss...
I need to stop chasing the Windmills, I need to stay with my conclusions, I need to go no further....
As for the trial.... was that just media hype??
Nine - give it up, this is just silly.
-
I just want THEE answer..... That's all... no fan-fair, no bells and whistles, just the answer.... I deserve that at least... &%54%
-
I just want THEE answer..... That's all... no fan-fair, no bells and whistles, just the answer.... I deserve that at least... &%54%
You HAVE the answer. You're choosing not to hear it. You're behaving like the soldier who wrote home to his mother that everything was fine, other than drill. The problem was that HE was the only one getting it right. All the others were out of step. If you are the only one who's been "getting it right" for years, I imagine that everyone in your real world has become disinterested -what does that tell you?- so you've had to take to forums to expound your cranky theory about it all being fake/none of it being real and "Dr Vincent Tabak", despite accepting his guilt, being innocent. Have you never questioned why you appear to be the only one with such thought processes and why it is that you're out of kilter? As it's clearly troubling you, it might be beneficial for you to take it to a therapist who will enable you to find your way through this vat of treacle you appear to be stuck in.
-
I just want THEE answer..... That's all... no fan-fair, no bells and whistles, just the answer.... I deserve that at least... &%54%
Tell you what Nine, the ONLY PEOPLE who DESERVE anything, are the family and friends of JY - they DESERVED to have the pervert that killed their beautiful daughter locked up! Tabak also DESERVES something, He DESERVES to spend a VERY LONG time in prison where his nasty little perversions can't hurt anyone else!
The answer has been staring you in the face all along, you WANT there to be a conspiracy so perhaps you DESERVE to keep going around in circles, unwilling to accept the fact that Tabak is a perverted killer who deserves everything he got!
-
You HAVE the answer. You're choosing not to hear it. You're behaving like the soldier who wrote home to his mother that everything was fine, other than drill. The problem was that HE was the only one getting it right. All the others were out of step. If you are the only one who's been "getting it right" for years, I imagine that everyone in your real world has become disinterested -what does that tell you?- so you've had to take to forums to expound your cranky theory about it all being fake/none of it being real and "Dr Vincent Tabak", despite accepting his guilt, being innocent. Have you never questioned why you appear to be the only one with such thought processes and why it is that you're out of kilter? As it's clearly troubling you, it might be beneficial for you to take it to a therapist who will enable you to find your way through this vat of treacle you appear to be stuck in.
Sadly, he/she isn't the only one.
-
Read it here https://www.facebook.com/vincenttabak/ - this person seems to have been a member of the same page? Or maybe it's another one. They also believe the Yorkshire Ripper case was a conspiracy. %56&
I was a member of the "Joanna Yeates Discussion of the Case" forum too, and yes, apparently, the Admin (no idea who it was) was told that it had to be removed. I don't know why.
The man who runs the page quoted above was indeed a member of the forum. He (alone) has written a book about the Yorkshire Ripper case, in which he claims, not that Peter Sutcliffe is innocent, but that another man was responsible for SOME of the murders ascribed to him. I haven't read the book, so cannot comment further.
-
I was a member of the "Joanna Yeates Discussion of the Case" forum too, and yes, apparently, the Admin (no idea who it was) was told that it had to be removed. I don't know why.
The man who runs the page quoted above was indeed a member of the forum. He (alone) has written a book about the Yorkshire Ripper case, in which he claims, not that Peter Sutcliffe is innocent, but that another man was responsible for SOME of the murders ascribed to him. I haven't read the book, so cannot comment further.
Hi Mrswah, thanks for that. Frightening times around our area when the Ripper was on the loose. I was a young coal miner at the time and was very fearful of my wife venturing out at night. He was eventually caught about 15 mile from us and we felt very relieved. I don’t know about him not being responsible for some of his victims, but they are still trying to link him through DNA to more killings. He was linked to each murder by confessions and tyre tracks of his vehicle and the hammer he used as well as his size seven boots, he used to cut open his victims sometimes with the same knife, he also left a palm print as well. If you read his confessions, he goes into detail that only the killer would know.
His confessions are really scary, he goes into detail about the exact clothing he was wearing, how many times he hit his victim, where he cut his victim, if she was screaming, even down to detail about his back wheels spinning when he drove off.
-
I was a member of the "Joanna Yeates Discussion of the Case" forum too, and yes, apparently, the Admin (no idea who it was) was told that it had to be removed. I don't know why.
The man who runs the page quoted above was indeed a member of the forum. He (alone) has written a book about the Yorkshire Ripper case, in which he claims, not that Peter Sutcliffe is innocent, but that another man was responsible for SOME of the murders ascribed to him. I haven't read the book, so cannot comment further.
I didn't say that he said Sutcliffe was innocent - just that he thinks there is a conspiracy. I wouldn't read the book either.
-
Hi Mrswah, thanks for that. Frightening times around our area when the Ripper was on the loose. I was a young coal miner at the time and was very fearful of my wife venturing out at night. He was eventually caught about 15 mile from us and we felt very relieved. I don’t know about him not being responsible for some of his victims, but they are still trying to link him through DNA to more killings. He was linked to each murder by confessions and tyre tracks of his vehicle and the hammer he used as well as his size seven boots, he used to cut open his victims sometimes with the same knife, he also left a palm print as well. If you read his confessions, he goes into detail that only the killer would know.
His confessions are really scary, he goes into detail about the exact clothing he was wearing, how many times he hit his victim, where he cut his victim, if she was screaming, even down to detail about his back wheels spinning when he drove off.
I was privileged to meet Richard McCann a few years ago at a work conference. He is the son of Wilma McCann - Sutcliffe's known first victim. He is now a motivational speaker and an inspiration! Sadly his sister is indirectly another victim of Sutcliffe as she killed herself at 32 having never been able to come to terms with their tragic life.
-
I was privileged to meet Richard McCann a few years ago at a work conference. He is the son of Wilma McCann - Sutcliffe's known first victim. He is now a motivational speaker and an inspiration! Sadly his sister is indirectly another victim of Sutcliffe as she killed herself at 32 having never been able to come to terms with their tragic life.
So sad Caroline, these monsters have no empathy whatsoever, they have no idea about other people’s feelings.
-
I was a member of the "Joanna Yeates Discussion of the Case" forum too, and yes, apparently, the Admin (no idea who it was) was told that it had to be removed. I don't know why.
The man who runs the page quoted above was indeed a member of the forum. He (alone) has written a book about the Yorkshire Ripper case, in which he claims, not that Peter Sutcliffe is innocent, but that another man was responsible for SOME of the murders ascribed to him. I haven't read the book, so cannot comment further.
I thought you would have realised by now why that forum was shut down! The member you mentioned, Noel O'Gara, was sued for libel by DCS Chris Gregg of WYP in relation to allegations of corruption regarding the Yorkshire Ripper case... and of course O'Gara lost! Isn't it strange that O'Gara thinks (or at least did think in 2016) that Vincent Tabak was also stitched up? No wonder his CD order page disappeared off the net!
https://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/ripper-detective-wins-163-50-000-damages-1-1146263 (https://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/ripper-detective-wins-163-50-000-damages-1-1146263)
7vu_--NZQszj4dpxgLeTgSvVcQqWjA&__tn__=EEHH-R]https://www.facebook.com/vincenttabak/photos/a.1266690200054996/1266690233388326/?type=3&eid=ARBiS9bN6rexNsH5AmCeXsyF-onZDXsP-HepSVFqo0DqyJLOAgc91au-Q9mhpkJw9up5gp64mUgod0Gy&__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARCqmuWPibk-Ad5onWfuPn6LptgNtpoitErQOBwzHgC3OF5I66TNhY92fxBdlflNZmQLsTjd29xhGjkl9ICYxUkIrNv9N4w9t5kVvSyadiTC6sitJzSw3rYuvOJwvmeSZhFAHgk_xyFDDTed-i0LJn4nTXRgRdovgJ7_yBS_CIr3YQrdj4_VqRsnKEl8RCd_rWSVjC7zVxdIJtO3r2OZKDQCXKbwOI8EKArtrUBNyHpcJU2LONDasrbXMaVzTk4akyLrwReClinof6UFizoyf1i5891qM8zcfqhaGP7hh1dCG6xlvcvMbSNZGV[Name removed]7vu_--NZQszj4dpxgLeTgSvVcQqWjA&__tn__=EEHH-R (https://www.facebook.com/vincenttabak/photos/a.1266690200054996/1266690233388326/?type=3&eid=ARBiS9bN6rexNsH5AmCeXsyF-onZDXsP-HepSVFqo0DqyJLOAgc91au-Q9mhpkJw9up5gp64mUgod0Gy&__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARCqmuWPibk-Ad5onWfuPn6LptgNtpoitErQOBwzHgC3OF5I66TNhY92fxBdlflNZmQLsTjd29xhGjkl9ICYxUkIrNv9N4w9t5kVvSyadiTC6sitJzSw3rYuvOJwvmeSZhFAHgk_xyFDDTed-i0LJn4nTXRgRdovgJ7_yBS_CIr3YQrdj4_VqRsnKEl8RCd_rWSVjC7zVxdIJtO3r2OZKDQCXKbwOI8EKArtrUBNyHpcJU2LONDasrbXMaVzTk4akyLrwReClinof6UFizoyf1i5891qM8zcfqhaGP7hh1dCG6xlvcvMbSNZGV[Name removed)
No sign either of his book on the Yorkshire Ripper... https://www.amazon.com/Real-Yorkshire-Ripper-Noel-OGara/dp/B002SEY45I (https://www.amazon.com/Real-Yorkshire-Ripper-Noel-OGara/dp/B002SEY45I)
And now we have another inveterate name-changer on this forum who is just as deluded!
-
I thought you would have realised by now why that forum was shut down! The member you mentioned, Noel O'Gara, was sued for libel by DCS Chris Gregg of WYP in relation to allegations of corruption regarding the Yorkshire Ripper case... and of course O'Gara lost! Isn't it strange that O'Gara thinks (or at least did think in 2016) that Vincent Tabak was also stitched up? No wonder his CD order page disappeared off the net!
https://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/ripper-detective-wins-163-50-000-damages-1-1146263 (https://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/ripper-detective-wins-163-50-000-damages-1-1146263)
7vu_--NZQszj4dpxgLeTgSvVcQqWjA&__tn__=EEHH-R]https://www.facebook.com/vincenttabak/photos/a.1266690200054996/1266690233388326/?type=3&eid=ARBiS9bN6rexNsH5AmCeXsyF-onZDXsP-HepSVFqo0DqyJLOAgc91au-Q9mhpkJw9up5gp64mUgod0Gy&__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARCqmuWPibk-Ad5onWfuPn6LptgNtpoitErQOBwzHgC3OF5I66TNhY92fxBdlflNZmQLsTjd29xhGjkl9ICYxUkIrNv9N4w9t5kVvSyadiTC6sitJzSw3rYuvOJwvmeSZhFAHgk_xyFDDTed-i0LJn4nTXRgRdovgJ7_yBS_CIr3YQrdj4_VqRsnKEl8RCd_rWSVjC7zVxdIJtO3r2OZKDQCXKbwOI8EKArtrUBNyHpcJU2LONDasrbXMaVzTk4akyLrwReClinof6UFizoyf1i5891qM8zcfqhaGP7hh1dCG6xlvcvMbSNZGV[Name removed]7vu_--NZQszj4dpxgLeTgSvVcQqWjA&__tn__=EEHH-R (https://www.facebook.com/vincenttabak/photos/a.1266690200054996/1266690233388326/?type=3&eid=ARBiS9bN6rexNsH5AmCeXsyF-onZDXsP-HepSVFqo0DqyJLOAgc91au-Q9mhpkJw9up5gp64mUgod0Gy&__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARCqmuWPibk-Ad5onWfuPn6LptgNtpoitErQOBwzHgC3OF5I66TNhY92fxBdlflNZmQLsTjd29xhGjkl9ICYxUkIrNv9N4w9t5kVvSyadiTC6sitJzSw3rYuvOJwvmeSZhFAHgk_xyFDDTed-i0LJn4nTXRgRdovgJ7_yBS_CIr3YQrdj4_VqRsnKEl8RCd_rWSVjC7zVxdIJtO3r2OZKDQCXKbwOI8EKArtrUBNyHpcJU2LONDasrbXMaVzTk4akyLrwReClinof6UFizoyf1i5891qM8zcfqhaGP7hh1dCG6xlvcvMbSNZGV[Name removed)
No sign either of his book on the Yorkshire Ripper... https://www.amazon.com/Real-Yorkshire-Ripper-Noel-OGara/dp/B002SEY45I (https://www.amazon.com/Real-Yorkshire-Ripper-Noel-OGara/dp/B002SEY45I)
And now we have another inveterate name-changer on this forum who is just as deluded!
Think the CD is still advertised on FB
-
I thought you would have realised by now why that forum was shut down! The member you mentioned, Noel O'Gara, was sued for libel by DCS Chris Gregg of WYP in relation to allegations of corruption regarding the Yorkshire Ripper case... and of course O'Gara lost! Isn't it strange that O'Gara thinks (or at least did think in 2016) that Vincent Tabak was also stitched up? No wonder his CD order page disappeared off the net!
https://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/ripper-detective-wins-163-50-000-damages-1-1146263 (https://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/ripper-detective-wins-163-50-000-damages-1-1146263)
7vu_--NZQszj4dpxgLeTgSvVcQqWjA&__tn__=EEHH-R]https://www.facebook.com/vincenttabak/photos/a.1266690200054996/1266690233388326/?type=3&eid=ARBiS9bN6rexNsH5AmCeXsyF-onZDXsP-HepSVFqo0DqyJLOAgc91au-Q9mhpkJw9up5gp64mUgod0Gy&__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARCqmuWPibk-Ad5onWfuPn6LptgNtpoitErQOBwzHgC3OF5I66TNhY92fxBdlflNZmQLsTjd29xhGjkl9ICYxUkIrNv9N4w9t5kVvSyadiTC6sitJzSw3rYuvOJwvmeSZhFAHgk_xyFDDTed-i0LJn4nTXRgRdovgJ7_yBS_CIr3YQrdj4_VqRsnKEl8RCd_rWSVjC7zVxdIJtO3r2OZKDQCXKbwOI8EKArtrUBNyHpcJU2LONDasrbXMaVzTk4akyLrwReClinof6UFizoyf1i5891qM8zcfqhaGP7hh1dCG6xlvcvMbSNZGV[Name removed]7vu_--NZQszj4dpxgLeTgSvVcQqWjA&__tn__=EEHH-R (https://www.facebook.com/vincenttabak/photos/a.1266690200054996/1266690233388326/?type=3&eid=ARBiS9bN6rexNsH5AmCeXsyF-onZDXsP-HepSVFqo0DqyJLOAgc91au-Q9mhpkJw9up5gp64mUgod0Gy&__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARCqmuWPibk-Ad5onWfuPn6LptgNtpoitErQOBwzHgC3OF5I66TNhY92fxBdlflNZmQLsTjd29xhGjkl9ICYxUkIrNv9N4w9t5kVvSyadiTC6sitJzSw3rYuvOJwvmeSZhFAHgk_xyFDDTed-i0LJn4nTXRgRdovgJ7_yBS_CIr3YQrdj4_VqRsnKEl8RCd_rWSVjC7zVxdIJtO3r2OZKDQCXKbwOI8EKArtrUBNyHpcJU2LONDasrbXMaVzTk4akyLrwReClinof6UFizoyf1i5891qM8zcfqhaGP7hh1dCG6xlvcvMbSNZGV[Name removed)
No sign either of his book on the Yorkshire Ripper... https://www.amazon.com/Real-Yorkshire-Ripper-Noel-OGara/dp/B002SEY45I (https://www.amazon.com/Real-Yorkshire-Ripper-Noel-OGara/dp/B002SEY45I)
And now we have another inveterate name-changer on this forum who is just as deluded!
If you think I'm deluded, thats fine... final request.. please remove my posts.... thank you
-
I thought you would have realised by now why that forum was shut down! The member you mentioned, Noel O'Gara, was sued for libel by DCS Chris Gregg of WYP in relation to allegations of corruption regarding the Yorkshire Ripper case... and of course O'Gara lost! Isn't it strange that O'Gara thinks (or at least did think in 2016) that Vincent Tabak was also stitched up? No wonder his CD order page disappeared off the net!
https://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/ripper-detective-wins-163-50-000-damages-1-1146263 (https://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/ripper-detective-wins-163-50-000-damages-1-1146263)
7vu_--NZQszj4dpxgLeTgSvVcQqWjA&__tn__=EEHH-R]https://www.facebook.com/vincenttabak/photos/a.1266690200054996/1266690233388326/?type=3&eid=ARBiS9bN6rexNsH5AmCeXsyF-onZDXsP-HepSVFqo0DqyJLOAgc91au-Q9mhpkJw9up5gp64mUgod0Gy&__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARCqmuWPibk-Ad5onWfuPn6LptgNtpoitErQOBwzHgC3OF5I66TNhY92fxBdlflNZmQLsTjd29xhGjkl9ICYxUkIrNv9N4w9t5kVvSyadiTC6sitJzSw3rYuvOJwvmeSZhFAHgk_xyFDDTed-i0LJn4nTXRgRdovgJ7_yBS_CIr3YQrdj4_VqRsnKEl8RCd_rWSVjC7zVxdIJtO3r2OZKDQCXKbwOI8EKArtrUBNyHpcJU2LONDasrbXMaVzTk4akyLrwReClinof6UFizoyf1i5891qM8zcfqhaGP7hh1dCG6xlvcvMbSNZGV[Name removed]7vu_--NZQszj4dpxgLeTgSvVcQqWjA&__tn__=EEHH-R (https://www.facebook.com/vincenttabak/photos/a.1266690200054996/1266690233388326/?type=3&eid=ARBiS9bN6rexNsH5AmCeXsyF-onZDXsP-HepSVFqo0DqyJLOAgc91au-Q9mhpkJw9up5gp64mUgod0Gy&__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARCqmuWPibk-Ad5onWfuPn6LptgNtpoitErQOBwzHgC3OF5I66TNhY92fxBdlflNZmQLsTjd29xhGjkl9ICYxUkIrNv9N4w9t5kVvSyadiTC6sitJzSw3rYuvOJwvmeSZhFAHgk_xyFDDTed-i0LJn4nTXRgRdovgJ7_yBS_CIr3YQrdj4_VqRsnKEl8RCd_rWSVjC7zVxdIJtO3r2OZKDQCXKbwOI8EKArtrUBNyHpcJU2LONDasrbXMaVzTk4akyLrwReClinof6UFizoyf1i5891qM8zcfqhaGP7hh1dCG6xlvcvMbSNZGV[Name removed)
No sign either of his book on the Yorkshire Ripper... https://www.amazon.com/Real-Yorkshire-Ripper-Noel-OGara/dp/B002SEY45I (https://www.amazon.com/Real-Yorkshire-Ripper-Noel-OGara/dp/B002SEY45I)
And now we have another inveterate name-changer on this forum who is just as deluded!
Hes also done a DVD on the Ipswich murders. In Noel's world our prisons are full of mostly wrongly convicted people by a conspiracy of lawyers, judges and the police.
-
Hes also done a DVD on the Ipswich murders. In Noel's world our prisons are full of mostly wrongly convicted people by a conspiracy of lawyers, judges and the police.
That rings a bell. I think I may know someone else who has the same belief!
-
Well, let's not belittle other people for their beliefs----we are all entitled to them. If our views were all the same, there would be nothing to discuss.
-
I thought you would have realised by now why that forum was shut down! The member you mentioned, Noel O'Gara, was sued for libel by DCS Chris Gregg of WYP in relation to allegations of corruption regarding the Yorkshire Ripper case... and of course O'Gara lost! Isn't it strange that O'Gara thinks (or at least did think in 2016) that Vincent Tabak was also stitched up? No wonder his CD order page disappeared off the net!
https://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/ripper-detective-wins-163-50-000-damages-1-1146263 (https://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/ripper-detective-wins-163-50-000-damages-1-1146263)
7vu_--NZQszj4dpxgLeTgSvVcQqWjA&__tn__=EEHH-R]https://www.facebook.com/vincenttabak/photos/a.1266690200054996/1266690233388326/?type=3&eid=ARBiS9bN6rexNsH5AmCeXsyF-onZDXsP-HepSVFqo0DqyJLOAgc91au-Q9mhpkJw9up5gp64mUgod0Gy&__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARCqmuWPibk-Ad5onWfuPn6LptgNtpoitErQOBwzHgC3OF5I66TNhY92fxBdlflNZmQLsTjd29xhGjkl9ICYxUkIrNv9N4w9t5kVvSyadiTC6sitJzSw3rYuvOJwvmeSZhFAHgk_xyFDDTed-i0LJn4nTXRgRdovgJ7_yBS_CIr3YQrdj4_VqRsnKEl8RCd_rWSVjC7zVxdIJtO3r2OZKDQCXKbwOI8EKArtrUBNyHpcJU2LONDasrbXMaVzTk4akyLrwReClinof6UFizoyf1i5891qM8zcfqhaGP7hh1dCG6xlvcvMbSNZGV[Name removed]7vu_--NZQszj4dpxgLeTgSvVcQqWjA&__tn__=EEHH-R (https://www.facebook.com/vincenttabak/photos/a.1266690200054996/1266690233388326/?type=3&eid=ARBiS9bN6rexNsH5AmCeXsyF-onZDXsP-HepSVFqo0DqyJLOAgc91au-Q9mhpkJw9up5gp64mUgod0Gy&__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARCqmuWPibk-Ad5onWfuPn6LptgNtpoitErQOBwzHgC3OF5I66TNhY92fxBdlflNZmQLsTjd29xhGjkl9ICYxUkIrNv9N4w9t5kVvSyadiTC6sitJzSw3rYuvOJwvmeSZhFAHgk_xyFDDTed-i0LJn4nTXRgRdovgJ7_yBS_CIr3YQrdj4_VqRsnKEl8RCd_rWSVjC7zVxdIJtO3r2OZKDQCXKbwOI8EKArtrUBNyHpcJU2LONDasrbXMaVzTk4akyLrwReClinof6UFizoyf1i5891qM8zcfqhaGP7hh1dCG6xlvcvMbSNZGV[Name removed)
No sign either of his book on the Yorkshire Ripper... https://www.amazon.com/Real-Yorkshire-Ripper-Noel-OGara/dp/B002SEY45I (https://www.amazon.com/Real-Yorkshire-Ripper-Noel-OGara/dp/B002SEY45I)
And now we have another inveterate name-changer on this forum who is just as deluded!
Noel O'Gara.... I do not know him, ... I am bemused by him sometimes....
The facebook account : Joanna Yeates 'The Sequel".... Now it has a photo of Noel,O'Gara... Is it really his account... I do not know.... There is an account called Noel O'Gara... and that may be the real him... Again i do not know....
He writes about the case, offers to sell CD's etc......
Noel O'Gara
31 December 2016 at 00:28
Here for the first time is the full story of how the Bristol murder was solved and the public were conned into believing that the police had actually found the killer of Joanna Yeates when in fact they had arrested an innocent man and blackmailed him with threats of jail for child porn and fabricated dna claims which were published by the tabloid press thereby convincing the public and all the legal teams involved in this classic stitch up of the modern age. The story is on CD and is available for 10.00 pounds to include postage. Order today http://noelogara.com/pay…/bristolmurder/
But, what alarmed me about that particular profile, was his boasts....
Joanna Yeates murder in Bristol and sequel
well this case should be of interest to you as a resident of Bristol and as a student of crime and policing. I suggest you read the webpage I made about it and just to let you know it was me who rumbled the cops when they arrested Jefferies. Had I not done that they would have easily gotten a conviction against him. He would have caved in after a week or two in Long Lartin and done a deal to get a manslaughter plea. Can you imagine what LL would have done to him?
And
Joanna Yeates murder in Bristol and sequel
my work in exposing the Yorkshire Ripper cover up is well known in police circles and all the top cops resigned within a year or two of Sutcliffe's conviction because of my work in exposing the stitch up of copycat killer Sutcliffe as the Ripper. This work has provided me with an insight into policing and how the judicial establishment kicks in behind the police once an arrest is made. The presumption is always they got the killer and everybody wants to believe that and assist in getting him convicted. That urge often results in false convictions because everybody wants to do their bit to get that killer off the street. Unfortunately if the police suspicion is wrong and they charge an innocent person, he will find himself in a terrible trap. Then the media will only report the court records and some interviews that the police give. People like me on the sidelines telling them they got the wrong man are ignored and the real killers are laughing and know exactly how police work. I wrote to the Bristol police after Jefferies arrest because I recognised the pattern of media vilification and how they had hit a brick wall and needed a fall guy. Jefferies didnt fit any kind of a killer profile and indeed wouldnt have the strength to choke Joanna. That and lots more plus a threat to document and publish their stitch up resulted in him being freed later that day. He said later that he almost cracked up after two days of Hell. What would two months do to this fragile man?
It's these 2 particular statements...
I suggest you read the webpage I made about it and just to let you know it was me who rumbled the cops when they arrested Jefferies. Had I not done that they would have easily gotten a conviction against him.
I wrote to the Bristol police after Jefferies arrest because I recognised the pattern of media vilification and how they had hit a brick wall and needed a fall guy. Jefferies didnt fit any kind of a killer profile and indeed wouldnt have the strength to choke Joanna. That and lots more plus a threat to document and publish their stitch up resulted in him being freed later that day. He said later that he almost cracked up after two days of Hell. What would two months do to this fragile man?
If Mr O'Gara believes it was he whom assisted in getting CJ released, then why did he not manage to get Dr vincent Tabak released also?? If he has such abilities and has aided in CJ's release.. why not Dr Vincent Tabak's release, seeing as he believes Dr Vincent Tabak was stitched up..... It makes no sense to me, the claims that are made on FB...
As for the webpage he refers too... 'The Suffolk Strangler"... That webpage, was made before hand I believe... and that webpage has been taken down... It has been down for quite awhile now....
http://www.suffolkstrangler.com/vincenttabak.htm?fbclid=IwAR39bWGJUNrvROVfXF2dpDdVARxiKz6-LsMFiHWTD7vuaj1JSqe4MiajHv8
I am not associated with anyone.... I know no-one....
I have proven i don't agree with anyone... i have come to the conclusion, it is not real... But that is me...
I as you state may be deluded.... i know that this case has sent me around the twist....
I have never understood why anyone in law hasn't challenged this case... But as i do not know law I cannot say for sure...
A nagging doubt brought me here, years after the event... I am not here to make money out of this... I have never asked for payments... I have never written any book... As i prove by my writings here i am not compedient to do such a thing...
I did this because i am an idiot whom felt there had been a wrongful conviction... But as i cannot determine what is real or not anymore with this case... I do not know what do do about it anymore...
This is why all of my posts should go.... I have pointlessly chased an elusive man across the internet... I have made statements that I do not know whether in law are libilous, there being another reason.... Then I think if it's all made up who did I libel? So the simplest answer is for it to be taken down....
I have wasted my time... i now do not know what to believe, I am no-one.... My opinons count for zero...
I did this because I believed a Miscarriage of justice had taken place... I know that the likes of me shouldn't get involved.... I no nothing... I have learnt opinions count for nothing... I have learnt, I have made a fool of myself.... I have learnt not to trust anyone....
The society we live in is hard to keep up with... laws changing all the time, politicians, confusing everyone more and more.... I used to think I was a strong person, who would always stand by my convictions.... But i now realise i can only do that if i keep it to myself...
I did not come here to offend people, I came here trying to understand this case better... I came because I thought, I might be able to make people aware....
I thought I was helping a man whom was unable to help himself....
-
This belongs and is part of my last post above... The only reason i did it seperately , was because of attachment limits....
I have found 2 of Noel O'Gara's youtube clips on the subject...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lyF7i99ioA
(Noel o'gara
Published on 25 Dec 2011)
There's a blue timer in the corner... No idea what it is.... Also (CI) which i assume is the TV channel is reflected on the window behind CJ?? How I have no idea....
And this one....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yprbt0SJEdY
(Noel o'gara
Published on 28 Dec 2011)
I thought he was recording it from the TV, but I am unsure... He may be looking at it on a computer/laptop....
Is it the real Noel O'Gara on youtube.... Again I have no idea...
Once viewed , it can go in the bin with all of my other posts.... !
-
Well, let's not belittle other people for their beliefs----we are all entitled to them. If our views were all the same, there would be nothing to discuss.
I think that very much depends on what they believe.
-
Noel O'Gara.... I do not know him, ... I am bemused by him sometimes....
The facebook account : Joanna Yeates 'The Sequel".... Now it has a photo of Noel,O'Gara... Is it really his account... I do not know.... There is an account called Noel O'Gara... and that may be the real him... Again i do not know....
He writes about the case, offers to sell CD's etc......
But, what alarmed me about that particular profile, was his boasts....
And
It's these 2 particular statements...
I suggest you read the webpage I made about it and just to let you know it was me who rumbled the cops when they arrested Jefferies. Had I not done that they would have easily gotten a conviction against him.
I wrote to the Bristol police after Jefferies arrest because I recognised the pattern of media vilification and how they had hit a brick wall and needed a fall guy. Jefferies didnt fit any kind of a killer profile and indeed wouldnt have the strength to choke Joanna. That and lots more plus a threat to document and publish their stitch up resulted in him being freed later that day. He said later that he almost cracked up after two days of Hell. What would two months do to this fragile man?
If Mr O'Gara believes it was he whom assisted in getting CJ released, then why did he not manage to get Dr vincent Tabak released also?? If he has such abilities and has aided in CJ's release.. why not Dr Vincent Tabak's release, seeing as he believes Dr Vincent Tabak was stitched up..... It makes no sense to me, the claims that are made on FB...
As for the webpage he refers too... 'The Suffolk Strangler"... That webpage, was made before hand I believe... and that webpage has been taken down... It has been down for quite awhile now....
http://www.suffolkstrangler.com/vincenttabak.htm?fbclid=IwAR39bWGJUNrvROVfXF2dpDdVARxiKz6-LsMFiHWTD7vuaj1JSqe4MiajHv8
I am not associated with anyone.... I know no-one....
I have proven i don't agree with anyone... i have come to the conclusion, it is not real... But that is me...
I as you state may be deluded.... i know that this case has sent me around the twist....
I have never understood why anyone in law hasn't challenged this case... But as i do not know law I cannot say for sure...
A nagging doubt brought me here, years after the event... I am not here to make money out of this... I have never asked for payments... I have never written any book... As i prove by my writings here i am not compedient to do such a thing...
I did this because i am an idiot whom felt there had been a wrongful conviction... But as i cannot determine what is real or not anymore with this case... I do not know what do do about it anymore...
This is why all of my posts should go.... I have pointlessly chased an elusive man across the internet... I have made statements that I do not know whether in law are libilous, there being another reason.... Then I think if it's all made up who did I libel? So the simplest answer is for it to be taken down....
I have wasted my time... i now do not know what to believe, I am no-one.... My opinons count for zero...
I did this because I believed a Miscarriage of justice had taken place... I know that the likes of me shouldn't get involved.... I no nothing... I have learnt opinions count for nothing... I have learnt, I have made a fool of myself.... I have learnt not to trust anyone....
The society we live in is hard to keep up with... laws changing all the time, politicians, confusing everyone more and more.... I used to think I was a strong person, who would always stand by my convictions.... But i now realise i can only do that if i keep it to myself...
I did not come here to offend people, I came here trying to understand this case better... I came because I thought, I might be able to make people aware....
I thought I was helping a man whom was unable to help himself....
You dont offend me but I think from your above reaction to the FB page you can see that cranks are everywhere.
-
This belongs and is part of my last post above... The only reason i did it seperately , was because of attachment limits....
I have found 2 of Noel O'Gara's youtube clips on the subject...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lyF7i99ioA
(Noel o'gara
Published on 25 Dec 2011)
He has video's on other stuff - he a conspiracy theorist, nothing wrong with that but if you see them around every corner, I think that's called paranoia.
https://www.youtube.com/user/noelogaraa
There's a blue timer in the corner... No idea what it is.... Also (CI) which i assume is the TV channel is reflected on the window behind CJ?? How I have no idea....
And this one....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yprbt0SJEdY
(Noel o'gara
Published on 28 Dec 2011)
I thought he was recording it from the TV, but I am unsure... He may be looking at it on a computer/laptop....
Is it the real Noel O'Gara on youtube.... Again I have no idea...
Once viewed , it can go in the bin with all of my other posts.... !
-
From The Law pages Website...
These are the timelines for the case against Dr Vincent Tabak ,from the Lawpages website
25.01.2011Crown Court Hearing
Court: Bristol Crown Court (Court No. 1)
Vincent Tabak
For Hearing - Case Started - 10:15
Crown Court Hearings
31.01.2011Crown Court Hearing
Court: Bristol Crown Court (Court No. 9)
Vincent Tabak
For Preliminary Hearing - Case Started - 10:02
Crown Court Hearings
07.09.2011Crown Court Hearing
Court: Bristol Crown Court (Court No. 2)
Vincent Tabak
For Mention - Case Started - 15:05
Crown Court Hearings
20.09.2011Crown Court Hearing
Court: Bristol Crown Court (Court No. 6)
Vincent Tabak
For Mention (All Parties to Attend) - Case Started - 12:01
Crown Court Hearings
04.10.2011Crown Court Hearing
Court: Bristol Crown Court (Court No. 1)
Vincent Tabak
For Trial - Case adjourned until 10:30 - 16:01
Crown Court Hearings
06.10.2011Crown Court Hearing
Court: Bristol Crown Court (Court No. 1)
Vincent Tabak
For Trial - Case adjourned until 10:15 - 15:31
Crown Court Hearings
07.10.2011Crown Court Hearing
Court: Bristol Crown Court (Court No. 1)
Vincent Tabak
Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 10:30 - 15:09
Crown Court Hearings
10.10.2011Crown Court Hearing
Court: Bristol Crown Court (Court No. 1)
Vincent Tabak
Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 10:30 - 16:29
Crown Court Hearings
11.10.2011Crown Court Hearing
Court: Bristol Crown Court (Court No. 1)
Vincent Tabak
Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 10:30 - 16:09
Crown Court Hearings
12.10.2011Crown Court Hearing
Court: Bristol Crown Court (Court No. 1)
Vincent Tabak
Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 10:30 - 15:48
Crown Court Hearings
13.10.2011Crown Court Hearing
Court: Bristol Crown Court (Court No. 1)
Vincent Tabak
Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 10:00 - 16:10
Crown Court Hearings
14.10.2011Crown Court Hearing
Court: Bristol Crown Court (Court No. 1)
Vincent Tabak
Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 10:30 - 15:51
Crown Court Hearings
17.10.2011Crown Court Hearing
Court: Bristol Crown Court (Court No. 1)
Vincent Tabak
Trial (Part Heard) - Legal Submissions - 15:14
Crown Court Hearings
18.10.2011Crown Court Hearing
Court: Bristol Crown Court (Court No. 1)
Vincent Tabak
Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 10:30 - 15:31
Crown Court Hearings
19.10.2011Crown Court Hearing
Court: Bristol Crown Court (Court No. 1)
Vincent Tabak
Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 10:00 - 16:20
Crown Court Hearings
20.10.2011Crown Court Hearing
Court: Bristol Crown Court (Court No. 1)
Vincent Tabak
Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 10:00 - 16:21
Crown Court Hearings
21.10.2011Crown Court Hearing
Court: Bristol Crown Court (Court No. 1)
Vincent Tabak
Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 10:30 - 15:12
Crown Court Hearings
24.10.2011Crown Court Hearing
Court: Bristol Crown Court (Court No. 1)
Vincent Tabak
Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 10:30 - 15:25
Crown Court Hearings
25.10.2011Crown Court Hearing
Court: Bristol Crown Court (Court No. 1)
Vincent Tabak
Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 10:15 - 15:49
Crown Court Hearings
26.10.2011Crown Court Hearing
Court: Bristol Crown Court (Court No. 1)
Vincent Tabak
Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 10:30 - 16:20
Crown Court Hearings
27.10.2011Crown Court Hearing
Court: Bristol Crown Court (Court No. 1)
Vincent Tabak
Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 10:30 - 16:23
Crown Court Hearings
28.10.2011Court Case Result
Defendant: Vincent Tabak
Case No. T20117031
Court: Bristol Crown Court
View Result
Criminal Sentencing Record
28.10.2011Crown Court Hearing
Court: Bristol Crown Court (Court No. 1)
Vincent Tabak
Trial (Part Heard) - Hearing finished for VINCENT TABAK - 15:51
Crown Court Hearings
https://www.thelawpages.com/court-case-timeline/crime/7570/Vincent-Tabak-Bristol-Crown-Court
* Noticeably Missing, is the Court Date of 5th May 2011, ( The date where Dr Vincent Tabak apparently plead guilty
to MANSLAUGHTER!)
* 20th September 2011, all parties to attend... ( What is all parties? and why)
* Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 10:30 - 16:23 (Or similar.. what does that mean?/ that the case didn't
get heard between these times??)
All I see is it appears to be adjourned, rarely does it state case started, and not in October 2011, when this trial was supposed to have taken place..
On the days that Dr Vincent Tabak apparently took to the stand, The Case is started and adjourned between times??
Therefore does this mean, it never happened??
What is the purpose of this case, that makes no sense to me,....
Am I understanding it correctly, does between times mean that was when the adjournment was from? Therefore no trial actually happens..
Was it the media making it all up?
Where they not allowed to print what really took place?
If someone can explain this about between times it would be great....
I still have no answer to the 2 numbers that Dr Vincent Tabak had, these case numbers being mentioned in May 2011
* U20110387
* T20117031
But the Law Pages has NO Mention of this apparent appearance in court...
i did a post about this..... And the media tweeted about this
Rupert Evelyn
@rupertevelyn
Follow Follow @rupertevelyn
More
RT @ASPolice: Jo Yeates Update – Vincent Tabak appears at the Old Bailey (Bristol): Following murder of Jo Yeates ... http://bit.ly/miaFsR
4:22 am - 5 May 2011
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/66100339224489984
Avon&Somerset Police
Verified account
@ASPolice
Follow Follow @ASPolice
More
Joanna Yeates Update – Vincent Tabak appears at the Old Bailey (Bristol): Following the murder of Joanna Yeates ... http://bit.ly/miaFsR
4:18 am - 5 May 2011
https://twitter.com/ASPolice/status/66099493048827904
Rupert Evelyn
@rupertevelyn
Follow Follow @rupertevelyn
More
It's suggested that Jo Yeates accused, Vincent Tabak, will appear at the Old Bailey via videolink. Seeking clarification now.... #yeates
1:41 am - 5 May 2011
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/66060039718309888
Rupert Evelyn
@rupertevelyn
Follow Follow @rupertevelyn
More
Off to Old Bailey for Jo #yeates case. Accused Vincent Tabak on list to enter plea. Court sitting in London as case is following the judge.
12:34 am - 5 May 2011
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/66042946578952193
Mark Williams-Thomas
Verified account
@mwilliamsthomas
Follow Follow @mwilliamsthomas
More
RT @rupertevelyn: Old Bailey list 4 tomorrow Ct 2 plea hearing for Vincent Tabak accused of killing Jo #yeates - http://tinyurl.com/3fb6fv9
1:22 pm - 4 May 2011
https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/65873924977737729
Clio said:
05-04-2011 11:17 AM
Courtserve listing for the Old Bailey for tomorrow (5th May) states
Court 2 - sitting at 10:00 am
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE FIELD
For Mention (Defendant to Attend)
U20110387 Vincent TABAK
Via PVL - Bristol Crown Court Case - T20117031
Wonder why it says "For Mention" rather than "Plea and Case Management"...
http://www.courtserve2.net/courtlist...T110505.01.htm
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg444165#msg444165
MWT's link to the court serve site no longer works, but he and Clio i am assuming must have seen the page when it was live...
Why do the media and A&SPolice tell us about the hearing in May 2011 at the Old Bailey, yet on the Law Pages site, this apparent appearance in court didn't happen... And the rest of the trial appears to have been adjourned also....
But I am sure someone can correct me on the law pages...
Edit... There are now 3 trial numbers for Dr Vincent Tabak, since I found the cause list today..
* U20110387 (5th May 2011)
* T20117031 ( October 2011 trial )
* T20140077 ( Appearance march 2015)
-
How you can say what is the purpose of this case and get away with it astounds me. others are corrected for questioning you but still you continue
A young girl had her life taken away...that is the purpose of THIS case
Just for info purposes only. My friend went through the court process starting last year. The only listing for his case show as plea and trial preparation. There is NOTHING else listed despite him being back in court a few weeks ago
Another more serious case that I am aware of - arson was listed briefly but not in full detail. It is now no longer showing. No conspiracy fake crime or in someones head. She got sentenced! Her crime is real and her victims are still suffering the trauma of it!
-
From The Law pages Website...
These are the timelines for the case against Dr Vincent Tabak ,from the Lawpages website
https://www.thelawpages.com/court-case-timeline/crime/7570/Vincent-Tabak-Bristol-Crown-Court
* Noticeably Missing, is the Court Date of 5th May 2011, ( The date where Dr Vincent Tabak apparently plead guilty
to MANSLAUGHTER!)
* 20th September 2011, all parties to attend... ( What is all parties? and why)
* Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 10:30 - 16:23 (Or similar.. what does that mean?/ that the case didn't
get heard between these times??)
All I see is it appears to be adjourned, rarely does it state case started, and not in October 2011, when this trial was supposed to have taken place..
On the days that Dr Vincent Tabak apparently took to the stand, The Case is started and adjourned between times??
Therefore does this mean, it never happened??
What is the purpose of this case, that makes no sense to me,....
Am I understanding it correctly, does between times mean that was when the adjournment was from? Therefore no trial actually happens..
Was it the media making it all up?
Where they not allowed to print what really took place?
If someone can explain this about between times it would be great....
I still have no answer to the 2 numbers that Dr Vincent Tabak had, these case numbers being mentioned in May 2011
* U20110387
* T20117031
But the Law Pages has NO Mention of this apparent appearance in court...
i did a post about this..... And the media tweeted about this
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/66100339224489984
https://twitter.com/ASPolice/status/66099493048827904
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/66060039718309888
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/66042946578952193
https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/65873924977737729
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg444165#msg444165
MWT's link to the court serve site no longer works, but he and Clio i am assuming must have seen the page when it was live...
Why do the media and A&SPolice tell us about the hearing in May 2011 at the Old Bailey, yet on the Law Pages site, this apparent appearance in court didn't happen... And the rest of the trial appears to have been adjourned also....
But I am sure someone can correct me on the law pages...
Re: Rupert Evelyn, if it’s the same Rupert Evelyn, appears perturbed with Wiltshire police https://mobile.twitter.com/rupertevelyn?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
Re: Mark Williams Thomas - these may be of interest to you
https://annaraccoon.com/2013/05/09/the-family-liaison-officer/
https://annaraccoon.com/2016/02/03/surrey-police-and-lynne-owens/
Clio - no idea, are they a real person?
-
Re: Rupert Evelyn, if it’s the same Rupert Evelyn, appears perturbed with Wiltshire police https://mobile.twitter.com/rupertevelyn?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
Re: Mark Williams Thomas - these may be of interest to you
https://annaraccoon.com/2013/05/09/the-family-liaison-officer/
https://annaraccoon.com/2016/02/03/surrey-police-and-lynne-owens/
Clio - no idea, are they a real person?
No idea if Clio is a real person, but it was at the time the only reference I had in regards to the case numbers....
I have just found something else that is odd....
-
Re: Rupert Evelyn, if it’s the same Rupert Evelyn, appears perturbed with Wiltshire police https://mobile.twitter.com/rupertevelyn?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
Re: Mark Williams Thomas - these may be of interest to you
https://annaraccoon.com/2013/05/09/the-family-liaison-officer/
https://annaraccoon.com/2016/02/03/surrey-police-and-lynne-owens/
Clio - no idea, are they a real person?
In response to Rupert Evelyn, Wiltshire police made a series of tweets:
Wiltshire police:
“This is a complex inquiry requiring detailed, specialist data investigations which takes time. We issued our statement yesterday due to sustained, inaccurate media reporting which had the potential to jeopardise the judicial process & caused further distress to Emiliano’s family.
“Hi Rupert-our investigations, which were highly sensitive, were ongoing until the file was handed to the CPS recently. Once asked by the media over the weekend, a full statement was issued to update media & public. It is not appropriate to proactively publicise all arrests made.
Rupert Evelyn:
“The job of deciding what is or isn’t a news story is decided by editors and journalists who in turn try to gauge what is in the public interest and what the public would be interested in. Editorial decisions taken by detectives are questionable at the very least....
https://mobile.twitter.com/rupertevelyn?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
-
Sorry Jixy, I'm trying to understand what "Vincent Tabak" means at court... that may sound odd, but I do not understand...
Take the charges he faced in March 2015 trial number is T20140077
Court Case(s) Defendant(s) Status(es)
Court 10
T20140077
VINCENT TABAK
For Preliminary Hearing - Case Started 06/02/2014 10:01
Plea and Case Management - Case Started 23/04/2014 11:06
Plea and Case Management - Hearing finished for GLEN MEREDITH 23/04/2014 11:41
Plea and Case Management - Resume 23/04/2014 11:42
Plea and Case Management - Hearing finished for VINCENT TABAK 23/04/2014 12:01
For Mention (All Parties to Attend) - Case Started 26/08/2014 10:09
For Mention (All Parties to Attend) - Hearing finished for VINCENT TABAK 26/08/2014 10:21
For Application to Break Fixture - Case Started 04/09/2014 11:05
Court 2
T20140077
VINCENT TABAK
For Mention (All Parties to Attend) - Case Started 16/02/2015 14:08
For Mention (All Parties to Attend) - Hearing finished for VINCENT TABAK 16/02/2015 14:18
Court 6
T20140077
VINCENT TABAK
For Pre - Trial Review 23/02/2015 10:18
Court 2
T20140077
VINCENT TABAK
For Trial - Case Started 02/03/2015 11:18
For Trial - Resume 02/03/2015 11:29
For Trial - Case adjourned until 14:30 02/03/2015 12:30
http://causelist.org/bristol/T20140077/
I am at a loss... Who is Glen Meredith?? Why is Glen Meredith mentioned in the same breath as Dr Vincent Tabak?
Was it not supposed to be mentioned?? I don't understand..
Is the name "Vincent Tabak a pseudonym?? Are both names "Vincent Tabak and Glen Meredith" pseudonyms??
So you may understand my confusion... I have no idea...
If you are all shouting that "Vincent Tabak" is guilty because its a pseudonym for someone else, maybe i can understand why you all keep saying he is guilty... (You may know a lot more about this than I do)
But why not say who he is... Why am I chasing a name that could be connected to anyone if it is used as a pseudonym..
I have asked if Dr Vincent Tabak is a real person, and this only gives more questions...
http://causelist.org/bristol/02-03-2015/
Edit.. It is strange that Glen Meredith is mentioned in the same breath as Dr Vincent Tabak and all under the same case number T20140077
-
Sorry Jixy, I'm trying to understand what "Vincent Tabak" means at court... that may sound odd, but I do not understand...
Take the charges he faced in March 2015 trial number is T20140077
http://causelist.org/bristol/T20140077/
I am at a loss... Who is Glen Meredith?? Why is Glen Meredith mentioned in the same breath as Dr Vincent Tabak?
Was it not supposed to be mentioned?? I don't understand..
Is the name "Vincent Tabak a pseudonym?? Are both names "Vincent Tabak and Glen Meredith" pseudonyms??
So you may understand my confusion... I have no idea...
If you are all shouting that "Vincent Tabak" is guilty because its a pseudonym for someone else, maybe i can understand why you all keep saying he is guilty... (You may know a lot more about this than I do)
But why not say who he is... Why am I chasing a name that could be connected to anyone if it is used as a pseudonym..
I have asked if Dr Vincent Tabak is a real person, and this only gives more questions...
http://causelist.org/bristol/02-03-2015/
Have you contacted the courts to find out re: Glen Meridith?
-
From The Law pages Website...
These are the timelines for the case against Dr Vincent Tabak ,from the Lawpages website
https://www.thelawpages.com/court-case-timeline/crime/7570/Vincent-Tabak-Bristol-Crown-Court
* Noticeably Missing, is the Court Date of 5th May 2011, ( The date where Dr Vincent Tabak apparently plead guilty
to MANSLAUGHTER!)
* 20th September 2011, all parties to attend... ( What is all parties? and why)
* Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 10:30 - 16:23 (Or similar.. what does that mean?/ that the case didn't
get heard between these times??)
All I see is it appears to be adjourned, rarely does it state case started, and not in October 2011, when this trial was supposed to have taken place..
On the days that Dr Vincent Tabak apparently took to the stand, The Case is started and adjourned between times??
Therefore does this mean, it never happened??
What is the purpose of this case, that makes no sense to me,....
Am I understanding it correctly, does between times mean that was when the adjournment was from? Therefore no trial actually happens..
Was it the media making it all up?
Where they not allowed to print what really took place?
If someone can explain this about between times it would be great....
I still have no answer to the 2 numbers that Dr Vincent Tabak had, these case numbers being mentioned in May 2011
* U20110387
* T20117031
But the Law Pages has NO Mention of this apparent appearance in court...
i did a post about this..... And the media tweeted about this
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/66100339224489984
https://twitter.com/ASPolice/status/66099493048827904
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/66060039718309888
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/66042946578952193
https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/65873924977737729
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg444165#msg444165
MWT's link to the court serve site no longer works, but he and Clio i am assuming must have seen the page when it was live...
Why do the media and A&SPolice tell us about the hearing in May 2011 at the Old Bailey, yet on the Law Pages site, this apparent appearance in court didn't happen... And the rest of the trial appears to have been adjourned also....
But I am sure someone can correct me on the law pages...
What about approaching William Clegg?
Or Rupert Evelyn?
MWT https://trollexposure.wordpress.com/2019/04/16/investigator-mastermind-or-masterfool/
-
Yes..... No disrespect intended, but I do not understand how an Ex Policeman finds out so much, he must have many friends telling him whats happening around and abouts.
https://trollexposure.wordpress.com/2019/04/20/jim-got-fixed-up/
https://trollexposure.wordpress.com/2019/04/14/the-strange-case-of-the-disappearing-investigator/
https://trollexposure.wordpress.com/2019/04/29/explosive-pollards/
https://trollexposure.wordpress.com/2019/04/30/explosive-pollards-ii/
-
How you get away with saying what is the purpose of this case and get away with it astounds me. others are corrected for questioning you but still you continue
A young girl had her life taken away...that is the purpose of THIS case
Just for info purposes only. My friend went through the court process starting last year. The only listing for his case show as plea and trial preparation. There is NOTHING else listed despite him being back in court a few weeks ago
Another more serious case that I am aware of - arson was listed briefly but not in full detail. It is now no longer showing. No conspiracy fake crime or in someones head. She got sentenced! Her crime is real and her victims are still suffering the trauma of it!
Great post, The Law Pages are run on advertisements and only give a brief description about cases, sometimes missing cases altogether. The only way to get a full trial transcript is through the defendant/solicitor ect or the police, it’s only a basic tool for the legal profession. Nine questions belief in the case, yet researches everything negative about the case, never once focusing on real evidence. To prove a MOJ it has to be evidence, evidence supported in a court of Law,
-
I do not understand how an Ex Policeman finds out so much, he must have many friends telling him whats happening around and abouts.
Levitt-ation and other “magic tricks”
Posted by TROLLEXPOSURE
https://trollexposure.wordpress.com/2019/04/29/levitt-ation-and-other-magic-tricks/
-
How you get away with saying what is the purpose of this case and get away with it astounds me. others are corrected for questioning you but still you continue
A young girl had her life taken away...that is the purpose of THIS case
Just for info purposes only. My friend went through the court process starting last year. The only listing for his case show as plea and trial preparation. There is NOTHING else listed despite him being back in court a few weeks ago
Another more serious case that I am aware of - arson was listed briefly but not in full detail. It is now no longer showing. No conspiracy fake crime or in someones head. She got sentenced! Her crime is real and her victims are still suffering the trauma of it!
I had a similar case Jixy, it only gave a brief time and finish, nothing at all about the trial. I asked someone at the time, who had access to more information on the Law Pages and he explained that he couldn’t find anything else about the case either. How I understand the Law Pages, I think it’s a private limited company.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07461426
-
Well, let's not belittle other people for their beliefs----we are all entitled to them. If our views were all the same, there would be nothing to discuss.
And no uk justice forum
-
he must have many friends telling him whats happening around and abouts.
There’s a lot of MWT’s (individuals with similar character traits & behaviours) about https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/old-bailey-trial-suns-chris-pharo-and-jamie-pyatt-begins
-
Have you contacted the courts to find out re: Glen Meridith?
Who writes the causelist, or should I say has access to the causelist??
-
Who writes the causelist, or should I say has access to the causelist??
Here you are Nine, start applying for the whole transcript
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/748226/EX107_0618_static.pdf
-
Here you are Nine, start applying for the whole transcript
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/748226/EX107_0618_static.pdf
I can't afford to get transcripts... they're expensive aren't they??
I explained I looked at this case because I was concerned, I like mrswah was on the forum, that is where my interest in the case first started...
I do not have the ability to do anything, not in a legal sense anyway.. I hoped that someone may look at this case, that is why I asked a certain someone, but their reaction was bizarre to say the least...
I am on my own here fighting blind.... I have not the capabilities to do anything about it.... As I say I am no-one...
I bring what I find, and have cross referenced all I have found, and there I find oddities..
I keep saying I do not know what is real or not anymore with this case.... And that is no disrespect intended...
All I have tried to do, is hope that someone would look at this case, as it is strange to say the least...(imo)
-
Ok The Law Pages arent gospel! Fact.
I have had a few reasons to check over time sometimes its a bit of help other times not at all.
Someone was listed with 2 others on 3 sep entries on different days. The names remain the same. There was NO connection whatsoever between the 3 . They were in the same court room . End of story. Anyone looking would swear the 3 knew each other and their crime included all of them . It didnt
If you look long enough, im sure you can imagine anything!
-
I had a similar case Jixy, it only gave a brief time and finish, nothing at all about the trial. I asked someone at the time, who had access to more information on the Law Pages and he explained that he couldn’t find anything else about the case either. How I understand the Law Pages, I think it’s a private limited company.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07461426
I agree. Its not a full representation of any case!
-
I can't afford to get transcripts... they're expensive aren't they??
I am on my own here fighting blind.... I have not the capabilities to do anything about it.... As I say I am no-one...
on your own fighting blind...when even Tabak isnt doing this
-
I can't afford to get transcripts... they're expensive aren't they??
I explained I looked at this case because I was concerned, I like mrswah was on the forum, that is where my interest in the case first started...
I do not have the ability to do anything, not in a legal sense anyway.. I hoped that someone may look at this case, that is why I asked a certain someone, but their reaction was bizarre to say the least...
I am on my own here fighting blind.... I have not the capabilities to do anything about it.... As I say I am no-one...
I bring what I find, and have cross referenced all I have found, and there I find oddities..
I keep saying I do not know what is real or not anymore with this case.... And that is no disrespect intended...
All I have tried to do, is hope that someone would look at this case, as it is strange to say the least...(imo)
This is very typical of you Nine, posters have gone out their way to post and research why the Law pages isn’t a reliable source and how to get the information you require, you choose again not to discuss the evidence presented and acknowledge the reasons why, but, to focus on you and poor you. I’ve said it before, there is a big difference in wanting to understand sense and nonsense.
-
I can't afford to get transcripts... they're expensive aren't they??
I explained I looked at this case because I was concerned, I like mrswah was on the forum, that is where my interest in the case first started...
I do not have the ability to do anything, not in a legal sense anyway.. I hoped that someone may look at this case, that is why I asked a certain someone, but their reaction was bizarre to say the least...
I am on my own here fighting blind.... I have not the capabilities to do anything about it.... As I say I am no-one...
I bring what I find, and have cross referenced all I have found, and there I find oddities..
I keep saying I do not know what is real or not anymore with this case.... And that is no disrespect intended...
All I have tried to do, is hope that someone would look at this case, as it is strange to say the least...(imo)
These posts of your seem to have become a mix of "Poor ME. I'm so pathetic and incompetent. I only wanted to help" combined with an arrogant disregard of everything that's been said. Had what you posted shown some intelligent content, I fully believe someone here would have supported your theory, and maybe even helped you to further it. Does it not tell you something that no one has taken up the baton on your behalf, the most ironic being Tabak himself who, as he admitted his guilt, appears satisfied with the conclusion?
-
These posts of your seem to have become a mix of "Poor ME. I'm so pathetic and incompetent. I only wanted to help" combined with an arrogant disregard of everything that's been said. Had what you posted shown some intelligent content, I fully believe someone here would have supported your theory, and maybe even helped you to further it. Does it not tell you something that no one has taken up the baton on your behalf, the most ironic being Tabak himself who, as he admitted his guilt, appears satisfied with the conclusion?
Fair enough, if that is what you think....I can only apologise....
-
Fair enough, if that is what you think....I can only apologise....
Mmm. What exactly are you apologizing for?
-
https://trollexposure.wordpress.com/2019/04/20/jim-got-fixed-up/
https://trollexposure.wordpress.com/2019/04/14/the-strange-case-of-the-disappearing-investigator/
https://trollexposure.wordpress.com/2019/04/29/explosive-pollards/
https://trollexposure.wordpress.com/2019/04/30/explosive-pollards-ii/
Coveter pf celebrity!
-
Causelist Bristol T20140077
Court Case(s) Defendant(s) Status(es)
Court 10
T20140077
VINCENT TABAK
For Preliminary Hearing - Case Started 06/02/2014 10:01
Plea and Case Management - Case Started 23/04/2014 11:06
Plea and Case Management - Hearing finished for GLEN MEREDITH 23/04/2014 11:41
Plea and Case Management - Resume 23/04/2014 11:42
Plea and Case Management - Hearing finished for VINCENT TABAK 23/04/2014 12:01
For Mention (All Parties to Attend) - Case Started 26/08/2014 10:09
For Mention (All Parties to Attend) - Hearing finished for VINCENT TABAK 26/08/2014 10:21
For Application to Break Fixture - Case Started 04/09/2014 11:05
Court 2
T20140077
VINCENT TABAK
For Mention (All Parties to Attend) - Case Started 16/02/2015 14:08
For Mention (All Parties to Attend) - Hearing finished for VINCENT TABAK 16/02/2015 14:18
Court 6
T20140077
VINCENT TABAK
For Pre - Trial Review 23/02/2015 10:18
Court 2
T20140077
VINCENT TABAK
For Trial - Case Started 02/03/2015 11:18
For Trial - Resume 02/03/2015 11:29
For Trial - Case adjourned until 14:30 02/03/2015 12:30
http://causelist.org/bristol/T20140077/
For Trial - Case adjourned until 14:30 02/03/2015 12:30
That is the last item stated on the case against Dr Vincent Tabak, the case against him in March 2015
The case is adjourned, nothing about sentencing, nothing about being guilty, nothing about entering a guilty plea...
Did the media just tell us that he was found guilty? or that he pleaded guilty??
There appears to be no conclusion.... There is also his sentence trial number missing from the cause list information, I believe that trial number starts with the letter 'S' for sentencing..... Maybe someone could explain why there is no sentencing on the cause list or why it appears to finish on adjournment...
___________________________________________________
We have this tweet:
Western Daily Press
Verified account
@WesternDaily
Vincent Tabak in court on child pornography charges http://bit.ly/1a645eC #Bristol
11:22 pm - 14 Jan 2014
https://twitter.com/WesternDaily/status/423354479174377472
Somerset News
@NewsSomerset
Follow Follow @NewsSomerset
More
Somerset Latest: Western Daily Press published Vincent Tabak in court in Bristol on child pornography charges:... http://bit.ly/1iSRMSE
12:19 am - 15 Jan 2014
https://twitter.com/NewsSomerset/status/423368776365518848
Both lead to this:
https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/Vincent-Tabak-court-Bristol-child-pornography/story-20444380-detail/story.html
Of course they are no longer available to view....
Daniel Evans
@danielevans28
Follow Follow @danielevans28
More
Vincent Tabak back in court (videolink) accused of child porn offences on January 15....
4:37 am - 3 Jan 2014
https://twitter.com/danielevans28/status/419085119530340352
I believe he is now head of sport at Somerset live/ he may have been before, i wouldn't know...
But videolink?? where has this info come from?? The causelist for that date doesn't show Dr Vincent Tabak being listed: Neither does the cause list I have posted show January 2014 as a date at anytime.....
http://causelist.org/bristol/03-01-2014/
http://causelist.org/bristol/14-01-2014/
http://causelist.org/bristol/15-01-2014/
But looking at the date of said tweet, he has written it on the 3rd January 2014, that Dr Vincent Tabak is back in court for offences on the 15th January... Now what year are they supposed to be that these offences were committed?? He has a partial date....
Is he saying Dr Vincent Tabak will appear in court on the 15th January 'OR' that the 15th January was when Dr Vincent Tabak had been viewing/downloading the images??
Daniel Evans
@danielevans28
Follow Follow @danielevans28
More
Vincent Tabak in Bristol Magistrates' Court via video link, later this month http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Vincent-Tabak-court-Bristol-month/story-20396977-detail/story.html …
4:59 am - 3 Jan 2014
https://twitter.com/danielevans28/status/419090714769637376
His tweet has changed minutes later and then we talk of Dr Vincent Tabak being in court later in January... Of course the link to the Bristol post is no more... for why i cannot say... And who told him it would be via video link??
But I think the best tweet has to go to our favourite Dutch TV person
Alice van der Plas
@AlicevanderPlas
#ob Vincent Tabak weer voor rechter: Vincent Tabak in court in Bristol on child pornography charges http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/Vincent-Tabak-court-Bristol-child-pornography/story-20444380-detail/story.html …
2:46 am - 15 Jan 2014
https://twitter.com/AlicevanderPlas/status/423405856491700224
( I used a translator online and her Dutch says'#ob Vincent Tabak again before the judge:")
She too has been given the thumbs up about an appearance at court that didn't appear happen.... She I believe is the only Dutch TV person that covered the murder of Joanna Yeates and Dr Vincent Tabak's arrest.. She had the exclusive before many major news outlets here in the UK...
Or has she just searched twitter? Because 15th January is the date she tweeted, that being the same partial date of another twitter media person....
Looking at the causelist Dr Vincent Tabak had not appeared in Court in January 2014, so where have these twitter media accounts got their information from is a puzzle...
The point being.... If the media have stated that Dr Vincent Tabak was in court in January 2014 and the causelist tells us differently, then why should we believe the apparent Child images charges and apparent admission of guilt, when the causelist does not conclude, it finishes on an adjournment...
Does this bring into question whether or not the media stated that Dr Vincent Plead Guilty to Manslaughter in May 2011 was accurate and true??
The cause list doesn't go that far back... So I cannot find that info out... But I can question what I can see... And try to understand where the info came from in the first place.....
-
The Causelist
There's me thinking that they had some clout and why??
I have no idea, I just assumed that they must be ligit.... Well I'll rephrase that, I thought they were from some government body, but it could be any Tom, Dick or Harry whom set this up...(imo)
http://causelist.org/
I tried searching companies house for Causelist
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/search?q=causelist
One company there whom may have changed their name from causelist..
But I do not know what or whom 'Causelist" is... Or whom runs the website.
I would have expected the cause list to come from here...
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/court-lists
I get baffled by it all... Whom writes what and whether or not this information is accurate and true...
As I say, I do not know what is real or not with this case... And the circles continue...
Crock and shit spring to mind at the minute....
-
The Causelist
There's me thinking that they had some clout and why??
I have no idea, I just assumed that they must be ligit.... Well I'll rephrase that, I thought they were from some government body, but it could be any Tom, Dick or Harry whom set this up...(imo)
http://causelist.org/
I tried searching companies house for Causelist
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/search?q=causelist
One company there whom may have changed their name from causelist..
But I do not know what or whom 'Causelist" is... Or whom runs the website.
I would have expected the cause list to come from here...
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/court-lists
I get baffled by it all... Whom writes what and whether or not this information is accurate and true...
As I say, I do not know what is real or not with this case... And the circles continue...
Crock and shit spring to mind at the minute....
Here we go again, Groundhog Day 😂😂😂
You sound more and more like Leonora with every post 😉
-
Here we go again, Groundhog Day 😂😂😂
You sound more and more like Leonora with every post 😉
Well I am not leonora and leonora appears to have gone quiet...
Why you think I sound like leonora is beyond me...
-
Well I am not leonora and leonora appears to have gone quiet...
Why you think I sound like leonora is beyond me...
I have no idea who is Leonora, but you mention of "crock and shit" has the resonance of projection about it.
-
Everything that was apparently stated at trial, came from the media in one way or another....
I just didn't know which media.... If we add in The Dutch media, the puzzle of information then becomes known....
This has been translated.... not by me..
Crime blog: Vincent T. with the t of tobacco
The cramped handling of the last names of suspects in the Dutch media continues to lead to hilarious situations. This can be seen from the stories about the suspected murder architect Vincent T. (32) from Veghel. He has been living in Bristol with his girlfriend for some time.
a.trompers Andre Trompers 21-01-11, 18:17 Last update: 3/24/17, 11:09 PM Source: destem
There he was arrested yesterday (Thursday, January 20) on suspicion of involvement in the murder of his neighbor Joanna Yeates (25). The young woman was found on Christmas Day in a ditch near Bristol. Strangled. The British police are said to have indications that Joanna's corpse was in the back of Vincent's car for some time after it disappeared on December 17. The Dutchman is stuck and his home has been extensively investigated.
https://www.bndestem.nl/overig/misdaadblog-vincent-t-met-de-t-van-tabak~aacbebca/
The point of quoting this, is it mentioning that Joanna Yeates was in the boot of Dr Vincent Tabak's car, and not only that, but it had apparently been there for some time....
How did this person whom wrote this article get the information that Joanna Yeates body had been in Dr Vincent Tabak's car? We knew nothing of this apparent part of the case until trial.... yet they know this info....
I have stated many times, that I believe the information at the trial we have heard about of Dr Vincent Tabak had been mentioned in the media before hand... So the story on the stand was just that.... a collaberation of media stories... And not just from this country...(imo)
Edit...
BN DeStem
@BNDeStem
Vincent T. bekent doodslag Britse buurvrouw http://j.mp/lcfA6Q
2:47 AM - 5 May 2011
Translation:
@BNDeStem
Vincent T. confesses murder of British neighbor http://j.mp/lcfA6Q
https://twitter.com/BNDeStem/status/66076502374105088
And look the page leads nowhere...
https://www.bndestem.nl/regio/8640507/Vincent-T-bekent-doodslag-Britse-buurvrouw.ece
Is this the origin of Dr Vincent Tabak's apparent confession/ guilty plea??
-
I have no idea who is Leonora, but you mention of "crock and shit" has the resonance of projection about it.
I know whom I have been lead to believe leonora is, but I cannot state it as fact.... So crock and shit could be apt... I have no idea..
-
Omroep Brabant whom Alice Van der plas works for/ appears on their programs...
Omroep Brabant
Verified account
@omroepbrabant
@mielsvs Ben jij beschikbaar voor een gesprek (geen interview) over Vincent T.? Zo ja, mail naar rob.van.kaathoven@omroepbrabant.nl. Dank!
2:25 AM - 21 Jan 2011
Translation... not by me..
@mielsvs Are you available for a conversation (not an interview) about Vincent T.? If yes, mail to rob.van.kaathoven@omroepbrabant.nl. Thanks!
https://twitter.com/omroepbrabant/status/28397785061523456
In relation to what?? And does he have any connection to Dr Vincent Tabak?? why random tweet this guy??
Omroep Brabant
Verified account
@omroepbrabant
Follow Follow @omroepbrabant
More
Vincent T. weer bij rechter voor moord Yeates http://tinyurl.com/6h7vodo
9:01 PM - 3 May 2011
Translation:
Vincent T. again in court for Yeates murder http://tinyurl.com/6h7vodo
https://twitter.com/omroepbrabant/status/65626970800656384
The tiny url leads to this
https://www.omroepbrabant.nl/nieuws/129341/Engelse-buurvrouw-nodigde-Vincent-T-uit
But how on the 3rd May 2011 are this media outlet tweeting about Dr Vincent Tabak appearing in court...
The link leads to this dated Wednesday, but the tweet was on Tuesday... She must have been following Rupert Evelyn... thats my conclusion anyway....
WEDNESDAY, MAY 4, 2011, 5:58 AM
Vincent T. case postponed to Thursday
BRISTOL - Vincent T. from Veghel, who has been charged with the murder of his neighbor Joanna Yeates in Bristol, England, must not appear again on Wednesday, but Thursday. He would initially go to court on Wednesday, but the hearing was postponed one day.
According to British media, this is a session in which the 32-year-old suspect says whether he is guilty or innocent and in which the course of the trial is discussed. A reporter from the BBC expects that T. himself will not be present at the session, but that he can follow everything via a video connection.
The provisional date for handling the case would be October 4. The lawsuit was originally scheduled for April 29, but in connection with the marriage of Prince William and Kate, the case was moved to May. The case attracts a lot of media attention in England.
Christmas Day
T. is suspected of killing 25-year-old Yeates in December. Her body was found on Christmas Day on a country road a few miles from her home in Bristol. She had been missing for eight days. The police arrested T. on January 20 during a house search at his home in Bristol.
Yeates died as a result of strangulation. According to the police, there are no indications that the victim has been raped, but a sexual motive is not excluded.
According to British media, this is a session in which the 32-year-old suspect says whether he is guilty or innocent
Was that the case?? Or had they jumped the gun... Thought it was just a for mention hearing....
Rupert Evelyn tweeting on Tuesday also....
Rupert Evelyn
@rupertevelyn
Vincent Tabak, charged with killing Jo Yeates, due for plea hearing at Old Bailey on Thurs. Not in Bristol tomorrow as 1st planned. #yeates
2:37 pm - 3 May 2011
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/65530458158546944
Rupert knows on the 3rd May 2011 also...
#VincentT. bekent #moord op #Joanna Yeates. Zie zometeen omroepbrabant.nl
2:38 AM - 5 May 2011
Translation
#VincentT. confesses # murder to #Joanna Yeates. See next omroepbrabant.nl
2:38 AM - May 5, 2011
https://twitter.com/omroepbrabant/status/66074322174877696
Looks like everyone was following the wrong twitter account... these guys were streets ahead of everyone else.... @)(++(*
-
http://causelist.org/bristol/T20140077/
For Trial - Case adjourned until 14:30 02/03/2015 12:30
That is the last item stated on the case against Dr Vincent Tabak, the case against him in March 2015
The case is adjourned, nothing about sentencing, nothing about being guilty, nothing about entering a guilty plea...
Did the media just tell us that he was found guilty? or that he pleaded guilty??
There appears to be no conclusion.... There is also his sentence trial number missing from the cause list information, I believe that trial number starts with the letter 'S' for sentencing..... Maybe someone could explain why there is no sentencing on the cause list or why it appears to finish on adjournment...
___________________________________________________
We have this tweet:
https://twitter.com/WesternDaily/status/423354479174377472
https://twitter.com/NewsSomerset/status/423368776365518848
Both lead to this:
https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/Vincent-Tabak-court-Bristol-child-pornography/story-20444380-detail/story.html
Of course they are no longer available to view....
https://twitter.com/danielevans28/status/419085119530340352
I believe he is now head of sport at Somerset live/ he may have been before, i wouldn't know...
But videolink?? where has this info come from?? The causelist for that date doesn't show Dr Vincent Tabak being listed: Neither does the cause list I have posted show January 2014 as a date at anytime.....
http://causelist.org/bristol/03-01-2014/
http://causelist.org/bristol/14-01-2014/
http://causelist.org/bristol/15-01-2014/
But looking at the date of said tweet, he has written it on the 3rd January 2014, that Dr Vincent Tabak is back in court for offences on the 15th January... Now what year are they supposed to be that these offences were committed?? He has a partial date....
Is he saying Dr Vincent Tabak will appear in court on the 15th January 'OR' that the 15th January was when Dr Vincent Tabak had been viewing/downloading the images??
https://twitter.com/danielevans28/status/419090714769637376
His tweet has changed minutes later and then we talk of Dr Vincent Tabak being in court later in January... Of course the link to the Bristol post is no more... for why i cannot say... And who told him it would be via video link??
But I think the best tweet has to go to our favourite Dutch TV person
https://twitter.com/AlicevanderPlas/status/423405856491700224
( I used a translator online and her Dutch says'#ob Vincent Tabak again before the judge:")
She too has been given the thumbs up about an appearance at court that didn't appear happen.... She I believe is the only Dutch TV person that covered the murder of Joanna Yeates and Dr Vincent Tabak's arrest.. She had the exclusive before many major news outlets here in the UK...
Or has she just searched twitter? Because 15th January is the date she tweeted, that being the same partial date of another twitter media person....
Looking at the causelist Dr Vincent Tabak had not appeared in Court in January 2014, so where have these twitter media accounts got their information from is a puzzle...
The point being.... If the media have stated that Dr Vincent Tabak was in court in January 2014 and the causelist tells us differently, then why should we believe the apparent Child images charges and apparent admission of guilt, when the causelist does not conclude, it finishes on an adjournment...
Does this bring into question whether or not the media stated that Dr Vincent Plead Guilty to Manslaughter in May 2011 was accurate and true??
The cause list doesn't go that far back... So I cannot find that info out... But I can question what I can see... And try to understand where the info came from in the first place.....
No wonder you're confused - you have built your misguided theories around Twitter %56&
-
The Causelist
There's me thinking that they had some clout and why??
I have no idea, I just assumed that they must be ligit.... Well I'll rephrase that, I thought they were from some government body, but it could be any Tom, Dick or Harry whom set this up...(imo)
http://causelist.org/
I tried searching companies house for Causelist
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/search?q=causelist
One company there whom may have changed their name from causelist..
But I do not know what or whom 'Causelist" is... Or whom runs the website.
I would have expected the cause list to come from here...
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/court-lists
I get baffled by it all... Whom writes what and whether or not this information is accurate and true...
As I say, I do not know what is real or not with this case... And the circles continue...
Crock and shit spring to mind at the minute....
If they were from some government body the web address would end .gov. You lead yourself down the wrong path by taking in any piece of crap on the internet and weaving into your now confused theory. Asking questions about why someone tweeted or posted something on Facebook. If you search for crap, that's what you'll find.
-
Everything that was apparently stated at trial, came from the media in one way or another....
I just didn't know which media.... If we add in The Dutch media, the puzzle of information then becomes known....
This has been translated.... not by me..
https://www.bndestem.nl/overig/misdaadblog-vincent-t-met-de-t-van-tabak~aacbebca/
The point of quoting this, is it mentioning that Joanna Yeates was in the boot of Dr Vincent Tabak's car, and not only that, but it had apparently been there for some time....
How did this person whom wrote this article get the information that Joanna Yeates body had been in Dr Vincent Tabak's car? We knew nothing of this apparent part of the case until trial.... yet they know this info....
I have stated many times, that I believe the information at the trial we have heard about of Dr Vincent Tabak had been mentioned in the media before hand... So the story on the stand was just that.... a collaberation of media stories... And not just from this country...(imo)
Edit...
Translation:
https://twitter.com/BNDeStem/status/66076502374105088
And look the page leads nowhere...
https://www.bndestem.nl/regio/8640507/Vincent-T-bekent-doodslag-Britse-buurvrouw.ece
Is this the origin of Dr Vincent Tabak's apparent confession/ guilty plea??
No it didn't!
-
If they were from some government body the web address would end .gov. You lead yourself down the wrong path by taking in any piece of crap on the internet and weaving into your now confused theory. Asking questions about why someone tweeted or posted something on Facebook. If you search for crap, that's what you'll find.
Yes... Crock and Shit springing to mind, seems to be the correct conclusion!
Edit..... All my time wasted... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d57CjU62qYs
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPvRsLWlDXw
-
Yes... Crock and Shit springing to mind, seems to be the correct conclusion!
Edit..... All my time wasted... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d57CjU62qYs
Is it not possible for you to see that by continuing to post what's been Twittered, Tweeted or had an airing on Facebook, you're contributing to that Crock?
-
Is it not possible for you to see that by continuing to post what's been Twittered, Tweeted or had an airing on Facebook, you're contributing to that Crock?
Oh, The irony.... @)(++(*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DELJdPuobQ
Edit...
I Believe
Ian Dury
I believe in bottle banks
And beauty from within
I believe in saying thanks
And fresh air on the skin
I believe in healthy walks
As tonic for the feet
I believe in serious talks
And just enough to eat
That's what I believe
Although it seems na've
I believe in Santa Claus
To give is to receive
That's what I believe
I believe in 'bob-a-job'
And life in outer space
I believe an open gob
Does nothing for your face
I believe in being nice
In spite of what you think
I believe in good advice
And not too much to drink
That's what I believe
Surprising as it seems
I believe that happiness
Is well within our dreams
That's what I believe
Although it seems na've
I believe that peace and love
Are there to be achieved
I believe in being fair
St. Pancras station from the air
I believe in taking care
Moonshine sparkles in your hair
I believe in being true
In everything you try to do
I believe in me and you
I hope you share my point of view
I believe in being kind
Especially when it's hard
I believe an open mind
Can show a fine regard
I believe that manners make
A person good to know
I believe in birthday cake
And going with the flow
That's what I believe
As strange as it may be
I believe this attitude
Is good enough for me
That's what I believe
Although it seems na've
I believe it simplifies
The tangled web we weave
That's what I believe...
-
Well I am not leonora and leonora appears to have gone quiet...
Why you think I sound like leonora is beyond me...
Well every forum I’ve been on members have a username, you don’t appear to want one, so what do we Address your highness with then?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPvRsLWlDXw
Thank-you. It had a Chas and Dave feel about it and appealed to my sense of humour. Good piano work.
-
Well every forum I’ve been on members have a username, you don’t appear to want one, so what do we Address your highness with then?
Im sure Mrswah would soon pull me up for calling you DOTTY, although it’s very appropriate 😂😂😂
-
Im sure Mrswah would soon pull me up for calling you DOTTY, although it’s very appropriate 😂😂😂
You can call me Dotty if you choose, It doesn't offend me ... 8(0(*
Anyone can decide what they wish to call me, it's up to them... @)(++(*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJ7Xz8ea28o
-
Oh, The irony.... @)(++(*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DELJdPuobQ
Edit...
I Believe
Ian Dury
I believe in bottle banks
And beauty from within
I believe in saying thanks
And fresh air on the skin
I believe in healthy walks
As tonic for the feet
I believe in serious talks
And just enough to eat
That's what I believe
Although it seems na've
I believe in Santa Claus
To give is to receive
That's what I believe
I believe in 'bob-a-job'
And life in outer space
I believe an open gob
Does nothing for your face
I believe in being nice
In spite of what you think
I believe in good advice
And not too much to drink
That's what I believe
Surprising as it seems
I believe that happiness
Is well within our dreams
That's what I believe
Although it seems na've
I believe that peace and love
Are there to be achieved
I believe in being fair
St. Pancras station from the air
I believe in taking care
Moonshine sparkles in your hair
I believe in being true
In everything you try to do
I believe in me and you
I hope you share my point of view
I believe in being kind
Especially when it's hard
I believe an open mind
Can show a fine regard
I believe that manners make
A person good to know
I believe in birthday cake
And going with the flow
That's what I believe
As strange as it may be
I believe this attitude
Is good enough for me
That's what I believe
Although it seems na've
I believe it simplifies
The tangled web we weave
That's what I believe...
But whilst you congratulate yourself on a Madonna-like kindness and open-mind about a convicted murderer, you're anything BUT when it comes to Joanna and her parents. In fact, you've been quite dismissive.
-
But whilst you congratulate yourself on a Madonna-like kindness and open-mind about a convicted murderer, you're anything BUT when it comes to Joanna and her parents. In fact, you've been quite dismissive.
I wasn't congratulating myself... I was taking the Piss out of myself actually..... . @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
You'd have to look back at my posts to see the connection....
Believe and I ... spring to mind..
-
I wasn't congratulating myself... I was taking the Piss out of myself actually..... . @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
You'd have to look back at my posts to see the connection....
Believe and I ... spring to mind..
Nonetheless, by extending compassion to a self confessed murderer, you deny it to his victims.
-
"Bed O. Roses No. 9"
I've done a lot of things I wished I hadn't
There's other things I never hope to do
But sliding off the map in both directions
Is the sorry mess I made of knowing you
I've seen a lot of things I wished I hadn't
There's other things I never hope to see
But no one left alive could paint the picture
Of the mess that knowing you has made of me
I knew it wouldn't be a bed of roses
I've seen the bloody grind that love entails
But one door shuts and then another closes
And now I'm on a bloody bed of nails
Been told a lot of things I wished I hadn't
There's other things I never want to know
But sliding off the scale of least remembrance
Is the way you chose to tell me where to go
I've been a lot of things I wished I hadn't
There's other things I never hope to be
But no one left alive could tell the story
Of what I was once you'd got done with me
I knew it might turn out to be a schtumer
Nothing would surprise me anymore
You robbed me of my natural sense of humour
And then you nailed my bollocks to the door
I knew it might turn out to be a schtumer
Nothing would surprise me anymore
You robbed me of my natural sense of humour
And nailed my poor cojones to the door
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFn57XA0I48
-
"Bed O. Roses No. 9"
I've done a lot of things I wished I hadn't
There's other things I never hope to do
But sliding off the map in both directions
Is the sorry mess I made of knowing you
I've seen a lot of things I wished I hadn't
There's other things I never hope to see
But no one left alive could paint the picture
Of the mess that knowing you has made of me
I knew it wouldn't be a bed of roses
I've seen the bloody grind that love entails
But one door shuts and then another closes
And now I'm on a bloody bed of nails
Been told a lot of things I wished I hadn't
There's other things I never want to know
But sliding off the scale of least remembrance
Is the way you chose to tell me where to go
I've been a lot of things I wished I hadn't
There's other things I never hope to be
But no one left alive could tell the story
Of what I was once you'd got done with me
I knew it might turn out to be a schtumer
Nothing would surprise me anymore
You robbed me of my natural sense of humour
And then you nailed my bollocks to the door
I knew it might turn out to be a schtumer
Nothing would surprise me anymore
You robbed me of my natural sense of humour
And nailed my poor cojones to the door
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFn57XA0I48
if any of us posted like you then our posts would be deleted Maybe its all in the .... or ----
-
"Bed O. Roses No. 9"
I've done a lot of things I wished I hadn't
There's other things I never hope to do
But sliding off the map in both directions
Is the sorry mess I made of knowing you
I've seen a lot of things I wished I hadn't
There's other things I never hope to see
But no one left alive could paint the picture
Of the mess that knowing you has made of me
I knew it wouldn't be a bed of roses
I've seen the bloody grind that love entails
But one door shuts and then another closes
And now I'm on a bloody bed of nails
Been told a lot of things I wished I hadn't
There's other things I never want to know
But sliding off the scale of least remembrance
Is the way you chose to tell me where to go
I've been a lot of things I wished I hadn't
There's other things I never hope to be
But no one left alive could tell the story
Of what I was once you'd got done with me
I knew it might turn out to be a schtumer
Nothing would surprise me anymore
You robbed me of my natural sense of humour
And then you nailed my bollocks to the door
I knew it might turn out to be a schtumer
Nothing would surprise me anymore
You robbed me of my natural sense of humour
And nailed my poor cojones to the door
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFn57XA0I48
A metaphor for your attachment to Tabak, perhaps?
-
if any of us posted like you then our posts would be deleted Maybe its all in the .... or ----
A metaphor for your attachment to Tabak, perhaps?
Maybe there are things within said lyric's that apply to me in my life... what ever interpretation you choose to make from my post.. ..
And you have no idea whether or not I have been personally directly been affected by a Murder... yet you assume so much about my intentions...
-
I dont actually give your life or circumstances any thought whatsoever. I just find your lack of respect for a young woman who had her life taken for no reason quite sick .
-
I dont actually give your life or circumstances any thought whatsoever. I just find your lack of respect for a young woman who had her life taken for no reason quite sick .
Thank you Jixy..... always a pleasure....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFn57XA0I48
-
&^&*% &^&*% &^&*% &^&*% &^&*% &^&*% &^&*% ^*&& ^*&& ^*&& ^*&& ^*&&
-
8(*(
You have a habit of presuming what people are thinking and doing including Tabak. You seem to be able to give it all out but not take back any responses you sulk... then our comments get deleted
-
8(*(
You have a habit of presuming what people are thinking and doing including Tabak. You seem to be able to give it all out but not take back any responses you sulk... then our comments get deleted
I knew it might turn out to be a schtumer
Nothing would surprise me anymore
You robbed me of my natural sense of humour
And nailed my poor cojones to the door
-
I think I was correct...... Crock and shit spring to mind ....
The END......
-
Yes... Crock and Shit springing to mind, seems to be the correct conclusion!
Edit..... All my time wasted... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d57CjU62qYs
But you're the one wasting it because you just don't think things through! How could you wonder it the site was a government site? It has adverts on it and doesn't have a GOV address!
-
Maybe there are things within said lyric's that apply to me in my life... what ever interpretation you choose to make from my post.. ..
And you have no idea whether or not I have been personally directly been affected by a Murder... yet you assume so much about my intentions...
Not sure what your intentions are BUT your posts reveal quite a lot about your view of Tabak (Dr Vincent Tabak that is .....). You have a need to show him respect.
-
George Bernard Shaw - “Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.
-
I think I was correct...... Crock and shit spring to mind ....
The END......
By the way ...... it's crock OF shit 8((()*/ but you are right the notion that Tabak is innocent is a total crock of shit!
-
Maybe there are things within said lyric's that apply to me in my life... what ever interpretation you choose to make from my post.. ..
And you have no idea whether or not I have been personally directly been affected by a Murder... yet you assume so much about my intentions...
I imagine that are things about the lyrics which apply to many lives. As for what you say I "assume" I'm simply using, as a guideline, the rule of unintended consequences. You clearly missed the question mark.
-
&^&*% &^&*% &^&*% &^&*% &^&*% &^&*% &^&*% ^*&& ^*&& ^*&& ^*&& ^*&&
Is this a promise?
-
If ever there were a song for ..... this has to be it. @)(++(*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQgYn23Xvck
-
You can call me Dotty if you choose, It doesn't offend me ... 8(0(*
Anyone can decide what they wish to call me, it's up to them... @)(++(*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJ7Xz8ea28o
Ok, I suggest we call you Billy then. It’s one of my favourite films about someone’s fantasy world
-
By the way ...... it's crock OF shit 8((()*/ but you are right the notion that Tabak is innocent is a total crock of shit!
Yes Crock of Shit is exactly what it is.... websites taken down left right and centre....
Sorry, the website live-news.sky.com cannot be found.
All those tweets apparently from all those news people, mentioning DC Mark Luther etc....
http://live-news.sky.com/Event/Live_Updates_Vincent_Tabak_Trial_Continues
10:18 AM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Officer Martin Faithfull statement. He was shown the body and caught a glimpse of denim. He closed the road.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9448.msg462615#msg462615
Crock of Shit is exactly what I am saying.... Wasted so much time on an invisible man it would appear....
So I'm not surprised you all think i'm a lunatic!.... I must be.... *%87 *%87 *%87
-
Last reason I believe it is all not what it seems,
I'll go back to my post.....
As for news, the Express publishes its brief interview with Mr Tabak:
“I only come back here at weekends for now with all the upset. I wasn’t here on the night she went missing, I was away and I don’t know anyone who saw or heard anything. It’s very upsetting that something like this has happened. This is a nice, safe, friendly area.
“The feeling around here is not a nice one now, it’s as if the area has been blighted by what happened. We are all very sad about it, and although I didn’t know Miss Yeates, I am deeply saddened by what happened.”
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg454263#msg454263
Now The Express are the only Newspaper to get an exclusive interview apparently with Dr Vincent Tabak.... A world wide exclusive.... Bragging rights galour....
This link shows us an image of Dr Vincent Tabak
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/224746/Johansson-focused-on-directorial-debut#ixzz1BqEnhNUJ
(https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/1/285x214/224746_1.jpg)
Underneath said image it says..
Vincent Tabak gave his only press interview to the Sunday Express
But the link leads to a different story even though the image is there with the:" Vincent Tabak gave his only press interview to the Sunday Express"..
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/224746/Johansson-focused-on-directorial-debut#ixzz1BqEnhNUJ
The Express on twitter never mentions this interview.....
The most important interview of someones career, and they fail to mention it again... or even tweet about it... This interview of exclusivity is even failed to be mentioned at trial...
Failed to be mentioned how Dr Vincent Tabak apparently lied in an interview with the express newspaper, telling them he was not even here at that time....
Even CJ tells us he saw Dr Vincent Tabak that weekend, I have linked the video where he states that he spoke to him twice....
From the program Countdown to Murder... at 27:41 of the video
As I was on my way out to the gym, quite by chance, erm I met Vincent Tabak and we had a very brief conversation, erm and he seemed to be in quite an elated mood and was saying what a very beautiful evening it was erm, this light dusting of snow, erm thats all the conversation consisted of...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg523262#msg523262
Here you have CJ seeing Dr Vincent Tabak on that weekend... The express telling us they had an exclusive interview with Dr Vincent Tabak and he was away....
Fodder for the prosecution, yet they fail to have this recorded interview with The Express at trial, proving apparently Dr Vincent Tabak is a liar...
Where was The Express's exclusive.... We Caught Tabak in a Lie!
A story they could have run after the trial... Come on... we know how the papers like a good exclusive with a killer.... They've done it for years...
So why the silence..... ???
Makes no sense...! ever.....
Edit https://twitter.com/search?q=%40daily_express%20tabak&src=typd
-
Last reason I believe it is all not what it seems,
I'll go back to my post.....
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg454263#msg454263
Now The Express are the only Newspaper to get an exclusive interview apparently with Dr Vincent Tabak.... A world wide exclusive.... Bragging rights galour....
This link shows us an image of Dr Vincent Tabak
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/224746/Johansson-focused-on-directorial-debut#ixzz1BqEnhNUJ
(https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/1/285x214/224746_1.jpg)
Underneath said image it says..
Vincent Tabak gave his only press interview to the Sunday Express
But the link leads to a different story even though the image is there with the:" Vincent Tabak gave his only press interview to the Sunday Express"..
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/224746/Johansson-focused-on-directorial-debut#ixzz1BqEnhNUJ
The Express on twitter never mentions this interview.....
The most important interview of someones career, and they fail to mention it again... or even tweet about it... This interview of exclusivity is even failed to be mentioned at trial...
Failed to be mentioned how Dr Vincent Tabak apparently lied in an interview with the express newspaper, telling them he was not even here at that time....
Even CJ tells us he saw Dr Vincent Tabak that weekend, I have linked the video where he states that he spoke to him twice....
From the program Countdown to Murder... at 27:41 of the video
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg523262#msg523262
Here you have CJ seeing Dr Vincent Tabak on that weekend... The express telling us they had an exclusive interview with Dr Vincent Tabak and he was away....
Fodder for the prosecution, yet they fail to have this recorded interview with The Express at trial, proving apparently Dr Vincent Tabak is a liar...
Where was The Express's exclusive.... We Caught Tabak in a Lie!
A story they could have run after the trial... Come on... we know how the papers like a good exclusive with a killer.... They've done it for years...
So why the silence..... ???
Makes no sense...! ever.....
Edit https://twitter.com/search?q=%40daily_express%20tabak&src=typd
Actually, it probably says more about the integrity of the Express -and other publications?- than anything else. You're probably aware, by now, that you're flogging a dead'un?
-
Actually, it probably says more about the integrity of the Express -and other publications?- than anything else. You're probably aware, by now, that you're flogging a dead'un?
???
-
Yes Crock of Shit is exactly what it is.... websites taken down left right and centre....
All those tweets apparently from all those news people, mentioning DC Mark Luther etc....
http://live-news.sky.com/Event/Live_Updates_Vincent_Tabak_Trial_Continues
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9448.msg462615#msg462615
Crock of Shit is exactly what I am saying.... Wasted so much time on an invisible man it would appear....
So I'm not surprised you all think i'm a lunatic!.... I must be.... *%87 *%87 *%87
Do you think that web pages are forever?
BY the way, Tabak isn't invisible, his ugly mug is all over the internet!
-
Do you think that web pages are forever?
BY the way, Tabak isn't invisible, his ugly mug is all over the internet!
Yes some websites are not maintained, some websites are deleted....
As for Dr Vincent Tabak, I am still in 2 minds as to whether he is real or not.... And what information about this case is real or not....
As has been stated before, people have agenda's... maybe that what this has been about, and why no-one really talks to me about it....
I have no idea anymore... I have exhausted most avenues... I wonder if this has anything to do with the gossip on twitter, but as i say, it could be just gossip....
This site could be part of the same thing... I do not know... so if it goes up in a puff of smoke, I'll make my own conclusions, seeing as no-one is saying anything... ?{)(**
-
Yes some websites are not maintained, some websites are deleted....
As for Dr Vincent Tabak, I am still in 2 minds as to whether he is real or not.... And what information about this case is real or not....
As has been stated before, people have agenda's... maybe that what this has been about, and why no-one really talks to me about it....
I have no idea anymore... I have exhausted most avenues... I wonder if this has anything to do with the gossip on twitter, but as i say, it could be just gossip....
This site could be part of the same thing... I do not know... so if it goes up in a puff of smoke, I'll make my own conclusions, seeing as no-one is saying anything... ?{)(**
He is definitely real, and he is serving a life sentence.
-
Last thing.... Joanna Yeates and her trip.... Well i'm presuming it's in South Africa... The guy on facebook is in Durban, and has a photo of joanna yeates in a swimming pool, with mandy...
Anthony Gerald Bustin I pray for the killer(s) of Joanna to be brought to justice sooner than later.
8y
Howard Mills
Howard Mills they must bring the Death sentence back .what a terrible thing to happen .I hope they catch those b........s.
Hide or report this
8y
Annie Cee
Annie Cee What a small world! Very sad, feel so sorry for her family.
Hide or report this
8y
Robbie Wicksteed
Robbie Wicksteed Justice for Joanna!
Hide or report this
8y
Amanda Chapple
Amanda Chapple Can you tag me in any you have please. Do you remember when I did your trick and pushed her in the pool. X
Hide or report this
8y
Amanda Chapple
Amanda Chapple He he thanks but dad sent me the email you sent so I got them :)
Hide or report this
8y
Anthony Gerald Bustin
Anthony Gerald Bustin No I can't remember you pushing her into the pool. I did not realise that you are a bully. I will have to report you again to your Dad. Ha ha. :-)
Hide or report this
8y
Nelly Leyama
Nelly Leyama Happy new year from Gabon captain!!!all the best for u and your family!!
Hide or report this
8y
Anthony Gerald Bustin
Anthony Gerald Bustin Thanks Nelly and the same to all you guys as well.
Hide or report this
8y
There's another image also with the FB chat
Anthony Gerald Bustin
9 January 2011 ·
Joanna Yeates when she stayed with us in 2003. A day at the beach — with Amanda Chapple.
3 comments
1 share
Share
Comments
Anthony Gerald Bustin
Anthony Gerald Bustin Why does anyone take a life of an innocent loving girl on the eve of Christmas?
Hide or report this
8y
Howard Mills
Howard Mills I am so sorry to read this Capt .Will Say a quiet word for her. So Sad .please give my condolence to her Family.
Hide or report this
8y
Amanda Chapple
Amanda Chapple She was taken on the 17 and they only found her on christmas day. As you can imagine Christmas at the Chapple's was not the usual happy event.
Hide or report this
8y
Now the image I have attached, is supposed to Joanna Yeates in 2003, she is supposed to be 18 on that image, yet she looks older to me,
Mandy only ever posts once on the Missing site on FB
Amanda Chapple to JOANNA YEATES, MISSING SINCE 17/12/10
25 December 2010 at 13:14 ·
Please don't let it be her!!
So there where many connections and people the Police could have looked at regarding Joanna Yeates facebook friends etc....
But that obviously never happened.....
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=481400142031&set=pb.693517031.-2207520000.1556877298.&type=3&theater
-
He is definitely real, and he is serving a life sentence.
Well mrswah... So much that has been stated makes no sense.... And I have no idea why he would say such a thing, when he according to the express was away... and CJ, spoke to him, should have been a witness at trial...
So I hope you can understand my confusion.... I do not wish to be rude, but a lot of things just do not make any sense...
So... is there a killer out there still lurking about having got away with this??
-
Just looking at my post above.....
Anthony Gerald Bustin
Anthony Gerald Bustin Why does anyone take a life of an innocent loving girl on the eve of Christmas?
Hide or report this
8y
Now [The Eve of Christmas]???
Had my brain going back to the BDP article on their site, that stated that Joanna Yeates was dead and that was posted on the 24th December 2010...
Coincidence that really....
-
He is definitely real, and he is serving a life sentence.
mrswah, I just end up back at the beginning and why I started writing on here... Wanting to help a man i didn't think could help himself....
-
mrswah, I just end up back at the beginning and why I started writing on here... Wanting to help a man i didn't think could help himself....
What on earth makes you think your helping him? Nothing you’ve ever posted makes sense, you admit this yourself. Your belief that it’s not real is a fake front, because if you thought it not real why are you trying to help him, it never happened and if it never happened or Tabak doesn’t exist, it should be easy to walk away.
-
What on earth makes you think your helping him? Nothing you’ve ever posted makes sense, you admit this yourself. Your belief that it’s not real is a fake front, because if you thought it not real why are you trying to help him, it never happened and if it never happened or Tabak doesn’t exist, it should be easy to walk away.
Yes, it should be easy to walk away....
But...... I still have this nagging doubt, the nagging doubt that has been with me from the beginning, the nagging doubt that had me looking for a forum that may still have an interest in the case, that was how I found everyone here...
A nagging doubt, that I suppose will always stay with me whatever......
-
Yes, it should be easy to walk away....
But...... I still have this nagging doubt, the nagging doubt that has been with me from the beginning, the nagging doubt that had me looking for a forum that may still have an interest in the case, that was how I found everyone here...
A nagging doubt, that I suppose will always stay with me whatever......
Ask Tabak if he has a knagende onzekerheid/twijfel, he certainly doesn’t. So the person that killed Joanna was in no doubt whatsoever.... Yet Billy wants everyone to believe it never happened @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Yes, it should be easy to walk away....
But...... I still have this nagging doubt, the nagging doubt that has been with me from the beginning, the nagging doubt that had me looking for a forum that may still have an interest in the case, that was how I found everyone here...
A nagging doubt, that I suppose will always stay with me whatever......
I guess it will stay with you as long as you enable to by refusing to see the truth, although, for the life of me, I fail to see what vicarious pleasure you derive from such obduracy. You veer between contacting a man who has admitted his guilt -by the way, if he doesn't exist, who do you think you were contacting, and WHY would you waste time with someone who doesn't exist?- and suspecting that the whole thing is as fake as fairies at the bottom of a garden or the existence of a Loch Ness monster. Why don't you do yourself a favour and take up a hobby -which will take precedence over your bizarre beliefs- before this weird obsession causes your life to implode, and your mind to become irreparably muddled.
-
Even though the report has been updated, this statement I believe came from the TV appeal The Yeates made on the 23rd December 2010...
By DAILY MAIL REPORTER
UPDATED: 23:03, 25 December 2010
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/12/25/article-1341520-0C92A05A000005DC-691_634x518.jpg)
'I Think she's been abducted after getting home from her flat. She wouldn't have gone out by herself"
We alway had the idea of abduction in the beginning, because of the parents belief, this had happened, I could never understand why that was the belief, seeing as Joanna Yeates was a grown woman of 25 years, whom had the capability to go where ever she chose, a weekend to herself, with her boyfriend away, allowing her the freedom to do whatever she chose...
So why...... Wouldn't Joanna Yeates have gone out by her self?? what is that about?? what does that mean???
We know little to nothing of Joanna Yeates and statements like that give more questions..
Remember the Yeates said they knew that she had been abducted because of "What was left behind".... Well put that together with the..... "She would never go out by herself".. and one needs to question what they believed happened.. The Flat being Untidy, then Tidy in the next breath, the tour of the flat with nothing out of place.. Greg waiting for an age to contact her parents or the Police....
So what was wrong with Joanna Yeates that meant she would not go out on her own??
We have 3 CCTV clips of Joanna Yeates shopping and 1 CCTV clip from The Ram...
There is someone ahead of her in Bargain Booze, there's people in Tesco's... The Ram, she may be seen what looks like leaving on her own, but we do not know if someone is stood waiting for her at the door for instance... And waitrose there are many people about, there was even one guy there looking like he was watching her... So there is no real proof that she was totally on her own at any time returning back to Canygne Road..
This is a quote from her parents, why do we not know what made them believe she had been abducted... There cannot have been any obvious signs of a struggle or fight in the Flat, and why if she wasn't expected to be elsewhere, was Greg not worried that she wasn't home, if she wouldn't have gone out by herself?
That statement by David Yeates is important, it divulges a little something of Joanna Yeates nature, we simply didn't know and therefore questions whether or not she should have been elsewhere that weekend, I conclude this because Greg should have been extremely worried about her if there was a reason for her not going out on her own... Was someone supposed to be looking after her?
Were arrangements made for Joanna Yeates that weekend... The statement from David brings many questions forward..
If Greg leaves for Sheffield before Joanna Yeates returns home, had there been someone who brought Joanna Yeates home from work? Dropped her off for instance?? Popped in for a cuppa...
Why wouldn't Joanna Yeates not have gone out by herself ?????
What was it about Joanna Yeates meaning she could not or would not go out on her own!!
That brought me back to CJ, just then, he apparently saw 2/3 people at the gate, he has never said it was Joanna Yeates, but it may have been reading the statement by David Yeates, it was a possibility..
I'm puzzled by the statement of David Yeates, I'm intrigued to know why Joanna Yeates wouldn't have gone out by herself??
-
I guess it will stay with you as long as you enable to by refusing to see the truth, although, for the life of me, I fail to see what vicarious pleasure you derive from such obduracy. You veer between contacting a man who has admitted his guilt -by the way, if he doesn't exist, who do you think you were contacting, and WHY would you waste time with someone who doesn't exist?- and suspecting that the whole thing is as fake as fairies at the bottom of a garden or the existence of a Loch Ness monster. Why don't you do yourself a favour and take up a hobby -which will take precedence over your bizarre beliefs- before this weird obsession causes your life to implode, and your mind to become irreparably muddled.
You sound like you've swallowed leonora....
I presume by man you mean Dr Vincent Tabak?? And when and how did I manage such a feat?
I was thinking the other day, yes I do think..... I was thinking about how most have tried to put me off my belief, by various means and to be honest, it feels like brainwashing...
I have tied myself in knots, not knowing what is real or not, and not knowing what to believe...
Then I come back to what has been said, and mrswah starting the thread on this forum and know their had to be a reason for it...
Whether or not I write on here, it will make no difference to what my original feeling was when I came here, i came here to find out what I could about the case, cross referencing everything I have found...
The video's that have been made where people have made statements of their own, with information that no-one knew anything about till after the trial..
The Yeates obsevations of the washing pile, which was never mentioned by Dr Vincent Tabak, which he should have noticed in it's neat pile..
CJ too.. himself seeing Dr Vincent Tabak that weekend, himself talking to Dr Vincent Tabak on 2 occasions that weekend..
Tanja Morson his girlfriend, whom would have been able to tell us what frame of mind Dr Vincent Tabak was in when he picked her up from her works party, which I did wonder why he wasn't there with her, partners often go to works parties with their other halves, but maybe not this party....
Then I wonder whether or not the interview with Dr Vincent Tabak with the Express and him saying he wasn't here, was correct, and maybe he didn't even pick up Tanja... There was supposed to be a video of him with Tanja, but I have never seen it...
CJ with his Leveson statement appears to be unsure, maybe he too mistook which weekend he had seen Dr Vincent Tabak? I have no idea...
How can the law accept the story on the stand, when it was basically what had been stated on the internet throughout this case, from Joanna Yeates Missing to her being found dead, to the trial...
If on Dr Vincent Tabak's arrest they did not interview anyone else, how did they know for a fact it was Dr Vincent Tabak.... I keep saying someone saying they did it... doesn't make it so.... The oddities of the B-Roll show us strange goings on.... I still do not understand how the Yeates were allowed on a potential first scene of crime never mind a second scene of crime, whilst they were still processing it....
This is why I say things are made up... Surely no-one should be allowed on any scene of crime that is being processed other than the relevant authorities...
I question because of this happening with The Yeates was Longwood Lane and the grass verge, the real location of Joanna Yeates body??.... Yes, I know leonora has suggested, that she was over the wall or even in the quarry pond, especially as they used the fire truck, boat and winch, with an orange body board on view for all to see... Leonora too may have questioned why The Yeates were allowed in the middle of a scene of crime, I do not know, I haven't asked him that... But leonora does have a point... and a reason to question..
Leonora questioned if Joanna Yeates car was in the pond also, seeing as we haven't seen her car, but there is one image of a KA parked on Percival Road I think...
(http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/police-guard-the-area-around-canynge-road-bristol-as-the-jury-in-the-picture-id809558898?k=6&m=809558898&s=612x612&w=0&h=hcg0NIAd5V4tYHFrr0hOdVKrY964fuYte37bqBf-usA=)
I did wonder whether or not it was Joanna Yeates car when I first saw it but shrugged it off.... There has never been any article with an image identifying her car.... So what happened to it and where it was, is anyones guess....
Then wondered what type of car Joanna Yeates actually drove, and when the media watched as two cars were removed from the drive at 44, Canygne Road, was one of those cars Joanna Yeates car?
I think it was the media whom said that Joanna yeates car was a Ford KA.... but was it?? I have no idea....
The question will always remain... And should remain, and should now start getting answers.... (imo)
-
This image from SKY News at the time says that Joanna Yeates has been found near a Golf Course,... The image is of a Police car at the other end of Longwood Lane, near the golf course...
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15572;image)
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15574;image)
So where was Joanna Yeates supposed to have been found?? Did the media not get the information?, they were there when the Fire Engines turned up at the other end of Longwood Lane, so why 2 options of where she may be??
`There was a third alternative...
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/12/26/article-1341676-0C9499D7000005DC-696_634x410.jpg)
From: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1342079/Unbearable-pain-Parents-tragic-Joanna-Yeates-visit-site-body-discovered-frozen-body-delays-postmortem-results.html
-
I was thinking the other day, yes I do think..... I was thinking about how most have tried to put me off my belief, by various means and to be honest, it feels like brainwashing...
Brainwashing? no one makes you do it post about it or read it. You put yourself in this position
-
This image from SKY News at the time says that Joanna Yeates has been found near a Golf Course,... The image is of a Police car at the other end of Longwood Lane, near the golf course...
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15572;image)
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15574;image)
So where was Joanna Yeates supposed to have been found?? Did the media not get the information?, they were there when the Fire Engines turned up at the other end of Longwood Lane, so why 2 options of where she may be??
`There was a third alternative...
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/12/26/article-1341676-0C9499D7000005DC-696_634x410.jpg)
From: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1342079/Unbearable-pain-Parents-tragic-Joanna-Yeates-visit-site-body-discovered-frozen-body-delays-postmortem-results.html
Its all a dream, go back to sleep &^&*%
-
Even though the report has been updated, this statement I believe came from the TV appeal The Yeates made on the 23rd December 2010...
By DAILY MAIL REPORTER
UPDATED: 23:03, 25 December 2010
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/12/25/article-1341520-0C92A05A000005DC-691_634x518.jpg)
'I Think she's been abducted after getting home from her flat. She wouldn't have gone out by herself"
We alway had the idea of abduction in the beginning, because of the parents belief, this had happened, I could never understand why that was the belief, seeing as Joanna Yeates was a grown woman of 25 years, whom had the capability to go where ever she chose, a weekend to herself, with her boyfriend away, allowing her the freedom to do whatever she chose...
So why...... Wouldn't Joanna Yeates have gone out by her self?? what is that about?? what does that mean???
We know little to nothing of Joanna Yeates and statements like that give more questions..
Remember the Yeates said they knew that she had been abducted because of "What was left behind".... Well put that together with the..... "She would never go out by herself".. and one needs to question what they believed happened.. The Flat being Untidy, then Tidy in the next breath, the tour of the flat with nothing out of place.. Greg waiting for an age to contact her parents or the Police....
So what was wrong with Joanna Yeates that meant she would not go out on her own??
We have 3 CCTV clips of Joanna Yeates shopping and 1 CCTV clip from The Ram...
There is someone ahead of her in Bargain Booze, there's people in Tesco's... The Ram, she may be seen what looks like leaving on her own, but we do not know if someone is stood waiting for her at the door for instance... And waitrose there are many people about, there was even one guy there looking like he was watching her... So there is no real proof that she was totally on her own at any time returning back to Canygne Road..
This is a quote from her parents, why do we not know what made them believe she had been abducted... There cannot have been any obvious signs of a struggle or fight in the Flat, and why if she wasn't expected to be elsewhere, was Greg not worried that she wasn't home, if she wouldn't have gone out by herself?
That statement by David Yeates is important, it divulges a little something of Joanna Yeates nature, we simply didn't know and therefore questions whether or not she should have been elsewhere that weekend, I conclude this because Greg should have been extremely worried about her if there was a reason for her not going out on her own... Was someone supposed to be looking after her?
Were arrangements made for Joanna Yeates that weekend... The statement from David brings many questions forward..
If Greg leaves for Sheffield before Joanna Yeates returns home, had there been someone who brought Joanna Yeates home from work? Dropped her off for instance?? Popped in for a cuppa...
Why wouldn't Joanna Yeates not have gone out by herself ?????
What was it about Joanna Yeates meaning she could not or would not go out on her own!!
That brought me back to CJ, just then, he apparently saw 2/3 people at the gate, he has never said it was Joanna Yeates, but it may have been reading the statement by David Yeates, it was a possibility..
I'm puzzled by the statement of David Yeates, I'm intrigued to know why Joanna Yeates wouldn't have gone out by herself??
Again you got it wrong Billy, this is what he said
I feel sure she would not have gone out by herself leaving all these things behind and she was taken away somewhere.
Leaving all these things behind! Your research lets you down everytime Billy.
You have just gone and taken it from a headline section, this is what the editors do, a bullet pointer, not the whole story. You do this on purpose so you can twist the truth. Everyone knows your game Billy
-
Police search cliffs for missing architect
Detectives are searching for a young architect who went missing from her home in Bristol five days ago.
Police officers and mountain rescue teams have spent much of the day scouring cliffs and woodland around the Avon Gorge for any sign of 25 year old Joanna Yeates.
Nicola Pearson reports.
22 Dec 2010
Transcript of Clip
Reporter:
Today police called upon Mountain rescue teams to help them in their desperate search for the Missing 25 year old.
At the Avon Gorge in these difficult conditions the rescue teams with there climbing equipment to get to hard to reach areas that Police officers couldn't. It meant that they gained better vantage points to view ledges on the cliffs.
Alan George Fire and rescue:
At the moment we are tasked with covering the whole of the north side of the avon gorge right the way along from the stoke bishop end through to the observatory, checking the tops of cliffs, the bottom of the cliffs.. We're not actually committing anyone to the cliff face at this time, other than putting people on the rope work, so they can safely access the very edge of the cliff to look down onto the snow covered ledges and things, to maximise the probability of finding her.
Reporter:
At the same time Police Officers were searching the Bristol Downs, combing through woodlands looking for any sign of Joanna herself,or any of her possessions. This is one of the last images captured of Joanna Yeates taken by a CCTV camera, just hours before she disappeared.
The 25 year old is an architect, her colleagues are extremely concerned for her safety.
Keith Pavey [Building Design Partnership]
She's a lovely, bubbly, lively person, she's the life and soul, very well liked in the office, it's just totally out of character that she should do this.
Reporter:
Joanna was with her workmates on Friday evening, they went for a drink just before she disappeared.
Another Reporter:
Joanna left this pub in Park Street in Bristol on Friday evening around about 8;00 0'clock. It's believed that she then walked up the hill towards her home in Clifton.
Reporter:
Police say that she stopped at a Waitrose, then this Tesco express in Clifton on her way home.
Another Reporter:
Police know that Joanna arrived back here at her home in Clifton, because they found her Supermarket reciepts, but they have no idea what happened next.
Reporter:
Forensic Officers have spent a second day at the flat looking for clues we understand Joanna's purse, keys and phone were all inside.So far search teams have found nothing, but Joanna's friends and family are clinging on to the hope that she hasn't come to any harm. Nichola Pearson, BBC Points West
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-12062830/police-search-cliffs-for-missing-architect
_________________________________________________________________________________________
At the same time Police Officers were searching the Bristol Downs, combing through woodlands looking for any sign of Joanna herself, or any of her possessions.
What possessions of Joanna Yeates were missing for them to start looking for them 2 days after she was reported Missing?
We find out in January 2011 about the Missing Sock, But this report is 2 days in to her disappearance, so what apparently were they looking for??
She wasn't dead at this point, so the Missing sock is irrelevant, what possessions of Joanna Yeates were the police trying to locate on the 22nd December 2010??
We have 2 days of forensics, meaning they started on the Flat on the 20th December 2010, when she was first reported Missing...
We also have the image of Joanna Yeates shopping in Waitrose as early as the 22nd December 2010,
This is one of the last images captured of Joanna Yeates taken by a CCTV camera, just hours before she disappeared.
Hours before she disappeared??
What time was she supposed to have disappeared?? Hours?? What time did Joanna yeates go into Waitrose??
You have two options here.... Either the CCTV image from Waitrose is from earlier on in the day, or they have something to indicate that Joanna Yeates disappeared at a certain time... Hours after 8:00pm on Friday 17th December 2010.. If the CCTV is correct, then Dr Vincent Tabak could not have attacked her as has been stated, in the time frame given...
The reporter says: Police say that she stopped at a Waitrose, then this Tesco express in Clifton on her way home.
Telling us it was just after she left The Ram pub... So Where does hours later come from??
What time and date did Joanna Yeates disappear?? we have hours to consider and there must be something that indicates this..
We have receipts from 2 supermarkets that the Police found... We presume one is Tesco's, so where is the receipt from the other supermarket? Was it from Waitrose or somewhere else?? These receipts have never seen the light of day..
This video clip reveals quite a lot, being the first to tell us about 2 supermarkets and the intense forensic examination taking place for a Missing person..
Wonder what possessions they were looking for??
-
Transcript of Clip
Reporter:
Today police called upon Mountain rescue teams to help them in their desperate search for the Missing 25 year old.
At the Avon Gorge in these difficult conditions the rescue teams with there climbing equipment to get to hard to reach areas that Police officers couldn't. It meant that they gained better vantage points to view ledges on the cliffs.
Alan George Fire and rescue:
At the moment we are tasked with covering the whole of the north side of the avon gorge right the way along from the stoke bishop end through to the observatory, checking the tops of cliffs, the bottom of the cliffs.. We're not actually committing anyone to the cliff face at this time, other than putting people on the rope work, so they can safely access the very edge of the cliff to look down onto the snow covered ledges and things, to maximise the probability of finding her.
Reporter:
At the same time Police Officers were searching the Bristol Downs, combing through woodlands looking for any sign of Joanna herself,or any of her possessions. This is one of the last images captured of Joanna Yeates taken by a CCTV camera, just hours before she disappeared.
The 25 year old is an architect, her colleagues are extremely concerned for her safety.
Keith Pavey [Building Design Partnership]
She's a lovely, bubbly, lively person, she's the life and soul, very well liked in the office, it's just totally out of character that she should do this.
Reporter:
Joanna was with her workmates on Friday evening, they went for a drink just before she disappeared.
Another Reporter:
Joanna left this pub in Park Street in Bristol on Friday evening around about 8;00 0'clock. It's believed that she then walked up the hill towards her home in Clifton.
Reporter:
Police say that she stopped at a Waitrose, then this Tesco express in Clifton on her way home.
Another Reporter:
Police know that Joanna arrived back here at her home in Clifton, because they found her Supermarket reciepts, but they have no idea what happened next.
Reporter:
Forensic Officers have spent a second day at the flat looking for clues we understand Joanna's purse, keys and phone were all inside.So far search teams have found nothing, but Joanna's friends and family are clinging on to the hope that she hasn't come to any harm. Nichola Pearson, BBC Points West
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-12062830/police-search-cliffs-for-missing-architect
_________________________________________________________________________________________
At the same time Police Officers were searching the Bristol Downs, combing through woodlands looking for any sign of Joanna herself, or any of her possessions.
What possessions of Joanna Yeates were missing for them to start looking for them 2 days after she was reported Missing?
We find out in January 2011 about the Missing Sock, But this report is 2 days in to her disappearance, so what apparently were they looking for??
She wasn't dead at this point, so the Missing sock is irrelevant, what possessions of Joanna Yeates were the police trying to locate on the 22nd December 2010??
We have 2 days of forensics, meaning they started on the Flat on the 20th December 2010, when she was first reported Missing...
We also have the image of Joanna Yeates shopping in Waitrose as early as the 22nd December 2010,
This is one of the last images captured of Joanna Yeates taken by a CCTV camera, just hours before she disappeared.
Hours before she disappeared??
What time was she supposed to have disappeared?? Hours?? What time did Joanna yeates go into Waitrose??
You have two options here.... Either the CCTV image from Waitrose is from earlier on in the day, or they have something to indicate that Joanna Yeates disappeared at a certain time... Hours after 8:00pm on Friday 17th December 2010.. If the CCTV is correct, then Dr Vincent Tabak could not have attacked her as has been stated, in the time frame given...
The reporter says: Police say that she stopped at a Waitrose, then this Tesco express in Clifton on her way home.
Telling us it was just after she left The Ram pub... So Where does hours later come from??
What time and date did Joanna Yeates disappear?? we have hours to consider and there must be something that indicates this..
We have receipts from 2 supermarkets that the Police found... We presume one is Tesco's, so where is the receipt from the other supermarket? Was it from Waitrose or somewhere else?? These receipts have never seen the light of day..
This video clip reveals quite a lot, being the first to tell us about 2 supermarkets and the intense forensic examination taking place for a Missing person..
Wonder what possessions they were looking for??
Why are you wondering what possessions they were looking for? You don’t think it’s real, it never happened, or have you forgot?
-
Why are you wondering what possessions they were looking for? You don’t think it’s real, it never happened, or have you forgot?
I just find this things by accident, I am unsure of all of this that is all...
-
I just find this things by accident, I am unsure of all of this that is all...
You talk DOUBLE DUTCH Billy 8(0(*
-
You talk DOUBLE DUTCH Billy 8(0(*
@)(++(*
-
https://www.landscapejuice.com/2010/12/help-find-jo-yeates-helpfindjo.html
Help find Jo Yeates #helpfindjo
I was so upset to see the parents of missing landscape architect, Jo Yeates, on the BBC news this afternoon. I felt so desperately unhappy for them and I can only begin to image how they must be feeling.
I wanted to publicise this story because I'm also a father of a young daughter and because Jo is a member of my profession.
I sincerely hope there is a happy ending and my thoughts go to her parents at this time.
From the Help Jo Yeates website:
"On Friday 17 December 2010, 25 year old landscape architect Joanna Yeates left the Bristol Ram pub at approximately 8pm. She headed home to her house in Canynge Rd, Clifton via Waitrose on Clifton Triangle and the Tesco Express on Regent Street at 8:40pm. She has not been seen or heard from since. Jo is 5ft 4, of medium build with short blonde hair and blue/grey eyes. Anyone who has seen Joanna or knows of her whereabouts is asked to contact the Operation Braid incident room on 0845 456 7000 or Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111."
For more details, please visit Avon and Somerset police avonandsomerset.police.uk/jo
Please also see http://helpfindjo.wordpress.com/
Comments
Thank you for this article. Anything anyone can do to spread awareness is helping. We want our Jo back.
I found your article through a google search for Jo.
If you are on facebook, please join this ever-growing group to help the search, and invite anyone you think that might help.
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_169097479794933&ap=1
Jacquie Yeates
Posted by: Jacquie | Dec 24, 2010 at 03:08 AM
This has filled me with dread and utter sorrow that something like this can happen. I feel very sad seeing the photos, my heart goes out to the parents.
Posted by: Dan | Dec 25, 2010 at 10:51 PM
My sincere condolences go out to her family at this sad time.
Posted by: Dan Tarleton | Dec 28, 2010 at 02:32 PM
i just seen this - caught my eye on the right of screen.
i have been thinking about this , and no-one is talking about it ?!!
its so sad . why ? no update today on bbc website news but was on front cover of papers yesterday re update.
blessings to anyone thats knows jo yates......
Posted by: robin ainsworth | Jan 06, 2011 at 11:55 PM
I was in Bristol in the same Tesco's just two nights before she went missing. Clifton was a lovely area, my mother lives there at the moment, my sympathies too to the family.
Posted by: Carol Miers | Jan 08, 2011 at 05:33 PM
Post a comment
Thank you for this article. Anything anyone can do to spread awareness is helping. We want our Jo back.
I found your article through a google search for Jo.
If you are on facebook, please join this ever-growing group to help the search, and invite anyone you think that might help.
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_169097479794933&ap=1
Jacquie Yeates
Posted by: Jacquie | Dec 24, 2010 at 03:08 AM
A lot of effort has gone in to searching the internet for any article about Jo yeates, Jaquie Yeates too had been searching, I was wondering why, there was already a helpfindjo webpage by the family.
And this article quotes from it.. giving the link to the helpfindjo website, that was set up by the family.
https://helpfindjo.wordpress.com/
This just goes to show, so many people were searching for information about Joanna yeates through google etc, and not just Dr Vincent Tabak... As the searches presented at trial claim they were his, without knowing of a full forensic analsys of computers etc, we do not know who searched what..
Edit.. Jaquie also leads us to the Missing Facebook group, so from that I assume it must be her cousin Jaquie.
-
Why are you wondering what possessions they were looking for? You don’t think it’s real, it never happened, or have you forgot?
Looking for possessions suggests that something was MISSING!
So what was MISSING????
This is stated on the 22nd December 2010....
What possessions of Joanna Yeates were Missing that we know nothing about?
Was Dr Vincent tabak aware of these possessions??
Apparently he only knew of the Pizza and the sock, when their is obviously something else Missing!!
-
Looking for possessions suggests that something was MISSING!
So what was MISSING????
This is stated on the 22nd December 2010....
What possessions of Joanna Yeates were Missing that we know nothing about?
Was Dr Vincent tabak aware of these possessions??
Apparently he only knew of the Pizza and the sock, when their is obviously something else Missing!!
Joanna’s whole life and future went MISSING Billy, that’s what went missing, taken by a sick perverted monster, who hopefully will spend the rest of his miserable life in prison.
-
Re the title thread I am just reading a book by William Clegg QC 'Under The Wig'. It's an autobiography of sorts interspersed by chapters dedicated to some of the high profile cases he was instructed as defence counsel, one being the murder of Joanna Yeates.
I don't think anyone could doubt WC's thoroughness in putting up the best possible defence for his clients even when the accused admitted guilt as Tabak did.
In this case it came down to murder or the lesser charge of manslaughter and much depended on expert testimony as to how long it would take to strangle someone. WC instructed pathologist Dr Nat Cary who told the court less than 5 seconds if the vagal nerve was gripped. The expert for the prosecution told the court it probably took between 15 and 30 seconds.
"The quicker Miss Yeate's death the more feasible Tabak's lack of intent was. But even if the jury accepted the evidence of our renowned expert over the prosecution's it was still possible that Tabak had intended to commit murder"
He concludes the chapter by saying:
"To this day nobody really knows why Tabak killed Miss Yeates. Aside from Vincent Tabak, that is"
-
Re the title thread I am just reading a book by William Clegg QC 'Under The Wig'. It's an autobiography of sorts interspersed by chapters dedicated to some of the high profile cases he was instructed as defence counsel, one being the murder of Joanna Yeates.
I don't think anyone could doubt WC's thoroughness in putting up the best possible defence for his clients even when the accused admitted guilt as Tabak did.
In this case it came down to murder or the lesser charge of manslaughter and much depended on expert testimony as to how long it would take to strangle someone. WC instructed pathologist Dr Nat Cary who told the court less than 5 seconds if the vagal nerve was gripped. The expert for the prosecution told the court it probably took between 15 and 30 seconds.
"The quicker Miss Yeate's death the more feasible Tabak's lack of intent was. But even if the jury accepted the evidence of our renowned expert over the prosecution's it was still possible that Tabak had intended to commit murder"
He concludes the chapter by saying:
"To this day nobody really knows why Tabak killed Miss Yeates. Aside from Vincent Tabak, that is"
To this day nobody really knows why Tabak killed Miss Yeates. Aside from Vincent Tabak, that is"
WOW.... That deserves a WOW &%%6 &%%6 &%%6
OMG.... So the trial was tripe, the defence was tripe and the prosecution was tripe....
How therefore can anyone accept the story on the stand if Clegg himself didn't believe the story? Hadn't he got Dr Vincent Tabak to sign something in September 2011, according to leonora's checks...
So the apparent Sex video's were irrelevant, the porn they tried to use after the trial to bolster up said trial result, making the public feel they had indeed netted a monster..
The prostitutes etc, they claimed in the media, he had used... all irrelevant, ...
So why has the law accepted Dr Vincent Tabak's story on the stand, if there wasn't a motive for such an act...
Not only that, but the time of death has been established by Dr Vincent Tabak's tale on the stand, they have no idea, when Joanna yeates died.... Could have been anytime that weekend..
And everyone says I'm mad.....
That mad.... It's bonkers.....
Where's the Evidence!!
-
To this day nobody really knows why Tabak killed Miss Yeates. Aside from Vincent Tabak, that is"
WOW.... That deserves a WOW &%%6 &%%6 &%%6
OMG.... So the trial was tripe, the defence was tripe and the prosecution was tripe....
How therefore can anyone accept the story on the stand if Clegg himself didn't believe the story? Hadn't he got Dr Vincent Tabak to sign something in September 2011, according to leonora's checks...
So the apparent Sex video's were irrelevant, the porn they tried to use after the trial to bolster up said trial result, making the public feel they had indeed netted a monster..
The prostitutes etc, they claimed in the media, he had used... all irrelevant, ...
So why has the law accepted Dr Vincent Tabak's story on the stand, if there wasn't a motive for such an act...
Not only that, but the time of death has been established by Dr Vincent Tabak's tale on the stand, they have no idea, when Joanna yeates died.... Could have been anytime that weekend..
And everyone says I'm mad.....
That mad.... It's bonkers.....
Where's the Evidence!!
How the hell did you get this impression from what Holly posted? The reason ONLY Tabak knows what his real intentions were, is that to date, no one has come up with a method to enable us to read minds! All anyone can do, is look at the evidence and assess the likelihood of his intentions. Seriously, the reason you're where you are is because you read the WRONG things into what has been said!
-
Looking for possessions suggests that something was MISSING!
So what was MISSING????
This is stated on the 22nd December 2010....
What possessions of Joanna Yeates were Missing that we know nothing about?
Was Dr Vincent tabak aware of these possessions??
Apparently he only knew of the Pizza and the sock, when their is obviously something else Missing!!
Obviously? No, that's your reading of it.
-
To this day nobody really knows why Tabak killed Miss Yeates. Aside from Vincent Tabak, that is"
WOW.... That deserves a WOW &%%6 &%%6 &%%6
OMG.... So the trial was tripe, the defence was tripe and the prosecution was tripe....
How therefore can anyone accept the story on the stand if Clegg himself didn't believe the story? Hadn't he got Dr Vincent Tabak to sign something in September 2011, according to leonora's checks...
So the apparent Sex video's were irrelevant, the porn they tried to use after the trial to bolster up said trial result, making the public feel they had indeed netted a monster..
The prostitutes etc, they claimed in the media, he had used... all irrelevant, ...
So why has the law accepted Dr Vincent Tabak's story on the stand, if there wasn't a motive for such an act...
Not only that, but the time of death has been established by Dr Vincent Tabak's tale on the stand, they have no idea, when Joanna yeates died.... Could have been anytime that weekend..
And everyone says I'm mad.....
That mad.... It's bonkers.....
Where's the Evidence!!
How, on God's earth, do you conclude that when the last sentence affirms "To this day nobody really knows why TABAK KILLED MISS YEATES. Aside from Vincent Tabac, that is"?
-
To this day nobody really knows why Tabak killed Miss Yeates. Aside from Vincent Tabak, that is"
WOW.... That deserves a WOW &%%6 &%%6 &%%6
OMG.... So the trial was tripe, the defence was tripe and the prosecution was tripe....
How therefore can anyone accept the story on the stand if Clegg himself didn't believe the story? Hadn't he got Dr Vincent Tabak to sign something in September 2011, according to leonora's checks...
So the apparent Sex video's were irrelevant, the porn they tried to use after the trial to bolster up said trial result, making the public feel they had indeed netted a monster..
The prostitutes etc, they claimed in the media, he had used... all irrelevant, ...
So why has the law accepted Dr Vincent Tabak's story on the stand, if there wasn't a motive for such an act...
Not only that, but the time of death has been established by Dr Vincent Tabak's tale on the stand, they have no idea, when Joanna yeates died.... Could have been anytime that weekend..
And everyone says I'm mad.....
That mad.... It's bonkers.....
Where's the Evidence!!
Your asking the “HOW LONG’S A PIECE OF STRING” question, there’s only Tabak will fully know the answer, just like there’s only you who knows the answer to why you defend a perverted killer.
-
To this day nobody really knows why Tabak killed Miss Yeates. Aside from Vincent Tabak, that is"
WOW.... That deserves a WOW &%%6 &%%6 &%%6
OMG.... So the trial was tripe, the defence was tripe and the prosecution was tripe....
How therefore can anyone accept the story on the stand if Clegg himself didn't believe the story? Hadn't he got Dr Vincent Tabak to sign something in September 2011, according to leonora's checks...
So the apparent Sex video's were irrelevant, the porn they tried to use after the trial to bolster up said trial result, making the public feel they had indeed netted a monster..
The prostitutes etc, they claimed in the media, he had used... all irrelevant, ...
So why has the law accepted Dr Vincent Tabak's story on the stand, if there wasn't a motive for such an act...
Not only that, but the time of death has been established by Dr Vincent Tabak's tale on the stand, they have no idea, when Joanna yeates died.... Could have been anytime that weekend..
And everyone says I'm mad.....
That mad.... It's bonkers.....
Where's the Evidence!!
Wow what?
Since you have such an interest in this case I would recommend that you read the book or at least the chapter dedicated to this case.
The trial was about Tabak's manslaugther plea. He claimed JY invited him into her flat and once inside he interpreted her actions as an invitation to make a pass at her which he did. He claims she then started screaming and in a panic and attempt to stop her screaming he put his hands around her neck without intending to cause her any harm but to his disbelief, she died.
The only reason jurors did not get to hear about Tabak's "very extensive collection of extreme and violent pornography" and contacting prostitutes in the US is that WC QC asked the trial judge, pre-trial obviously, to exclude all this evidence and it was ruled inadmissible. However WC QC did not succeed in excluding Tabak's internet searches as to how long a body takes to decompose and the offence of manslaughter, searches he carried out post killing pre arrest.
All concerned, including Tabak, agree he killed JY. The trial was about whether he intended to kill JY as the prosecution claimed or whether Tabak killed JY accidentally ie manslaugher as Tabak's defence argued. Jurors decided it was murder with intent.
-
To this day nobody really knows why Tabak killed Miss Yeates. Aside from Vincent Tabak, that is"
WOW.... That deserves a WOW &%%6 &%%6 &%%6
OMG.... So the trial was tripe, the defence was tripe and the prosecution was tripe....
How therefore can anyone accept the story on the stand if Clegg himself didn't believe the story? Hadn't he got Dr Vincent Tabak to sign something in September 2011, according to leonora's checks...
So the apparent Sex video's were irrelevant, the porn they tried to use after the trial to bolster up said trial result, making the public feel they had indeed netted a monster..
The prostitutes etc, they claimed in the media, he had used... all irrelevant, ...
So why has the law accepted Dr Vincent Tabak's story on the stand, if there wasn't a motive for such an act...
Not only that, but the time of death has been established by Dr Vincent Tabak's tale on the stand, they have no idea, when Joanna yeates died.... Could have been anytime that weekend..
And everyone says I'm mad.....
That mad.... It's bonkers.....
Where's the Evidence!!
all irrelevant to someone who insists on calling him Dr Vincent Tabak the placid dutch man. It is all very relevant to explaining what a type of person can take a young woman's life so easily
-
Actually, the term "placid" came from DCI Phil Jones-----in the Judge Rinder programme, I think (although I'm writing this in a hurry, so could be wrong)
I have read the chapter in "Under the Wig" and have posted about it previously. IF we are to believe what Mr Clegg says (and he makes some inaccurate statements in his account), he genuinely believed that manslaughter was credible. He doesn't go with the "sex" motive.
"The prosecution maintained that he had strangled her for sexual gratification, but this was purely theoretical. There was nothing in his past to indicate any predilection for that sort of conduct. He had no criminal record at all."
P 246 "Under the Wig"
-
Actually, the term "placid" came from DCI Phil Jones-----in the Judge Rinder programme, I think (although I'm writing this in a hurry, so could be wrong)
And over used on this forum as a reference to Tabak and his innocence! We no more have confirmation that he was ever in fact 'placid' than his lack of previous criminal record enables us to say that he didnt commit the crime for any kind of sexual gratification.
People have many faces and obviously despite the lack of a record he liked to look at porn. That DOES NOT match the face he presented at work etc but then why would it?
People keep their dark side hidden doesnt mean it isnt there.
In a very short time he killed an innocent woman, his preferences came to light afterwards and they are as real as the crime of taking a life
Not to mention when you are sat in a Police interview fighting for you own life, hoping and praying you can get away with manslaughter and not murder, you are hardly going to present yourself ranting and raving are you!
-
Actually, the term "placid" came from DCI Phil Jones-----in the Judge Rinder programme, I think (although I'm writing this in a hurry, so could be wrong)
I have read the chapter in "Under the Wig" and have posted about it previously. IF we are to believe what Mr Clegg says (and he makes some inaccurate statements in his account), he genuinely believed that manslaughter was credible. He doesn't go with the "sex" motive.
"The prosecution maintained that he had strangled her for sexual gratification, but this was purely theoretical. There was nothing in his past to indicate any predilection for that sort of conduct. He had no criminal record at all."
P 246 "Under the Wig"
Nothing in his past, he used to watch snuff videos, if you think that’s normal, ask Nathan Mathews what he watched before killing poor Becky Watts, ask Jamie Reynolds what he watched before killing poor Georgia Williams, ask Mark Bridger what he watched before killing poor little April Jones, ask Stuart Hazel what he watched before killing poor Tia Sharp.
Most disturbingly, in all the cases mentioned, there is an undeniable similarity between the videos viewed by the offenders and their crimes. However Liberal you want to be, people who watch these banned videos pose a serious risk not only to our society, but to the poor victims forced into this slavery.
-
Actually, the term "placid" came from DCI Phil Jones-----in the Judge Rinder programme, I think (although I'm writing this in a hurry, so could be wrong)
I have read the chapter in "Under the Wig" and have posted about it previously. IF we are to believe what Mr Clegg says (and he makes some inaccurate statements in his account), he genuinely believed that manslaughter was credible. He doesn't go with the "sex" motive.
"The prosecution maintained that he had strangled her for sexual gratification, but this was purely theoretical. There was nothing in his past to indicate any predilection for that sort of conduct. He had no criminal record at all."
P 246 "Under the Wig"
What aspects of his account do you believe to be inaccurate?
-
Actually, the term "placid" came from DCI Phil Jones-----in the Judge Rinder programme, I think (although I'm writing this in a hurry, so could be wrong)
I have read the chapter in "Under the Wig" and have posted about it previously. IF we are to believe what Mr Clegg says (and he makes some inaccurate statements in his account), he genuinely believed that manslaughter was credible. He doesn't go with the "sex" motive.
"The prosecution maintained that he had strangled her for sexual gratification, but this was purely theoretical. There was nothing in his past to indicate any predilection for that sort of conduct. He had no criminal record at all."
P 246 "Under the Wig"
William Clegg QC also made inaccurate statements in the Barry George case.
-
What aspects of his account do you believe to be inaccurate?
Minor things, for example, he says that the police found "two bottles of cider in the flat, one of which had been partially drunk". They didnt: it was Greg Reardon who found the partially drunk bottle, and who (by his own admission) finished it.
"By the time Mr Reardon returned to their flat on 19th December, he was already worried".
"Detectives spoke to several witnesses, including the local vicar, who said that they had seen Miss Yeates walking home alone." As far as I am aware, the priest was the only witness who said he had seen Joanna walking home, and, since he did not know her, he can't have been absolutely sure it was her.
So, nothing particularly vital, just answering your question!
-
Nothing in his past, he used to watch snuff videos, if you think that’s normal, ask Nathan Mathews what he watched before killing poor Becky Watts, ask Jamie Reynolds what he watched before killing poor Georgia Williams, ask Mark Bridger what he watched before killing poor little April Jones, ask Stuart Hazel what he watched before killing poor Tia Sharp.
Most disturbingly, in all the cases mentioned, there is an undeniable similarity between the videos viewed by the offenders and their crimes. However Liberal you want to be, people who watch these banned videos pose a serious risk not only to our society, but to the poor victims forced into this slavery.
Was merely quoting from "Under the Wig" !!
-
Greg Reardon, uses the name Greg Beardon on Facebook.. Looking at Darragh's Friends list, he is not listed, yet they obviously converse on facebook... Theses posts from 31st January 2011, show they do converse..
Darragh Harry Bellew:
31 January 2011 ·
Wolf People in the Cooler Bristol, Feb 14th. Rock and Roll here we come
Replies;
Greg Beardon:
Sounds pretty good. My mate Cronky might be up for it too, although were both going to the NME tour the day after.
Greg Beardon:
Ha just noticed the day... Might just be you and me!
Darragh Harry Bellew: they are supposed to be amazing live. i defo want to see them
31st January 2011, Joanna Yeates has not been buried yet, her family and her boyfriend, have not had the chance to say good bye and mourn the life that was Joanna Yeates.
Interesting to see Greg's reaction to Darragh's offer of a night/day out at a gig..
Sounds pretty good. My mate Cronky might be up for it too, although were both going to the NME tour the day after.
He sounds upbeat, and as we can see he's busy on the 15th February 2011 also because he and his mate have a NME tour to go to on that date..
Greg Beardon Ha just noticed the day... Might just be you and me!
Again jovial Greg is joking about the date that Darragh has given for the gig in Bristol, that being the 14th February 2011.. Greg doesn't fail to notice the date and Jokes about it being just he and Darragh, as Valentines day couple do their own thing....
Ironic?? Is he having a giggle...
You have no idea what is going on at this moment in time.. Where the Police are with the investigation, whether or not another autopsy will take place, when and where your girlfriend will be buried....
He appears to have got over that rather quickly, gigs booked up , but it obviously hasn't phased him.. He appears to be quite a jolly little chappie..(imo)
How did he know that time would be clear to go to a gig or two? That preparations would not be needed around that time?
Joanna Yeates as we were told in the media, was buried on the 11th February 2011..
It has been said that I am insensitive...
Yes people grieve in different ways, But I find it strange, that on a public forum Greg should be happy to joke about being able to go to a gig or two, with his mates, and finds it ok to joke about valentines day...
Yes, we know he is single at that time, due to the murder of his girlfriend... But that appears not to bother him..(imo)
Why would you write that on a public forum? Did he not believe anyone would see it?
31st January 2011 that is:
* 17th December 2010 = 46 days from Missing
* 20th December 2010 = 43 days from reporting his girlfriend Missing
* 25th December 2010 = 38 days from being found dead
* 28th December 2010 = 35 days = Day Police announce Joanna yeates was Murdered
* 29th December 2010 = 34 days The day it was in the press that Greg was a Witness and not a suspect
* 30th December 2010 = 31 days CJ arrested
* 1st January 2011 = 30 days CJ released on bail
* 4th January 2011 = 29 days Facebook advert
* 5th January 2011 = 28 days Missing sock appeal
* 18th January 2010 = 13 days parents appeal for the killer
* 20th January 2011 = 11 days Dr Vincent Tabak arrested
* 22nd January 2011 = 9 days Dr Vincent Tabak charged
* 25 January 2010 = 6 day Dr Vincent Tabak appears in court
* 31 January 2011 = 0 days Dr Vincent Tabak preliminary hearing
Nothing on this date is really set in stone, a day when I would not expect a boyfriend to be jolly sorting out his social life on a public forum..
In 46 days from his girlfriend being Missing to a being found dead, a high profile case, and Greg appears unbothered, he appears he has not got a care in the world, he appears jolly....
Not one word about his girlfriend Joanna Yeates...
-
All the charity events at that time... Greg did many Charity events, so did darragh..
Darragh Harry Bellew
24 August 2011 ·
Ladies and gentlemen. Myself and the lads listed above will be partaking in the brisol half marathon and we are running for a very just cause. www.missingpeople.org.uk.
Please click on the links in this message to find out more about the great work these people do.
Please visit www.missingpeople.org.uk
Many thanks to all x
Darragh Harry Bellew
24 August 2011 ·
Here is the link again just incase you missed it.
JUSTGIVING.COM
Nick, Rob, Gav, Darragh, Greg, Greg, Pete and Elliott get tired for charity
Darragh Harry Bellew
24 August 2011 ·
Here is the link again just incase you missed it.
JUSTGIVING.COM
Nick, Rob, Gav, Darragh, Greg, Greg, Pete and Elliott get tired for charity
Please visit www.missingpeople.org.uk
THANK YOU!
https://www.justgiving.com/fundraising/greg-reardon?fbclid=IwAR3ChOyYo7-2lbmbPAvdx-zLTQ7M-X1Yx4yCK3baUwTFjYgG56z5JcF7YhY
Greg Reardon
M GBR
BIB
15752
MIKM
TIME RUN
2:22:51
PACE MIN/MI
10:54
https://www.athlinks.com/event/34543/results/Event/164649/Course/226043/Bib/15752
The odd thing is the date of birth... Well I think it's the date of birth
1st January 1970 ?
That date appears on his finishers certificate.. image attached
So an extremely fit young man, who may be older than we have been told, I cannot say, but an impressive time in that half marathon..
Shame they didn't give Joanna Yeates a little mention....
Obviously Darragh and Greg are good friends, doing events together and attending gigs etc...
That's my problem really... I think an independent person at The Ram on Friday 17th December 2010 appearing at the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak in October 2011, would have been a better proposition (imo).
There are many people at The table in The Ram on the 17th December 2010, so many whom could have been at trial... But we just have Darragh Bellew as a witness for what Joanna Yeates did that evening,... So I suppose in reality he was the last person to see her, seeing as the vicar who wouldn't have known Joanna Yeates cannot be relied upon for his witness testimony..
My next problem, is the communication between Darragh and Greg.. Witness's or potential witness's talking to each other.. We can see they both communicated from these facebook posts,...
Wouldn't it have been better if an independent witness came to trial whom had seen Joanna Yeates at The Ram that evening, rather than a friend of her boyfriends.
Just a thought..
-
I'm surprised at his time, looking at his Marathon pictures he doesn't look that fit.. Or dressed for the event, but, what do I know..
https://www.marathon-photos.com/scripts/photo.py?template=MPX2&event=Sports/CPUK/2011/Bristol%20Half%20Marathon&photo=CLJT0345&bib=15752
(https://www.marathon-photos.com/logics/StreamProduct?event=Sports/CPUK/2011/Bristol%20Half%20Marathon&bib=15752&product=FcertA4.tmpl&photo=)
So here we have Billy, pretending he only finds things by accident, poor me I’m Confused.com, when all along he has an agenda. He’s snooping at Facebook pages of the innocent, he’s searching for every scrap of information about poor Joanna’s friends. For what?
This is what Billy keeps saying
“I just find this things by accident, I am unsure of all of this that is al”.
Everytime He’s outed, he plays the victim, poor me, I’m confused, I don’t know what’s real ect
*&^^& *&^^& *&^^&
-
So here we have Billy, pretending he only finds things by accident, poor me I’m Confused.com, when all along he has an agenda. He’s snooping at Facebook pages of the innocent, he’s searching for every scrap of information about poor Joanna’s friends. For what?
This is what Billy keeps saying
“I just find this things by accident, I am unsure of all of this that is al”.
Everytime He’s outed, he plays the victim, poor me, I’m confused, I don’t know what’s real ect
*&^^& *&^^& *&^^&
There are also certain insinuations in Billy's posts that I find uncomfortable!
-
Was merely quoting from "Under the Wig" !!
Thanks for that, I was going to get the book, I don’t think I will bother now @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
There are also certain insinuations in Billy's posts that I find uncomfortable!
Spot him and them a mile off Caroline 8((()*/
-
There are also certain insinuations in Billy's posts that I find uncomfortable!
Some people’s agenda isn’t the same as everyone else’s I’m afraid.
-
Greg Reardon, uses the name Greg Beardon on Facebook.. Looking at Darragh's Friends list, he is not listed, yet they obviously converse on facebook... Theses posts from 31st January 2011, show they do converse..
Replies;
31st January 2011, Joanna Yeates has not been buried yet, her family and her boyfriend, have not had the chance to say good bye and mourn the life that was Joanna Yeates.
Interesting to see Greg's reaction to Darragh's offer of a night/day out at a gig..
Sounds pretty good. My mate Cronky might be up for it too, although were both going to the NME tour the day after.
He sounds upbeat, and as we can see he's busy on the 15th February 2011 also because he and his mate have a NME tour to go to on that date..
Greg Beardon Ha just noticed the day... Might just be you and me!
Again jovial Greg is joking about the date that Darragh has given for the gig in Bristol, that being the 14th February 2011.. Greg doesn't fail to notice the date and Jokes about it being just he and Darragh, as Valentines day couple do their own thing....
Ironic?? Is he having a giggle...
You have no idea what is going on at this moment in time.. Where the Police are with the investigation, whether or not another autopsy will take place, when and where your girlfriend will be buried....
He appears to have got over that rather quickly, gigs booked up , but it obviously hasn't phased him.. He appears to be quite a jolly little chappie..(imo)
How did he know that time would be clear to go to a gig or two? That preparations would not be needed around that time?
Joanna Yeates as we were told in the media, was buried on the 11th February 2011..
It has been said that I am insensitive...
Yes people grieve in different ways, But I find it strange, that on a public forum Greg should be happy to joke about being able to go to a gig or two, with his mates, and finds it ok to joke about valentines day...
Yes, we know he is single at that time, due to the murder of his girlfriend... But that appears not to bother him..(imo)
Why would you write that on a public forum? Did he not believe anyone would see it?
31st January 2011 that is:
* 17th December 2010 = 46 days from Missing
* 20th December 2010 = 43 days from reporting his girlfriend Missing
* 25th December 2010 = 38 days from being found dead
* 28th December 2010 = 35 days = Day Police announce Joanna yeates was Murdered
* 29th December 2010 = 34 days The day it was in the press that Greg was a Witness and not a suspect
* 30th December 2010 = 31 days CJ arrested
* 1st January 2011 = 30 days CJ released on bail
* 4th January 2011 = 29 days Facebook advert
* 5th January 2011 = 28 days Missing sock appeal
* 18th January 2010 = 13 days parents appeal for the killer
* 20th January 2011 = 11 days Dr Vincent Tabak arrested
* 22nd January 2011 = 9 days Dr Vincent Tabak charged
* 25 January 2010 = 6 day Dr Vincent Tabak appears in court
* 31 January 2011 = 0 days Dr Vincent Tabak preliminary hearing
Nothing on this date is really set in stone, a day when I would not expect a boyfriend to be jolly sorting out his social life on a public forum..
In 46 days from his girlfriend being Missing to a being found dead, a high profile case, and Greg appears unbothered, he appears he has not got a care in the world, he appears jolly....
Not one word about his girlfriend Joanna Yeates...
The reason you can't see Greg's name on Darragh's friends list is because Greg has applied privacy criteria to his profile. I guess that is to stop ghouls searching him out - will also be the reason he has changed his name.
-
I'm surprised at his time, looking at his Marathon pictures he doesn't look that fit.. Or dressed for the event, but, what do I know..
https://www.marathon-photos.com/scripts/photo.py?template=MPX2&event=Sports/CPUK/2011/Bristol%20Half%20Marathon&photo=CLJT0345&bib=15752
(https://www.marathon-photos.com/logics/StreamProduct?event=Sports/CPUK/2011/Bristol%20Half%20Marathon&bib=15752&product=FcertA4.tmpl&photo=)
Im sorry and supprised, this is not what the MOJ site should be about, someone’s personal Buisness being plastered on here like we’re on a Facebook site, we’re not here to discuss someone running a marathon and to pretend that your all innocent, either produce evidence or sod off! Hopefully The mods need to stop you getting away with absolute crap!
-
Im sorry and supprised, this is not what the MOJ site should be about, someone’s personal Buisness being plastered on here like we’re on a Facebook site, we’re not here to discuss someone running a marathon and to pretend that your all innocent, either produce evidence or sod off! Hopefully The mods need to stop you getting away with absolute crap!
If a post offends you, you are entitled to report it!!!
-
Please could we keep on topic, AND treat other posters with respect. Thanks!
-
If a post offends you, you are entitled to report it!!!
Have I done something wrong?
I thought I was being thorough... Backing up any statements, I just wanted to show I hadn't made it up... If you think the marathon stuff is irrelevant , please remove... But I thought it added to the whole story of the time, and we know that Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson, were also into running...
I have posted all about their 10k runs... in Stroud etc...
I'm just trying to get a bit of background... I'm no runner myself, so it did seem extremely quick... Good for them...
-
Im sorry and supprised, this is not what the MOJ site should be about, someone’s personal Buisness being plastered on here like we’re on a Facebook site, we’re not here to discuss someone running a marathon and to pretend that your all innocent, either produce evidence or sod off! Hopefully The mods need to stop you getting away with absolute crap!
Sod off...
Have I upset you?
Everyone complains when I use CJ all the time, seeing as CJ is the person who we know most about... I know that Darragh and Greg were witness's at trial, and i was just putting in a bit of background, to try and understand what went on at the time....
If you feel I'm being rude, I'm sure mrswah will remove the offending posts...
-
If a post offends you, you are entitled to report it!!!
It’s up to you, your the mod if you can’t see what is acceptable yourself, so be it. I’m quite willing to leave this topic and conversation, no wonder no one posts. I don’t do Facebook and I certainly ain’t doing on here thanks.
-
There are also certain insinuations in Billy's posts that I find uncomfortable!
I do find things by accident.... I am looking at one thing, then see something else... And because I do not know if people on facebook are joking or not, because i do not know them, I then check it out... And because i mention something, I feel that it is only fair that I show where the information comes from, hence the links, and images...
You'd have a right to have a go at me if i had said that Greg and Darragh pretended to be in a half marathon...
But I wouldn't say that, and if people haven't been following this case, I felt they needed to know I try to cover everything.
Therefore, I have shown that Greg and Darragh did indeed enter said marathon and did a marvelous job of it....
And i bring you times and images of the event.... 8)--))
-
It’s up to you, your the mod if you can’t see what is acceptable yourself, so be it. I’m quite willing to leave this topic and conversation, no wonder no one posts. I don’t do Facebook and I certainly ain’t doing on here thanks.
I don't do facebook either...
But you have to remember that the Avon and Somerset Police used facebook for this case, and they had an advert
This article is more than 8 years old
Joanna Yeates police launch Facebook appeal to find killer
This article is more than 8 years old
Campaign involving advert that allows people to contact police online more effective than posters and leafleting, say detectives
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jan/04/joanna-yeates-facebook-appeal
(https://i0.wp.com/metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/article-1294144678965-0ca4528e000005dc-390031_304x324.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&zoom=1&resize=304%2C324)
The family also set up a face book page: https://www.facebook.com/groups/169097479794933/
Also the poster of Joanna yeates had a facebook group on it... which I did a post about..
(https://helpfindjo.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/profile_findjo.jpg?w=285&h=511)
Real Justice... I know where you're coming from about facebook... i do not like it either, but this case centred around facebook, so I believe my posts about facebook are warranted...
-
I don't do facebook either...
But you have to remember that the Avon and Somerset Police used facebook for this case, and they had an advert
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jan/04/joanna-yeates-facebook-appeal
(https://i0.wp.com/metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/article-1294144678965-0ca4528e000005dc-390031_304x324.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&zoom=1&resize=304%2C324)
The family also set up a face book page: https://www.facebook.com/groups/169097479794933/
Also the poster of Joanna yeates had a facebook group on it... which I did a post about..
Real Justice... I know where you're coming from about facebook... i do not like it either, but this case centred around facebook, so I believe my posts about facebook are warranted...
I will discuss evidence all day, you bring no evidence whatsoever, zilch, you say your unsure, yet your all one sided, you say you come by things by accident, yet you resort to utter low life paparazzi posting and research, hopefully the truth will hit you both one day
-
I will discuss evidence all day, you bring no evidence whatsoever, zilch, you say your unsure, yet your all one sided, you say you come by things by accident, yet you resort to utter low life paparazzi posting and research, I will leave you and mrswah to it, hopefully the truth will hit you both one day. &^&*%
I bring questions... questions I have ... doubts I have had, about this case, that is all I have done..
-
I don't do facebook either...
But you have to remember that the Avon and Somerset Police used facebook for this case, and they had an advert
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jan/04/joanna-yeates-facebook-appeal
(https://i0.wp.com/metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/article-1294144678965-0ca4528e000005dc-390031_304x324.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&zoom=1&resize=304%2C324)
The family also set up a face book page: https://www.facebook.com/groups/169097479794933/
Also the poster of Joanna yeates had a facebook group on it... which I did a post about..
(https://helpfindjo.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/profile_findjo.jpg?w=285&h=511)
Real Justice... I know where you're coming from about facebook... i do not like it either, but this case centred around facebook, so I believe my posts about facebook are warranted...
If you don't do FB, how did you manage to look up Darragh Harry Bellew's profile? You have to be a member to read someone's profile!
-
If you don't do FB, how did you manage to look up Darragh Harry Bellew's profile? You have to be a member to read someone's profile!
I have explained that one...
Define doing facebook?
-
If you don't do FB, how did you manage to look up Darragh Harry Bellew's profile? You have to be a member to read someone's profile!
The real point being, everyone contacted the Police via facebook, instead of the usual channels...
odd way in which to conduct an investigation, in anyones book... (imo)
Not only that they filled out an online form... I think this is where the statements come from..
-
I have explained that one...
Define doing facebook?
So you are a member - 'not doing FB' mean you're not a member. You clearly DO do FB as today's posts clearly show!
-
The real point being, everyone contacted the Police via facebook, instead of the usual channels...
odd way in which to conduct an investigation, in anyones book... (imo)
Not only that they filled out an online form... I think this is where the statements come from..
No, the real point was that you said you didn't do FB which gives the impression you're not a member!
-
No, the real point was that you said you didn't do FB which gives the impression you're not a member!
Lots of things give impressions, it is just someones interpretation of those impressions...
-
No, the real point was that you said you didn't do FB which gives the impression you're not a member!
I obviously have to have had a facebook account... How else would I have been a member of the Facebook forum that mrswah lurked on....
-
Lots of things give impressions, it is just someones interpretation of those impressions...
Yeah like someone might get the impression your were trying to mislead!
-
I obviously have to have had a facebook account... How else would I have been a member of the Facebook forum that mrswah lurked on....
Define Lurked please
-
Yeah like someone might get the impression your were trying to mislead!
For what purpose....
-
I obviously have to have had a facebook account... How else would I have been a member of the Facebook forum that mrswah lurked on....
So why say you don't do FB when you clearly DO?
-
For what purpose....
Only you can answer that - just like Tabak is the ONLY person who know what his motives were!
-
Define Lurked please
My understand of what mrswah means, is she didn't post, but read what was written... many people were avid posters at the time...
-
I obviously have to have had a facebook account... How else would I have been a member of the Facebook forum that mrswah lurked on....
Lurked
to wait or move in a secret way so that you cannot be seen,
be or remain hidden so as to wait in ambush for someone or something.
So your both at it
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Lurked
to wait or move in a secret way so that you cannot be seen,
be or remain hidden so as to wait in ambush for someone or something.
So your both at it
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
I think I will stay a while longer, it’s better than the tv @)(++(*
-
I think I will stay a while longer, it’s better than the tv @)(++(*
Now who's going off topic.... 8(0(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Lurked
to wait or move in a secret way so that you cannot be seen,
be or remain hidden so as to wait in ambush for someone or something.
So your both at it
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
I'll give you that one Real... it did make me laugh.... @)(++(*
-
I'll give you that one Real... it did make me laugh.... @)(++(*
Eight, give us some evidence to discuss, your supposed to be defending and stating a case for Tabak!
-
Eight, give us some evidence to discuss, your supposed to be defending and stating a case for Tabak!
Well I appear to have failed miserably with my umpteen posts... I did think that I had shown many items that were good to discuss, but you obviously disagree...
-
Well I appear to have failed miserably with my umpteen posts... I did think that I had shown many items that were good to discuss, but you obviously disagree...
What, someone running a bloody marathon
-
Well I appear to have failed miserably with my umpteen posts... I did think that I had shown many items that were good to discuss, but you obviously disagree...
They have all been answered.
-
What, someone running a bloody marathon
No the many other posts that are available to view... I admit they are a tad long, but each post is backed up with links , images or video clips..
-
They have all been answered.
All......??
By whom?
-
Eight, give us some evidence to discuss, your supposed to be defending and stating a case for Tabak!
What happened to Billy??
-
What happened to Billy??
It was meant to say right, give us ect
Sorry Billy
-
All......??
By whom?
Most aren't even relevant.
I haven't (and be be) reading all.
-
Most aren't even relevant.
Maybe not, but unless I know what I need to look for, I have to apply every possibility... And question every element I can think of... Hence.........
The Defence appear not to have looked at every avenue... But I suppose if one is on legal aid, you only get a Base Metal service and not a platinum service, someone with money could afford...
Ian Kelcey, senior partner at Bristol firm Kelcey & Hall and Law Society council member said: ‘It’s a myth that clients get the same level of service on legal aid rates as when they pay privately - that disappeared about 10 years ago.’
Speaking at the Law Society’s criminal law conference, Kelcey said there is a limit to what firms can be expected to do on legal aid rates: ‘We can’t supply a platinum level of service with base metal rates of pay.’ He suggested that firms be open with clients about how much the government pays and explain the constraints this puts on them.
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/legal-aid-equality-a-myth-says-solicitor-advocate-kelcey/65516.article
I may add that Kelsey Hall were Dr vincent Tabak's solicitors...
-
Maybe not, but unless I know what I need to look for, I have to apply every possibility... And question every element I can think of... Hence.........
The Defence appear not to have looked at every avenue... But I suppose if one is on legal aid, you only get a Base Metal service and not a platinum service, someone with money could afford...
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/legal-aid-equality-a-myth-says-solicitor-advocate-kelcey/65516.article
I may add that Kelsey Hall were Dr vincent Tabak's solicitors...
Are you joking, he got probably one of the best defence Barristers in the Country, for free. Your a joke, I bet I wouldn’t get him if I was in trouble.
-
Vincent Tabak Trial Begins For The Murder Of Joanna Yeates
BRISTOL, ENGLAND - OCTOBER 04: William Clegg QC (C), who is representing Vincent Tabak, arrives at Bristol Crown Court on October 4, 2011 in Bristol, England. The trial of Vincent Tabak, a 33-year-old Dutch engineer accused of murdering landscape architect Jo Yeates began today. Tabak admits the manslaughter of his neighbour Miss Yeates, who was found dead on Christmas Day last year, but denies murdering her. (Photo by Matt Cardy/Getty Images)
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/william-clegg-qc-who-is-representing-vincent-tabak-arrives-news-photo/127960924?adppopup=true
(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/william-clegg-qc-who-is-representing-vincent-tabak-arrives-at-bristol-picture-id127960924?s=2048x2048)
He is on the left hand side...
IAN KELCEY
Senior Partner, Solicitor and Higher Courts Advocate, Fraud, Regulatory & Complex Crime Specialist
Ian Kelcey qualified as a Solicitor in 1980. Since qualifying he has been involved in a large number of notable cases and has built up a formidable reputation as one of the foremost criminal law solicitors of his generation. He has been involved in numerous murder cases, has advised and represented clients in relation to corporate manslaughter, and has wide experience tackling complex and lengthy fraud cases. Mr Kelcey has also gained a reputation for representing high profile figures such as police officers, members of the legal profession and professional sports personalities.
He has developed an expertise of handling cases involving sexual allegations and has represented clients in drug importation cases. He has a reputation for integrity, excellent client care and an eye for detail and preparing proactive defence strategies on behalf of his clients.
Mr Kelcey is frequently called upon to commentate in both newspapers and the national media on issues arising out of criminal law. His work load has involved cases in courts across the UK and he has ‘Higher Rights of Audience’ in the Court of Appeal. He is a member of the International Bar Association and the European Criminal Bar Association and past Chairman of the National Law Society’s Criminal Law Committee. The Bristol Law Society awarded him the ‘Outstanding Achievement Award’ in 2012 and he is praised in Chambers UK Solicitors Guide as “an extremely experienced solicitor, absolutely top-rate”.
(https://www.kelceyandhall.co.uk/js/plugins/imagemanager/files/cvs/Ian-kelcey-main.jpg)
https://www.kelceyandhall.co.uk/our-people/ian-kelcey.html
The case is on their site.. Under notable cases...
Joanna Yeates murder
R v Vincent Tabak
This case attracted much publicity arising out of the death of Joanna Yeates in Clifton in Bristol over the Christmas period of 2010. Joanna Yeates had disappeared from her flat in Clifton on the 17th December 2010 and her body was subsequently found on Christmas Day of that year within the Failand area of Bristol. Mr Tabak was subsequently arrested and tried for her murder, he being an occupant of another flat within the same building. Mr Tabak admitted being responsible for the death of Joanna Yeates but denied murder on the grounds that he had not intended that she should die. Mr Tabak was represented by Mr William Clegg QC of 2 Bedford Row, London and Mr Dean Armstrong, also of 2 Bedford Row. Mr Tabak was found guilty of the murder of Joanna Yeates.
https://www.kelceyandhall.co.uk/notable-cases.html
So the image with the 3 men, is:
Ian Kelcey, William Clegg and Dean Armstrong... Just so there is no confusion....
-
Are you joking, he got probably one of the best defence Barristers in the Country, for free. Your a joke, I bet I wouldn’t get him if I was in trouble.
I wouldn't want him, to be fair.... Bit worrying if you ask me...
-
everyone is wrong or not good enough just not Tabak
-
everyone is wrong or not good enough just not Tabak
No... I just like fair... And this case is well off... I want to know the truth, that is all..
-
No it isnt... and you arent fair! Not to anyone involved apart from him
-
I wouldn't want him, to be fair.... Bit worrying if you ask me...
Ha Ha “yeh right”
-
No it isnt... and you arent fair! Not to anyone involved apart from him
Jixy... I still have this going around my head...
Ian Kelcey, senior partner at Bristol firm Kelcey & Hall and Law Society council member said: ‘It’s a myth that clients get the same level of service on legal aid rates as when they pay privately - that disappeared about 10 years ago.’
Speaking at the Law Society’s criminal law conference, Kelcey said there is a limit to what firms can be expected to do on legal aid rates: ‘We can’t supply a platinum level of service with base metal rates of pay.’ He suggested that firms be open with clients about how much the government pays and explain the constraints this puts on them.
Base Metal Service..... I remember posting about it a while ago... But honestly, what does that say for the justice system, and people whom cannot afford to investigate every avenue that may bare fruit....??
Do they just give up and say... OK....I'm Guilty???
-
you have had all this explained to you many many times...
-
Maybe not, but unless I know what I need to look for, I have to apply every possibility... And question every element I can think of... Hence.........
The Defence appear not to have looked at every avenue... But I suppose if one is on legal aid, you only get a Base Metal service and not a platinum service, someone with money could afford...
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/legal-aid-equality-a-myth-says-solicitor-advocate-kelcey/65516.article
I may add that Kelsey Hall were Dr vincent Tabak's solicitors...
So you admit that just picking at the first things that comes into your head @)(++(*. If he was innocent, you would have been able to supply at least ONE relevant, indisputable fact!
Kelsey Hall were Dr vincent Tabak's solicitors? Are you sure? I thought none of it actually happened? @)(++(*
-
So you admit that just picking at the first things that comes into your head @)(++(*. If he was innocent, you would have been able to supply at least ONE relevant, indisputable fact!
Kelsey Hall were Dr vincent Tabak's solicitors? Are you sure? I thought none of it actually happened? @)(++(*
I admit... I still do not know what is real or not anymore with this case... But maybe that is the point, to confuse..
I keep saying, this case has bothered me from the beginning, nothing adds up... You cannot accept lies on the stand that were all revealed in the media at the time as fact to how a crime may have been committed, by a man, whom doesn't remember even speaking to CJ that weekend... He never mentions it at all at trial...
But we know he did... Because CJ has told us so.......
-
It’s up to you, your the mod if you can’t see what is acceptable yourself, so be it. I’m quite willing to leave this topic and conversation, no wonder no one posts. I don’t do Facebook and I certainly ain’t doing on here thanks.
Anyone may report a post that he or she finds offensive, not just the mods! And, many posters do report posts. Personally, I'm not keen on the idea of quoting from people's Facebook pages, but, as far as I'm aware, it is not against forum rules.
-
Jixy... I still have this going around my head...
Base Metal Service..... I remember posting about it a while ago... But honestly, what does that say for the justice system, and people whom cannot afford to investigate every avenue that may bare fruit....??
Do they just give up and say... OK....I'm Guilty???
You Forget one thing Billy, you’re Bestie did plead guilty, so he should have got the Poundland representation and not cost the tax payer millions
-
I admit... I still do not know what is real or not anymore with this case... But maybe that is the point, to confuse..
I keep saying, this case has bothered me from the beginning, nothing adds up... You cannot accept lies on the stand that were all revealed in the media at the time as fact to how a crime may have been committed, by a man, whom doesn't remember even speaking to CJ that weekend... He never mentions it at all at trial...
But we know he did... Because CJ has told us so.......
Delusional disorder, previously called paranoid disorder, is a type of serious mental illness — called a “psychosis”— in which a person cannot tell what is real from what is imagined. The main feature of this disorder is the presence of delusions, which are unshakable beliefs in something untrue
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/9599-delusional-disorder
-
Jixy... I still have this going around my head...
Base Metal Service..... I remember posting about it a while ago... But honestly, what does that say for the justice system, and people whom cannot afford to investigate every avenue that may bare fruit....??
Do they just give up and say... OK....I'm Guilty???
What are you talking about 'every avenue#? the bloody man confessed! How many years have you been rattling on about this now? Picking at irrelevant BS and trawling through Twitter and FB - would you like the case to be still on-going and Tabak's confession to be ignored? If trails were ran the way you suggest, no one would get justice and the legal system would collapse, it would cost so much money that it would be inoperable.
Lets ignore ALL the confessions and concentrate on whether the victim once changed her shoes at a wedding! %56&
-
Anyone may report a post that he or she finds offensive, not just the mods! And, many posters do report posts. Personally, I'm not keen on the idea of quoting from people's Facebook pages, but, as far as I'm aware, it is not against forum rules.
Thanks, we’re past that one I’ve lost, Billy said your at it as well @)(++(*
-
I admit... I still do not know what is real or not anymore with this case... But maybe that is the point, to confuse..
I keep saying, this case has bothered me from the beginning, nothing adds up... You cannot accept lies on the stand that were all revealed in the media at the time as fact to how a crime may have been committed, by a man, whom doesn't remember even speaking to CJ that weekend... He never mentions it at all at trial...
But we know he did... Because CJ has told us so.......
when he was vague it was for a reason. he had taken someone's life. he was never gonna give the whole story in gory detail and you will never find it out. It is not our right to know . You will also never know which part of his story was true and which part was lies to help his manslaughter story along its way. When he said sorry in court we can only hope that was true!
-
I admit... I still do not know what is real or not anymore with this case... But maybe that is the point, to confuse..
I keep saying, this case has bothered me from the beginning, nothing adds up... You cannot accept lies on the stand that were all revealed in the media at the time as fact to how a crime may have been committed, by a man, whom doesn't remember even speaking to CJ that weekend... He never mentions it at all at trial...
But we know he did... Because CJ has told us so.......
Sally Ramage:
Defence Counsel: Did you remain at home or did you go out?
Tabak: I went out
I sent Tanja a text message after I returned; just after 7.15pm
I had gone for a quick walk to take pictures of snow.
I left by small garden gate to Bristol Road then returned.
I didn’t take any photos- the snow was dirty.
At 7.25 – after I had returned, I accessed my bank account via Internet until 7.37pm.
Where does Dr Vincent Tabak mention CJ??
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
I'm assuming it was around the time he saw CJ:
CJ's TV statements in "Countdown to Murder program"
From the program Countdown to Murder... at 27:41 of the video
As I was on my way out to the gym, quite by chance, erm I met Vincent Tabak and we had a very brief conversation, erm and he seemed to be in quite an elated mood and was saying what a very beautiful evening it was erm, this light dusting of snow, erm thats all the conversation consisted of...
So CJ must have left between 7:00 and 7:30pm, unless Dr Vincent Tabak went out again....
But still Dr Vincent Tabak hasn't recalled seeing CJ,.. even though CJ recalls seeing Dr Vincent Tabak..
-
I admit... I still do not know what is real or not anymore with this case... But maybe that is the point, to confuse..
I keep saying, this case has bothered me from the beginning, nothing adds up... You cannot accept lies on the stand that were all revealed in the media at the time as fact to how a crime may have been committed, by a man, whom doesn't remember even speaking to CJ that weekend... He never mentions it at all at trial...
But we know he did... Because CJ has told us so.......
How do you know he doesn't remember speaking to CJ? But then CJ has no reason to lie, Tabak does!
-
How do you know he doesn't remember speaking to CJ? But then CJ has no reason to lie, Tabak does!
It doesn't appear to have been mentioned at trial...
If a scenario of an event is mentioned, the jury get a fuller picture of the events that took place that evening... I believe it is important...
CJ may have been able to enlighten the jury on Dr Vincent Tabak's elated mood... That in itself may have brought questions...
-
Thanks, we’re past that one I’ve lost, Billy said your at it as well @)(++(*
Pardon?? Could you please explain?
-
Sally Ramage:
Where does Dr Vincent Tabak mention CJ??
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
I'm assuming it was around the time he saw CJ:
CJ's TV statements in "Countdown to Murder program"
From the program Countdown to Murder... at 27:41 of the video
So CJ must have left between 7:00 and 7:30pm, unless Dr Vincent Tabak went out again....
But still Dr Vincent Tabak hasn't recalled seeing CJ,.. even though CJ recalls seeing Dr Vincent Tabak..
Countdown To Murder was an entertainment prog - they did one on Bamber and it was also inaccurate! Does Tabak specifically state that he didn't talk to CJ or does he simply now mention it?
-
How do you know he doesn't remember speaking to CJ? But then CJ has no reason to lie, Tabak does!
CJ left at between 7:00 and 7:30 pm and returned at 9:00pm... If Dr Vincent Tabak went out to take pictures when he said... I'm just trying to clarify... that is all...
-
It doesn't appear to have been mentioned at trial...
If a scenario of an event is mentioned, the jury get a fuller picture of the events that took place that evening... I believe it is important...
CJ may have been able to enlighten the jury on Dr Vincent Tabak's elated mood... That in itself may have brought questions...
So he didn't actually deny talking to him?
-
Countdown To Murder was an entertainment prog - they did one on Bamber and it was also inaccurate! Does Tabak specifically state that he didn't talk to CJ or does he simply now mention it?
Yes I understand that... But... They interviewed CJ, and I believe it's important that we can see what he knew of the time, it comes from his own mouth... Just like his Leveson statement, it is something we can rely on coming from that person...
-
I obviously have to have had a facebook account... How else would I have been a member of the Facebook forum that mrswah lurked on....
Ask Billy?
-
So he didn't actually deny talking to him?
CJ spoke to Dr Vincent Tabak twice that weekend... I have quoted what he has stated and the time of these statements on The Countdown to Murder program..
CJ's TV statements in "Countdown to Murder program"
From the program Countdown to Murder... at 27:41 of the video
As I was on my way out to the gym, quite by chance, erm I met Vincent Tabak and we had a very brief conversation, erm and he seemed to be in quite an elated mood and was saying what a very beautiful evening it was erm, this light dusting of snow, erm thats all the conversation consisted of...
Then at 28:45 of the video
Vincent Tabak helped me move the car that morning, erm, becawse, there was snow on the drive, and I need some help, in the car being pushed up.. erm, the slight incline, erm, from the parking area onto the main part of the drive,, so that I could get the car out.Er, when I thanked Vincent for er, doing that for me, erm, his reply was,.. well what are neighbours for
I always try to evidence where I get my information from..
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15624;image)
-
Yes I understand that... But... They interviewed CJ, and I believe it's important that we can see what he knew of the time, it comes from his own mouth... Just like his Leveson statement, it is something we can rely on coming from that person...
So what? Just because Tabak doesn't mention talking to CJ doesn't mean he didn't. He hasn't denied it has he? Once again you're injecting suspicion were none is required.
By the way, you're not Mrs N. Osey are you? @)(++(* @)(++(*
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/vincent_tabak_statements
-
Countdown To Murder was an entertainment prog - they did one on Bamber and it was also inaccurate! Does Tabak specifically state that he didn't talk to CJ or does he simply now mention it?
It wasn't Dr Vincent Tabak who mentioned it..... It happened to be CJ...
-
It wasn't Dr Vincent Tabak who mentioned it..... It happened to be CJ...
And?
-
So what? Just because Tabak doesn't mention talking to CJ doesn't mean he didn't. He hasn't denied it has he? Once again you're injection suspicion were none is required.
By the way, you're not Mrs N. Osey are you? @)(++(* @)(++(*
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/vincent_tabak_statements
I would have thought CJ was relevant to the trial.... Witnesses whom could build a fuller picture of that weekends events...
This is why i don't get how CJ was part of the Leveson..... He was a material witness to events of that weekend...
-
And?
At the time of trial no-one was aware that CJ was a witness, to events of that weekend, it has only come out after trial...
Pretty important if you ask me.....
And i'll save you the bother of saying who's asking you.... @)(++(*
-
I would have thought CJ was relevant to the trial.... Witnesses whom could build a fuller picture of that weekends events...
This is why i don't get how CJ was part of the Leveson..... He was a material witness to events of that weekend...
Are you deliberately pretending not to understand? Why would CJ be relevant when Tabak confessed? The trail wasn't about whether or not he killed her (in which case CJ would have been a witness), it was about Tabak's INTENTIONS! This is like basic stuff and you just can't grasp it!
He was part of Leveson because he was unfairly hounded by the press.
-
At the time of trial no-one was aware that CJ was a witness, to events of that weekend, it has only come out after trial...
Pretty important if you ask me.....
And i'll save you the bother of saying who's asking you.... @)(++(*
The fact that CJ has enlightened us with this information, we should recognise.... He has been in the papers initially with his arrest, he then took the papers to court and won..
Afterward he was a core participant of the Leveson Inquiry...
They made a Netflix documentary about his ordeal, which is still available to view...
He received a written apology from Avon and Somerset Police... He is admired by many....
So with all that wouldn't you think that people would believe what he says?
The very fact that he is telling us he conversed with Dr Vincent Tabak that weekend, should be taken note of... I believe the time is important, I believe everything about those conversations are important...
I believe that CJ should have been a witness at the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak....
-
I would have thought CJ was relevant to the trial.... Witnesses whom could build a fuller picture of that weekends events...
This is why i don't get how CJ was part of the Leveson..... He was a material witness to events of that weekend...
The Leverson was about press intrusion, why bring CJ, Tabak had already pleaded guilty, it wasn’t about guilt.
-
Are you deliberately pretending not to understand? Why would CJ be relevant when Tabak confessed? The trail wasn't about whether or not he killed her (in which case CJ would have been a witness), it was about Tabak's INTENTIONS! This is like basic stuff and you just can't grasp it!
He was part of Leveson because he was unfairly hounded by the press.
Yes... I know you keep saying that... And I know that there was an apparent confession.... But if the timelines do not marry up... one needs to question the tale on the stand by Dr Vincent Tabak.... That any Tom ,Dick or Harry could have concocted from all the reports in the media and social media at the time...
It's extremely convenient that he did it in such a small time frame... NO CCTV timestamps proving what time anything actually happened...
Evidence to support the tale on the stand... that is all that is required....
Oh yes... And Forensic evidence from both Joanna Yeates Flat and Dr Vincent Tabak's flat proving that he was in her Flat, and she was taken around to his flat....
We can all come up with theories... And the prosecution had many theories...
I too have had many theories...
-
The Leverson was about press intrusion, why bring CJ, Tabak had already pleaded guilty, it wasn’t about guilt.
That old chestnut....
CJ was invited or applied to be a core participant, I do not know which... That was back in August 2011, before a trial had taken place in October 2011...
A trial ... again may I add, where he could and should have been a witness....(imo)
-
That old chestnut....
CJ was invited or applied to be a core participant, I do not know which... That was back in August 2011, before a trial had taken place in October 2011...
And?
-
And?
He could and should have been a witness...(imo)
Other evidence wasn't heard at the Leveson because investigations and prosecutions etc, were happening at that time.. I believe....
I believe when they were concluded, they would be heard at Leveson 2
-
That old chestnut....
CJ was invited or applied to be a core participant, I do not know which... That was back in August 2011, before a trial had taken place in October 2011...
A trial ... again may I add, where he could and should have been a witness....(imo)
This isn't about YOUR OPINION! He wasn't a witness because the trial wasn't about WHO killed her but whether he had INTENT and it wasn't about whether his confession was genuine or not because he didn't retract it - CJ was nothing to do with ANY of that!
I notice you didn't answer my earlier question as to whether you are/were Mrs N. Osey?
-
Yes... I know you keep saying that... And I know that there was an apparent confession.... But if the timelines do not marry up... one needs to question the tale on the stand by Dr Vincent Tabak.... That any Tom ,Dick or Harry could have concocted from all the reports in the media and social media at the time...
It's extremely convenient that he did it in such a small time frame... NO CCTV timestamps proving what time anything actually happened...
Evidence to support the tale on the stand... that is all that is required....
Oh yes... And Forensic evidence from both Joanna Yeates Flat and Dr Vincent Tabak's flat proving that he was in her Flat, and she was taken around to his flat....
We can all come up with theories... And the prosecution had many theories...
I too have had many theories...
NOT THEORIES - HE ADMITTED TO BEING THERE!
-
He could and should have been a witness...(imo)
Other evidence wasn't heard at the Leveson because investigations and prosecutions etc, were happening at that time.. I believe....
I believe when they were concluded, they would be heard at Leveson 2
Why bring him as a witness, Tabak admitted he lied about CJ and tried to set him up.
-
What benefit to Tabak would CJ be for a witness?
Admission to jurors
Vincent Tabak - the man who would later emerge as Miss Yeates's killer - also saw it as an opportunity.
I shouldn't have said that about Chris Jefferies
Vincent Tabak
The 33-year-old Dutch engineer gave police false information he hoped would pile more suspicion on Mr Jefferies.
He said this in Court, it would be stupid to bring him as a witness
-
You Forget one thing Billy, you’re Bestie did plead guilty, so he should have got the Poundland representation and not cost the tax payer millions
I thought Justice was about being fair... Not who's got the most money to spend and resources...
So on that you are saying... 80 people for their own ends and agenda's could say something that isn't true... But if I didn't have the resources or a way in which to prove that they were exaggerating the truth, the fact that 80 people just state something and I have no resources to challenge them, then those 80 people will be believed, because numbers count and not evidence...
-
What benefit to Tabak would CJ be for a witness?
Admission to jurors
Vincent Tabak - the man who would later emerge as Miss Yeates's killer - also saw it as an opportunity.
I shouldn't have said that about Chris Jefferies
Vincent Tabak
The 33-year-old Dutch engineer gave police false information he hoped would pile more suspicion on Mr Jefferies.
He said this in Court, it would be stupid to bring him as a witness
Timeline is important...
Where was the gym for instance...
How long was the gym class CJ took...
Travel Time etc...
CJ arrives home at 9:00pm according to CJ's Leveson statement.. Knowing the exact time he conversed with Dr Vincent Tabak, may change the time line that Dr Vincent Tabak gave on the stand...
All timelines to the events of that night are IMPORTANT!!
Whether you agree or not....
-
You have absolutely no idea whatsoever, what the hell would you bring a witness in for that’s going to help the prosecution. Unbelievable, it just shows your lack of knowledge.
Can just see it, W Clegg, “we’ve bought this witness in your honour, to prove to the court that my client is dishonest and doesn’t tell the truth, Mr Tabak admits he tried to set this poor gentleman up for a crime he didn’t commit named Christopher Jefferies, which resulted in a witch hunt by the press” @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
You have absolutely no idea whatsoever, what the hell would you bring a witness in for that’s going to help the prosecution. Unbelievable, it just shows your lack of knowledge.
Can just see it, W Clegg, “we’ve bought this witness in your honour, to prove to the court that my client is dishonest and doesn’t tell the truth, Mr Tabak admits he tried to set this poor gentleman up for a crime he didn’t commit named Christopher Jefferies, which resulted in a witch hunt by the press” @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Who said it would help the prosecution??
-
Who said it would help the prosecution??
Oh, give over 8)><(
-
I thought Justice was about being fair... Not who's got the most money to spend and resources...
So on that you are saying... 80 people for their own ends and agenda's could say something that isn't true... But if I didn't have the resources or a way in which to prove that they were exaggerating the truth, the fact that 80 people just state something and I have no resources to challenge them, then those 80 people will be believed, because numbers count and not evidence...
You Don't have to lecture me about being fair, when you don’t show one ounce of remorse or respect for a grieving family that lost their beautiful precious daughter to a perverted monster.
-
Did anyone in Dr Vincent Tabak's defence team, know that Dr Vincent Tabak had conversed with CJ that weekend??
They may not have been aware of that fact..
Did CJ mention in either of his 2 witness statements that he had spoken to Dr Vincent Tabak that weekend??
He may not have done.. And he probably didn't, because it wasn't relevant at the time..
CJ... The Leveson...
My second statement to the police oil Wednesday 22 December 2010
,
On Tuesday 21 December 2010 1 provided a statement to the police who were at that
time searching the entire house and all the flats in it and taking statements from all the
residents. I was not being treated as a suspect. At the time the police said to all of us
that if we subsequently remembered anything that could be material we should get
back in touch,
That evening I remembered something else that I had not mentioned to
the police that I thought could possibly be material. This was that one evening, which
might have been Friday 17 December 2010, as I was coming back from fine gym at
about 9pm, I had parked my car on the road and was just walking through the gates of
the main driveway, when I became aware of what sounded like two or perhaps three
people leaving by the side gate on the other side of the house which I could not see as
there is a hedge in between and it was dark, I duly telephoned the police and relayed
this.
,
The next day, Wednesday 22 December 2010, the same officer who had taken my
first statement came back to my fiat and took a second statement about this. The
officer asked me if one of tile voices could have been a woman’s voice. I responded
that it could have been but that I could not say either way. The police have since
confirmed to me that the fact that I gave a supplementary statement raised their
suspicions in relation to me. On the basis of what ensued, I believe it is likely that the
police passed these suspicions on to rite media.
At the time the police said to all of us
that if we subsequently remembered anything that could be material we should get
back in touch,
That evening I remembered something else that I had not mentioned to
the police that I thought could possibly be material. This was that one evening, which
might have been Friday 17 December 2010, as I was coming back from fine gym at
about 9pm, I had parked my car on the road and was just walking through the gates of
the main driveway, when I became aware of what sounded like two or perhaps three
people leaving by the side gate on the other side of the house which I could not see as
there is a hedge in between and it was dark, I duly telephoned the police and relayed
this.
,
CJ only accounted for what he thought was relevant at the time to what may or may not have happened to Joanna Yeates...
Dr Vincent Tabaks movements were not in question at the time... Therefore they may not be anything in either of CJ's witness statements that are relevant to Dr Vincent Tabak..
But subsequently CJ, has divulged that he in fact spoke to Dr Vincent Tabak that weekend on 2 occasions..
Maybe that relevant information was not only in CJ telling us, but what he stated when interviewed when he was under arrest...
So maybe CJ's statements about Dr Vincent Tabak could be viewed as new evidence??
Maybe that's the reason CJ wasn't called as a witness, he never stated that he'd spoken to him in his 2 statements...
But now we know differently....
-
Who said it would help the prosecution??
Well it wouldn't help the defense given that Tabak admitted to killing Joanna and CJ wouldn't have known his motive. That's what the trial was about - it's a pity you don't understand that.
-
Did anyone in Dr Vincent Tabak's defence team, know that Dr Vincent Tabak had conversed with CJ that weekend??
They may not have been aware of that fact..
Did CJ mention in either of his 2 witness statements that he had spoken to Dr Vincent Tabak that weekend??
He may not have done.. And he probably didn't, because it wasn't relevant at the time..
CJ... The Leveson...
At the time the police said to all of us
that if we subsequently remembered anything that could be material we should get
back in touch,
That evening I remembered something else that I had not mentioned to
the police that I thought could possibly be material. This was that one evening, which
might have been Friday 17 December 2010, as I was coming back from fine gym at
about 9pm, I had parked my car on the road and was just walking through the gates of
the main driveway, when I became aware of what sounded like two or perhaps three
people leaving by the side gate on the other side of the house which I could not see as
there is a hedge in between and it was dark, I duly telephoned the police and relayed
this.
,
CJ only accounted for what he thought was relevant at the time to what may or may not have happened to Joanna Yeates...
Dr Vincent Tabaks movements were not in question at the time... Therefore they may not be anything in either of CJ's witness statements that are relevant to Dr Vincent Tabak..
But subsequently CJ, has divulged that he in fact spoke to Dr Vincent Tabak that weekend on 2 occasions..
Maybe that relevant information was not only in CJ telling us, but what he stated when interviewed when he was under arrest...
So maybe CJ's statements about Dr Vincent Tabak could be viewed as new evidence??
Maybe that's the reason CJ wasn't called as a witness, he never stated that he'd spoken to him in his 2 statements...
But now we know differently....
Look, if Tabak had pleaded not guilty to killing Joanna and not guilty to manslaughter, the whole trial would have been different, the prosecution would have called different witnesses and so too would have the defence. The fact that Tabak pleaded guilty to killing Joanna this then would have changed the whole structure of the trial, it became about Intent or not intentional.
-
Did anyone in Dr Vincent Tabak's defence team, know that Dr Vincent Tabak had conversed with CJ that weekend??
They may not have been aware of that fact..
Did CJ mention in either of his 2 witness statements that he had spoken to Dr Vincent Tabak that weekend??
He may not have done.. And he probably didn't, because it wasn't relevant at the time..
CJ... The Leveson...
At the time the police said to all of us
that if we subsequently remembered anything that could be material we should get
back in touch,
That evening I remembered something else that I had not mentioned to
the police that I thought could possibly be material. This was that one evening, which
might have been Friday 17 December 2010, as I was coming back from fine gym at
about 9pm, I had parked my car on the road and was just walking through the gates of
the main driveway, when I became aware of what sounded like two or perhaps three
people leaving by the side gate on the other side of the house which I could not see as
there is a hedge in between and it was dark, I duly telephoned the police and relayed
this.
,
CJ only accounted for what he thought was relevant at the time to what may or may not have happened to Joanna Yeates...
Dr Vincent Tabaks movements were not in question at the time... Therefore they may not be anything in either of CJ's witness statements that are relevant to Dr Vincent Tabak..
But subsequently CJ, has divulged that he in fact spoke to Dr Vincent Tabak that weekend on 2 occasions..
Maybe that relevant information was not only in CJ telling us, but what he stated when interviewed when he was under arrest...
So maybe CJ's statements about Dr Vincent Tabak could be viewed as new evidence??
Maybe that's the reason CJ wasn't called as a witness, he never stated that he'd spoken to him in his 2 statements...
But now we know differently....
FFS!!!!!! The reason he wasn't called as a witness is because such a conversation was IRRELEVANT!
-
Look, if Tabak had pleaded not guilty to killing Joanna and not guilty to manslaughter, the whole trial would have been different, the prosecution would have called different witnesses and so too would have the defence. The fact that Tabak pleaded guilty to killing Joanna this then would have changed the whole structure of the trial, it became about Intent or not intentional.
Why is this so difficult to understand? ?8)@)-)
-
Why is this so difficult to understand? ?8)@)-)
Prosecution, “right your honour, we’re going to spend three weeks showing the jury that Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates”.
Defence, “ Objection, my client has already admitted he killed her”
Prosecution “ We don’t accept his word, we’re going to prove it and hopefully he might get off”
(&^&
-
You have absolutely no idea whatsoever, what the hell would you bring a witness in for that’s going to help the prosecution. Unbelievable, it just shows your lack of knowledge.
Can just see it, W Clegg, “we’ve bought this witness in your honour, to prove to the court that my client is dishonest and doesn’t tell the truth, Mr Tabak admits he tried to set this poor gentleman up for a crime he didn’t commit named Christopher Jefferies, which resulted in a witch hunt by the press” @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Tabak had nothing to do with the fact that CJ was hounded by the press.
-
Tabak had nothing to do with the fact that CJ was hounded by the press.
You are being just like .... again! all the points raised and thats what you say! Real Justice said it resulted in a witch hunt not that it was ALL Tabaks fault!
-
Did anyone in Dr Vincent Tabak's defence team, know that Dr Vincent Tabak had conversed with CJ that weekend??
So maybe CJ's statements about Dr Vincent Tabak could be viewed as new evidence??
And? he pleaded guilty, said sorry and has never battled to change either his conviction or sentence. That should tell you something!
-
Tabak had nothing to do with the fact that CJ was hounded by the press.
Tabak was 100 per cent responsible, if he hadn’t killed JY, this would never have happened. It really is that simple.
-
Tabak was 100 per cent responsible, if he hadn’t killed JY, this would never have happened. It really is that simple.
What a very strange way they have at looking at this whole case. Fingers can be pointed in every direction but never in his!
People are wrong for running, searching commenting not commenting but him with his disgusting porn lies and his inability to control himself however he came to be in Jo's flat that is ok because for some reason they want to think he couldnt possibly have done this.
No one knew that side to him that was eventually revealed. He knows he is a monster and that is why he never challenged his conviction, he just thought he was smart enough to get away with it!
-
What a very strange way they have at looking at this whole case. Fingers can be pointed in every direction but never in his!
People are wrong for running, searching commenting not commenting but him with his disgusting porn lies and his inability to control himself however he came to be in Jo's flat that is ok because for some reason they want to think he couldnt possibly have done this.
No one knew that side to him that was eventually revealed. He knows he is a monster and that is why he never challenged his conviction, he just thought he was smart enough to get away with it!
Don’t let it worry you Jixy. I can live with the fact that I battle for the truth and the honour of such a beautiful young girl taken from her family by a perverted sex crazed monster,
-
Don’t let it worry you Jixy. I can live with the fact that I battle for the truth and the honour of such a beautiful young girl taken from her family by a perverted sex crazed monster,
Dont lose that way of thinking...this thread is crazy! whenever a vaild point is raised it is just overlooked with huge posts to follow that have no connection to the points, just deflecting!
-
What a very strange way they have at looking at this whole case. Fingers can be pointed in every direction but never in his!
People are wrong for running, searching commenting not commenting but him with his disgusting porn lies and his inability to control himself however he came to be in Jo's flat that is ok because for some reason they want to think he couldnt possibly have done this.
No one knew that side to him that was eventually revealed. He knows he is a monster and that is why he never challenged his conviction, he just thought he was smart enough to get away with it!
Ok Jixy... lets say he viewed porn....
I am trying to establish how it was even possible for him to kill Joanna yeates...
People have many disgusting habits, we can't put them all in prison for that reason.... If they have done an act that constitutes a custodial sentence, then prison it will be...
But you cannot and should not put someone in prison for a crime they have not committed..
Ok lets say the child images are true.... (Shocking that type of behaviour)
He needs to be charged for that....
If he is charged for a crime he didn't commit, it means whom ever really committed said crime has gotten away with it...
And that's the point.... Just because he said a story on the stand that doesn't really add up and everyone has accepted said story, doesn't mean it is true ...
Thinking of reasons why he may have admitted responsibility...
* He could have been covering for someone else....
* He could have been tricked into believing he was responsible
* He could have hacked computers in another country and didn't want to be extradited (unlikely)
* He may know who did it
* He could have been arrested and to be charged under joint enterprise (killers was a term used)
* Or he maybe just that geek whom has done nothing and got wrapped up in this... and doesn't know his arse from
his elbow, unable to answer over 80 questions..
There may be other reasons, I do not know... But really my point being, you need to have the right person in prison for the right crime.... The Case isn't therefore done and dusted... Justice has not been done...
As the real killer is walking around free, and may do it again, knowing that they have already gotten away with it...
It doesn't make the streets safer, and it doesn't make someone elses daughter safer..
Yes, it may help to clear the crime rate up, but that is just a fallacy...(imo)
-
I have to say i find your views on this crime unbelievable. For one porn isnt just pictures. When its consenting adults yes but when it is not that is a whole different situation. Im sick and tired of people who look at child porn being defended with the words its only pictures, they never touched a child etc. They did with their eyes, their need to view it is why its created and new victims suffer!
You can go round in circles saying he covered for someone, he was brainwashed etc in fact you can put whatever spin on it you like! that does not make it true!
He may be a geek who got wrapped up in this? yes with that I have to agree. When he went into her flat and killed her, he got a bit more than wrapped up in this!
There is NO evidence to say he admitted to a crime he didnt do but yes i fully believe he didnt give a full accurate account of exactly what took place. He is an intelligent man and gave a watered down version to help his attempts at getting away with murder
So you are saying ALL the evidence is one huge conspiracy and the killer(s) are still walking free . Really?
-
What a very strange way they have at looking at this whole case. Fingers can be pointed in every direction but never in his!
People are wrong for running, searching commenting not commenting but him with his disgusting porn lies and his inability to control himself however he came to be in Jo's flat that is ok because for some reason they want to think he couldnt possibly have done this.
No one knew that side to him that was eventually revealed. He knows he is a monster and that is why he never challenged his conviction, he just thought he was smart enough to get away with it!
Who's pointing fingers?
We know of several people to do with this case, we no not of their movements to the fullest extent, we could eliminate all of them..(we don't know)
Who's to say it is not an entirely different person who killed Joanna Yeates, other than all the people we heard about in the beginning in the media or on social media at the time..
Without knowing who saw whom, at what point in time, a proper timeline can not be established..
Without an accurate time of death, how can can it be established on which day Joanna Yeates died??
Joanna Yeates time of death comes from the story on the stand, but where is the medical evidence that gives a time of death, and how many days she may have been dead for?
It has been stated that I pick and chose, which bits I want to believe, but in return the same can be said about the story on the stand,... The only part of the story anyone seemed interested in, was that Dr Vincent Tabak said he was responsible for Joanna Yeates death.. And everyone is happy he says that meaning to everyone he killed her...
-
You have to be joking? A young woman died, what do you want people to be interested in? You dont just pick and choose, you point blank refuse to accept ANY of the many points that prove he is guilty
You know better than Tabak. He confessed to killing her , he confessed to the child porn and yet you still choose to refuse to accept his word
You casually throw Joint Enterprise into the mix... many scenarios but you are unable to accept the real one!
-
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/counseling-keys/201403/how-handle-crazymaker
-
Ok Jixy... lets say he viewed porn....
I am trying to establish how it was even possible for him to kill Joanna yeates...
People have many disgusting habits, we can't put them all in prison for that reason.... If they have done an act that constitutes a custodial sentence, then prison it will be...
But you cannot and should not put someone in prison for a crime they have not committed..
Ok lets say the child images are true.... (Shocking that type of behaviour)
He needs to be charged for that....
If he is charged for a crime he didn't commit, it means whom ever really committed said crime has gotten away with it...
And that's the point.... Just because he said a story on the stand that doesn't really add up and everyone has accepted said story, doesn't mean it is true ...
Thinking of reasons why he may have admitted responsibility...
* He could have been covering for someone else....
* He could have been tricked into believing he was responsible
* He could have hacked computers in another country and didn't want to be extradited (unlikely)
* He may know who did it
* He could have been arrested and to be charged under joint enterprise (killers was a term used)
* Or he maybe just that geek whom has done nothing and got wrapped up in this... and doesn't know his arse from
his elbow, unable to answer over 80 questions..
There may be other reasons, I do not know... But really my point being, you need to have the right person in prison for the right crime.... The Case isn't therefore done and dusted... Justice has not been done...
As the real killer is walking around free, and may do it again, knowing that they have already gotten away with it...
It doesn't make the streets safer, and it doesn't make someone elses daughter safer..
Yes, it may help to clear the crime rate up, but that is just a fallacy...(imo)
He Could have done this, he could have done that, He could have chose to not kill Joanna, he didn’t, you base your theories on thin air and You have two parts of a brain, 'left' and 'right'. In the left side, there's nothing right. In the right side, there's nothing left.
You produce zero evidence to back up yours and only your theories, your clueless on the law and criminal justice system, you show nothing but contempt for poor Joanna and anyone associated with her, you pry into people’s private life’s and talk nothing but garbage.
-
I went looking for this video and nearly failed to find it, the links to the ITN webpage say that the video doesn't exist.
https://www.itv.com/news/story/2013-09-16/christopher-jefferies-joanna-yeates-exoneration/
https://www.itv.com/news/topic/christopher-jefferies/
But fortunately I did find it on youtube... And decided to transcribe it incase that video goes Missing..
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Transcript of Interview CJ and Chief Constable Nick Gargan..
CJ:
The Letter certainly acknowledges that they could have done things differently, err.. one of the things which they could have done differently, was to make it absolutely certain at the time that I was released from Police Bail, that they accepted that I was entirely innocent and played no part whatsoever , erm... In the Murder Of Jo Yeates.
Erm.. They could probably at that point also have acknowledged the very considerable distress which I had to experience as a result of the length of time that I remained on Police Bail, which was some 6 weeks after Vincent Tabak was originally arrested and charged.
Nick Gargan:
It's not a letter of apology, it is a letter that acknowledges that things might have been done differently. The situation is very clear, the arrest of Christopher Jefferies was integral and necessary part of the investigation and I've no criticism of that decision. Er.. Nor indeed the way in which it was carried out.
On reflection, in the light of our conversation with Mr Jefferies since, what we have come to realise, is that we might have been quicker in making it clear that he was no longer a suspect.
Now it's not ordinary Police practice, to release details, a press release to say that someone isn't a suspect anymore. But then again this wasn't an ordinary case and Mr Jefferies, had been subjected to a campaign of vilification in the press,. It was within our gift to reduce that by making an earlier announcement that he was no longer a suspect and on reflection we think that er.. we think that might have been done.
CJ:
There are several things, it erm.. first of all provides the public exculpation, which is the equivalent of the apology the newspapers that I sued had to make when they appeared at the High Court in the Summer of 2011,.. Urm... That acknowledges, it is something the Police had not done before. It acknowledges er, the very considerable distress, which all this caused. Erm... and it someway I think, at least implicitly, towards acknowledging that it did just effect me, it effected members of my family, it effected friends. So they were also to a degree, victims as well as i was.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6waChhMuRU
But then again this wasn't an ordinary case
There you go... no ordinary case.... What was so extraordinary about it?? Everyones happy with the story on the stand, murder or manslaughter..... Yet Chief Constable Nick Gargan tells us some years later that this was no ordinary case... Why is that then?? Sounds ordinary enough if you believe the tale on the stand and the admission of guilt..
Why all this hoo har surrounding this case, if it is ordinary, if a Chief Constable is telling us to camera that it wasn't an ordinary case.
Gives more reason to question why!! (imo)
-
No ordinary case not because Tabak is innocent!!! but because another poor man was hounded and hounded!!!
-
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15632;image)
I could take from that, that it not existing means it was made up... It depends on how ones interprets these things!
But I have linked the interview, and the first title on the interview is from "The Guardian"...
So i do not know why ITV states it doesn't exist.
-
“pulling a ‘switcheroo’
https://www.baggagereclaim.co.uk/youre-not-going-to-crazy-make-me-why-i-wont-be-making-sense-out-of-nonsense-and-you-shouldnt-either/
-
No ordinary case not because Tabak is innocent!!! but because another poor man was hounded and hounded!!!
Ok... But questions need to be answered...
The situation is very clear, the arrest of Christopher Jefferies was integral and necessary part of the investigation and I've no criticism of that decision. Er.. Nor indeed the way in which it was carried out.
Why was it integral and necessary part of the investigation to arrest CJ??
That should relate directly to Dr Vincent Tabak..... surely
Are Dr Vincent Tabak and CJ related ? I'm trying to understand why arresting CJ whom it has been shown is wholly innocent was an integral and necessary part of the investigation ...
What other reason could there be for CJ arrest to be an integral and necessary part of the investigation???
-
“pulling a ‘switcheroo’
https://www.baggagereclaim.co.uk/youre-not-going-to-crazy-make-me-why-i-wont-be-making-sense-out-of-nonsense-and-you-shouldnt-either/
So who was the switcheroo in this case??
Is a Switchaaroo an offical Police Procedure?? @)(++(*
Yes... i have been trying to make sense out of nonsense for a very long time..
switcheroo noun
switch·er·oo | \ ˌswi-chə-ˈrü \
plural switcheroos
Definition of switcheroo
: a surprising variation : REVERSAL
Examples of switcheroo in a Sentence
They changed to a different system without telling anyone that they had pulled a switcheroo.
Recent Examples on the Web
But moments like Rick’s death switcheroo are pure P. T. Barnum — manufactured almost entirely out of hype.
— Bryan Bishop, The Verge, "The Walking Dead has condemned itself for all time," 5 Nov. 2018
Anne Hathaway’s spoiled starlet Daphne Kluger becomes a pawn in the gang’s elaborate jewel switcheroo.
— Stephanie Zacharek, Time, "Review: Ocean's 8 Boasts a Great Cast But Lacks Champagne-Bubble Lightness," 9 June 2018
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/switcheroo
-
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15632;image)
I could take from that, that it not existing means it was made up... It depends on how ones interprets these things!
But I have linked the interview, and the first title on the interview is from "The Guardian"...
So i do not know why ITV states it doesn't exist.
Without doing any research, I would say it’s been archived and they want you to pay for it.
-
Without doing any research, I would say it’s been archived and they want you to pay for it.
Thanks for that Real... 8)--)) Maybe the answer is as simple as that, but i am not chasing it around to find out...
-
Ok... But questions need to be answered...
The situation is very clear, the arrest of Christopher Jefferies was integral and necessary part of the investigation and I've no criticism of that decision. Er.. Nor indeed the way in which it was carried out.
Why was it integral and necessary part of the investigation to arrest CJ??
That should relate directly to Dr Vincent Tabak..... surely
Are Dr Vincent Tabak and CJ related ? I'm trying to understand why arresting CJ whom it has been shown is wholly innocent was an integral and necessary part of the investigation ...
What other reason could there be for CJ arrest to be an integral and necessary part of the investigation???
Yes CJ is an undercover Dutch Librarian, they are both from the planet “Billy Bungalow”
-
Yes CJ is an undercover Dutch Librarian, they are both from the planet “Billy Bungalow”
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Thanks for that Real... 8)--)) Maybe the answer is as simple as that, but i am not chasing it around to find out...
Oh please do Billy, give us a rest 8)><( 8)><( 8)><(
-
Oh please do Billy, give us a rest 8)><( 8)><( 8)><(
Relax and listen to a tune... Real..
Get a coffee and take a seat and enjoy the music...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xlz56To77J8
-
Tabak was 100 per cent responsible, if he hadn’t killed JY, this would never have happened. It really is that simple.
True, (assuming he did kill her), but the media was responsible for what happened to C.J, (IMO). That is why they had to pay him huge amounts in compensation.
It really is that simple!!
-
True, (assuming he did kill her), but the media was responsible for what happened to C.J, (IMO). That is why they had to pay him huge amounts in compensation.
It really is that simple!!
And it really is that simple that Tabak killed her confessed and is now serving a life sentence. Right where he should be!
-
CJ:
The Letter certainly acknowledges that they could have done things differently, err.. one of the things which they could have done differently, was to make it absolutely certain at the time that I was released from Police Bail, that they accepted that I was entirely innocent and played no part whatsoever , erm... In the Murder Of Jo Yeates.
Erm.. They could probably at that point also have acknowledged the very considerable distress which I had to experience as a result of the length of time that I remained on Police Bail, which was some 6 weeks after Vincent Tabak was originally arrested and charged.
...............
Nick Gargan:
It's not a letter of apology, it is a letter that acknowledges that things might have been done differently. The situation is very clear, the arrest of Christopher Jefferies was integral and necessary part of the investigation and I've no criticism of that decision. Er.. Nor indeed the way in which it was carried out.
On reflection, in the light of our conversation with Mr Jefferies since, what we have come to realise, is that we might have been quicker in making it clear that he was no longer a suspect.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg526880#msg526880
Arresting CJ apparently was an integral part of this investigation, so why keep him on bail for 6 weeks after Dr Vincent tabak was charged??
CJ was arrested on 30th December 2010 and not released from Police bail until early March 2011
Dr Vincent tabak was charged 22nd January 2011
DCI Phil Jones tells the Leveson that it was the bloody trainer behind the kick-board under the sink in the house , being the reason that CJ was kept on bail..
Which therefore surprises me why CJ doesn't seem aware of this fact...
On reflection, in the light of our conversation with Mr Jefferies since, what we have come to realise, is that we might have been quicker in making it clear that he was no longer a suspect.
Well lets be honest here.... How could The Police have made it clearer quicker??
At the time CJ has been in hiding, sued the papers, talks of The Leveson inquiry are underway,.. CJ being a core participant...
The Police wouldn't and maybe couldn't divulge anything about CJ's arrest and bail as it was apart of the evidence at the Leveson Inquiry....
After The Leveson maybe, The Police said what they needed to say at The Leveson, and at the time of the Leveson CJ himself was was in the process of taking the Police to court and that stopped certain evidence coming to light as it was part of a up and coming case..
So how much sooner could the Police have stated that CJ was no longer a suspect and make an apology??
By admitting to it the Police would face a court action for sure... So why are they going to do that??
They know that someone acting for CJ had already written to the papers by 1st January 2011, so i would say the Police are not going to respond until they can see CJ's hand....
And again, it is usual for The Police to tell everyone someone is not a suspect...
So when was the earliest the Police could say that CJ was not a suspect?? They obviously felt they had reason in the beginning, and kept him on Police Bail until March 2011...
The Leveson etc, prevented them from acting sooner in CJ's interest (imo)
It's a bit catch 22..
* 30th December 2010 CJ arrested
* 1st January 2011 CJ released on Police Bail
* 20th January 2011 Dr Vincent Tabak arrested
* 22nd January 2011 Dr Vincent Tabak charged
* 21st April 2011 it is announced that CJ is suing the papers
* 5th May 2011 Dr Vincent Tabak pleads guilty to manslaughter via video link at The Old Bailey
* 8th May 2011 it is reported in the media that CJ is taking legal action against the police.
* July 2011 Lord Justice Leveson, was appointed for the inquiry
* 29th July 2011 CJ and the contempt of court about the papers
* 14th September 2011 the Guardian list the names of the core participants CJ is amongst them
* 20th September 2011 Dr Vincent Tabak appears in court again
* October 2011 around 4 weeks of trial for Dr Vincent Tabak for the murder of Joanna Yeates
* 28th October 2011 Dr Vincent Tabak is found guilty
* 4th November 2011 a statement from CJ was sent to the Inquiry
* 28th November 2011 CJ's oral evidence is given.
* February 2012 CJ was recalled to give evidence at the Leveson
* 29th November 2012, the media tell us The Leveson 1 has published it's report
* Published on 16 Sep 2013 The youtube interview with Nick Gargan
To be honest, I do not know whether or not CJ would have been needed for Leveson 2, I know that Leveson 2 has been cancelled and CJ has gone to court to get Leveson 2 completed...
Whatever evidence Leveson 2 may have brought forth, I am not sure if it would have a direct baring on CJ in relation to this case and whether or not the Police should have apologised sooner...
Maybe Leveson 2 prevented the Police saying anything publicly at the time, I am not sure... But until all the evidence is presented to the Leveson, I cannot see the Police making any public apology that might jeopdise any evidence they could have given to Leveson 1 or the future Leveson 2. (imo)
https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122175126/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Christopher-Jefferies.pdf
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17194514
-
If CJ was recalled to give evidence in Leveson 1 would he have been again a core participant in Leveson 2?
Did the interview with CC Nick Gargan and the apology of sorts prevent CJ giving any future evidence to any future Leveson Inquiry?
If phone hacking was involved, then did CJ get hacked at the time??
Still asking the question therefore, whether CJ should have pursued The Police action or waited until after Leveson 2
Did CJ make an error of judgement there??
If cases were actively ongoing and Leveson 2 was waiting for them to finish, when did they finish??
CJ has been extremely vocal and actively pursuing Leveson 2, but could he ever be a core participant again? Or does he just wish for Leveson 2 to happen??
Since CJ's arrest, he has been in the Leveson, appeared on many TV shows he has had a netflix program made about him, he has given numerous talks... All of these things, which if they were at all relevant to Leveson 2 have put a spanner in the works... And I wonder if CJ would have ever been called again to give evidence in Leveson 2...
If Leveson 1 was anything to go by, all evidence relative to leveson 2 had not been made public and has not been made public to this day if I am correct...
So what else could CJ have brought to Leveson 2 that we didn't already know from his original Leveson 1 appearances, to all the TV interviews for Crime Docs etc... His Netflix adaptation, and his numerous public speaking appearances since the end of his statements to The Leveson Inquiry...
The problem I find, is anything that is out in the public domain now in regards to CJ and The Leveson, wouldn't be used in evidence in Leveson 2..
So I cannot see the advantage of Leveson 2 for CJ... to be honest...
Mr Christopher Jefferies
No. I did give an interview for ITN News. One of the reasons that I gave that was that the interviewer happened to be somebody whom at one stage I taught.
Link in context Link
Mr Jay
Thank you. In terms of the legal process, the contempt proceedings have been determined. There's ongoing litigation against the police.
May I deal with the issue of the Press Complaints Commission?
Mr Christopher Jefferies
Oh yes.
Nothing about that situation had been brought to Leveson 1, because it was ongoing and had to be left out of Leveson 1..
But would the Polices handling of CJ been part of Leveson 2??
Which now couldn't happen because of the apology..... What ever evidence CJ gave to Leveson 1 surely held what happened in regards to the Polices action against him, even if it hadn't been used at that time as the litigation was in process..
CJ uses the term subsidiary... When referring to his second witness statement, it's suplimentary, not as important, an addition... So what was in CJ's Original statement to the Police, which we do not know?? Is the information held within that statement of greater importance, when reading what CJ has to say about the second statement??
Mr Christopher Jefferies
Yes, there was. I think it was the day immediately before I was arrested, I was greeted by a large number of reporters and photographers as I was leaving the house one day, who seemed particularly interested to question me about the details of the second subsidiary statement that I had given to the police.
Maybe what is held in the second statement is of greater importance, even though CJ lightly dusts it off as being unimportant...
We will never know....
https://leveson.sayit.mysociety.org/hearing-28-november-2011/mr-christopher-jefferies
There's one more thing i want to understand.... From the TV interview/ Police apology.
Erm... and it someway I think, at least implicitly, towards acknowledging that it did just effect me, it effected members of my family, it effected friends. So they were also to a degree, victims as well as i was
I though CJ was an only child, I thought his parents were dead.. So i wondered which family he was referring too?? No-one living had ever been identified that was apart of CJ's family, or does he use that term loosely??
And therefore who is CJ related too?? And is it relevant??
-
Mr Reardon went into the witness box five minutes before the case adjourned for lunch.
Mr Reardon, who had been staying in Sheffield on the weekend of her death, said the pair
had been in a relationship for two years. They had previously lived together in the Bristol
suburb of Westbury Park before moving to Clifton on October 25, the court heard.
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
Yesterday I was not too kindly looked upon about making posts relating to marathons etc..
Now I was just looking at the Sally Ramage pdf, when "Westbury Park" jumped off the page..
Relationships between any individuals that have been named in this case haven't been established.. Well not really, Dr Vincent Tabak didn't know either Greg or Joanna Yeates, but no-one has ever asked if Tanaj knew either of them??
Now it could be just coincidence I do not know... Greg and Joanna Yeates lived in Westbury Park, and Tanja Morson ran for Westbury Harriers..
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/01/22/article-1349505-0CDB33C7000005DC-579_306x423.jpg)
He had moved to Britain in 2007 to work in Bath and lived in the city before moving to the affluent area of Clifton in 2009 to set up home with Miss Morson.
She is a fitness fan. She has run for the Bristol-based Westbury Harriers club and both she and Mr Tabak have taken part in several ten-kilometre running events. Mr Tabak had previously refused to speak to reporters about the murder.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349356/Joanna-Yeates-murder-suspect-Vincent-Tabak-split-girlfriend.html
Before Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson lived together he lived in Bath, but I do not know where Tanja Morson lived..
But she did train and run for Westbury Harriers and I do not know if she lived in the area, it is possible and Joanna Yeates and Greg Reardon coincidentally lived in Westbury... And Greg too likes to run
So I am asking did Tanja Morson know either Joanna Yeates or Greg Reardon??
It a reasonable question to ask... Mr and Mrs Yeates said Tanja was most concerned, and they still keep in contact with Tanja Morson. Did Tanja know Joanna Yeates??
We knew who is vital in this case.. (imo)
Edit.... Did Greg or Joanna also train at Westbury Park/ Westbury harriers?? It caters for many people..
https://www.westburyharriers.com/
-
Nine is just like Theresa May, ignoring everything that's said to her and going her own way. Thank heavens Nine is not our PM !! Just my opinion of course.
-
Nine is just like Theresa May, ignoring everything that's said to her and going her own way. Thank heavens Nine is not our PM !! Just my opinion of course.
8@??)(
-
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
Yesterday I was not too kindly looked upon about making posts relating to marathons etc..
Now I was just looking at the Sally Ramage pdf, when "Westbury Park" jumped off the page..
Relationships between any individuals that have been named in this case haven't been established.. Well not really, Dr Vincent Tabak didn't know either Greg or Joanna Yeates, but no-one has ever asked if Tanaj knew either of them??
Now it could be just coincidence I do not know... Greg and Joanna Yeates lived in Westbury Park, and Tanja Morson ran for Westbury Harriers..
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/01/22/article-1349505-0CDB33C7000005DC-579_306x423.jpg)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349356/Joanna-Yeates-murder-suspect-Vincent-Tabak-split-girlfriend.html
Before Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson lived together he lived in Bath, but I do not know where Tanja Morson lived..
But she did train and run for Westbury Harriers and I do not know if she lived in the area, it is possible and Joanna Yeates and Greg Reardon coincidentally lived in Westbury... And Greg too likes to run
So I am asking did Tanja Morson know either Joanna Yeates or Greg Reardon??
It a reasonable question to ask... Mr and Mrs Yeates said Tanja was most concerned, and they still keep in contact with Tanja Morson. Did Tanja know Joanna Yeates??
We knew who is vital in this case.. (imo)
Edit.... Did Greg or Joanna also train at Westbury Park/ Westbury harriers?? It caters for many people..
https://www.westburyharriers.com/
· Mr Tabak's British girlfriend, Tanja Morson was helping police with their inquiries. ..... “We are all very sad about it, and although I didn't know Miss Yeates, I am deeply saddened by what happened.”
-
Ok Jixy... lets say he viewed porn....
I am trying to establish how it was even possible for him to kill Joanna yeates...
People have many disgusting habits, we can't put them all in prison for that reason.... If they have done an act that constitutes a custodial sentence, then prison it will be...
But you cannot and should not put someone in prison for a crime they have not committed..
Ok lets say the child images are true.... (Shocking that type of behaviour)
He needs to be charged for that....
If he is charged for a crime he didn't commit, it means whom ever really committed said crime has gotten away with it...
And that's the point.... Just because he said a story on the stand that doesn't really add up and everyone has accepted said story, doesn't mean it is true ...
Thinking of reasons why he may have admitted responsibility...
* He could have been covering for someone else....
* He could have been tricked into believing he was responsible
* He could have hacked computers in another country and didn't want to be extradited (unlikely)
* He may know who did it
* He could have been arrested and to be charged under joint enterprise (killers was a term used)
* Or he maybe just that geek whom has done nothing and got wrapped up in this... and doesn't know his arse from
his elbow, unable to answer over 80 questions..
There may be other reasons, I do not know... But really my point being, you need to have the right person in prison for the right crime.... The Case isn't therefore done and dusted... Justice has not been done...
As the real killer is walking around free, and may do it again, knowing that they have already gotten away with it...
It doesn't make the streets safer, and it doesn't make someone elses daughter safer..
Yes, it may help to clear the crime rate up, but that is just a fallacy...(imo)
The right person is in prison - nasty, sweaty, heavy breathing pervert who couldn't control his urges - urges fueled by the viewing of sick, disgusting perverted images. The streets are a lot safer now the DVT is locked up (by the way, DVT doesn't stand for Dr Vincent Tabak!)
-
Who's to say it is not an entirely different person who killed Joanna Yeates,
TABAK!
-
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15632;image)
I could take from that, that it not existing means it was made up... It depends on how ones interprets these things!
But I have linked the interview, and the first title on the interview is from "The Guardian"...
So i do not know why ITV states it doesn't exist.
Imagine having a website were nothing was ever removed - how much space and cost do you imagine it would run to? The video's get removed after a while because they use up space and to make way for more recent events. They could be uploaded to the site again - if required. Logic never really enters your theories does it?
-
True, (assuming he did kill her), but the media was responsible for what happened to C.J, (IMO). That is why they had to pay him huge amounts in compensation.
It really is that simple!!
Ultimately, Tabak was responsible because he killed Jo and pointed the finger at CJ. That's how simply it is.
-
· Mr Tabak's British girlfriend, Tanja Morson was helping police with their inquiries. ..... “We are all very sad about it, and although I didn't know Miss Yeates, I am deeply saddened by what happened.”
Reams of drivel that could have been sorted out with a simple search @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Ok... But questions need to be answered...
The situation is very clear, the arrest of Christopher Jefferies was integral and necessary part of the investigation and I've no criticism of that decision. Er.. Nor indeed the way in which it was carried out.
Why was it integral and necessary part of the investigation to arrest CJ??
That should relate directly to Dr Vincent Tabak..... surely
Are Dr Vincent Tabak and CJ related ? I'm trying to understand why arresting CJ whom it has been shown is wholly innocent was an integral and necessary part of the investigation ...
What other reason could there be for CJ arrest to be an integral and necessary part of the investigation???
I think this one takes the prize Caroline, logic at its best *%6^
-
Ultimately, Tabak was responsible because he killed Jo and pointed the finger at CJ. That's how simply it is.
CJ was arrested before VT and Tanja called the police from Holland.
-
CJ was arrested before VT and Tanja called the police from Holland.
But gave a statement to police implicating his CJ just after CJ was arrested and BEFORE his trip to Holland and ultimately his own arrest. He even apologised for it.
https://www.breakingnews.ie/world/tabak-admits-landlord-car-claim-525149.html
-
Ok... But questions need to be answered...
The situation is very clear, the arrest of Christopher Jefferies was integral and necessary part of the investigation and I've no criticism of that decision. Er.. Nor indeed the way in which it was carried out.
Why was it integral and necessary part of the investigation to arrest CJ??
That should relate directly to Dr Vincent Tabak..... surely
Are Dr Vincent Tabak and CJ related ? I'm trying to understand why arresting CJ whom it has been shown is wholly innocent was an integral and necessary part of the investigation ...
What other reason could there be for CJ arrest to be an integral and necessary part of the investigation???
Is that a serious question?
-
But gave a statement to police implicating his CJ just after CJ was arrested and BEFORE his trip to Holland and ultimately his own arrest. He even apologised for it.
https://www.breakingnews.ie/world/tabak-admits-landlord-car-claim-525149.html
mrswah doesn’t believe Tabak was involved with Joanna’s murder, so she ain’t going to accept the fact that Tabak killing Joanna led to the press intrusion of CJ.
-
mrswah doesn’t believe Tabak was involved with Joanna’s murder, so she ain’t going to accept the fact that Tabak killing Joanna led to the press intrusion of CJ.
Can't argue with the facts Justice 8(0(*
-
mrswah doesn’t believe Tabak was involved with Joanna’s murder, so she ain’t going to accept the fact that Tabak killing Joanna led to the press intrusion of CJ.
To be honest, this isn't really worth arguing about( !!!) , but the fact is that CJ was arrested on 30th December. VT and Tanja rang the police from Holland the following day, having (presumably) followed events on line. Whether or not VT killed Joanna, the newspapers went wild with all sorts of rumours and rubbish regarding CJ. That latter sued the newspapers, not VT.
-
To be honest, this isn't really worth arguing about( !!!) , but the fact is that CJ was arrested on 30th December. VT and Tanja rang the police from Holland the following day, having (presumably) followed events on line. Whether or not VT killed Joanna, the newspapers went wild with all sorts of rumours and rubbish regarding CJ. That latter sued the newspapers, not VT.
Well, it is given that what Tabak said to police was said to implicate CJ and as such, contributed to what followed.
-
To be honest, this isn't really worth arguing about( !!!) , but the fact is that CJ was arrested on 30th December. VT and Tanja rang the police from Holland the following day, having (presumably) followed events on line. Whether or not VT killed Joanna, the newspapers went wild with all sorts of rumours and rubbish regarding CJ. That latter sued the newspapers, not VT.
Thanks for that, I know all the timelines, I know the reaction afterwards, Tabak was and is responsible for all this mess, he’s responsible for what happened to Joanna and he’s responsible for CJ being arrested which led to the hounding, he had a chance to stop it all and put it right, he chose to fuel it and cause further hounding of a innocent and truly remarkable man.
-
From The Metro:
Mr Jefferies said: ‘It provides an important conclusion to the whole aftermath of what I had to go through following my arrest. ‘As the letter itself explains it provides the public vindication which was not given at the time I was released from police bail. Vincent Tabak was found guilty of murdering Joanna Yeates ‘Although the letter is addressed to me and is therefore expressing regret at what I had to endure, the letter also implicitly provides the public acceptance that the events didn’t just affect me but affected a large circle of my relatives and friends.’
https://metro.co.uk/2013/09/16/were-sorry-police-apologise-for-treatment-of-christopher-jefferies-after-arrest-for-joanna-yeates-murder-4024433/?ito=cbshare
Recap Nick Gargan:It's not a letter of apology, it is a letter that acknowledges that things might have been done differently. The situation is very clear, the arrest of Christopher Jefferies was integral and necessary part of the investigation and I've no criticism of that decision. Er.. Nor indeed the way in which it was carried out.
On reflection, in the light of our conversation with Mr Jefferies since, what we have come to realise, is that we might have been quicker in making it clear that he was no longer a suspect.
Now it's not ordinary Police practice, to release details, a press release to say that someone isn't a suspect anymore. But then again this wasn't an ordinary case and Mr Jefferies, had been subjected to a campaign of vilification in the press,. It was within our gift to reduce that by making an earlier announcement that he was no longer a suspect and on reflection we think that er.. we think that might have been done.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg526880#msg526880
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6waChhMuRU
The Letter in question:
(https://news.images.itv.com/image/file/262284/image_update_eae92464283c8b96_1379306661_9j-4aaqsk.jpeg)
Interesting.... I've just checked that the image has shown up and I copied the image address, but what I have got here is only part of the letter that is on the ITV website, even though the image I see is clearly the full letter... Or is it? Is it 2 images together?
I'll attach the full image of the letter:
Anyway... The letter clearly indicates an apology, It states that the "Police" are 'SORRY" even though in the interview CC Nick Gargan clearly tells us that it is not a letter of apology...
The article states letter.. But this has been emailed, the information on the bottom of the page states;
C/V1 877 letter to Mr Jefferies re apology.doc_289985_1
I went back to check... and yes, it is two individual images @)(++(* Each with their own jpg number... How Odd!
(https://news.images.itv.com/image/file/262285/image_update_ad4ba0f0e7a21eda_1379306710_9j-4aaqsk.jpeg)
I will still attach what is the full image I have screen shot....
Now this brings even more questions.... has someone made this document up and married 2 seperate letters?
Which letter is the original, is the top or bottom image??
I write as I think quite often, and find things, like these 2 married individual images, I was just originally going to put up the image I had screen shot once I attached the image, but when i realised I could copy and paste the url, I did a direct copy of image, this is how I discovered it was indeed 2 images and not one....
I'll still attach the image I have screen shoot, then edit my post so it appears on my post....
Now why would ITV show us a letter that is clearly two images married together? Why hasn't anyone said anything about this letter before?
I'm quite stunned , I didn't expect that when I started writing this post.... My original reason to write the post was to state that the letter says "Sorry"... and clearly CC Nick Gargan on the TV interview states that the Police never apologised...
That married letter deserves a &%%6
Where did ITV obtain this letter?
I'm amazed here, I don't know what to say now.....
Here are the 2 individual URLs for the 2 images:
https://news.images.itv.com/image/file/262284/image_update_eae92464283c8b96_1379306661_9j-4aaqsk.jpeg
https://news.images.itv.com/image/file/262285/image_update_ad4ba0f0e7a21eda_1379306710_9j-4aaqsk.jpeg
Edit...
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15662;image)
Double Edit...
[ the letter also implicitly provides the public acceptance that the events didn’t just affect me but affected a large circle of my relatives and friends.’
]
Where in the letter does it state about family and friends??
Oppsie.. missed ITV's website address:
https://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/story/2013-09-16/jefferies-gets-police-apology/
-
From The Metro:
Recap Nick Gargan:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg526880#msg526880
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6waChhMuRU
The Letter in question:
(https://news.images.itv.com/image/file/262284/image_update_eae92464283c8b96_1379306661_9j-4aaqsk.jpeg)
Interesting.... I've just checked that the image has shown up and I copied the image address, but what I have got here is only part of the letter that is on the ITV website, even though the image I see is clearly the full letter... Or is it? Is it 2 images together?
I'll attach the full image of the letter:
Anyway... The letter clearly indicates an apology, It states that the "Police" are 'SORRY" even though in the interview CC Nick Gargan clearly tells us that it is not a letter of apology...
The article states letter.. But this has been emailed, the information on the bottom of the page states;
C/V1 877 letter to Mr Jefferies re apology.doc_289985_1
I went back to check... and yes, it is two individual images @)(++(* Each with their own jpg number... How Odd!
(https://news.images.itv.com/image/file/262285/image_update_ad4ba0f0e7a21eda_1379306710_9j-4aaqsk.jpeg)
I will still attach what is the full image I have screen shot....
Now this brings even more questions.... has someone made this document up and married 2 seperate letters?
Which letter is the original, is the top or bottom image??
I write as I think quite often, and find things, like these 2 married individual images, I was just originally going to put up the image I had screen shot once I attached the image, but when i realised I could copy and paste the url, I did a direct copy of image, this is how I discovered it was indeed 2 images and not one....
I'll still attach the image I have screen shoot, then edit my post so it appears on my post....
Now why would ITV show us a letter that is clearly two images married together? Why hasn't anyone said anything about this letter before?
I'm quite stunned , I didn't expect that when I started writing this post.... My original reason to write the post was to state that the letter says "Sorry"... and clearly CC Nick Gargan on the TV interview states that the Police never apologised...
That married letter deserves a &%%6
Where did ITV obtain this letter?
I'm amazed here, I don't know what to say now.....
Here are the 2 individual URLs for the 2 images:
https://news.images.itv.com/image/file/262284/image_update_eae92464283c8b96_1379306661_9j-4aaqsk.jpeg
https://news.images.itv.com/image/file/262285/image_update_ad4ba0f0e7a21eda_1379306710_9j-4aaqsk.jpeg
Edit...
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15662;image)
Been there, seen it all done that, If TABAK hadn’t done what he did, you and I wouldn’t be here deliberating, Tabak wouldn’t be in prison (although it was just a matter of time for the monster) CJ wouldn’t have been hounded by the press, the police wouldn’t have have been apologetic and Mr and Mrs Yeates would still have their precious daughter and a future to look forward to. TABAK is responsible for all of this and more.
If I chucked a man overboard out at sea and a shark came along and gobbled him up, is it the sharks fault?
-
From The Metro:
Recap Nick Gargan:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg526880#msg526880
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6waChhMuRU
The Letter in question:
(https://news.images.itv.com/image/file/262284/image_update_eae92464283c8b96_1379306661_9j-4aaqsk.jpeg)
Interesting.... I've just checked that the image has shown up and I copied the image address, but what I have got here is only part of the letter that is on the ITV website, even though the image I see is clearly the full letter... Or is it? Is it 2 images together?
I'll attach the full image of the letter:
Anyway... The letter clearly indicates an apology, It states that the "Police" are 'SORRY" even though in the interview CC Nick Gargan clearly tells us that it is not a letter of apology...
The article states letter.. But this has been emailed, the information on the bottom of the page states;
C/V1 877 letter to Mr Jefferies re apology.doc_289985_1
I went back to check... and yes, it is two individual images @)(++(* Each with their own jpg number... How Odd!
(https://news.images.itv.com/image/file/262285/image_update_ad4ba0f0e7a21eda_1379306710_9j-4aaqsk.jpeg)
I will still attach what is the full image I have screen shot....
Now this brings even more questions.... has someone made this document up and married 2 seperate letters?
Which letter is the original, is the top or bottom image??
I write as I think quite often, and find things, like these 2 married individual images, I was just originally going to put up the image I had screen shot once I attached the image, but when i realised I could copy and paste the url, I did a direct copy of image, this is how I discovered it was indeed 2 images and not one....
I'll still attach the image I have screen shoot, then edit my post so it appears on my post....
Now why would ITV show us a letter that is clearly two images married together? Why hasn't anyone said anything about this letter before?
I'm quite stunned , I didn't expect that when I started writing this post.... My original reason to write the post was to state that the letter says "Sorry"... and clearly CC Nick Gargan on the TV interview states that the Police never apologised...
That married letter deserves a &%%6
Where did ITV obtain this letter?
I'm amazed here, I don't know what to say now.....
Here are the 2 individual URLs for the 2 images:
https://news.images.itv.com/image/file/262284/image_update_eae92464283c8b96_1379306661_9j-4aaqsk.jpeg
https://news.images.itv.com/image/file/262285/image_update_ad4ba0f0e7a21eda_1379306710_9j-4aaqsk.jpeg
Edit...
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15662;image)
Double Edit...
[ the letter also implicitly provides the public acceptance that the events didn’t just affect me but affected a large circle of my relatives and friends.’
]
Where in the letter does it state about family and friends??
I suppose you stumbled across this all by accident again Billy? Your very prone @)(++(*
-
(https://news.images.itv.com/image/file/262284/image_update_eae92464283c8b96_1379306661_9j-4aaqsk.jpeg)
Now I am wondering... Is the top part of the email from the media whom apologised??
From a blog about media apologies..
Here's the Star's apology:
In court yesterday the Daily Star apologised to Christopher Jefferies for articles published on December 31 2010 and January 1 2011, in which we reported on his arrest on suspicion of the murder of Joanna Yeates.
The articles suggested that there were strong grounds to believe that Mr Jefferies had killed Ms Yeates and that he had acted in an inappropriate over- sexualised manner with his pupils when he was a teacher. The articles also suggested that he had probably lied to police to obstruct their investigations.
We accepted that all these allegations were untrue and apologised to Mr Jefferies.
Yesterday the Daily Mirror, The Sunday Mirror and other newspapers apologised in court for the publication of false allegations about the retired school master Christopher Jefferies, who, we had wrongly suggested, was strongly to be suspected of having killed his former tenant Joanna Yeates.
The Daily Mirror wrongly suggested that he had invaded his tenants' privacy, was associated with a convicted paedophile and might have had something to do with an unsolved murder dating back to 1974.
The Sunday Mirror wrongly suggested that he had acted inappropriately towards his pupils in the past.
We accepted that these allegations were untrue and that far from being involved in the crime, Mr Jefferies helped the police with their inquiries as best he could.
We have agreed to pay substantial damages to Mr Jefferies plus his legal costs.
The letters I think appeared in the papers, but did they also write to CJ personally??
http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.com/2011/07/page-two-apologies-to-christopher.html
I write further to correspondence between Avon and Somerset Legal Directorate and your solicitor.
So again I'll ask... is this image taken from an apology to Mr Jefferies from one of the media outlets??
It's possible, anything is possible in this case... (imo)
Therefore why would ITV show the letter of 2 images as one?
Edit..I write further to correspondence between Avon and Somerset Legal Directorate and your solicitor.
Does that statement mean it is from someone other than Avon and Somerset Police ??
Just asking.....
-
I suppose you stumbled across this all by accident again Billy? Your very prone @)(++(*
I explained in my post how it happened... I was laughing because I couldn't believe it.... I'm like OMG!!
-
The MSM behaved appallingly in the way Chris Jefferies was vilified the moment interest shifted towards him. Sky News' doorstepping of him being one of the worst offenders.
-
The MSM behaved appallingly in the way Chris Jefferies was vilified the moment interest shifted towards him. Sky News' doorstepping of him being one of the worst offenders.
True and no one is disputing that
-
(https://news.images.itv.com/image/file/262284/image_update_eae92464283c8b96_1379306661_9j-4aaqsk.jpeg)
Letter: I have typed it so I can refer to it easier....
Dear Mr Jefferies
I write further to correspondence between Avon and Somerset LegalServices Directive andd your Solicitor. Whilst we believe your arrest was an integral step in this challenging and complex Investigation. I write formally to acknowledge the hurt that you suffered as a result of that arrest, detention and eventual release on police bail in connection with the murder of Joanna Yeates in December 2010 and which was the subject of huge media interest.
I accept unequivocally that you played no part in the murder and that you are wholly innocent of the crime. Colleagues were grateful for your full and helpful cooperation of their investigation which eventually resulted in the successful prosecution of the true offender.
I understand that the length of time that you spent on police bail caused you significant distress and inevitably prolonged the period of time when you remained in the public eye as someone who was still suspected of involvement in an appalling crime. The police did not make it clear publicly that you were no longer a suspect in the investigation as soon as you were released from bail on 5 March 2011. While it is not normal practice to make such a public statement, in the circumstances of the exceptional media attention your arrest attracted I acknowledge we should have considered this and I an very sorry for the suffering you experienced as a result.
Noticeable points
(1): There is no date of arrest
(2): It manages the date for release from bail being 5 March 2011
(3): True offender
(4): police bail in connection with the murder of Joanna Yeates in December 2010
(5): Date of letter being sent is Missing
This is bugging me now..... When was this actually written?? And whom wrote it???
You have real problems (imo), this letter is supposed to have been received in 2013 nearly 2 years after Dr Vincent Tabak is sent to prison for the murder of Joanna Yeates.
It should be after the Leveson in 2012, as I posted that the action against the Police was mentioned...
But I can't see that being correct....
* Where does it mention the date of arrest and the 3 days he was held in custody?
* Where does it mention the date of Joanna Yeates murder being 17th December 2010 as stated at trial
* Where does it mention Dr Vincent Tabak being the offender?? by 2013 everyone was aware whom was in prison...
I get the impression it was written in 2011, I say this because of 2 major points, no idea when Joanna Yeates was Murdered and no idea who the murderer was.... That apparently being Dr Vincent Tabak...
I could be wrong, it's just the impression it gives me...
-
(https://news.images.itv.com/image/file/262284/image_update_eae92464283c8b96_1379306661_9j-4aaqsk.jpeg)
Letter: I have typed it so I can refer to it easier....
Dear Mr Jefferies
I write further to correspondence between Avon and Somerset LegalServices Directive andd your Solicitor. Whilst we believe your arrest was an integral step in this challenging and complex Investigation. I write formally to acknowledge the hurt that you suffered as a result of that arrest, detention and eventual release on police bail in connection with the murder of Joanna Yeates in December 2010 and which was the subject of huge media interest.
I accept unequivocally that you played no part in the murder and that you are wholly innocent of the crime. Colleagues were grateful for your full and helpful cooperation of their investigation which eventually resulted in the successful prosecution of the true offender.
I understand that the length of time that you spent on police bail caused you significant distress and inevitably prolonged the period of time when you remained in the public eye as someone who was still suspected of involvement in an appalling crime. The police did not make it clear publicly that you were no longer a suspect in the investigation as soon as you were released from bail on 5 March 2011. While it is not normal practice to make such a public statement, in the circumstances of the exceptional media attention your arrest attracted I acknowledge we should have considered this and I an very sorry for the suffering you experienced as a result.
Noticeable points
(1): There is no date of arrest
(2): It manages the date for release from bail being 5 March 2011
(3): True offender
(4): police bail in connection with the murder of Joanna Yeates in December 2010
(5): Date of letter being sent is Missing
This is bugging me now..... When was this actually written?? And whom wrote it???
You have real problems (imo), this letter is supposed to have been received in 2013 nearly 2 years after Dr Vincent Tabak is sent to prison for the murder of Joanna Yeates.
It should be after the Leveson in 2012, as I posted that the action against the Police was mentioned...
But I can't see that being correct....
* Where does it mention the date of arrest and the 3 days he was held in custody?
* Where does it mention the date of Joanna Yeates murder being 17th December 2010 as stated at trial
* Where does it mention Dr Vincent Tabak being the offender?? by 2013 everyone was aware whom was in prison...
I get the impression it was written in 2011, I say this because of 2 major points, no idea when Joanna Yeates was Murdered and no idea who the murderer was.... That apparently being Dr Vincent Tabak...
I could be wrong, it's just the impression it gives me...
You have typed it so it’s not the true version. Post the true and accurate version to debate, not your version Billy.
-
(https://news.images.itv.com/image/file/262284/image_update_eae92464283c8b96_1379306661_9j-4aaqsk.jpeg)
Letter: I have typed it so I can refer to it easier....
Dear Mr Jefferies
I write further to correspondence between Avon and Somerset LegalServices Directive andd your Solicitor. Whilst we believe your arrest was an integral step in this challenging and complex Investigation. I write formally to acknowledge the hurt that you suffered as a result of that arrest, detention and eventual release on police bail in connection with the murder of Joanna Yeates in December 2010 and which was the subject of huge media interest.
I accept unequivocally that you played no part in the murder and that you are wholly innocent of the crime. Colleagues were grateful for your full and helpful cooperation of their investigation which eventually resulted in the successful prosecution of the true offender.
I understand that the length of time that you spent on police bail caused you significant distress and inevitably prolonged the period of time when you remained in the public eye as someone who was still suspected of involvement in an appalling crime. The police did not make it clear publicly that you were no longer a suspect in the investigation as soon as you were released from bail on 5 March 2011. While it is not normal practice to make such a public statement, in the circumstances of the exceptional media attention your arrest attracted I acknowledge we should have considered this and I an very sorry for the suffering you experienced as a result.
Noticeable points
(1): There is no date of arrest
(2): It manages the date for release from bail being 5 March 2011
(3): True offender
(4): police bail in connection with the murder of Joanna Yeates in December 2010
(5): Date of letter being sent is Missing
This is bugging me now..... When was this actually written?? And whom wrote it???
You have real problems (imo), this letter is supposed to have been received in 2013 nearly 2 years after Dr Vincent Tabak is sent to prison for the murder of Joanna Yeates.
It should be after the Leveson in 2012, as I posted that the action against the Police was mentioned...
But I can't see that being correct....
* Where does it mention the date of arrest and the 3 days he was held in custody?
* Where does it mention the date of Joanna Yeates murder being 17th December 2010 as stated at trial
* Where does it mention Dr Vincent Tabak being the offender?? by 2013 everyone was aware whom was in prison...
I get the impression it was written in 2011, I say this because of 2 major points, no idea when Joanna Yeates was Murdered and no idea who the murderer was.... That apparently being Dr Vincent Tabak...
I could be wrong, it's just the impression it gives me...
Im glad your seeing sense at last, that CJ played no part in Joanna’s death and Tabak was responsible, well done Billy.
You never answered my question, If I chucked a a man overboard out at sea and a shark came and gobbled him up, is the shark to blame?
-
You have typed it so it’s not the true version. Post the true and accurate version to debate, not your version Billy.
(https://news.images.itv.com/image/file/262284/image_update_eae92464283c8b96_1379306661_9j-4aaqsk.jpeg)
There you go...
This is the only version there is available to view via ITV
-
Im glad your seeing sense at last, that CJ played no part in Joanna’s death and Tabak was responsible, well done Billy.
You never answered my question, If I chucked a a man overboard out at sea and a shark came and gobbled him up, is the shark to blame?
No... I didn't say that... I questioned why Dr Vincent Tabak was NOT mentioned by name in a letter that is supposed to be from 2013.. That is all...
-
No... I didn't say that... I questioned why Dr Vincent Tabak was NOT mentioned by name in a letter that is supposed to be from 2013.. That is all...
As a letter to CJ about CJ why would they have to say Tabak's name? It wasnt to recap on the whole case or even part of it, just the treatment of CJ and him alone. Not everyone is obsessed with Tabak you know!
-
(https://news.images.itv.com/image/file/262284/image_update_eae92464283c8b96_1379306661_9j-4aaqsk.jpeg)
There you go...
This is the only version there is available to view via ITV
Remarkable Billy, you’ve used the same ink and font size in your typed up version as the screen shot, it’s no different, what did you bother typing it for? What if all your questions are out of shot and have been missed off for a purpose, a letter from the police would surely have a heading and a signature at the top and bottom?
-
Im glad your seeing sense at last, that CJ played no part in Joanna’s death and Tabak was responsible, well done Billy.
You never answered my question, If I chucked a a man overboard out at sea and a shark came and gobbled him up, is the shark to blame?
I do not remember or cannot find any evidence of you posing that question....
Depends on your intention:
: Did you throw him overboard as a bit of fun,
: Did you throw him overboard because the boat was on fire and you had attached him a life jacket
: Did you throw him overboard because a fight ensued
: Did you throw him over board because, you knew he couldn't swim and you hoped he'd drown (no life jacket)
: Did you throw him overboard because he was attacking your wife and it was the only action that would save her at
the time
: Did you throw him over board in a scene of a film, and it went wrong
: Did you throw him overboard, because he asked you too
: Did you throw him over board, because someone told you to do it
: Did you throw him over board because you have seen the shark
I could go on and on....
But define throwing someone over board?
: Is it just a figure of speech
: Was there a real shark
: Was it a loan shark?
throw (something) overboard
To dispose or get rid of something or someone. Likened to throwing something over the side of a ship.
Thrown over board
In a major corporate shake-up, most of the company's upper-level management was thrown overboard at the end of the fiscal year.
Thrown over board
I know it's a really bad habit, but we just throw our rubbish overboard when travelling on a long car journey.
Throw overboard
reject or get rid of something:
shark
1. n. a swindler; a confidence operator. (Underworld.) The sharks were lined up ten deep to get at the blue-eyed new owner of the bowling alley.
2. n. a lawyer. (Derogatory.) Some shark is trying to squeeze a few grand out of me.
Context, it depends on context and intention....
If the shark is a person and you arranged for them to meet, the outcome being death... Then did you know that when the person met the shark, that the shark's intentions were to kill said person....
There can be many outcomes from your question Real....
But why have you asked me that question?
-
Remarkable Billy, you’ve used the same ink and font size in your typed up version as the screen shot, it’s no different, what did you bother typing it for? What if all your questions are out of shot and have been missed off for a purpose, a letter from the police would surely have a heading and a signature at the top and bottom?
That was not meant.....
Yes The heading is Missing , and the apparent signature is on page 2/image 2
(https://news.images.itv.com/image/file/262285/image_update_ad4ba0f0e7a21eda_1379306710_9j-4aaqsk.jpeg)
What if all your questions are out of shot and have been missed off for a purpose, a letter from the police would surely have a heading and a signature at the top and bottom?
Yes, they may be a purpose for this apparent letter of apology, but I do not know what it is.....
And why would ITV show this letter in that form??
The idea that hacking emails was involved did flash past... But I am not sure of that, the article stated letter and not email...
So I am no wiser than I was when I posted it....
Are you suggesting that they are questions, and each paragraph is the response??
(https://news.images.itv.com/image/file/262284/image_update_eae92464283c8b96_1379306661_9j-4aaqsk.jpeg)
This case is bizarre... By anyone's standards....
-
Then you wonder why I question whether or not this is real or is made up.... I have no idea, what is going on or what has gone on...
-
Then you wonder why I question whether or not this is real or is made up.... I have no idea, what is going on or what has gone on...
I really think you need to STOP saying that! this is real, a woman is dead and a man is serving a prison sentence. The right man!
-
I really think you need to STOP saying that! this is real, a woman is dead and a man is serving a prison sentence. The right man!
I have no idea about anything anymore Jixy.... No offence, but............
-
I have no idea about anything anymore Jixy.... No offence, but............
But it is offensive!
-
(&^&
But it is offensive!
What exactly are you referring too Jixy.....
I give up, I try and bring points to the forum, and all I get is mind games....
My heads mashed....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPd_awQuH4o
-
I explained in my post how it happened... I was laughing because I couldn't believe it.... I'm like OMG!!
You're like 'OMG' over most things that have nothing to do with Tabak being GUILTY! I'm like 'OMG' over your inability to grasp the basics!
-
I have no idea about anything anymore Jixy.... No offence, but............
And you never will.
-
(&^&
What exactly are you referring too Jixy.....
I give up, I try and bring points to the forum, and all I get is mind games....
My heads mashed....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPd_awQuH4o
Denial is offensive! Some people deny that the Holocaust ever took place and it is deeply offensive to most decent people because it's a denial of all those who suffered and died at the hands of psychopaths and the legacy of the aftermath - see the similarity?
-
Denial is offensive! Some people deny that the Holocaust ever took place and it is deeply offensive to most decent people because it's a denial of all those who suffered and died at the hands of psychopaths and the legacy of the aftermath - see the similarity?
I have heard that people have denied the holocaust, I do not subscribe to that theory personally...
It's fine... I tried I failed... I can do no more....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYjSpUqYMwQ
-
I have removed several off topic posts. Please keep posts relevant, or don't post! Thanks.
-
I have removed several off topic posts. Please keep posts relevant, or don't post! Thanks.
Thanks for that mrswah, talking about private sex parts like Billy does will only attract the wrong people to the forum, who knows with the amount of Trolls out there. *&(+(+
-
Countdown to Murder:
25:08 of video we get this image..
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8239.0;attach=13233;image)
Now we have never seen the text messages Dr Vincent Tabak sent, and there is no way of knowing whether or not that image is a proper depiction of the text...
The media have done the same text with just V XX, but is that right??
It's an important detail, an extremely important detail....
The express had the exclusive, where Dr Vincent Tabak apparently gave an interview and said he wasn't at Canygne Road on the night she went Missing....
As for news, the Express publishes its brief interview with Mr Tabak:
“I only come back here at weekends for now with all the upset. I wasn’t here on the night she went missing, I was away and I don’t know anyone who saw or heard anything. It’s very upsetting that something like this has happened. This is a nice, safe, friendly area.
“The feeling around here is not a nice one now, it’s as if the area has been blighted by what happened. We are all very sad about it, and although I didn’t know Miss Yeates, I am deeply saddened by what happened.”
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg525416#msg525416
Now the reason for me trying to clarify what was in the text message is because:
At its core is the 'XXX' symbol, which is actually three vertical St. Andrew's Crosses, not (as some people assume) shorthand for the Red Light District. For the Amsterdam coat of arms, the three crosses are in white, atop a red shield with a black pale.
So three XXX = Amsterdam....
Therefore I pose this possibility... Dr Vincent Tabak was in Amsterdam, and the XXX stood for Amsterdam.. and not XXX as in kisses
Sometimes things are lost in translation.....
Edit... Let's not forget, Dr Vincent Tabak is a Dutch National !
-
And I would now like to go a little further....
"Missing you loads I'm bored V XXX'
We all have been taught to assume that "V" stands for Vincent.... We assume it must be so because our brain is telling it is so....
We say, it must be.... It has to be, there can be no other explanation for it....
Is "Missing you loads V XXX " only part of the text?? is it all of the text??
Is the text sending messages of love or is it just saying where he is....
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQromiK6-O3qPa7WrmY7KLLn3q3N8jujcvooPlGun_qz1LSWz8dLA)
This review shows it was open in 2010:
LempoJoo
London, United Kingdom
812
Boutique hotel with bulk quality
Review of Hotel V Frederiksplein
Reviewed 12 July 2010
I was recommended this hotel by my local friend, who lived close by. The hotel looked very nice in their website and since the location was good, I booked it. Thou the lobby looks nice and designed, that's where it ends. Here's a quick rundown of the hotel: - There is no A/C in the hotel anywhere which is a problem when the temp goes above +24c (as it did during my stay). One window opened about 30cm, but there is a tram stop outside the hotel and the trams ring bells when approaching the stop, so it will wake you up. - My room (302) had a double bed, and abou 80cm space around it, nothing else. If you have 1 or 2 big suitcases, there's no other space to open them up except the bed, on which you obviously can't keep them throughout the night - The blackout blinds are positioned so, that sunlight will shine between straight to your face when you're lying on the bed. One of the blind was very difficult get all the way down, as someone talented decorator had installed a coat hanger so that it blocks partially the blind. - There is no minibar in the room, nor there is no ice maker on the hallway. You can get ice from the hotel bar, but only in a very small ashtray type of dish. Forget ice buckets. - TV has basic channels...More
Date of stay: July 2010
https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/ShowUserReviews-g188590-d967157-r70630184-Hotel_V_Frederiksplein-Amsterdam_North_Holland_Province.html
Is Dr Vincent Tabak actually telling someone... I cannot say if it is Tanja or not... is he telling someone that is is staying in the Hotel "V" in Amsterdam??
Is he saying:
Missing you loads I'm bored... Hotel V in Amsterdam... meaning he is actually Missing the Hotel, and had fun on his stay there...
We have many choices... Without knowing the circumstances and and explanation of what the text meant, we can assume anything...
So If Dr Vincent Tabak was away.... Was he in the "V" Hotel in Amsterdam??
It's a possibility... anything is a possibility...
So what we have been lead to believe is a loving text message, may simple mean, he's bored in the Hotel V in Amsterdam...
-
LOL!!!!... are you still here?
-
LOL!!!!... are you still here?
Yes Billy is very accident prone
-
Countdown to Murder:
25:08 of video we get this image..
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8239.0;attach=13233;image)
Now we have never seen the text messages Dr Vincent Tabak sent, and there is no way of knowing whether or not that image is a proper depiction of the text...
The media have done the same text with just V XX, but is that right??
It's an important detail, an extremely important detail....
The express had the exclusive, where Dr Vincent Tabak apparently gave an interview and said he wasn't at Canygne Road on the night she went Missing....
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg525416#msg525416
Now the reason for me trying to clarify what was in the text message is because:
So three XXX = Amsterdam....
Therefore I pose this possibility... Dr Vincent Tabak was in Amsterdam, and the XXX stood for Amsterdam.. and not XXX as in kisses
Sometimes things are lost in translation.....
Edit... Let's not forget, Dr Vincent Tabak is a Dutch National !
And XXXX = Lager
https://www.beermenus.com/beers/89018-castlemaine-xxxx-lager/label
@)(++(* @)(++(*
-
And XXXX = Lager
https://www.beermenus.com/beers/89018-castlemaine-xxxx-lager/label
@)(++(* @)(++(*
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Is it lager from Amsterdam?? @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Is it lager from Amsterdam?? @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
No, it's from XXXXX 8((()*/
-
Yes Billy is very accident prone
Again... It was something that the Dutch brother in-law did today, that brought me back to the text message... So I'd agree, I am accident prone in that respect....
But thinking of mobile phones, we do not even know what type of Mobile phone Dr Vincent Tabak owned? Did he use a different one when away??
Back in 2010 not everyone used smart phones with a full keyboard... It could have easily have been a phone like this:
(https://cdn.pocket-lint.com/r/s/320x/assets/images/101638-phones-news-lg-we-ll-sell-140-million-phones-in-2010-image1-kBZHqWv3Ca.jpg?v1)
That Dr Vincent Tabak used.... Were you have to press a button multiple times to get a letter or a number etc...
So the idea that the text message, was just a quick message, stating were he was, is extremely plausible..
Also back then many people had to pay for their text messages, especially when texting from abroad, and I believe that they were quite expensive...
Edit.... Not only were they expensive, you were limited to the number of characters per text...
-
Again... It was something that the Dutch brother in-law did today, that brought me back to the text message... So I'd agree, I am accident prone in that respect....
But thinking of mobile phones, we do not even know what type of Mobile phone Dr Vincent Tabak owned? Did he use a different one when away??
Back in 2010 not everyone used smart phones with a full keyboard... It could have easily have been a phone like this:
(https://cdn.pocket-lint.com/r/s/320x/assets/images/101638-phones-news-lg-we-ll-sell-140-million-phones-in-2010-image1-kBZHqWv3Ca.jpg?v1)
That Dr Vincent Tabak used.... Were you have to press a button multiple times to get a letter or a number etc...
So the idea that the text message, was just a quick message, stating were he was, is extremely plausible..
Also back then many people had to pay for their text messages, especially when texting from abroad, and I believe that they were quite expensive...
Edit.... Not only were they expensive, you were limited to the number of characters per text...
I think it's more likely that he was saying he was bored looking at porn and the XXX's stood for that. After all, we know that the nasty little tick enjoyed looking at filthy, nasty porn and was convicted of such. 8((()*/
-
Countdown to Murder:
25:08 of video we get this image..
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8239.0;attach=13233;image)
Now we have never seen the text messages Dr Vincent Tabak sent, and there is no way of knowing whether or not that image is a proper depiction of the text...
The media have done the same text with just V XX, but is that right??
It's an important detail, an extremely important detail....
The express had the exclusive, where Dr Vincent Tabak apparently gave an interview and said he wasn't at Canygne Road on the night she went Missing....
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg525416#msg525416
Now the reason for me trying to clarify what was in the text message is because:
So three XXX = Amsterdam....
Therefore I pose this possibility... Dr Vincent Tabak was in Amsterdam, and the XXX stood for Amsterdam.. and not XXX as in kisses
Sometimes things are lost in translation.....
Edit... Let's not forget, Dr Vincent Tabak is a Dutch National !
Nope, they had him on CCTV in Asda, then he picked Tanja up later.
-
Nope, they had him on CCTV in Asda, then he picked Tanja up later.
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Nope, they had him on CCTV in Asda, then he picked Tanja up later.
I'm not sure if it is even him in the CCTV.. But for arguments sake, lets say it is him... The time stamp is Missing... So is it in the early hours of the morning he is in Asda on the 17/12/2010??
Maybe he was on his way to the Airport.... To go to Amsterdam!
He headed towards Bristol
Airport.
Sally Ramage
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
I think it's more likely that he was saying he was bored looking at porn and the XXX's stood for that. After all, we know that the nasty little tick enjoyed looking at filthy, nasty porn and was convicted of such. 8((()*/
Thats it, the XXXX stood for X rated, he’s been caught red handed, nice work Billy I think you’ve solved the porn issue.
-
Thats it, the XXXX stood for X rated, he’s been caught red handed, nice work Billy I think you’ve solved the porn issue.
P...leeeease let's be sensible here.
-
I'm not sure if it is even him in the CCTV.. But for arguments sake, lets say it is him... The time stamp is Missing... So is it in the early hours of the morning he is in Asda on the 17/12/2010??
Maybe he was on his way to the Airport.... To go to Amsterdam!
Sally Ramage
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
Nope, he gave the exact time he was in Asda to police, then he picked Tanja up from her night out.
-
P...leeeease let's be sensible here.
I was only praising you, you didn’t know what the XXXX was for, usually porn sites. He was searching for Snuff vids
-
Nope, he gave the exact time he was in Asda to police, then he picked Tanja up from her night out.
Maybe it was on his way back from the Airport .... who knows then he went to Asda....
There's more than one way to skin a cat..
Weird that ALL of The TIMESTAMPS of the CCTV's are MISSING!!
-
Maybe it was on his way back from the Airport .... who knows then he went to Asda....
There's more than one way to skin a cat..
Weird that ALL of The TIMESTAMPS of the CCTV's are MISSING!!
Nope, he’d been at work all day then he went home and got back just after 7.00pm, then he sat down had a beer and probably watched porn.
-
P...leeeease let's be sensible here.
There you are Billy you’ve caught the dirty little pervert, he was looking at Porn sites. This is from the thersaurus
XXX marks something as pornographic, often used as shorthand for any sexual content.
The raunchy advertisements directed users to webcam sex sites where punters pay for
XXX
performances live on camera.
YOUVE FOUND HIM OUT, WELL DONE BILLY
-
P...leeeease let's be sensible here.
Pots and kettles spring to mind!
-
Maybe it was on his way back from the Airport .... who knows then he went to Asda....
There's more than one way to skin a cat..
Weird that ALL of The TIMESTAMPS of the CCTV's are MISSING!!
And as it would seem, none of the CCTV cameras picked him up at the airport! @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
There is also CCTV of VT and girlfriend stopping for a burger on the downs after he picked her up.
-
There is also CCTV of VT and girlfriend stopping for a burger on the downs after he picked her up.
Well that sorts the evening out then Nina, in between all this he was killing Joanna and disposing of her poor body
-
There is also CCTV of VT and girlfriend stopping for a burger on the downs after he picked her up.
Absolutely. I think we can safely say that VT went to work, to Asda, and to pick up Tanja from her works party. I have no problem with any of this. However, I do have a problem with the CCTV in Asda missing its timestamp.
-
To change topic just slightly, what do people think regarding the three people heard/ seen near Joanna's flat by CJ ?
-
I'm not sure that it was that night that 3 people were seen or heard, but if it was there was an unofficial short cut through if you cut across the sports fields of Clifton College. That was still open in 2010 but not now. I used to use it myself.
-
I'm not sure that it was that night that 3 people were seen or heard, but if it was there was an unofficial short cut through if you cut across the sports fields of Clifton College. That was still open in 2010 but not now. I used to use it myself.
Thanks for that Nina, I don’t think a lot was made of it anyway
-
Absolutely. I think we can safely say that VT went to work, to Asda, and to pick up Tanja from her works party. I have no problem with any of this. However, I do have a problem with the CCTV in Asda missing its timestamp.
So we only have to sort the in between bits out then, OH wait a minute, didn’t Tabak himself tell us what he did?
-
Didn't VT go to Asda twice? If so he went to work, came home, went to Asda, went home watched porn and murdered Joanna, went to Asda with Joanna in the boot of the car, then dumped Joanna, picked up girlfriend and had a burger on the Downs. That I believe was how VT spent his night.
-
Didn't VT go to Asda twice? If so he went to work, came home, went to Asda, went home watched porn and murdered Joanna, went to Asda with Joanna in the boot of the car, then dumped Joanna, picked up girlfriend and had a burger on the Downs. That I believe was how VT spent his night.
I don’t know about twice Nina I only thought they had him once, so we are more or less all agreed he couldn’t have been in Amsterdam like Billy said? Then I think you’ve got the rest spot on Nina.
-
I thought that he first went to Asda for rock salt and something to eat, but I guess you could be right. All the rubbish that Billy has posted over the years has got me quite confused about events. I mean it was NINE years ago !!
-
I think we all agree, apart from one, that VT was not in Amsterdam on the 17/12/2010.
-
I thought that he first went to Asda for rock salt and something to eat, but I guess you could be right. All the rubbish that Billy has posted over the years has got me quite confused about events. I mean it was NINE years ago !!
Hes very vague about the Asda at first, saying he went when he came home from work, then he can’t remeber times ect, they point out that he was on CCTV at I think 10.13 pm and ask him why he went, he said it must have been upon his original plan?
Defence Counsel: Look at our timeline 90-96. Why did you go to the Asda supermarket? Tabak: I was not thinking straight. I think I took upon my original plan to go to Asda.
-
Hes very vague about the Asda at first, saying he went when he came home from work, then he can’t remeber times ect, they point out that he was on CCTV at I think 10.13 pm and ask him why he went, he said it must have been upon his original plan?
Defence Counsel: Look at our timeline 90-96. Why did you go to the Asda supermarket? Tabak: I was not thinking straight. I think I took upon my original plan to go to Asda.
I think personally he was going to go, but other things took over so he went later with Joanna in his boot and got the rock salt ect this is what he was going to fetch earlier.
-
I thought that he first went to Asda for rock salt and something to eat, but I guess you could be right. All the rubbish that Billy has posted over the years has got me quite confused about events. I mean it was NINE years ago !!
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Hes very vague about the Asda at first, saying he went when he came home from work, then he can’t remeber times ect, they point out that he was on CCTV at I think 10.13 pm and ask him why he went, he said it must have been upon his original plan?
Defence Counsel: Look at our timeline 90-96. Why did you go to the Asda supermarket? Tabak: I was not thinking straight. I think I took upon my original plan to go to Asda.
He sent this to Tanya from Asda that coincided with the timeline 10.13pm ish
Defence Counsel: At our timeline 100, you sent a text message to Tanja ‘How are you? I am at Asda. Buying some crisis.’ How did you feel?
-
I thought that he first went to Asda for rock salt and something to eat, but I guess you could be right. All the rubbish that Billy has posted over the years has got me quite confused about events. I mean it was NINE years ago !!
There's nobody on here called Billy, nina. He's a figment of RJ's imagination! Good to see you back, by the way.
-
Thanks for that Nina, I don’t think a lot was made of it anyway
I find it strange that this wasn't investigated more thoroughly, to be honest. The result seems to have been the arrest of CJ. You would think that people giving extra information to the police would be accorded more respect. CJ thought he had seen/heard these people near Joanna's flat, after all. He knew the area very well, and would have known about the short cut. I wonder why the police didn't follow this up.
-
Staying with the idea that Dr Vincent Tabak may have been in Amsterdam, even though people do not agree, after finding this on twitter from the time I thought I would add it..
Royal Dutch Airlines
Verified account
@KLM
Follow Follow @KLM
More
Due to weather conditions in AMS on 16 and 17 December 2010, some of our flights to, from or via Schiphol may be delayed or cancelled
6:55 am - 16 Dec 2010
https://twitter.com/KLM/status/15419647402713089
Delayed flights etc....
If Dr Vincent Tabak's version of events are muddled, and there is NO way in which to determine whether or not Joanna Yeates was killed on the 17/12/2010. It is feasible he may have been returning from the Airport, when he was on a business trip.
Just a thought...
Darragh tells us he had difficulty leaving Bristol because of cancelled flights,
Darragh Harry Bellew
22 December 2010 ·
Flight cancelled and the only available flight is christmas eve.
if i can help with regard to Jo please let me know as i am now here for a couple of days in bristol.
Can everyone please read their emails on facebook that i sent them regarding Joanna Yeates. Thank you
His friends response
Emma Colebrook Hey darragh, got your mail and just heard about her on radio 4 news, not got anything useful to add to the search, but very much hope there's some good news for jo and her family soon. Hope you get home for christmas too! Happy christmas mate, Em Si and Gus x
Had Joanna Yeates gone somewhere?
They don't find her until Christmas Day... Honestly she could have flown somewhere herself that weekend, who's to say?
I do not understand how everyone says that Joanna Yeates was MISSING from 17/12/2010
What proved that was the case??
-
I find it strange that this wasn't investigated more thoroughly, to be honest. The result seems to have been the arrest of CJ. You would think that people giving extra information to the police would be accorded more respect. CJ thought he had seen/heard these people near Joanna's flat, after all. He knew the area very well, and would have known about the short cut. I wonder why the police didn't follow this up.
Did CJ mention the shortcut??
I thought he would have been quite vigilant at that time... He was part of the neighbourhood watch..
And if anyone could use the shortcut... anyone had an opportunity...
If there's a short cut used regularly, I'm surprised that CJ didn't have CCTV cameras around the place to be honest...
-
Staying with the idea that Dr Vincent Tabak may have been in Amsterdam, even though people do not agree, after finding this on twitter from the time I thought I would add it..
https://twitter.com/KLM/status/15419647402713089
Delayed flights etc....
If Dr Vincent Tabak's version of events are muddled, and there is NO way in which to determine whether or not Joanna Yeates was killed on the 17/12/2010. It is feasible he may have been returning from the Airport, when he was on a business trip.
Just a thought...
Darragh tells us he had difficulty leaving Bristol because of cancelled flights,
His friends response
Had Joanna Yeates gone somewhere?
They don't find her until Christmas Day... Honestly she could have flown somewhere herself that weekend, who's to say?
I do not understand how everyone says that Joanna Yeates was MISSING from 17/12/2010
What proved that was the case??
You are just making it up now...
-
Staying with the idea that Dr Vincent Tabak may have been in Amsterdam, even though people do not agree, after finding this on twitter from the time I thought I would add it..
https://twitter.com/KLM/status/15419647402713089
Delayed flights etc....
If Dr Vincent Tabak's version of events are muddled, and there is NO way in which to determine whether or not Joanna Yeates was killed on the 17/12/2010. It is feasible he may have been returning from the Airport, when he was on a business trip.
Just a thought...
Darragh tells us he had difficulty leaving Bristol because of cancelled flights,
His friends response
Had Joanna Yeates gone somewhere?
They don't find her until Christmas Day... Honestly she could have flown somewhere herself that weekend, who's to say?
I do not understand how everyone says that Joanna Yeates was MISSING from 17/12/2010
What proved that was the case??
You Forget one thing, anyone leaving the country has to go through passport control, this then registers that person leaving, the same happens when they arrive back. Stop polluting the internet with such rubbish, sensible people would like to discuss this case but cannot because you keep filling the pages with SHITE.
-
Staying with the idea that Dr Vincent Tabak may have been in Amsterdam, even though people do not agree, after finding this on twitter from the time I thought I would add it..
If Dr Vincent Tabak's version of events are muddled, and there is NO way in which to determine whether or not Joanna Yeates was killed on the 17/12/2010. It is feasible he may have been returning from the Airport, when he was on a business trip.
How do you get away with these kind of posts? you have gone on and on telling how smart and intelligent Tabak is not to mention placid so just how would he get muddled and forget about a trip to the airport?
If all these ifs and maybes are the best you have to offer i think you agree with us and he is guilty. These make believe stories are a waste of time and an insult to his victim
You ignore all the FACTS in this case to work on ridiculous scenarios then stamp your foot when no one buys it!
-
DCI Phil Jones at The Leveson:
Mr Philip Jones
Okay. When Vincent Tabak was interviewed, he gave "no comment" in interview. It was only a very small area around a mobile phone which he was willing to talk about. One of the topics in that interview concerned Mr Jefferies, to which he declined -- he again made no comment. Mr Jefferies was still a suspect in the investigation. There was still ongoing forensic examination work which was being undertaken. In particular, there were a pair of trainers which we found in Mr Jefferies' house which were hidden underneath a kitchen unit behind a kickboard. Those trainers had some -- had a blood spot on them. That was initially analysed and because of a sensitive forensic technique which they had to use, eventually a DNA profile was found and Mr Jefferies could be eliminated. So when the forensic lines of inquiry were completed, he was fully eliminated from the investigation, which is then when he was released from his bail without charge.
https://leveson.sayit.mysociety.org/hearing-27-march-2012/mr-philip-jones
Okay. When Vincent Tabak was interviewed, he gave "no comment" in interview. It was only a very small area around a mobile phone which he was willing to talk about. One of the topics in that interview concerned Mr Jefferies, to which he declined -- he again made no comment.
This from DCI Phil Jones clearly states that Dr Vincent Tabak said nothing about CJ... He would only talk about "A" very small area around mobile phone...
Dr Vincent Tabak's tale on the stand, apologising for what he had apparently done to CJ, makes me wonder where that info came from?
CJ tells us he saw Dr Vincent Tabak, not Dr Vincent Tabak telling us he saw CJ, as for Tanja she makes NO appearance at court whatsoever, never mind taking the stand as a witness...
The burger stand... Was Dr Vincent Tabak actually identified? Could you see him clearly?
I keep saying I do not know why Tanja nor CJ were witness's at Dr Vincent Tabak's trial... It makes no sense to me...
We do not know what DCI Phil Jones means about the mobile phone, he doesn't elaborate, it would have been helpful if he did, but the omittance again of information, makes a clear picture difficult..
I have often wondered about that statement DCI Phil Jones made, I've wondered whether or not their were more than one phone, DCI Jones has commented before on TV programs about a business phone.
But did Dr Vincent Tabak have a business phone? Possibily, we do not know for a fact....
So I'll return back to the text message as it has been stated it was a text message..
"Missing you loads, I'm bored V XXX "
Now what had he responded to where they answers to questions??
* U Missed me?
Missing U loads
* How's Your trip?
I'm bored
* Where have you been
VXXX
The message to Dr Vincent Tabak may have been
U Missed me hows your trip where U been
And his response
Missing you loads, I'm Bored, VXXX
Both messages staying within the characters allowed per message, at the time..
He could have been responding to anyone. Telling them he had been or was at the Hotel V in Amsterdam..
The context of the message is important, we have no idea really what it is response too..
Dr Vincent Tabak could have just been telling someone he 'd been staying at Hotel V in Amsterdam
-
the questions you keep asking yourself have all been answered numerous times by various posters. You choose to ignore the replies and carry on with your conspiracy theory.
-
How do you get away with these kind of posts? you have gone on and on telling how smart and intelligent Tabak is not to mention placid so just how would he get muddled and forget about a trip to the airport?
If all these ifs and maybes are the best you have to offer i think you agree with us and he is guilty. These make believe stories are a waste of time and an insult to his victim
You ignore all the FACTS in this case to work on ridiculous scenarios then stamp your foot when no one buys it!
With so much information Missing and no definiate time of death or many many timelines, People statements on video, that change the events, etc I am trying to give example of what was possible, and what should have been ruled out...
And I do not agree with you all that he is guilty... You are all aware of this fact...
As for wanting someone to buy it.... I am not selling anything...
-
the questions you keep asking yourself have all been answered numerous times by various posters. You choose to ignore the replies and carry on with your conspiracy theory.
Yes... I do ignore the replies sometimes, and it's just as well.... Seeing as you all believe he tried to implicate CJ, and I have shown that simple wasn't true.... It came from CJ's own mouth on the "Count Down to Murder program"!!
Jixy... one cannot always go with the crowd, just to be popular... This case is off... end of, and if it makes me unpopular, so be it....
-
There's nobody on here called Billy, nina. He's a figment of RJ's imagination! Good to see you back, by the way.
The only figment of imagination is down to you, Billy accepted the name and was open to offers, you obviously don’t follow the board before making comments.
Well every forum I’ve been on members have a username, you don’t appear to want one, so what do we Address your highness with then?
BILLY’s RESPONSE
You can call me Dotty if you choose, It doesn't offend me ... 8(0(*
Anyone can decide what they wish to call me, it's up to them... @)(++(*
-
With so much information Missing and no definiate time of death or many many timelines, People statements on video, that change the events, etc I am trying to give example of what was possible, and what should have been ruled out...
And I do not agree with you all that he is guilty... You are all aware of this fact...
As for wanting someone to buy it.... I am not selling anything...
You have a very cocky attitude when replying! You are trying to sell your crap about him being innocent and no one is buying it. The man himself has never said it and your arguments for it get more and more ridiculous each time you post
You can post what you want and rarely corrected.
You dont read the replies and take notice because you dont want to. You just reply with anything, doesnt seem to really matter what the content is however unlikely or should I say IMPOSSIBLE!
-
the questions you keep asking yourself have all been answered numerous times by various posters. You choose to ignore the replies and carry on with your conspiracy theory.
I'm trying to establish facts, and yes, some of my posts are scenarios's...
But The FACT that CJ states on video he spoke twice to Dr Vincent Tabak , spoke of a conversation and a light dusting of snow then asked Dr Vincent Tabak to help him move the car up the incline of the drive at 44, Canygne Road on the next day, is a fact from CJ, it comes directly out of CJ's own mouth as I have explained.. The FACT that CJ told The Leveson he parked his car on the road on 17/12/2010 at 9:00pm, is a FACT, coming from CJ's Leveson statement..
Therefore I concluded, that the FACT I cannot prove, that Dr Vincent Tabak rang up the POLICE whilst he was in Holland to try to implicate CJ about a car changing position... Is because the evidence is Missing...
But if true it would proves that Dr Vincent Tabak didn't implicate CJ as has been stated..
But where is the recorded phone call from Holland of Dr Vincent Tabak speaking to the Police in the UK?? And why would he ring, it would cost money for an International call...
Who is to say it wasn't the Police whom rang him? And his response was he'd speak to them when he returned to the UK!!
That appears more plausible to me... whether you agree or not....
Because NO evidence was brought to trial of the phone call Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have made from Holland to the Police in the UK....
And there should have been a record of this phone call...
-
I'm trying to establish facts, and yes, some of my posts are scenarios's...
But The FACT that CJ states on video he spoke twice to Dr Vincent Tabak , spoke of a conversation and a light dusting of snow then asked Dr Vincent Tabak to help him move the car up the incline of the drive at 44, Canygne Road on the next day, is a fact from CJ, it comes directly out of CJ's own mouth as I have explained.. The FACT that CJ told The Leveson he parked his car on the road on 17/12/2010 at 9:00pm, is a FACT, coming from CJ's Leveson statement..
Therefore I concluded, that the FACT I cannot prove, that Dr Vincent Tabak rang up the POLICE whilst he was in Holland to try to implicate CJ about a car changing position... Is because the evidence is Missing...
But if true it would proves that Dr Vincent Tabak didn't implicate CJ as has been stated..
But where is the recorded phone call from Holland of Dr Vincent Tabak speaking to the Police in the UK?? And why would he ring, it would cost money for an International call...
Who is to say it wasn't the Police whom rang him? And his response was he'd speak to them when he returned to the UK!!
That appears more plausible to me... whether you agree or not....
Because NO evidence was brought to trial of the phone call Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have made from Holland to the Police in the UK....
And there should have been a record of this phone call...
Also, was there even a phone call?? If everyone remembers, the Police encouraged people to contact them via the on-line form and give them information that way...
Someone easily could have assumed the identity of Dr Vincent Tabak and made any statement, the on-line forms have never been questioned, the on-line forms have never been scrutinised, the on-line forms were open to abuse, if you ask me....
http://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/jo
-
Mr Philip Jones
Okay. When Vincent Tabak was interviewed, he gave "no comment" in interview. It was only a very small area around a mobile phone which he was willing to talk about. One of the topics in that interview concerned Mr Jefferies, to which he declined -- he again made no comment. Mr Jefferies was still a suspect in the investigation. There was still ongoing forensic examination work which was being undertaken. In particular, there were a pair of trainers which we found in Mr Jefferies' house which were hidden underneath a kitchen unit behind a kickboard. Those trainers had some -- had a blood spot on them. That was initially analysed and because of a sensitive forensic technique which they had to use, eventually a DNA profile was found and Mr Jefferies could be eliminated. So when the forensic lines of inquiry were completed, he was fully eliminated from the investigation, which is then when he was released from his bail without charge.
No mention of the Holland interview, no mention of where the interview had taken place, no mention, how many times Dr Vincent Tabak was interviewed...
We know from this statement that Dr Vincent Tabak spoke once.... So where is the evidence of the phone call or Dr Vincent Tabak trying to implicate CJ?? Where is this 6 hour interview in Holland??
Was the interview in Holland done via an on-line chat?? we do not know... We have no idea about it whatsoever..
https://leveson.sayit.mysociety.org/hearing-27-march-2012/mr-philip-jones
-
Below is from a post I did about media stratergy of Avon and Somerset Police at the time.
This is from The Leveson, found it whilst looking at Colin Port... Exhibt CP5.pdf ..Media stratergy etc...
Homepage
,Homepage banner and spotlight images
¯ 1440 inbound messages went to the investigation team via the form on the website
Newsroom
¯ Newsroom story with regular updates
¯ Updates automatically pushed out via twitter with #joyeates "hashtags"
¯ Updates automatically appeared on dedicated section (see below)
, Story e-mailed out to subscribers (currently 15,000+ subscriber base) and media contacts
¯ Briefings filmed / uploaded to YouTube and embedded as well as images
Dedicated section
¯ Set up special website address- www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/jo
¯ Interactive Google map showing key locations
¯ Video play list showing most recent video release first
¯ Image gallery of Jo
¯ Facebook and Twitter sharing tools
¯ Secure on-line contact form sending messages direct to the incident room
¯ Twitter widget showing discussion around the case and our updates
¯ IP address logging for investigative purposes
Local pages
¯ Localised community safety article in the Clifton area
¯ Downloadable advice leaflet (the same as distributed physically in the area
Prepare for the ’ten day turn’: media likely to ask questions about your experience as
an SlO & potential for bringing in another / more senior SIO or outside force to help
Don’t under-estimate the additional personal pressure of being ’the face of the
investigation’
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg470437#msg470437
Therefore, where is all of the information from the online forms in this investigation???
Or is that it, the statements read out in court, were from the online forms??
-
I'm trying to establish facts, and yes, some of my posts are scenarios's...
But The FACT that CJ states on video he spoke twice to Dr Vincent Tabak , spoke of a conversation and a light dusting of snow then asked Dr Vincent Tabak to help him move the car up the incline of the drive at 44, Canygne Road on the next day, is a fact from CJ, it comes directly out of CJ's own mouth as I have explained.. The FACT that CJ told The Leveson he parked his car on the road on 17/12/2010 at 9:00pm, is a FACT, coming from CJ's Leveson statement..
Therefore I concluded, that the FACT I cannot prove, that Dr Vincent Tabak rang up the POLICE whilst he was in Holland to try to implicate CJ about a car changing position... Is because the evidence is Missing...
But if true it would proves that Dr Vincent Tabak didn't implicate CJ as has been stated..
But where is the recorded phone call from Holland of Dr Vincent Tabak speaking to the Police in the UK?? And why would he ring, it would cost money for an International call...
Who is to say it wasn't the Police whom rang him? And his response was he'd speak to them when he returned to the UK!!
That appears more plausible to me... whether you agree or not....
Because NO evidence was brought to trial of the phone call Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have made from Holland to the Police in the UK....
And there should have been a record of this phone call...
Some reports say it was Tanja who made the call from Holland. Not really certain who made it.
If it is true that VT helped CJ move his car on the Saturday morning, and that CJ parked his car on the road at 9pm on the Friday night( as he says he did), then, at some point CJ did move his car. So what if he did? In fact, as far as I know, he has never denied doing so. Why on earth should this be taken as an example of VT implicating CJ??
-
Oh, and, ..... it would be helpful if you point out , when you post, that something is meant to be seen as a scenario rather than an opinion or a fact!!
-
Some reports say it was Tanja who made the call from Holland. Not really certain who made it.
If it is true that VT helped CJ move his car on the Saturday morning, and that CJ parked his car on the road at 9pm on the Friday night( as he says he did), then, at some point CJ did move his car. So what if he did? In fact, as far as I know, he has never denied doing so. Why on earth should this be taken as an example of VT implicating CJ??
This is what was reported mrswah
At this point Tabak made a huge mistake. Spotting a chance to frame Jefferies, he contacted Avon and Somerset police and suggested the landlord had been out and about in his car on the night of Yeates's death. The murder team sent DC Karen Thomas to Amsterdam and on New Year's Eve she spoke to Tabak at a hotel near Schiphol airport for six hours.
For the first time, Tabak's behaviour seemed suspicious. He talked to her about Jefferies but seemed, in Thomas's words, "overly interested" in the forensic examinations police were carrying out. Tabak also gave Thomas a different version of what he had done on the night of Yeates's disappearance, explaining that he had gone out twice, once to take photographs of the snow and the second time to go to Asda.
TABAKS STATEMENTS DIDNT MATCH UP
Tabak’s first statement didn’t match his second, which always draws suspicion, they asked him why it didn’t match and he said his first statement was about Christopher Jefferies and why he could have killed Joanna Yeates?
He said he went to help Mr Jefferies move his car in the morning between 8.30am and 9.00am mr Jefferies had come to his door to ask him for help, because the car was settled in snow, they asked Tabak which way was the car facing, he replied in toward the house, Thus meaning it wasn’t in the same position as the night before because he had said it was facing out the night before, meaning mr Jefferies had been out.
When they questioned Mr Jefferies on this, he replied why would he say that, “it was facing out which is why he was able push from the back and I was able to drive straight out”
So the implications, it was clear Tabak wasn’t telling the truth, he made a point about it being facing in towards the house, to try and say it had been moved, it would have been a lot harder for one person to push mr Jefferies car and do the turn needed in Snow to get mr Jefferies out, especially for one person something you would never forget, don’t forget Mr Jefferies was finding it hard to even manoeuvre his car forward never mind doing a 10 point turn in the drive and then drive off, picture in your head a car facing towards the house, then picture someone pushing you in snow to turn you around on the drive.
Wether you like it or not, police are trained to spot these discrepancies in statements, it was a big big outright lie to try and implicate mr Jefferies.
With this tip off from Tabak, this then led to Mr Jefferies car being took away for analysis, nothing was ever found and Mr Jefferies was later released.
-
Some reports say it was Tanja who made the call from Holland. Not really certain who made it.
If it is true that VT helped CJ move his car on the Saturday morning, and that CJ parked his car on the road at 9pm on the Friday night( as he says he did), then, at some point CJ did move his car. So what if he did? In fact, as far as I know, he has never denied doing so. Why on earth should this be taken as an example of VT implicating CJ??
How I see it the car was on the drive, because he said Vincent pushed from the back and I was able to drive straight OUT, they asked Tabak which way the car was facing when he went to help, he replied IN towards the house, the previous evening he reported it was facing OUT away from the house, , he had said this in his previous statement, so I assume this happened on the drive and not the road mrswah
Much better when we talk evidence don’t you think?
https://www.shutterstock.com/editorial/image-editorial/police-stand-guard-outside-of-joanna-yeates-flat-her-landlord-chris-jefferies-has-been-arrested-on-suspicion-of-her-murder-chris-jefferies-the-retired-teacher-at-the-centre-of-the-police-investigation-to-catch-the-killer-of-joanna-yeates-is-an-ecc-1530820a
I think it had a car park to the side as well or towards the back?
Now imagine turning the car around in the snow in this drive!
-
How I see it the car was on the drive, because he said Vincent pushed from the back and I was able to drive straight OUT, they asked Tabak which way the car was facing when he went to help, he replied IN towards the house, the previous evening he reported it was facing OUT away from the house, , he had said this in his previous statement, so I assume this happened on the drive and not the road mrswah
Much better when we talk evidence don’t you think?
https://www.shutterstock.com/editorial/image-editorial/police-stand-guard-outside-of-joanna-yeates-flat-her-landlord-chris-jefferies-has-been-arrested-on-suspicion-of-her-murder-chris-jefferies-the-retired-teacher-at-the-centre-of-the-police-investigation-to-catch-the-killer-of-joanna-yeates-is-an-ecc-1530820a
I think it had a car park to the side as well or towards the back?
Now imagine turning the car around in the snow in this drive!
Yes, much better when we talk evidence!
It seems to me that giving the police extra information led to the arrests of both CJ and VT. The former rang the police to say he had heard or seen people on the driveway, and VT (or Tanja) rang the police to talk about C.Js car, which they thought had changed position.
When did VT make his first statement? I assume it was when Joanna was first reported missing??
Why would he have talked about CJ in his first statement, other than to say he had stopped to talk to CJ on the evening of the 17th (about mildew in the flat, if I remember correctly).
Yes, I agree that the police should take note of discrepancies in statements, but I suspect that at least some of these discrepancies are down to simple mistakes.
-
Yes, much better when we talk evidence!
It seems to me that giving the police extra information led to the arrests of both CJ and VT. The former rang the police to say he had heard or seen people on the driveway, and VT (or Tanja) rang the police to talk about C.Js car, which they thought had changed position.
When did VT make his first statement? I assume it was when Joanna was first reported missing??
Why would he have talked about CJ in his first statement, other than to say he had stopped to talk to CJ on the evening of the 17th (about mildew in the flat, if I remember correctly).
Yes, I agree that the police should take note of discrepancies in statements, but I suspect that at least some of these discrepancies are down to simple mistakes.
Will get back later mrswah, just off out, Agreed people do make mistakes in statements, there would have been other factors in something is not right here, the police are trained to spot this when interviewing, one is observing while the other is taking notes.
-
There's nobody on here called Billy, nina. He's a figment of RJ's imagination! Good to see you back, by the way.
I haven't been away mrswah, it was page after page of long posts from Nine that made no sense at all and Nine ignoring my posts that made me stop posting. There are now other posters that have some sense and are willing to debate which is something Nine doesn't do.
Oh Billy is just a figment of RJ's imagination, just like VT not murdering Joanna is, according to Nine imagination !!!
-
Staying with the idea that Dr Vincent Tabak may have been in Amsterdam, even though people do not agree, after finding this on twitter from the time I thought I would add it..
https://twitter.com/KLM/status/15419647402713089
Delayed flights etc....
If Dr Vincent Tabak's version of events are muddled, and there is NO way in which to determine whether or not Joanna Yeates was killed on the 17/12/2010. It is feasible he may have been returning from the Airport, when he was on a business trip.
Just a thought...
Darragh tells us he had difficulty leaving Bristol because of cancelled flights,
His friends response
Had Joanna Yeates gone somewhere?
They don't find her until Christmas Day... Honestly she could have flown somewhere herself that weekend, who's to say?
I do not understand how everyone says that Joanna Yeates was MISSING from 17/12/2010
What proved that was the case??
I seriously think you are taking the piss now!
-
Yes... I do ignore the replies sometimes, and it's just as well.... Seeing as you all believe he tried to implicate CJ, and I have shown that simple wasn't true.... It came from CJ's own mouth on the "Count Down to Murder program"!!
Jixy... one cannot always go with the crowd, just to be popular... This case is off... end of, and if it makes me unpopular, so be it....
He admitted to trying to put him in the frame.
It doesn't make you unpopular, it makes you 'odd' and to be honest, since you dismissed his online porn activities as 'looking at pictures' you're getting odder by the second.
-
You have a very cocky attitude when replying! You are trying to sell your crap about him being innocent and no one is buying it. The man himself has never said it and your arguments for it get more and more ridiculous each time you post
You can post what you want and rarely corrected.
You dont read the replies and take notice because you dont want to. You just reply with anything, doesnt seem to really matter what the content is however unlikely or should I say IMPOSSIBLE!
I did initially think Nine was genuine - now I think Tabak isn't the point of his posts - the wind up aspect is. No one could be that devoid of logic!
-
Yes, much better when we talk evidence!
It seems to me that giving the police extra information led to the arrests of both CJ and VT. The former rang the police to say he had heard or seen people on the driveway, and VT (or Tanja) rang the police to talk about C.Js car, which they thought had changed position.
When did VT make his first statement? I assume it was when Joanna was first reported missing??
Why would he have talked about CJ in his first statement, other than to say he had stopped to talk to CJ on the evening of the 17th (about mildew in the flat, if I remember correctly).
Yes, I agree that the police should take note of discrepancies in statements, but I suspect that at least some of these discrepancies are down to simple mistakes.
I think the people living close by and certainly neighbours would have been suspects anyway mrswah, certainly Gregg and mr Jefferies because they had keys, so too Tabak, door to door questioning would have happened the next day more likely, that’s why police question them first.
Jefferies phoned the police because he was left a number to ring in case he could remember anything further, i don’t think at first CJ thought there had been a murder, I think he just thought she had gone missing, but when he seen the Yeates give a tv interview he must have realised it was more serious, so he phoned up about the information hearing a low conversation of voices on the far side near the gate, he wasn’t sure how many, but more than one to be talking, he just thought he heard a low key conversation. He was horrified when he heard on the news it was reported he had seen these people. This then gave the grounds for arrest/further interview, because he could have been the last person to see Joanna Alive. The police couldn’t go any further with this with mr Jefferies because when it was checked he was telling the truth.
Tabak’s was totally different, in his first interview (probably just a door to door questioning the next day) he never mentioned he had been to Asda and he mentioned this in his second and the car incident. I think there must have been a slight slope that the car had to be pushed up as well?
-
The trouble with CJ and I don’t want to be rude, he didn’t act and look normal, he was naturally a fidgety person reminding you of a nutty professor type, rather odd looking with his hair, the morning after he got a visit from police asking if he had all the keys to the flats and they would be coming to collect them, he said “please” they questioned what he meant and he said to them “say please” this probably put him in bad light, his looks his camp way of talking and his way of correcting the police. So they probably just by passing questions with Tabak asked about CJ he was everyone’s landlord don’t forget and wanting a little more gossip on this essentric looking fellow?
What Tabak was doing, he was planting seeds without trying to implicate himself. The police had CJ n for questioning but couldn’t pin anything on him, they got more time to question him and when Tabak made the call about the car it was the first real breakthrough they needed, it pointed to him being out at night when he said he hadn’t, CJ answered truthfully and Tabak had made a deliberate lie. CJ weighed about 9stone wet through, 60 odd in age, imagine him overpowering a Landscape gardener through strangulation, then carrying her body into his car from her flat and then dumping the body. You only had to look at him to see it wasn’t possible.
-
Absolutely. I think we can safely say that VT went to work, to Asda, and to pick up Tanja from her works party. I have no problem with any of this. However, I do have a problem with the CCTV in Asda missing its timestamp.
Shops have to comply with Data protection when they have cctv, they must, put up a sign to let people know CCTV is being used and why
be able to provide images within 40 days to anyone you’ve recorded (you can charge up to £10 for this)
share images with the authorities, eg the police, if they ask for them
keep images only as long as your business needs them. In 2009 the Home office produced a booklet on operational requirements of cctv, it’s about 60 pages long, time and date must be set correctly.
I cannot find the exact video of Tabak in Asda only stills, so it depends on the picture taker of the still, the date is shown but the time isn’t, but times is not always next to the date on what I can gather some times it’s together, some times the time is top left or bottom right, it depends on the system set up? Take comfort in the fact, the video would have been shown in court with the times and dates showing or it wouldn’t have been allowed as evidence
-
Shops have to comply with Data protection when they have cctv, they must, put up a sign to let people know CCTV is being used and why
be able to provide images within 40 days to anyone you’ve recorded (you can charge up to £10 for this)
share images with the authorities, eg the police, if they ask for them
keep images only as long as your business needs them. In 2009 the Home office produced a booklet on operational requirements of cctv, it’s about 60 pages long, time and date must be set correctly.
I cannot find the exact video of Tabak in Asda only stills, so it depends on the picture taker of the still, the date is shown but the time isn’t, but times is not always next to the date on what I can gather some times it’s together, some times the time is top left or bottom right, it depends on the system set up? Take comfort in the fact, the video would have been shown in court with the times and dates showing or it wouldn’t have been allowed as evidence
The video in Asda of a man resembling Dr Vincent Tabak with a date visible but the time stamp Missing... The man has grown stubble by the time he reaches the aisles..
Video is on The Telegraphs online paper
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8818883/Jo-Yeates-trial-Vincent-Tabak-caught-on-CCTV-during-Asda-visit.html
-
Yes, much better when we talk evidence!
It seems to me that giving the police extra information led to the arrests of both CJ and VT. The former rang the police to say he had heard or seen people on the driveway, and VT (or Tanja) rang the police to talk about C.Js car, which they thought had changed position.
When did VT make his first statement? I assume it was when Joanna was first reported missing??
Why would he have talked about CJ in his first statement, other than to say he had stopped to talk to CJ on the evening of the 17th (about mildew in the flat, if I remember correctly).
Yes, I agree that the police should take note of discrepancies in statements, but I suspect that at least some of these discrepancies are down to simple mistakes.
Ive picked up, 3 hours after CJ was arrested an officer received a call from Vincent Tabak claiming to have new information, he could remember that CJ car was parked on the driveway in a particular position (facing out) on the evening Joanna went missing and the next morning it was facing in the opposite direction. This then became crucial new evidence for the police who were questioning CJ at the time.
-
The video in Asda of a man resembling Dr Vincent Tabak with a date visible but the time stamp Missing... The man has grown stubble by the time he reaches the aisles..
Video is on The Telegraphs online paper
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8818883/Jo-Yeates-trial-Vincent-Tabak-caught-on-CCTV-during-Asda-visit.html
Nope definitely him
-
Nope definitely him
No question!
-
I was about to add, that the Telegraph, appear to be the only video available on line.. The Police do not appear to have this video either..
There is not another copy anywhere I can find today..
-
I was about to add, that the Telegraph, appear to be the only video available on line.. The Police do not appear to have this video either..
There is not another copy anywhere I can find today..
Copies would have been made available to both defence and prosecution don’t worry.
-
The video in Asda of a man resembling Dr Vincent Tabak with a date visible but the time stamp Missing... The man has grown stubble by the time he reaches the aisles..
Video is on The Telegraphs online paper
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8818883/Jo-Yeates-trial-Vincent-Tabak-caught-on-CCTV-during-Asda-visit.html
One of the main reasons a cctv footage as evidence would be thrown out of court, not having the correct time stamp
-
One of the main reasons a cctv footage as evidence would be thrown out of court, not having the correct time stamp
So what does that say for ALL of the CCTV, that do not have a time stamp, or have been edited??
Leaving us with NO CCTV footage that would have been allowed into court.... If I am following you correctly here..
Edit... No CCTV footage, all you are left with is a tale on the stand, where everyone has stated that Dr Vincent Tabak lied.....
Go figure...
-
So what does that say for ALL of the CCTV, that do not have a time stamp, or have been edited??
Leaving us with NO CCTV footage that would have been allowed into court.... If I am following you correctly here..
Edit... No CCTV footage, all you are left with is a tale on the stand, where everyone has stated that Dr Vincent Tabak lied.....
Go figure...
What I am saying, if the cctv footage never had a timescale it would never have been shown, so the cctv footage MUST have had a timescale
-
So what does that say for ALL of the CCTV, that do not have a time stamp, or have been edited??
Leaving us with NO CCTV footage that would have been allowed into court.... If I am following you correctly here..
Edit... No CCTV footage, all you are left with is a tale on the stand, where everyone has stated that Dr Vincent Tabak lied.....
Go figure...
There is a time stamp on the footage above
-
There is a time stamp on the footage above
Yes, indeed there is a time stamp, but it is not a visible time stamp, showing conclusively what times Dr Vincent tabak entered The Asda Store..
The absence of the time stamp is a concern, it means that the CCTV, conclusively proves nothing... (imo)
-
There is a time stamp on the footage above
Also he sent his girlfriend a text at the same time telling her he was in Asda
-
Yes, indeed there is a time stamp, but it is not a visible time stamp, showing conclusively what times Dr Vincent tabak entered The Asda Store..
The absence of the time stamp is a concern, it means that the CCTV, conclusively proves nothing... (imo)
What do you mean it's not visible? Just because you can't make it out on the website is immaterial. The original will be visible - that's the whole point!
-
Also he sent his girlfriend a text at the same time telling her he was in Asda
Really.... Can you define the accurate time of this text?
Can you define if the phone this text came from had been set to a 24 hour clock??
Can you define if this phone was set to a 24 hour clock??
Can you define how they knew whether any timings were AM or PM??
Can you define whether the CCTV had a 24hour clock?? was 10:13 am or pm?
Isn't CCTV set to a 24 hour clock?
So was it 22 hundred hours and 13 minutes??
Do not ever remember that being mentioned.. to be honest..
-
Really.... Can you define the accurate time of this text?
Can you define if the phone this text came from had been set to a 24 hour clock??
Can you define if this phone was set to a 24 hour clock??
Can you define how they knew whether any timings were AM or PM??
Can you define whether the CCTV had a 24hour clock?? was 10:13 am or pm?
Isn't CCTV set to a 24 hour clock?
So was it 22 hundred hours and 13 minutes??
Do not ever remember that being mentioned.. to be honest..
I don’t have to define anything Billy.
-
Really.... Can you define the accurate time of this text?
Can you define if the phone this text came from had been set to a 24 hour clock??
Can you define if this phone was set to a 24 hour clock??
Can you define how they knew whether any timings were AM or PM??
Can you define whether the CCTV had a 24hour clock?? was 10:13 am or pm?
Isn't CCTV set to a 24 hour clock?
So was it 22 hundred hours and 13 minutes??
Do not ever remember that being mentioned.. to be honest..
Regardless of the phone settings, the service provider would have all the accurate information.
-
Really.... Can you define the accurate time of this text?
Can you define if the phone this text came from had been set to a 24 hour clock??
Can you define if this phone was set to a 24 hour clock??
Can you define how they knew whether any timings were AM or PM??
Can you define whether the CCTV had a 24hour clock?? was 10:13 am or pm?
Isn't CCTV set to a 24 hour clock?
So was it 22 hundred hours and 13 minutes??
Do not ever remember that being mentioned.. to be honest..
Dont worry Billy, all this information would have been scrutinised by defence and prosecution, if you want a full transcript ask Vinnie for one.
-
Dont worry Billy, all this information would have been scrutinised by defence and prosecution, if you want a full transcript ask Vinnie for one.
What do you mean don't worry??
You're assuming thats what happened... We are told of a confession, so what did they actually scrutinise and at which juncture, about this case?
I'm not being funny i just want to understand...
Thats is why I keep asking questions... everyone assumes these things were done...
If these things were done... were was CJ at trial and Tanja Morson at trial??
Were was the undisputed evidence that Dr Vincent Tabak was in Asda at 22:13 hours??
Where was the triangulation of GPs calls and texts??
Why... And I will repeat why... Does a naturally born Dutch Man apparently only search in ENGLISH??
Yesterday I came back about the VXXX
Because of my brother in-law.... He posted something in DUTCH which I didn't understand.... So I asked for the translation....
He didn't think .... hang on a minute I must post in English , so any English people I know may understand.. He did what Dutch people do... he wrote in Dutch...
Just like he told me , we Dutchie's Google in Dutch...
When Dr Vincent Tabak is texting or searching on the internet... He's Dutch... he will write in Dutch...
This FACT appears to have past people by....!
We are not talking about an English person here...
We are talking about a Dutch National, who's native tongue is DUTCH!!!
Edit..... And just to remind everyone..... The only Dutch word in the entire searches that were attributed to Dr Vincent Tabak was the word "DOODSLAG"! which in English means MANSLAUGHTER!!!
Odd that!!
So where was the rest of the Dutch text??
-
What do you mean don't worry??
You're assuming thats what happened... We are told of a confession, so what did they actually scrutinise and at which juncture, about this case?
I'm not being funny i just want to understand...
Thats is why I keep asking questions... everyone assumes these things were done...
If these things were done... were was CJ at trial and Tanja Morson at trial??
Were was the undisputed evidence that Dr Vincent Tabak was in Asda at 22:13 hours??
Where was the triangulation of GPs calls and texts??
Why... And I will repeat why... Does a naturally born Dutch Man apparently only search in ENGLISH??
Yesterday I came back about the VXXX
Because of my brother in-law.... He posted something in DUTCH which I didn't understand.... So I asked for the translation....
He didn't think .... hang on a minute I must post in English , so any English people I know may understand.. He did what Dutch people do... he wrote in Dutch...
Just like he told me , we Dutchie's Google in Dutch...
When Dr Vincent Tabak is texting or searching on the internet... He's Dutch... he will write in Dutch...
This FACT appears to have past people by....!
We are not talking about an English person here...
We are talking about a Dutch National, who's native tongue is DUTCH!!!
Research states that between 90% and 93% of the Dutch population claims to be able to converse in English.
-
What do you mean don't worry??
You're assuming thats what happened... We are told of a confession, so what did they actually scrutinise and at which juncture, about this case?
I'm not being funny i just want to understand...
Thats is why I keep asking questions... everyone assumes these things were done...
If these things were done... were was CJ at trial and Tanja Morson at trial??
Were was the undisputed evidence that Dr Vincent Tabak was in Asda at 22:13 hours??
Where was the triangulation of GPs calls and texts??
Why... And I will repeat why... Does a naturally born Dutch Man apparently only search in ENGLISH??
Yesterday I came back about the VXXX
Because of my brother in-law.... He posted something in DUTCH which I didn't understand.... So I asked for the translation....
He didn't think .... hang on a minute I must post in English , so any English people I know may understand.. He did what Dutch people do... he wrote in Dutch...
Just like he told me , we Dutchie's Google in Dutch...
When Dr Vincent Tabak is texting or searching on the internet... He's Dutch... he will write in Dutch...
This FACT appears to have past people by....!
We are not talking about an English person here...
We are talking about a Dutch National, who's native tongue is DUTCH!!!
Edit..... And just to remind everyone..... The only Dutch word in the entire searches that were attributed to Dr Vincent Tabak was the word "DOODSLAG"! which in English means MANSLAUGHTER!!!
Odd that!!
So where was the rest of the Dutch text??
This view is perhaps unsurprising. The Dutch speak, it is claimed, the best English in the world.
Maybe your brother in law is one of the least educated, Tabak had a good education Billy.
-
What do you mean don't worry??
You're assuming thats what happened... We are told of a confession, so what did they actually scrutinise and at which juncture, about this case?
I'm not being funny i just want to understand...
Thats is why I keep asking questions... everyone assumes these things were done...
If these things were done... were was CJ at trial and Tanja Morson at trial??
Were was the undisputed evidence that Dr Vincent Tabak was in Asda at 22:13 hours??
Where was the triangulation of GPs calls and texts??
Why... And I will repeat why... Does a naturally born Dutch Man apparently only search in ENGLISH??
Yesterday I came back about the VXXX
Because of my brother in-law.... He posted something in DUTCH which I didn't understand.... So I asked for the translation....
He didn't think .... hang on a minute I must post in English , so any English people I know may understand.. He did what Dutch people do... he wrote in Dutch...
Just like he told me , we Dutchie's Google in Dutch...
When Dr Vincent Tabak is texting or searching on the internet... He's Dutch... he will write in Dutch...
This FACT appears to have past people by....!
We are not talking about an English person here...
We are talking about a Dutch National, who's native tongue is DUTCH!!!
Edit..... And just to remind everyone..... The only Dutch word in the entire searches that were attributed to Dr Vincent Tabak was the word "DOODSLAG"! which in English means MANSLAUGHTER!!!
Odd that!!
So where was the rest of the Dutch text??
Would the fact he was texting a English girlfriend have anything to do with it? @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Would the fact he wanted to read English Law and not Dutch Law or English news.
-
Research states that between 90% and 93% of the Dutch population claims to be able to converse in English.
True... i don't dispute that...
But when at home and using the internet , or conversing with Dutch friends or family... Dutch people will use Dutch....
I do not have figures, But i have a Dutch brother in-law, and do not tell him why I have asked the question... I don't want a false answer from him..
...
you are not telling me, that the 4 computers and laptops, hard drives that we have been told about, only contained one DUTCH WORD!! From a Dutch National...
He's a porn addict apparently... Your telling me he only searches for ENGLISH PORN!!!
Where were the translations of a Dutchman's computers and Hard-drives??
-
Would the fact he was texting a English girlfriend have anything to do with it? @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Would the fact he wanted to read English Law and not Dutch Law or English news.
She spoke German also... So did Dr Vincent Tabak apparently..... Who said they conversed in English???
-
This view is perhaps unsurprising. The Dutch speak, it is claimed, the best English in the world.
Maybe your brother in law is one of the least educated, Tabak had a good education Billy.
VT was fluent in English, certainly, but does that necessarily mean he googled in English? And, to be honest, does anyone really know?
-
Would the fact he was texting a English girlfriend have anything to do with it? @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Would the fact he wanted to read English Law and not Dutch Law or English news.
Where did the FACT, you are telling me... Did it ever say that Dr Vincent Tabak wanted to read English Law??
Maybe now Dr Vincent Tabak being in prison wants to read and understand English law... And who could blame him?
-
VT was fluent in English, certainly, but does that necessarily mean he googled in English? And, to be honest, does anyone really know?
Yes, they will know from his computer searches.
-
True... i don't dispute that...
But when at home and using the internet , or conversing with Dutch friends or family... Dutch people will use Dutch....
I do not have figures, But i have a Dutch brother in-law, and do not tell him why I have asked the question... I don't want a false answer from him..
...
you are not telling me, that the 4 computers and laptops, hard drives that we have been told about, only contained one DUTCH WORD!! From a Dutch National...
He's a porn addict apparently... Your telling me he only searches for ENGLISH PORN!!!
Where were the translations of a Dutchman's computers and Hard-drives??
Think about it another way, doesn’t matter what language he used it would have been easy to see what he had looked at by the police, they didn’t need to cover anything up and was honest showing that he had searched one Dutch word. He is a porn addict not apparently, not just porn, a vile disgusting pedo who searches for child porn and snuff videos, doesnt matter what language he used the police would be able to translate, so again no need to cover anything or make anything up.
-
Nope definitely him
That one is definitely him, but has anyone seen the rather controversial CCTV of Joanna in Waitrose, and the "VT lookalike"? It is on You Tube. At the time, many people on forums thought that the man who is seen leaving his trolley was VT, but the police never said so.
-
What do you mean don't worry??
You're assuming thats what happened... We are told of a confession, so what did they actually scrutinise and at which juncture, about this case?
I'm not being funny i just want to understand...
Thats is why I keep asking questions... everyone assumes these things were done...
If these things were done... were was CJ at trial and Tanja Morson at trial??
Were was the undisputed evidence that Dr Vincent Tabak was in Asda at 22:13 hours??
Where was the triangulation of GPs calls and texts??
Why... And I will repeat why... Does a naturally born Dutch Man apparently only search in ENGLISH??
Yesterday I came back about the VXXX
Because of my brother in-law.... He posted something in DUTCH which I didn't understand.... So I asked for the translation....
He didn't think .... hang on a minute I must post in English , so any English people I know may understand.. He did what Dutch people do... he wrote in Dutch...
Just like he told me , we Dutchie's Google in Dutch...
When Dr Vincent Tabak is texting or searching on the internet... He's Dutch... he will write in Dutch...
This FACT appears to have past people by....!
We are not talking about an English person here...
We are talking about a Dutch National, who's native tongue is DUTCH!!!
Edit..... And just to remind everyone..... The only Dutch word in the entire searches that were attributed to Dr Vincent Tabak was the word "DOODSLAG"! which in English means MANSLAUGHTER!!!
Odd that!!
So where was the rest of the Dutch text??
Like you have been told time after time - CJ didn't need to be there because Tabak admitted to killing her - ther trial was to determine intention!
Must say, you seem to be a different person these last few days!
-
VT was fluent in English, certainly, but does that necessarily mean he googled in English? And, to be honest, does anyone really know?
I can only go from experience mrswah, based on my Dutch brother in-law... When he is at my house, he uses he laptop, and googles in Dutch...
When my Dutch young nephew visits, he watches programs that are DUTCH... My nephew and Brother inlaw, converse in Dutch all the time, at the table, in the front room, out shopping,... where ever..
They are in England, they are with English people, yet they still converse in Dutch, when speaking to each other... Not all the time, it depends, what is happening..
So I will stand by my reasoning.. And ask why a Dutch National only has one Dutch word on his computer...
That coincidentally being the word DOODSLAG, meaning MANSLAUGHTER in English...
-
VT was fluent in English, certainly, but does that necessarily mean he googled in English? And, to be honest, does anyone really know?
Doesnt matter if he googled in Chinese, his searches and his content could easily be translated, so if he had, the police would have said I suppose and it would have been shown in court. The trial shown he made the searches in English.
-
Doesnt matter if he googled in Chinese, his searches and his content could easily be translated, so if he had, the police would have said I suppose and it would have been shown in court. The trial shown he made the searches in English.
Do not know how to respond to that, i wouldn't want to be seen as rude...
-
Like you have been told time after time - CJ didn't need to be there because Tabak admitted to killing her - ther trial was to determine intention!
Must say, you seem to be a different person these last few days!
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
The mask is slipping 8@??)(
-
That one is definitely him, but has anyone seen the rather controversial CCTV of Joanna in Waitrose, and the "VT lookalike"? It is on You Tube. At the time, many people on forums thought that the man who is seen leaving his trolley was VT, but the police never said so.
Doesn't look like him to me.
-
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
The mask is slipping 8@??)(
@)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Do not know how to respond to that, i wouldn't want to be seen as rude...
Please do Billy
-
What I am saying, if the cctv footage never had a timescale it would never have been shown, so the cctv footage MUST have had a timescale
Do we know whether the CCTV of VT in ASDA was shown in court? I'm wondering why it would have needed to be. It just shows VT buying crisps, beer and rock salt (not the incriminating sort of stuff that Nathan Matthews was shown buying in B &Q). It does not suggest that he killed Joanna; it just shows that he went shopping after dark. What would have been the point of showing it in court? He did not deny going there.
-
Do we know whether the CCTV of VT in ASDA was shown in court? I'm wondering why it would have needed to be. It just shows VT buying crisps, beer and rock salt (not the incriminating sort of stuff that Nathan Matthews was shown buying in B &Q). It does not suggest that he killed Joanna; it just shows that he went shopping after dark. What would have been the point of showing it in court? He did not deny going there.
Without finding it, yes I’ve read where it was shown to the jury.
-
Like you have been told time after time - CJ didn't need to be there because Tabak admitted to killing her - ther trial was to determine intention!
Must say, you seem to be a different person these last few days!
I know I have been told time after time... I still don't agree..
Dr Vincent Tabak may have apparently admitted to being responsible for Joanna Yeates death, and intention, isn't good enough, if a person is telling a tale on the stand we were all already aware of...
The law is not good enough... No one should be in prison for an apparent confession, evidence needs to back up said confession...
CJ and Tanaj could and would have contradicted said confession... CJ has already told us himself since the trial that his car did indeed change position...
-
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
The mask is slipping 8@??)(
Who's mask... ??
I have no mask... My stance is the same...
-
I know I have been told time after time... I still don't agree..
Dr Vincent Tabak may have apparently admitted to being responsible for Joanna Yeates death, and intention, isn't good enough, if a person is telling a tale on the stand we were all already aware of...
The law is not good enough... No one should be in prison for an apparent confession, evidence needs to back up said confession...
CJ and Tanaj could and would have contradicted said confession... CJ has already told us himself since the trial that his car did indeed change position...
Well, it doesn't really matter if you agree or not. There was evidence to back it up - his DNA on her cold dead flesh!
-
Do we know whether the CCTV of VT in ASDA was shown in court? I'm wondering why it would have needed to be. It just shows VT buying crisps, beer and rock salt (not the incriminating sort of stuff that Nathan Matthews was shown buying in B &Q). It does not suggest that he killed Joanna; it just shows that he went shopping after dark. What would have been the point of showing it in court? He did not deny going there.
We only have the media, or can I be so bold as to say The Telegraph, telling us and showing us this ASDA video.. So seeing as I was not at the trial, i cannot say as fact that it was shown to the jury...
-
Do we know whether the CCTV of VT in ASDA was shown in court? I'm wondering why it would have needed to be. It just shows VT buying crisps, beer and rock salt (not the incriminating sort of stuff that Nathan Matthews was shown buying in B &Q). It does not suggest that he killed Joanna; it just shows that he went shopping after dark. What would have been the point of showing it in court? He did not deny going there.
The court still have to make the jury aware of what took place and the video shows where he was and what he did at a particular time. They calculated that she died prior to his trip to Asda so it provides a timeline.
-
Do not know how to respond to that, i wouldn't want to be seen as rude...
Defence Counsel: And do you consider that you were fluent in English then? Tabak: Yes.
-
Without finding it, yes I’ve read where it was shown to the jury.
Where did you read this?? In The media, or at trial?? were you there??
-
We only have the media, or can I be so bold as to say The Telegraph, telling us and showing us this ASDA video.. So seeing as I was not at the trial, i cannot say as fact that it was shown to the jury...
The Asda video would have been with the police FIRST!
-
Where did you read this?? In The media, or at trial?? were you there??
Defence Counsel: How did you meet Tanja?
Tabak: We met online from a group called ‘soul -mates’.
he met her on a English site &%%6
-
Defence Counsel: How did you meet Tanja?
Tabak: We met online from a group called ‘soul -mates’.
he met her on a English site &%%6
Not really surprising, as he was living in England at the time.
-
Where did you read this?? In The media, or at trial?? were you there??
The jury in the trial were shown the footage as prosecution barrister, Nigel Lickley QC began setting out the case against the 33-year-old Dutch engineer, telling them how Tabak continued with his normal routine after allegedly murdering Miss Yeates last December.
The video, released by Avon and Somerset Police, shows Tabak arriving at his local Asda store and walking around the shop before leaving without purchasing anything.
Tabak soon re-entered the supermarket, where he bought beer, crisps and rock salt, with CCTV footage showing him leave with his purchases.
While in the supermarket, at 10.30pm, he sent a text message to his girlfriend telling her what he was doing.
The message read: “How are you. I am at the Asda buying crisis (sic). I am bored cannot wait to pick you up.”
WHOOPS
-
Not really surprising, as he was living in England at the time.
And he was living in England when he killed Joanna Yeates
-
Defence Counsel: And do you consider that you were fluent in English then? Tabak: Yes.
Lets go back a second or two... Or should I say years...
He was born in Holland
He was educated in Holland
He came to England to work for Buro Happold in 2007, if memory serves me correctly...
He is Dutch for all intense and purposes, in every sense of the word...
He wasn't born in Holland and grew up in England, To English speaking parents, and English being his first language..
The Dutch are taught English......
But when at home, or abroad... Dutch people use their native tongue..
They do not always search in English... No-one has questioned this point, in any shape or form... No-one brought to the table at trial, if Dr Vincent Tabak, preferred to search in Dutch or English?? He wasn't asked that important question...
And no-one asked why the only Dutch word on his computer was DOODSLAG...
Come on... He's a computer whizz kid..
Any google translator will turn DOODSLAG from Dutch into to ENGLISH to give us the word MANSLAUGHTER...
Too convenient for my liking... (Was that word just thrown in??)
Why on earth when he apparently believes he will be caught any minute... Does he decide to use the one Dutch word, that in English means MANSLAUGHTER?? And every other word on his computer is in English??
And you all think I am off my head?????
-
The jury in the trial were shown the footage as prosecution barrister, Nigel Lickley QC began setting out the case against the 33-year-old Dutch engineer, telling them how Tabak continued with his normal routine after allegedly murdering Miss Yeates last December.
The video, released by Avon and Somerset Police, shows Tabak arriving at his local Asda store and walking around the shop before leaving without purchasing anything.
Tabak soon re-entered the supermarket, where he bought beer, crisps and rock salt, with CCTV footage showing him leave with his purchases.
While in the supermarket, at 10.30pm, he sent a text message to his girlfriend telling her what he was doing.
The message read: “How are you. I am at the Asda buying crisis (sic). I am bored cannot wait to pick you up.”
WHOOPS
If you don’t believe it or dispute times, take it up with these two, THEY WERE AT THE TRIAL
By Martin Evans, and Gordon Rayner
2:35PM BST 10 Oct 2011
-
The jury in the trial were shown the footage as prosecution barrister, Nigel Lickley QC began setting out the case against the 33-year-old Dutch engineer, telling them how Tabak continued with his normal routine after allegedly murdering Miss Yeates last December.
The video, released by Avon and Somerset Police, shows Tabak arriving at his local Asda store and walking around the shop before leaving without purchasing anything.
Tabak soon re-entered the supermarket, where he bought beer, crisps and rock salt, with CCTV footage showing him leave with his purchases.
While in the supermarket, at 10.30pm, he sent a text message to his girlfriend telling her what he was doing.
The message read: “How are you. I am at the Asda buying crisis (sic). I am bored cannot wait to pick you up.”
WHOOPS
Please be so kind as to link the quote you have made... Thanks Real ?{)(**
-
If you don’t believe it or dispute times, take it up with these two, THEY WERE AT THE TRIAL
By Martin Evans, and Gordon Rayner
2:35PM BST 10 Oct 2011
Not being funny, but what qualifies them??
-
Lets go back a second or two... Or should I say years...
He was born in Holland
He was educated in Holland
He came to England to work for Buro Happold in 2007, if memory serves me correctly...
He is Dutch for all intense and purposes, in every sense of the word...
He wasn't born in Holland and grew up in England...
The Dutch are taught English, They may write papers in English, for a purpose to do with conveying their thesis to a wider audience..
But when at home, or abroad... Dutch people use Dutch...
They do not always search in English... No-one has questioned this point, in any shape or form... No-one brought to the table at trial, if Dr Vincent Tabak, preferred to search in Dutch or English?? He wasn't asked that important question...
And no-one asked why the only Dutch word on his computer was DOODSLAG...
Come on... He's a computer whizz kid.. Any google translator will turn DOODSLAG from Dutch into to ENGLISH to give us the word MANSLAUGHTER...
Too convenient for my liking...
Why on earth when he apparently believes he will be caught any minute... Does he decide to use the one Dutch word, that in English means MANSLAUGHTER??
And you all think I am off my head?????
The language he used doesn't make any difference.
-
The language he used doesn't make any difference.
Language makes ALL The difference... That is the point!!
-
Lets go back a second or two... Or should I say years...
He was born in Holland
He was educated in Holland
He came to England to work for Buro Happold in 2007, if memory serves me correctly...
He is Dutch for all intense and purposes, in every sense of the word...
He wasn't born in Holland and grew up in England...
The Dutch are taught English, They may write papers in English, for a purpose to do with conveying their thesis to a wider audience..
But when at home, or abroad... Dutch people use Dutch...
They do not always search in English... No-one has questioned this point, in any shape or form... No-one brought to the table at trial, if Dr Vincent Tabak, preferred to search in Dutch or English?? He wasn't asked that important question...
And no-one asked why the only Dutch word on his computer was DOODSLAG...
Come on... He's a computer whizz kid.. Any google translator will turn DOODSLAG from Dutch into to ENGLISH to give us the word MANSLAUGHTER...
Too convenient for my liking...
Why on earth when he apparently believes he will be caught any minute... Does he decide to use the one Dutch word, that in English means MANSLAUGHTER??
And you all think I am off my head?????
And he worked in England, was fluent in English, he had a English girlfriend, he travel to the USA, his work colleagues were English, there is only Mr Tabak himself who can answer why he googled one word in Dutch, so to find this out, you need to ask him.
-
If you don’t believe it or dispute times, take it up with these two, THEY WERE AT THE TRIAL
By Martin Evans, and Gordon Rayner
2:35PM BST 10 Oct 2011
And in terms of Law... who are they exactly? I may be being ignorant here, please explain...
-
Please be so kind as to link the quote you have made... Thanks Real ?{)(**
It just shows how much notice you take, it;s written under the video we have been talking about all night!
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8818883/Jo-Yeates-trial-Vincent-Tabak-caught-on-CCTV-during-Asda-visit.html
-
Not being funny, but what qualifies them??
What qualifies you?
-
Not being funny, but what qualifies them??
Not being funny but, they were listening and reporting on the trial.
-
Language makes ALL The difference... That is the point!!
No it doesn't - you have no point (as usual).
-
It just shows how much notice you take, it;s written under the video we have been talking about all night!
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8818883/Jo-Yeates-trial-Vincent-Tabak-caught-on-CCTV-during-Asda-visit.html
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
And he worked in England, was fluent in English, he had a English girlfriend, he travel to the USA, his work colleagues were English, there is only Mr Tabak himself who can answer why he googled one word in Dutch, so to find this out, you need to ask him.
I really really really would like to ask him... I really really would like to ask him many questions..... But is that gonna happen?????
Errrrrrrrr................ NO..
Being fluent in language has nothing to do with someones native tongue...
-
I really really really would like to ask him... I really really would like to ask him many questions..... But is that gonna happen?????
Errrrrrrrr................ NO..
Being fluent in language has nothing to do with someones native tongue...
Whatever language he searched in, he searched for porn and snuff movies because he's a pervert and he searched Manslaughter because the pervert was trying to find away to cover up the fact that he murdered JY and was trying to work out how he might get a lesser sentence if charged. Not only a pervert but a lying, sniveling coward too.
-
Serious question here...
Am I the only person in the world who questions the conviction of Dr Vincent Tabak??
That must be a near impossibility... So many cases, so many people with different opinions about cases, whether someone is guilty or not...
But when it comes to this case... There appears to be only ME nowadays questioning the conviction of Dr Vincent Tabak..
Which statistically is odd!! And should be an improbability...
-
Serious question here...
Am I the only person in the world who questions the conviction of Dr Vincent Tabak??
That must be a near impossibility... So many cases, so many people with different opinions about cases, whether someone is guilty or not...
But when it comes to this case... There appears to be only ME nowadays questioning the conviction of Dr Vincent Tabak..
Which statistically is odd!! And should be an improbability...
It's not the statistic that's odd 8((()*/
Everyone else came to their senses - you refuse to but that's your prerogative!
-
Serious question here...
Am I the only person in the world who questions the conviction of Dr Vincent Tabak??
That must be a near impossibility... So many cases, so many people with different opinions about cases, whether someone is guilty or not...
But when it comes to this case... There appears to be only ME nowadays questioning the conviction of Dr Vincent Tabak..
Which statistically is odd!! And should be an improbability...
Never mind there’s always one @)(++(*
-
It's not the statistic that's odd 8((()*/
Everyone else came to their senses - you refuse to but that's your prerogative!
Indeed...........
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cDLZqe735k
-
Never mind there’s always one @)(++(*
There is also that guy on FB - the one trying to flog his CD's @)(++(* - Don't think we'll be seeing him on Dragon's Den anytime soon @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
There is also that guy on FB - the one trying to flog his CD's @)(++(* - Don't think we'll be seeing him on Dragon's Den anytime soon @)(++(* @)(++(*
Yes.. Someones is always trying to flog something...
I am not flogging anything... And Lets not go with the dead horse jokes...
What benefit does this give me???
NONE...!!
I have now refused to have a name... So I assure you I am not seeking fame...
God forbid.. Not into that 15 minutes of fame crap...
I have done this and have continued to do this because of my doubts about this case..
It's as simple as that..
-
It's not the statistic that's odd 8((()*/
Everyone else came to their senses - you refuse to but that's your prerogative!
Well an official title could be an off turf account... And the odd couldn't be laid off anywhere...
-
Yes.. Someones is always trying to flog something...
I am not flogging anything... And Lets not go with the dead horse jokes...
What benefit does this give me???
NONE...!!
I have now refused to have a name... So I assure you I am not seeking fame...
God forbid.. Not into that 15 minutes of fame crap...
I have done this and have continued to do this because of my doubts about this case..
It's as simple as that..
Oh you have a name but your doubts are built on straw. This won't make you famous anyway - infamous perhaps @)(++(*
-
Oh you have a name but your doubts are built on straw. This won't make you famous anyway - infamous perhaps @)(++(*
Seeing as I was never seeking fame... It doesn't matter... Infamous it is then...
Maybe real will start calling me Infamous instead of Billy!!
-
Seeing as I was never seeking fame... It doesn't matter... Infamous it is then...
Maybe real will start calling me Infamous instead of Billy!!
No, I think he'll stick to Billy.
-
No, I think he'll stick to Billy.
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Not being funny, but what qualifies them??
Martin Evans is a Crime correspondent, he covered the trial from Start to finish, he was one of the few reporters who went with the jury to visit the crime scene. He covered the case from first reporting Joanna missing to the trial end. He heard everything that was said in court and was privy to a lot more information than us, that’s what qualifies him.
-
What do you mean don't worry??
You're assuming thats what happened... We are told of a confession, so what did they actually scrutinise and at which juncture, about this case?
I'm not being funny i just want to understand...
Thats is why I keep asking questions... everyone assumes these things were done...
If these things were done... were was CJ at trial and Tanja Morson at trial??
Were was the undisputed evidence that Dr Vincent Tabak was in Asda at 22:13 hours??
Where was the triangulation of GPs calls and texts??
Why... And I will repeat why... Does a naturally born Dutch Man apparently only search in ENGLISH??
Yesterday I came back about the VXXX
Because of my brother in-law.... He posted something in DUTCH which I didn't understand.... So I asked for the translation....
He didn't think .... hang on a minute I must post in English , so any English people I know may understand.. He did what Dutch people do... he wrote in Dutch...
Just like he told me , we Dutchie's Google in Dutch...
When Dr Vincent Tabak is texting or searching on the internet... He's Dutch... he will write in Dutch...
This FACT appears to have past people by....!
We are not talking about an English person here...
We are talking about a Dutch National, who's native tongue is DUTCH!!!
Edit..... And just to remind everyone..... The only Dutch word in the entire searches that were attributed to Dr Vincent Tabak was the word "DOODSLAG"! which in English means MANSLAUGHTER!!!
Odd that!!
So where was the rest of the Dutch text??
You just PRESUME what he would do and how he would speak and search. Just like you presume he is innocent.
-
True... i don't dispute that...
But when at home and using the internet , or conversing with Dutch friends or family... Dutch people will use Dutch....
I do not have figures, But i have a Dutch brother in-law, and do not tell him why I have asked the question... I don't want a false answer from him..
...
you are not telling me, that the 4 computers and laptops, hard drives that we have been told about, only contained one DUTCH WORD!! From a Dutch National...
He's a porn addict apparently... Your telling me he only searches for ENGLISH PORN!!!
Where were the translations of a Dutchman's computers and Hard-drives??
You dismiss the facts with words like apparently but then make up stuff that you have no idea about. Strange that
-
Not really surprising, as he was living in England at the time.
Exactly !! neither is searching in English either
-
You dismiss the facts with words like apparently but then make up stuff that you have no idea about. Strange that
You're right Jixy ... I know nothing about anything... I was just about to write a different,,post, then saw what you had posted.... Then thought better of it.... I know nothing!!
-
Maybe its helpful to stick to the established facts instead of ignoring them all to make up your own
-
Maybe its helpful to stick to the established facts instead of ignoring them all to make up your own
Which established facts would they be??
Look... Don't mind me... Everyone here appears to have it covered... I on the other hand, will stick with my belief, and the rest of you can agree, with your established facts that you know..
Maybe someone else will come along, you can all agree is stupid...
-
Which established facts would they be??
Look... Don't mind me... Everyone here appears to have it covered... I on the other hand, will stick with my belief, and the rest of you can agree, with your established facts that you know..
Maybe someone else will come along, you can all agree is stupid...
Not sure why you always turn this back on yourself like its personal to you, when it isnt. There was a trial there was evidence there was a confession... he has never once spoken up to dispute any of this and yet you choose to know better than Tabak!
No one makes you do this! You said you tried to make contact with Tabak. he didnt bite your hand off desperate and alone waiting for help did he? He ignored it
-
And he was living in England when he killed Joanna Yeates
Yes, he certainly was. And??
-
Yes, he certainly was. And??
Instead of asking And? why dont you ask Nine why they imply they know Tabak inside out and how his searches appear are wrong?
-
Yes, he certainly was. And??
I don’t know what more I can add to it mrswah, other than Vincent Tabak was living in England when he murdered Joanna Yeates.
-
Which established facts would they be??
Look... Don't mind me... Everyone here appears to have it covered... I on the other hand, will stick with my belief, and the rest of you can agree, with your established facts that you know..
Maybe someone else will come along, you can all agree is stupid...
Not stupid - delusional.
-
You just PRESUME what he would do and how he would speak and search. Just like you presume he is innocent.
Correct, I presume too much.. Rather I should have said, the likely hood of a mixture of English, and Dutch should have been found upon Dr Vincent Tabak's computer. I wonder why there appears to be only English text, in anything that appeared in what has been stated as Dr Vincent Tabaks searches. In His text messages and in his emails.
I do not know for a fact what he wrote, so therefore you are correct... But The idea of me writing on here, was to question what appears not be have been asked...
If we have a summary of searches and a summary of texts and emails that Dr Vincent Tabak made, then are there more text and searches he made in Dutch? Are there more texts and emails in Dutch, that may have been relevant?
Or possibly in German seeing as he was tri-lingual... If a history of the entire searches and text that were made was not available for the jury to see, how do we know the full picture, how do we know the truth.. Omitting any of the searches and only using those that appeared relevant, may have given the jury only one impression.. Where as the whole truth could lie within the rest of the searches and text...
If i am not presuming, I cannot presume, how the computers were examined... I cannot presume the person who examined, the computers and mobile phone/phones, had a command of the Dutch language and was forensically trained for this task, I cannot presume, that any Dutch text that may have been withheld within any devices, was translated by anyone.
There may be reams of information that was not processed, the searches were just presented at trial, in a slide show presentation I think..
My post was ill thought out, he may not speak Dutch at all, how do I know... But a presumption of the likely hood any person from another country, would at some point use their native language, was a safe bet I believed..
I do not know of any printouts of the texts, or if anybody was responsible for translating any text.
I do find it strange, that there should be only one Dutch word held within the entire collection of devices that were apparently examined thoroughly by the police.. Or is that a presumption?
What I will say is that I glean from what was said at trial and what was reported, there was no mention made of the forensic examination of these devices... I am unaware if each device was individually identified at trial, which text came from which device on what day and time, if each devices clocks were set to Greenwich Mean Time. And if they correspond with where ever Dr Vincent Tabak may have been at the time.
I believe at one point, it was stated that Tanja was on the computer, when read out at trial, It appeared unscientific, How it could be differentiate who used the computer at anytime in that household, was never made clear, just like the computer they accessed somehow from Buro Happold...
The text and searches are combined into one, yet they come from a variety of devices and hard-drives, no seperation of the information detailing where the information came from... Just a list of apparent searches made, as well as emails and texts..
Therefore which device yielded which information? And who else had access to these devices... were the work devices taken from Buro happold, or were these devices kept at Dr Vincent Tabak's home? And were these work devices shared at any time?
-
Correct, I presume too much.. Rather I should have said, the likely hood of a mixture of English, and Dutch should have been found upon Dr Vincent Tabak's computer. I wonder why there appears to be only English text, in anything that appeared in what has been stated as Dr Vincent Tabaks searches. In His text messages and in his emails.
I do not know for a fact what he wrote, so therefore you are correct... But The idea of me writing on here, was to question what appears not be have been asked...
If we have a summary of searches and a summary of texts and emails that Dr Vincent Tabak made, then are there more text and searches he made in Dutch? Are there more texts and emails in Dutch, that may have been relevant?
Or possibly in German seeing as he was tri-lingual... If a history of the entire searches and text that were made was not available for the jury to see, how do we know the full picture, how do we know the truth.. Omitting any of the searches and only using those that appeared relevant, may have given the jury only one impression.. Where as the whole truth could lie within the rest of the searches and text...
If i am not presuming, I cannot presume, how the computers were examined... I cannot presume the person who examined, the computers and mobile phone/phones, had a command of the Dutch language and was forensically trained for this task, I cannot presume, that any Dutch text that may have been withheld within any devices, was translated by anyone.
There may be reams of information that was not processed, the searches were just presented at trial, in a slide show presentation I think..
My post was ill thought out, he may not speak Dutch at all, how do I know... But a presumption of the likely hood any person from another country, would at some point use their native language, was a safe bet I believed..
I do not know of any printouts of the texts, or if anybody was responsible for translating any text.
I do find it strange, that there should be only one Dutch word held within the entire collection of devices that were apparently examined thoroughly by the police.. Or is that a presumption?
What I will say is that I glean from what was said at trial and what was reported, there was no mention made of the forensic examination of these devices... I am unaware if each device was individually identified at trial, which text came from which device on what day and time, if each devices clocks were set to Greenwich Mean Time. And if they correspond with where ever Dr Vincent Tabak may have been at the time.
I believe at one point, it was stated that Tanja was on the computer, when read out at trial, It appeared unscientific, How it could be differentiate who used the computer at anytime in that household, was never made clear, just like the computer they accessed somehow from Buro Happold...
The text and searches are combined into one, yet they come from a variety of devices and hard-drives, no seperation of the information detailing where the information came from... Just a list of apparent searches made, as well as emails and texts..
Therefore which device yielded which information? And who else had access to these devices... were the work devices taken from Buro happold, or were these devices kept at Dr Vincent Tabak's home? And were these work devices shared at any time?
Interesting Billy your post is quite revealing, you make a long post on things that have already been explained about Computers, surprisingly you never mention CONTENT. The content of the Computers doesn’t seem to bother you, the fact he’s a paedofile and admitted to this possession, (Vincent Tabak admits possessing indecent images of children) now my Old friend Jim Clemente would rip your post apart, he’s a profiler, your only worry in all this, He never searched in the Dutch language only for one word?
Your not suggesting, his girlfriend knew about his dirty sexual pervertion are you Billy, Nah Nah Nah Billy no woman with half a brain would be that stupid, well other than the evil Myra Hindley of course.
Anyway I’ve got to dash over to Amsterdam to see my Dutch sister in law, I’ve got to be back for Footie this afternoon @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Interesting Billy your post is quite revealing, you make a long post on things that have already been explained about Computers, surprisingly you never mention CONTENT. The content of the Computers doesn’t seem to bother you, the fact he’s a paedofile and admitted to this possession, (Vincent Tabak admits possessing indecent images of children) now my Old friend Jim Clemente would rip your post apart, he’s a profiler, your only worry in all this, He never searched in the Dutch language only for one word?
Your not suggesting, his girlfriend knew about his dirty sexual pervertion are you Billy, Nah Nah Nah Billy no woman with half a brain would be that stupid, well other than the evil Myra Hindley of course.
Anyway I’ve got to dash over to Amsterdam to see my Dutch sister in law, I’ve got to be back for Footie this afternoon @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Why is A profiler relevant?
How could any profiler determine the why for of what I write and why I write it? based upon what?
What other information have I viewed which maybe warranted said response?
How could any profiler determine at what point someone may have made a comment to me, ?
Did someone ask me to search for something?
As for the links to the youtube music. for which reason did i do this??
Was I trying to convey something else??
What influences during my time writing on here, have I had in relation to said music video's?
Are the music video meant as a joke?
There could be many many factors...
Profilers appear to me to be generalisers, who have been dramatised world wide, who make decisions (imo) based on what they believe they know, and everyone ends up in a box.....
It is easy to box everyone up, and present said people to juries as a certain type of person, it appears to add weight, to the evidence that is presented at trial,.. profilers belong on TV, and a warning should be given, it's entertainment, it's car crash TV.. (imo)
Profilers do not and should not belong in a court room, what ever influences said profiler and any profilers decision making, should be scrutinized....
Many people have agenda's.. many people have experiences in life, that may or may not influence their thought processes, timing and tragedy may also play a part in any event, pressures and stressers may have an influence, and a person may or may not behave out of character.
Boxing everyone up is not helpful, and if it wasn't for the TV profilers, may people opinions as jurors at a trial would change. They would think for themselves instead of being possibly influenced by someone else ideas of a person or persons...
Profiling like anything is not an exact science....
Wasn't it reported about the CSI effect... How jurors apparently wanted DNA as proof of a defendants guilt..
DNA like anything is a tool, it depends where it originated from, it depends on the correct process, it depends on whether it can be established as to when it was deposited...
Unfortunately it is used in most cases, and the relevance may not be accurate,.. Take Dr Vincent Tabak and Joanna Yeates, two people living in the same building using the same gate.. etc etc..
The transfer of DNA is highly likely, when and how said DNA is deposited ,is another matter, but how can that be determined, without exploring every avenue.
All countries have their own processes and ways in which to determine the guilt of any individual, I may not agree with some of the method's used, but i am not here to argue about other countries laws etc..
Evidence needs to be based on fact and not opinion, and yes I can see where you see coming from, I am not presenting fact, but questioning the process... And wanting to understand how the decisions about Dr Vincent Tabak were established..
Searches on the internet, do not equate to fact... The fact only that can be established about said internet searches, is that they were made... but made by whom, and in what context is not established, merely by the presence of a computer search.. A computer search is not evidence of a crime...
Texts too are not evidence in that way either, understanding the context of said text is just as important, and the interpretation of said texts, is dependant on who's presenting said text and in what context.... Not knowing what someone was responding too, whether or not the text response was delayed for whatever reason, whether or not said text was meant as a joke, whether or not said text was received by the correct person, are all factors in whether or not, each text is relevant to any situation.. Whether or not autocorrect decided to kick in..
Texts may appear to confirm evidence presented, but confirm what exactly, that a text was sent?
Interpretation of texts is not evidence and I find that area of texts etc as evidence one should question, texts can be interpreted in many ways, just like DNA can be interpreted in many ways.. (imo)
So the point of informing me of a profiler Real was what exactly??
-
Just to add...
If a couple/ family are in a room watching TV, whilst looking at their devices, shall we say.. One is reading twitter, one is reading facebook, they are all half listening to the TV, one is on instagram, and someone pipes up out of the blue....
" No way, he didn't do that did he.."
Now what is that remark referring too...??
Suddenly one of the people in the room decides to research this comment made, and searches and searches in vain.. yet these searches are now evidence on this person device that a search about a particular person was made...
The conversation may carry on in the room, others may but in, others may be laughing at the latest video they are watching on their devices.. And make another comment, something on the TV sparks interest and another search is made...
They may not be concentrating and respond to a text received in a manner that has no relation to the question asked, or statement made, and may choose to amend said text, or not bother and let the person who received said text decide or realise, what said text meant...
People search for information all the time on the internet, based on many factors....
It cannot be determined the reason why texts and searches are made, a continuous dialogue may help, but still there could always be questions.
-
Someone remarked that this was none of my business, and thinking about that remark it is true..
I think I may have come full circle... Comments like mine or anyones elses on a forum are not evidence, evidence that words were written, that is true, but they are not evidence of anything else other than it being one persons opinion based on the information they believe they may know...
They could be viewed as entertainment by some, or used as advice by others, so my comments that are many, are proof of nothing, they appear to have only added to the weight of information already out there..
So maybe a hazzard warning sign should be attached to my posts, that they are posts based on my opinion, and my opinion only, and my interpretation of what information I have viewed or seen..
My posts are evidence of nothing, and as such should been seen in that way...
Edit... And as my posts are evidence of nothing, maybe that is the real reason they should be removed,... Anyone reading them maybe should see them as ???, I do not know... Opinion is just that, opinion....
-
Therefore my conclusion, is my post no longer need to be here and i no longer need to be a member of this forum, you can remove me from the member list too... thank you
-
Why is A profiler relevant?
How could any profiler determine the why for of what I write and why I write it? based upon what?
What other information have I viewed which maybe warranted said response?
How could any profiler determine at what point someone may have made a comment to me, ?
Did someone ask me to search for something?
As for the links to the youtube music. for which reason did i do this??
Was I trying to convey something else??
What influences during my time writing on here, have I had in relation to said music video's?
Are the music video meant as a joke?
There could be many many factors...
Profilers appear to me to be generalisers, who have been dramatised world wide, who make decisions (imo) based on what they believe they know, and everyone ends up in a box.....
It is easy to box everyone up, and present said people to juries as a certain type of person, it appears to add weight, to the evidence that is presented at trial,.. profilers belong on TV, and a warning should be given, it's entertainment, it's car crash TV.. (imo)
Profilers do not and should not belong in a court room, what ever influences said profiler and any profilers decision making, should be scrutinized....
Many people have agenda's.. many people have experiences in life, that may or may not influence their thought processes, timing and tragedy may also play a part in any event, pressures and stressers may have an influence, and a person may or may not behave out of character.
Boxing everyone up is not helpful, and if it wasn't for the TV profilers, may people opinions as jurors at a trial would change. They would think for themselves instead of being possibly influenced by someone else ideas of a person or persons...
Profiling like anything is not an exact science....
Wasn't it reported about the CSI effect... How jurors apparently wanted DNA as proof of a defendants guilt..
DNA like anything is a tool, it depends where it originated from, it depends on the correct process, it depends on whether it can be established as to when it was deposited...
Unfortunately it is used in most cases, and the relevance may not be accurate,.. Take Dr Vincent Tabak and Joanna Yeates, two people living in the same building using the same gate.. etc etc..
The transfer of DNA is highly likely, when and how said DNA is deposited ,is another matter, but how can that be determined, without exploring every avenue.
All countries have their own processes and ways in which to determine the guilt of any individual, I may not agree with some of the method's used, but i am not here to argue about other countries laws etc..
Evidence needs to be based on fact and not opinion, and yes I can see where you see coming from, I am not presenting fact, but questioning the process... And wanting to understand how the decisions about Dr Vincent Tabak were established..
Searches on the internet, do not equate to fact... The fact only that can be established about said internet searches, is that they were made... but made by whom, and in what context is not established, merely by the presence of a computer search.. A computer search is not evidence of a crime...
Texts too are not evidence in that way either, understanding the context of said text is just as important, and the interpretation of said texts, is dependant on who's presenting said text and in what context.... Not knowing what someone was responding too, whether or not the text response was delayed for whatever reason, whether or not said text was meant as a joke, whether or not said text was received by the correct person, are all factors in whether or not, each text is relevant to any situation.. Whether or not autocorrect decided to kick in..
Texts may appear to confirm evidence presented, but confirm what exactly, that a text was sent?
Interpretation of texts is not evidence and I find that area of texts etc as evidence one should question, texts can be interpreted in many ways, just like DNA can be interpreted in many ways.. (imo)
So the point of informing me of a profiler Real was what exactly??
I think RJ is alluding to the fact that you appear to have transformed into another person over the past week or so. The way you write, is totally different - it's like two different people are posting under the one name. Also his observation about the 'content' of images found on Tabak's computer is something I have noticed too - it doesn't matter what language he searched in, its the content of what he was looking for! So, what is your opinion about such content? And do you not see that someone viewing such images and video's is potentially dangerous?
-
Someone remarked that this was none of my business, and thinking about that remark it is true..
I think I may have come full circle... Comments like mine or anyones elses on a forum are not evidence, evidence that words were written, that is true, but they are not evidence of anything else other than it being one persons opinion based on the information they believe they may know...
They could be viewed as entertainment by some, or used as advice by others, so my comments that are many, are proof of nothing, they appear to have only added to the weight of information already out there..
So maybe a hazzard warning sign should be attached to my posts, that they are posts based on my opinion, and my opinion only, and my interpretation of what information I have viewed or seen..
My posts are evidence of nothing, and as such should been seen in that way...
Edit... And as my posts are evidence of nothing, maybe that is the real reason they should be removed,... Anyone reading them maybe should see them as ???, I do not know... Opinion is just that, opinion....
They have added to the weight of false information out there.
-
“In reality, I don’t think the flying monkeys realize what they are doing. I trust that these people actually believe in the righteousness and the “cause” of the narcissist.
https://pro.psychcentral.com/recovery-expert/2016/07/the-narcissists-flying-monkeys/
-
Interesting Billy your post is quite revealing, you make a long post on things that have already been explained about Computers, surprisingly you never mention CONTENT. The content of the Computers doesn’t seem to bother you, the fact he’s a paedofile and admitted to this possession, (Vincent Tabak admits possessing indecent images of children) now my Old friend Jim Clemente would rip your post apart, he’s a profiler, your only worry in all this, He never searched in the Dutch language only for one word?
Your not suggesting, his girlfriend knew about his dirty sexual pervertion are you Billy, Nah Nah Nah Billy no woman with half a brain would be that stupid, well other than the evil Myra Hindley of course.
Anyway I’ve got to dash over to Amsterdam to see my Dutch sister in law, I’ve got to be back for Footie this afternoon @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
On here seeing as it says it is a UK site, the likely hood of people being members having a command of the English language is needed, other wise it is totally useless, they may choose to use google for translation, but it in't always correct, it may have improved over the years, but it can and it does make error...
Is that what happened to Dr Vincent Tabak's computer searches?? They were put through a google translator?
Google translators are only handy to grasp something but sometimes words cannot be translated that easily..
And the words used may end up having a complete different meaning.. The context therefore is needed too... Words command emotional response, and knowing what the emotional response was supposed to be... take this text:
neit te doen XXX
I used the online translator and the online translator stated:Not to do XXX
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15688;image)
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15686;image)
Now this was what my brother in law had said, "neit te doen XXX" and as I am not Dutch I asked him to translate..
He came back with:
Ajax lost. XXX sign for Amsterdam, neit te doen could be Translated as "unbearable" I think
I have here a person fluent in English, who is of Dutch origin translating for me what he means...
so far we have one interpretation from Google, but if i miss off the XXX and just put the words in I get..
neit te doen is translated into impossible
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15690;image)
So far we have had 3 different translation of this text, I have asked a Dutch person what it means and they have explained that the:
XXX Is the symbol for Amsterdam and neit te doen could be translated as unbearable..
"Unbearable" and "Not to do" are two completely different thing, massively different and massively important when it comes to understanding what a person meant, who is from another country... The "Not to do" makes no sense... when you realise what the information was about...
Knowing that XXX means Amsterdam and not kisses is huge, it transforms a message from one thing to another. As I have demonstrated..
I wasn't gonna come back to this the the idea of an American profiler, has got me intrigued....
The message I saw was originally an image, so the correct order of the text I couldn't say, the XXX were emoji's and the rest of the text splashed across the screen..
Because the use of emoji's in his message caught my eye, that was why I asked him for a translation.. And as we can see, google does not have the capacity to understand simple and subtle changes in meaning, it needed to understand that XXX didn't mean kisses, and google couldn't comprehend that, google could only come back with something it had in it's banks...
But it is not good enough... I have explained why it isn't good enough, more than once....
So again i will ask does Missing you loads, I'm Bored, VXXX does it really mean what it looks like? where the XXX's even emojis??
Or does it mean what I have suggested it could mean.... That he was Missing Tanja loads, as he was or had been to the Hotel V in Amsterdam?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg527375#msg527375
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg527376#msg527376
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg527428#msg527428
Those 3 posts explain how I came to a conclusion... They cast doubt on the apparent text Dr Vincent Tabak sent when one translates it from what could be the real meaning and not just assume it means what everyone has wanted us to believe it means...
Posters have said it s like 2 different people are posting when I post, but, it depends in the day and how I may be feeling, it depends on whether I am over analysing something, it depends on many variations.... It maybe, because something has grasped my attention and I end up on a tangent, there are many varied reason for many things..
Yesterday I thought I should no longer post... And believe I had rationalised the reasons for that... But something again niggles, and thinking of the profiler had me wondering other things...
Did they use an American profiler in this case? Do the English Police use American profilers?? My god that's a scary proposition in my opinion...
I watched loads of those American TV programs, and I think Dayle Hinman has to be my favourite, and that is not in a good way....
I'm like Dayle ... No.... @)(++(* I laugh everytime, she's comedy gold... I'd give you an example but i'd go off topic... Anyway, common sense is all she is applying, my god, and she is paid money to make TV programs...
Profiling is not an exact science, i said this the other day, and should not be accepted in this country, (imo).. We as a country appear to use more and more tactics in policing that the Americans have been using in their country, and i do not agree with many of their methods... But that is my opinion... And again another topic..
But I want to explore the possibility that they used an American profiler on this case....
I'm not surprised I keep going backwards and forwards and wonder what is real or not... I know I started because I wanted to help a man that i felt couldn't help him self... And as always, chuck the idea that someone is a paedo into the mix, and everyone runs for cover....
I''l bore you for a minute.... Ages ago , I made comment about what had been written about computers in relation to child images, in fact i pointed a certain question at PaulThe Red and Jixy, but some of those post have now been removed..
The guide lines about data and child images wasn't very exact, and what it basically stated was that if you had the ability to create change an image you could be charged with child porn offences... Well that was the long and the short of it....
I pointed out that everyone has paint or a particular program built into computers, and to be honest, what happens now, that we have filters on so many apps??
The law needs to be accurate, and when I wrote the post about this some years ago, the law wasn't accurate as in the wording stated could lead to abuse of this law.. , I'm now searching for the law on child protection and computer images, and can't find the original information I used at the time... But how would that search i have just made be interpreted, or could be interpreted...
Did they use an American profiler on this English Case? Did they apply the tactics that are used in America here??
That is a worrying proposition... This case is off... I keep saying that... The use of the word Manslaughter, at every opportunity, in court and the media is ridiculous, and now a wry smile has crossed my face, because it may be dawning on me that , the idea of that is an American tactic... They do that in America, everyone knows everything about a case before it has even hit the court room...
Whom did they bring in to assist in this case?? And is this why we end up at The Old Bailey??
What is going on here.... I have been sent around in circles, not knowing what is real or not... Because it doesn't make sense... I keep stating it and I know you do not agree..
Is the reason that there is no more information available about this case, because it was information an American profiler has??
My head is going off in all directions at the moment, with possibilities galore... But i won't share them with you at this point...
As I have pointed out about the text, what context was the word "DOODSLAG" used in ? Context in this case is vital,
and it appears to have been ignored...
I have the phrase.. 'Sexual Conduct" in my head at the moment, another term Dr Vincent Tabak apparently searched for... Well the term is Sexual Misconduct... And I have explained that one in a post also...
I am now getting the image, of an American profiler sat with an English bobby, using google to translate Dutch and any words that appear incriminating are used, and seen as proof of guilt... @)(++(* @)(++(* Is that what took place??
"Hey Sharon, we've got him... Google says he did it, so he must have done... Case wrapped my girl...!!" @)(++(*
-
Is that what happened to CJ??
The idea that he is a little different, could be seen as a tool to turn people against him? The media painting him in a certain light??
We English love a good eccentric,.. They are intriguing, fascinating, they have a different look on the world, and for me I find it great..
See the Blue hair thing didn't bother me, his sexuality too has no baring, I couldn't give a crap about it, I am more concerned about the people he saw at the gate, and not what he looked like...
And on thinking about that, why did they get CJ to conform, he apparently had always had his eccentric, look, in fact I was looking for the cordurory pants he may have worn... lol ..
Bristol is diverse, people come in many forms there, so I can hardly see how CJ would stick out.... He sticks out more now because he has transformed himself, into someone who is not recognisible.. And we only know who he is from his many appearances..
He tells us it was because he may be noticed that he changed his appearance, the dramatic change is more of a reason to be noticed i would say...
Did he feel he may be taken more seriously if he presented himself in this conformist way??
Appearances can be deceptive, an appearance is not proof of anything...
-
Back to the idea that Dr Vincent Tabak admitted apparently to Manslaughter... And why if he hadn't done it he would say this?
It was suggested if he went to prison because of the images, that were apparently on his computer, he would get a harsher sentence and he wouldn't want t o go to prison as a sex offender, so a killer would be better...
@)(++(* I'm laughing because that idea, comes directly from an American Tv program about a murder of a woman, and a young man who had apparently interfered with his daughter whom was extremely young, decided to randomly attack someone... the house he ends up at is occupied by a single person being female, who's family haven't returned home..
He kills the woman, and escapes, having left a letter of his on her kitchen counter, they track him down and he is covered in nicotine patches, in an apparent attempt to commit suicide...
When asked why he had killed the woman, he said he would rather go to prison as a Murderer than a Sex Offender....
Now what a coincidence, that idea Dr Vincent Tabak admitted to Manslaughter for the apparent same reason of what he would go to prison for...
Most Sex offenders in this country get a short sentence, it is changing, but Dr Vincent Tabak only recieved 10 months, for the images...
So what was the reason he apparently admitted to manslaughter??
Was he actually threatened with something else??
Maybe they wanted him in America.... Now for anyone thats a scary thought.... I have Assange now springing to mind, and everything that is happening in trying to stop that extradicition..
-
Back to the idea that Dr Vincent Tabak admitted apparently to Manslaughter... And why if he hadn't done it he would say this?
It was suggested if he went to prison because of the images, that were apparently on his computer, he would get a harsher sentence and he wouldn't want t o go to prison as a sex offender, so a killer would be better...
@)(++(* I'm laughing because that idea, comes directly from an American Tv program about a murder of a woman, and a young man who had apparently interfered with his daughter whom was extremely young, decided to randomly attack someone... the house he ends up at is occupied by a single person being female, who's family haven't returned home..
He kills the woman, and escapes, having left a letter of his on her kitchen counter, they track him down and he is covered in nicotine patches, in an apparent attempt to commit suicide...
When asked why he had killed the woman, he said he would rather go to prison as a Murderer than a Sex Offender....
Now what a coincidence, that idea Dr Vincent Tabak admitted to Manslaughter for the apparent same reason of what he would go to prison for...
Most Sex offenders in this country get a short sentence, it is changing, but Dr Vincent Tabak only recieved 10 months, for the images...
So what was the reason he apparently admitted to manslaughter??
Was he actually threatened with something else??
Maybe they wanted him in America.... Now for anyone thats a scary thought.... I have Assange now springing to mind, and everything that is happening in trying to stop that extradicition..
Your use of the word apparently is quite disgusting just like Tabak's viewing material
NO as you well know he wasnt threatened. The very important charges re the porn weren't brought to trial to enable him have a fair trial along with his version that lead to manslaughter .You know this but refuse to accept this because its spoils the badly done to image you want to put forward for Tabak
This was ALL in his favour.
There is nothing you can say in defence of anyone viewing such material. Its not one or the other with Tabak. It is BOTH!
-
Your use of the word apparently is quite disgusting just like Tabak's viewing material
NO as you well know he wasnt threatened. The very important charges re the porn weren't brought to trial to enable him have a fair trial along with his version that lead to manslaughter .You know this but refuse to accept this because its spoils the badly done to image you want to put forward for Tabak
This was ALL in his favour.
There is nothing you can say in defense of anyone viewing such material. Its not one or the other with Tabak. It is BOTH!
You're allowed your opinion Jixy, just as I am mine..
What's disgusting is a trial happened without evidence and a man is in prison...
If Dr Vincent Tabak did kill Joanna Yeates, then you wouldn't be bothered if we put ALL The evidence to the test..
Having witness's appear in court having everything examined by qualified people, lets get ALL The evidence out and ALL the relevant people who should have been at trial and re-examine it ALL...
Oh maybe that is not possible.... maybe me keep asking if it is real or not is true... Is warranted..
Yes, i know you think i am uncaring when i question the entire case, and whether or not a murder actually took place..
But unless everything is put under the microscope and re-examined, the true will never be known...
A confession is NOT good enough, if the evidence doesn't support the confession... So why accept it is beyond me....
-
Maybe you should got to a trial that you arent connected to and listen and learn when someone pleads guilty. You never stop for a minute to think if he had a full trial as you call it and had pleaded not guilty that the very same result could have happened.
Its just a drum to bang for you to protest his innocence because you dont have anything else to offer that is worth anything
-
Does anyone know why VT wasn't tried for possessing child porn at the same time as he was tried for murdering Joanna? Just thinking back to the Becky Watts case, where Nathan Matthews was tried for both offences at the same time.
-
Omg mrswah really? how long have you been commenting on this case? You know why he wasnt!
-
Maybe you should got to a trial that you arent connected to and listen and learn when someone pleads guilty. You never stop for a minute to think if he had a full trial as you call it and had pleaded not guilty that the very same result could have happened.
Its just a drum to bang for you to protest his innocence because you dont have anything else to offer that is worth anything
And maybe it's time for questions... I'm not arguing anymore, I feel I've been directed sometimes, but i come back to what I believe, and I am not even putting anyone else in the frame, just because we are told, check the boyfriend first, then the family...
That again is American, it with all of the TV Crime shows brainwashes us... That idea I believes comes from America...
Again an example.... Watching a TV program, American, Crime of some description... Two Cops arrive, because a woman i believe rang them to say her husband had either been shot or stabbed... can't remember, but there first reaction was to say, There she is she's done it... And take her away...
There are uses of the English language in these programs that irritate me... Now my command of English isn't always the best, or should I say, i have no qualification in English, even though i am English...but certain things we know....
Shot to Death..... A phrase regularly used in these programs.... I tell ya I want to hit the screen with my shoe...
It is "Shot Dead"!!! Not Shot to Death... I am sure CJ would be able to explain why... I always get verbs and adjectives etc etc ...mixed up, but there is a reason it is Shot dead, and not Shot to Death...
But I know it's shot dead, and for some reason that annoys me no end, that phrase that has been used 'Shot To Death"..sends me off the deep end.... I'm Like Arrrggggghhhhhh
A mixture of Americanisms and English language appears in this trial and case.... And I do not understand why...
Does anyone know why VT wasn't tried for possessing child porn at the same time as he was tried for murdering Joanna? Just thinking back to the Becky Watts case, where Nathan Matthews was tried for both offences at the same time.
I do not know English law mrswah.... It maybe you are tried for all offences at the same time in England, and not in America, I cannot answer that question to be honest...
But I know I don't want to hear the term "Shot to Death" ... anymore.... arrrggghhhh
-
And maybe it's time for questions... I'm not arguing anymore, I feel I've been directed sometimes, but i come back to what I believe, and I am not even putting anyone else in the frame, just because we are told, check the boyfriend first, then the family...
That again is American, it with all of the TV Crime shows brainwashes us... That idea I believes comes from America...
Again an example.... Watching a TV program, American, Crime of some description... Two Cops arrive, because a woman i believe rang them to say her husband had either been shot or stabbed... can't remember, but there first reaction was to say, There she is she's done it... And take her away...
There are uses of the English language in these programs that irritate me... Now my command of English isn't always the best, or should I say, i have no qualification in English, even though i am English...but certain things we know....
Shot to Death..... A phrase regularly used in these programs.... I tell ya I want to hit the screen with my shoe...
It is "Shot Dead"!!! Not Shot to Death... I am sure CJ would be able to explain why... I always get verbs and adjectives etc etc ...mixed up, but there is a reason it is Shot dead, and not Shot to Death...
But I know it's shot dead, and for some reason that annoys me no end, that phrase that has been used 'Shot To Death"..sends me off the deep end.... I'm Like Arrrggggghhhhhh
A mixture of Americanisms and English language appears in this trial and case.... And I do not understand why...
I do not know English law mrswah.... It maybe you are tried for all offences at the same time in England, and not in America, I cannot answer that question to be honest...
But I know I don't want to hear the term "Shot to Death" ... anymore.... arrrggghhhh
what are you talking about? One post and you are off on one! You know why he wasnt charged with the porn at the same time as the murder. It has been discussed many times. What happened at his trial has nothing to do with being threatened and far less to do with America.!!!!!!!
He wasnt on trial for the porn AS WE ALL WELL KNOW to give him a fair trial and a crack at being sentenced for Manslaughter instead of Murder
Why you both are pretending you dont know this when you have both commented on it numerous times is baffling and deflecting!
-
Omg mrswah really? how long have you been commenting on this case? You know why he wasnt!
Well, if I ever knew, I have forgotten, I'm afraid. Old age !!
-
I'm talking about the child porn, possession of which is a crime, not the adult porn, which isn't. Not pretending anything! You should "know" me better by now!!
-
I never mentioned adult porn. I dont find it as easy as other posters on here to discuss child porn or dismiss it either. So yes obviously he was convicted of looking at pictures of innocent suffering children as we know
-
DOODSLAG... The one Dutch word, The one Dutch word on it's own when Translated by Google translator, give us "Manslaughter..."
I was trying to understand how that one word stood out on it's own... And why when it is mentioned in trial, it just states that he searched "DOODSLAG"
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
At Line 271 of the prosecution chart
Tabak searched the Dutch word
‘doodslag’ (English meaning: ‘manslaughter’)
This came from the Sally Ramage papers..
Now I asked the Dutch in-law another question about the word "Doodslag" and he said it meant Manslaughter...
I also asked if for instance you were to add "XXX" DOODSLAG or DOODSLAG "XXX" / Or even without the XXX
what it would translate as, and his response was, including I believe a text error....
I would neef more (con) text
Now I am trying as I am writing to understand whether an error had been made other than the neef error, and had (con)text, just appeared on his phone and he meant to write it that way, or whether or not he meant to write it as a single word "Context"??
But for the moment I'll go back to DOODSLAG.... It may have had emoji's of XXX along side it, It may have been meant to mean something else.... Unless we know the context of this apparent word of apparent guilt, how do we know what was meant??
I'll give an example, which, isn't nice, so I'll pre-warn...
Someone answering a text, may use the term... "What an abortion"
Has nothing to do with someone having an abortion, it's a turn of phrase... We may or may not choose to use such a turn of phrase ourselves, but none the less it is used as a turn of phrase....
So what did the word "DOODSLAG" actually mean?? What context was it in??
Was it accompanied by emoji's that google cannot translate?
`The point again being, in which context did Dr Vincent Tabak look for the word DOODSLAG on his computer??
The word itself may appear incriminating... But it's only incriminating , if we assume the context and do not understand what the real context may have been..
-
Now I am trying as I am writing to understand whether an error had been made other than the neef error, and had (con)text, just appeared on his phone and he meant to write it that way, or whether or not he meant to write it as a single word "Context"??
I have asked whether or not (con) text was meant, or was it an error, and the reply I have received was that he "meant to write it that way... So (Con) Text it is then, although, I would have expected it to be context...
I am now waiting on a reply as to the reason why he would write it that way..
-
I've had another idea, that has come to mind...
At this point Tabak made a huge mistake. Spotting a chance to frame Jefferies, he contacted Avon and Somerset police and suggested the landlord had been out and about in his car on the night of Yeates's death. The murder team sent DC Karen Thomas to Amsterdam and on New Year's Eve she spoke to Tabak at a hotel near Schiphol airport for six hours.
Now sometimes we are told it was at The Airport" and others we are told it was at the hotel...
Now I want to go back to that text...
Missing you loads, I'm Bored, VXXX
What evidence have we got that Tanja accompanied Dr Vincent Tabak to this interview?? ( She could have and be sat waiting somewhere else)
What evidence have we got of where this interview took place.??
Now lets say the interview was indeed at a hotel, I'm suggesting it could very possibly be "V" hotel..
Hi there! There are a few ways to get to us, but the most convenient is of course as someone else wrote here, a taxi for roughly 40 euro. However, the Schiphol Connexxion Shuttle bus also drops you off directly at the hotel for 17 euro for 1 way, or 27 euro return. (Google: Connexxion airport hotel shuttle)
So it depends on if you are travelling alone or with others.
The other alternative is to take a train from the basement of the airport to Central Station, and then take tram 4 to the stop 'Frederiksplein'. We are very close to the tram stop (1 minute, just cross the street). In total the tickets for this cost roughly 6 euro. So it is cheaper, but it takes a bit longer (maybe 40 minutes in total).
https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/FAQ_Answers-g188590-d967157-t3030074-How_would_you_recommend_getting_from_the_airport.html
There a way to get to "V" hotel from the airpot at Schiphol .... So How do we know for a fact that the interview of Dr Vincent tabak was actually at the airport and not at "V" Hotel?? DC Karen Thomas had a colleague with her at the time.... That colleague has never been identified, was that Colleague a "profiler"??
So if we do not have a proper dated and timestamped anything, in this case, i want to go back to the text...
Missing you loads, I'm Bored, VXXX
Is that Dr Vincent Tabak telling Tanja that he's at the hotel "V"??
Did he write it because he was being interviewed on apparent friendly terms and was telling her how bored he was??
Is the text anything to do with being at the Hotel V... at a time he may have been interviewed??
Nothing appears to have been checked out or cross referenced in this case... An apparent confession to guilt of this crime is all it has taken, an apparent plea of Guilt to Manslaughter and a story on the stand, that anyone following this case could have concocted...
Seeing as the text were used at this trial, their context is important... The correct date and time is important...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg527428#msg527428
-
I keep saying i do not have the ability to change this.. I do not have the law knowledge or contacts... But I can counteract, what has been stated and what has not been questioned.
And ask why is everyone happy with what was stated on the stand?
Why is everyone happy with the way this case stands??
I've given numerous examples of different possibilities, now if someone as stupid as me can see the wood for the trees, then those with the education and law knowledge must also be able to see ..... Yet I do not understand why nothing is done...
Hang on a minute... I can hear hooves.... Think it's that Zebra passing me by....!!
-
I keep saying i do not have the ability to change this.. I do not have the law knowledge or contacts... But I can counteract, what has been stated and what has not been questioned.
And ask why is everyone happy with what was stated on the stand?
Why is everyone happy with the way this case stands??
I've given numerous examples of different possibilities, now if someone as stupid as me can see the wood for the trees, then those with the education and law knowledge must also be able to see ..... Yet I do not understand why nothing is done...
Hang on a minute... I can hear hooves.... Think it's that Zebra passing me by....!!
No, its the bullshit pony!
I'll ask again (given that you have deliberately ignored it). What are your feelings and thought as to the CONTENT of Tabak's porn searches?
-
And one more Americanism...
Hookers was used as a term of reference for Dr Vincent Tabak apparently using prostitutes when he was in America...
In he UK we know the term Hooker refers to a position in the sport Rugby..
Rugby hooker
A rugby hooker is a specialist 'forward' position, playing a vital role in scrums and lineouts. Strong build and tough? This may be your position.
Hookers
You are one of the eight forwards in a team.
3 of these are the 'front row' forwards in the scrum
one of those is the hooker
with a prop on either side.
https://www.rugbyhow.com/rugby-hooker.html
So were did that word spring from??
I'm asking my Dutch person, see what he says about it, he's probably busy at work..
-
And one more Americanism...
Hookers was used as a term of reference for Dr Vincent Tabak apparently using prostitutes when he was in America...
In he UK we know the term Hooker refers to a position in the sport Rugby..
https://www.rugbyhow.com/rugby-hooker.html
So were did that word spring from??
I'm asking my Dutch person, see what he says about it, he's probably busy at work..
There is a clue in the question, he was IN AMERICA.
So, what do you think of the content of Tabak's porn searches?
-
No, its the bullshit pony!
I'll ask again (given that you have deliberately ignored it). What are your feelings and thought as to the CONTENT of Tabak's porn searches?
Why should I have feelings about it?? If for a fact I do not know whether or not this was what had taken place...
If people choose to watch porn , that is there business, I'm not a fan, but this is about whether he Murdered someone or not... Not his taste in viewing material...
I'm sure on a jury there would be a percentage of jurors, that viewed porn either regularly or sometime in their life...
The viewing of porn has to be relevant, and as it wasn't part of the trial, how was it relevant?
We are told in the media later about this activity, but if it was not part of the evidence, then it was NOT relevant..
Is that the point, everyone is expecting a certain reaction about, certain things? The crazier the idea the better...
If you poison peoples minds about someone, they won't look logically at it... They will be like sheep and herd together..
When I last looked in the mirror, I didn't look like a sheep...
-
There is a clue in the question, he was IN AMERICA.
So, what do you think of the content of Tabak's porn searches?
Yes.... And...??
Be more specific
It's like a guessing game this....
-
No, its the bullshit pony!
Are you sure about that Caroline... Maybe it was a Unicorn!! Or maybe your correct and this is a one trick bullshit pony!
-
Why should I have feelings about it?? If for a fact I do not know whether or not this was what had taken place...
If people choose to watch porn , that is there business, I'm not a fan, but this is about whether he Murdered someone or not... Not his taste in viewing material...
I'm sure on a jury there would be a percentage of jurors, that viewed porn either regularly or sometime in their life...
The viewing of porn has to be relevant, and as it wasn't part of the trial, how was it relevant?
We are told in the media later about this activity, but if it was not part of the evidence, then it was NOT relevant..
Is that the point, everyone is expecting a certain reaction about, certain things? The crazier the idea the better...
If you poison peoples minds about someone, they won't look logically at it... They will be like sheep and herd together..
When I last looked in the mirror, I didn't look like a sheep...
Once again you dismiss the porn . Wasnt any old porn though was it? Earlier you pretended you didnt know why it wasnt included in the trial. Now you can dismiss it as not being important because it wasnt included.
It is a huge clue to what kind of man Tabak was. Takes a different kind of disgusting human being to get a thrill out of watching or looking at real children being abused doesnt it
Doesnt quite fit with your image of Mr Placid Mr Wonderful and the rest
-
Mr Placid Mr Wonderful and the rest
Oh Jixy at last, you can see him as a Placid Dutchman... You've even gone as far as telling me you think he is wonderful.... @)(++(*
-
Oh Jixy at last, you can see him as a Placid Dutchman... You've even gone as far as telling me you think he is wonderful.... @)(++(*
If you want to appear as clever (which you dont) one tip for you. Read what is written not what you want to be written
The key word being YOUR!
-
If you want to appear as clever (which you dont) one tip for you. Read what is written not what you want to be written
The key word being YOUR!
8)--)) I'm not trying to appear as clever, I have admitted my failings... And "YOUR" is relevant how??
He doesn't belong to me, he is not related to me, I do not know him, i have never met him.... We have been through all this..
And keywords are used in google searches, but I do not search google like most people do....
I write exactly what I am looking for, it might be as long a a page in a book, just to make sure I find what I am looking for...
That why when I was on the treo forum, I could find things others failed to find, they used key words and I asked for exactly what I was looking for...
Nine times out of ten, if I used a singular word in google, it's because my spelling is crappola... and i'm just checking it...
-
and there you prove the theory. Your is relevant and if you ever read anyone's post before you rush into to answer i said your as in your views so yes they do belong to you . Might not just be to you but even so
I once watched a family almost ripped apart by 2 online super sleuths who thought they knew better. Their persistence didnt make them right, far from it and neither does yours!
-
Now "MY Dutchman... Has text back... He is "MY" Dutchman as I have explained, he's my brother-in law, I see him I talk to him and I text him....
Dr Vincent Tabak is "A" Dutchman, whom was described by DCI Phil Jones as being Placid.... That is where the term came from... So I used it when describing Dr Vincent Tabak..
Anyway back to the texts from "MY" Dutchman
Neef, wasn't meant.. Prostitutes: 'prostituee' or 'hoer'
Now were's the Hooker in that answer??
-
Now "MY Dutchman... Has text back... He is "MY" Dutchman as I have explained, he's my brother-in law, I see him I talk to him and I text him....
Dr Vincent Tabak is "A" Dutchman, whom was described by DCI Phil Jones as being Placid.... That is where the term came from... So I used it when describing Dr Vincent Tabak..
Anyway back to the texts from "MY" Dutchman
Neef, wasn't meant.. Prostitutes: 'prostituee' or 'hoer'
Now were's the Hooker in that answer??
@)(++(* think you need some air
-
and there you prove the theory. Your is relevant and if you ever read anyone's post before you rush into to answer i said your as in your views so yes they do belong to you . Might not just be to you but even so
I once watched a family almost ripped apart by 2 online super sleuths who thought they knew better. Their persistence didnt make them right, far from it and neither does yours!
Now you have explained, but I took it to mean something else, yet again an example of misunderstanding context without the explanation...
I am no super-sleuth... I as I keep telling everyone I am no-one... just someone who's always been concerned about this case not adding up , that is all..
-
@)(++(* think you need some air
I think someone needs some air...
-
Now you have explained, but I took it to mean something else, yet again an example of misunderstanding context without the explanation...
I am no super-sleuth... I as I keep telling everyone am no-one... just someone who's always been concerned about this case not adding up , that is all..
I didnt actually call you one did i. Just comparing the persistence. Interesting reply though. thanks
-
I didnt actually call you one did i. Just comparing the persistence. Interesting reply though. thanks
I didn't state that you called ME, personally a super sleuth..
-
I didn't state that you called ME, personally a super sleuth..
you can play this game all day but never admit that you are wrong! Even Tabak isnt denying that he is wrong.
-
you can play this game all day but never admit that you are wrong! Even Tabak isnt denying that he is wrong.
I am asking for clarity, not playing a game... And what at this point in time is Dr Vincent Tabak not denying??
-
I keep saying i do not have the ability to change this.. I do not have the law knowledge or contacts... But I can counteract, what has been stated and what has not been questioned.
And ask why is everyone happy with what was stated on the stand?
Why is everyone happy with the way this case stands??
I've given numerous examples of different possibilities, now if someone as stupid as me can see the wood for the trees, then those with the education and law knowledge must also be able to see ..... Yet I do not understand why nothing is done...
Have I met some of your relatives?
-
I am asking for clarity, not playing a game... And what at this point in time is Dr Vincent Tabak not denying??
Erm something important like taking a life maybe
-
Have I met some of your relatives?
Without giving you details, I wouldn't know whether or not you may have met some of my relatives...
-
Now "MY Dutchman... Has text back... He is "MY" Dutchman as I have explained, he's my brother-in law, I see him I talk to him and I text him....
Dr Vincent Tabak is "A" Dutchman, whom was described by DCI Phil Jones as being Placid.... That is where the term came from... So I used it when describing Dr Vincent Tabak..
Anyway back to the texts from "MY" Dutchman
Neef, wasn't meant.. Prostitutes: 'prostituee' or 'hoer'
Now were's the Hooker in that answer??
Now that answer ,that was minus the American term "Hooker", has just got me thinking again.... And I know you're thinking God forbid... Well maybe not...
Anyway, I went back to the translator to see if there was an option for (American) English, and i couldn't find one...
I am coming to the conclusion that if I was in America.. The google translator, would change the words: prostituee' or 'hoer' Into "HOOKER"!!!!
So where and who translated the apparent searches and texts of Dr Vincent Tabak?? Or should I say, who with an American English based computer translated those texts and searches??
Puts a different complexion on things doesn't it... (imo)
-
Erm something important like taking a life maybe
I agree... But the correct person needs to be serving the sentence for the correct crime... Otherwise someone has gotten away with Murder!
-
Back to the Google translator on my computer..
prostituee = prostitute
hoer = whore
Now in England, prostitute and whore have two different meanings,:.. prostitute meaning a woman whom sells herself for Sex... Now Whore is quite an old term and I don't know if it is used as an insult these day...
Whore/ Slag /Slut.. all having the same derogatory meaning in the English language, It could be taken as someone whom is easy to have Sex with... No payment is made , but apparently it used to mean of having loose morals..
Below attached are the images from the google translator..
-
Are you sure about that Caroline... Maybe it was a Unicorn!! Or maybe your correct and this is a one trick bullshit pony!
What do you think of the content of Tabak's porn searches? I'll keep asking! Why wouldn't you answer this question, it's simple enough! Where do YOU stand on people searching out violent porn images and video's?
-
What do you think of the content of Tabak's porn searches? I'll keep asking! Why wouldn't you answer this question, it's simple enough! Where do YOU stand on people searching out violent porn images and video's?
Why do you keep asking about where I stand on that subject... Why is it relevant...??
The content of the porn searches has been described in many ways, and as the porn wasn't seen as relevant at trial, it cannot have been illegal..
The series mentioned by the media was a series of Porn called 'Sex and Submission".. which I posted about long ago and was a pay to view series on the adult channel I believe...
So whether or not I have an opinion on porn, isn't relevant to a Murder that a man went to trial for...
Or is that the point.... Was it supposed to sway the jury even more??
Edit... In England the jury are made up of a variety of people from all faiths and back grounds, If you are on the electoral role, you can be called at any time, I believe....
We do not have a system like they do in America, when they know about each juror and what maybe they may vote like, where they appear, I glean, to pick and chooses which Juror they want to keep... ( I do not know this as fact.. I state I glean this)
In England once you are picked as a juror, that is it, there needs to be a bloody good reason why you cannot be on a particular jury... Otherwise, it's whoever is in court at that time...
So you may end up with a jury of 12 people whom are NOT religious... So it wouldn't really be a morality issue, if it could be seen as a morality issue..
So maybe you cannot apply the same tactics in an English court room that you could apply in an American court room..
-
Not quite true though seeing as he is a convicted sex offender and rightly so. Maybe it's your ease at dismissing child images that raises such a question
-
Why do you keep asking about where I stand on that subject... Why is it relevant...??
The content of the porn searches has been described in many ways, and as the porn wasn't seen as relevant at trial, it cannot have been illegal..
The series mentioned by the media was a series of Porn called 'Sex and Submission".. which I posted about long ago and was a pay to view series on the adult channel I believe...
So whether or not I have an opinion on porn, isn't relevant to a Murder that a man went to trial for...
Or is that the point.... Was it supposed to sway the jury even more??
its funny what you consider relevant and what isn't. That is part of what makes Tabak who he is but you dismiss it but keep wild and extreme scenarios coming that have no relevance whatsoever. They arent facts not even possibilities
As with all the facts and evidence against him, to you they are not real.
-
Not quite true though seeing as he is a convicted sex offender and rightly so. Maybe it's your ease at dismissing child images that raises such a question
Jixy, do you really believe if you keep saying the same thing to me I am going to change my mind... Child abuse images/ watching porn, are not relevant to the Murder of Joanna Yeates, no matter how many times you tell me they are...
I am dealing with one case... That is The Murder... Other issues have been dealt with seperately, and were not relevant at the trial... The images of the children again, dealt with, apparently some years and years later... which makes no sense either... !!
So trying to make me look or feel guilty by insinuating that I support people who have inapproriate images of Children and are sentenced for such a crime won't wash...
The issue in hand is whether or not Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna yeates, and i have said I do not believe that he did, the tale on the stand hasn't got evidence to back it up!
-
its funny what you consider relevant and what isn't. That is part of what makes Tabak who he is but you dismiss it but keep wild and extreme scenarios coming that have no relevance whatsoever. They arent facts not even possibilities
As with all the facts and evidence against him, to you they are not real.
What is real in all of this??
-
Jixy, do you really believe if you keep saying the same thing to me I am going to change my mind... Child abuse images/ watching porn, are not relevant to the Murder of Joanna Yeates, no matter how many times you tell me they are...
I am dealing with one case... That is The Murder... Other issues have been dealt with seperately, and were not relevant at the trial... The images of the children again, dealt with, apparently some years and years later... which makes no sense either... !!
So trying to make me look or feel guilty by insinuating that I support people who have inapproriate images of Children and are sentenced for such a crime won't wash...
The issue in hand is whether or not Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna yeates, and i have said I do not believe that he did, the tale on the stand hasn't got evidence to back it up!
I have done no such thing! think you are getting mixed up on who actually asked you the question. I stated clearly that him liking to watch porn - child porn is a marker of the man he is
Tell me where i have made you look or feel guilty about Tabak's porn? If you do then that is down to your own personal feelings. Just like when you misread my other post and found it to mean something totally different.
You say the porn wasnt relevant at the trial? it wasnt used at the trial, huge difference. It wasnt used to give him a fair trial so please dont use that old line that it makes no sense because it makes complete sense!
You are dealing with just the murder now and only the murder? makes a change. Maybe stick to the facts instead of fantasy if that is your aim
FYI it is Caroline who is waiting for the answer on your views to the porn not me!
-
Posting on here is NOT a popularity contest... Putting my neck out will not win friends.... In fact if there is a way to remove all the likes from my profile, remove them.. i don't need them...
I try be rational....I am trying to understand... Yes just like everyone else I can loose my shit... The wind ups are annoying more than anything else...
I do not need anyone to be my friend, i do require a logical approach by others, but If your beliefs are your beliefs based on what has been said... Then that is ok...
But I will say it again.... I do not believe the tale on the stand.... Yes, it covers virtually every scenario and media story out there at the time.. And that is one of the reasons I do NOT BELIEVE IT.....
Lets all go to hell in a handcart shall we... Because the story on the stand is just that... A STORY... And where that saying orginated I do not know... or give a crap...
This ladies not for changing.... ooow.... Did I really want to associate myself with Thatcher..... Wasn't meant in that context... Thatcher , thatcher the Milk snatcher!!
OMG... A little tune has just sprung to mind...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfhxJiE38sE
-
Posting on here is NOT a popularity contest... Putting my neck out will not win friends.... In fact if there is a way to remove all the likes from my profile, remove them.. i don't need them...
I try be rational....I am trying to understand... Yes just like everyone else I can loose my shit... The wind ups are annoying more than anything else...
I do not need anyone to be my friend, i do require a logical approach by others, but If your beliefs are your beliefs based on what has been said... Then that is ok...
But I will say it again.... I do not believe the tale on the stand.... Yes, it covers virtually every scenario and media story out there at the time.. And that is one of the reasons I do NOT BELIEVE IT.....
Lets all go to hell in a handcart shall we... Because the story on the stand is just that... A STORY... And where that saying orginated I do not know... or give a crap...
This ladies not for changing.... ooow.... Did I really want to associate myself with Thatcher..... Wasn't meant in that context... Thatcher , thatcher the Milk snatcher!!
OMG... A little tune has just sprung to mind...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfhxJiE38sE
*%87 changed your mind already? you just said you wanted to just talk about the murder &%%6 that didnt take long
Its lose by the way not loose...these little things are sent to annoy us. Little clues!
-
*%87 changed your mind already? you just said you wanted to just talk about the murder &%%6 that didnt take long
Its lose by the way not loose...these little things are sent to annoy us. Little clues!
Jixy.. Jixy Jixy... My spelling is shit... I am now feeling tired and not concentrating, so am not caring if i mis-spell, I went to a secondary modern school, that was also shit... A CSE grade "A".. was equivalent to a "C" in a GCSE, which someone whom went to a grammer school took that exam... And an "A" at grammer school meant that you were indeed a clever b'stard, in the words of Ian Dury..
Now these days at school in England "D" means Distinction... When I went to school "D" meant DUNCE!!
So you can see why having a "C" grade at CSE levels was a pointless exercise..
"C" at Grammer School.. meant average....
"B" at Grammer School meant, you just weren't clever enough...
Now if you are not from England and of a certain age you may not understand how the exam system used to work..
-
Jixy.. Jixy Jixy... My spelling is shit... I am now feeling tired and not concentrating, so am not caring if i mis-spell, I went to a secondary modern school, that was also shit... A CSE grade was equivalent to a "C" in a GCSE, which someone whom went to a grammer school took that exam... And an "A" at grammer school meant that you were indeed a clever b'stard, in the words of Ian Dury..
Now these days at school in England "D" means Distinction... When I went to school "D" meant DUNCE!!
So you can see why having a "C" grade at CSE levels was a pointless exercise..
"C" at Grammer School.. meant average....
"B" at Grammer School meant, you just weren't clever enough...
Now if you are not from England and of a certain age you may not understand how the exam system used to work..
Once again I couldnt care less. You dont like shot dead. So what? When something is pointed out to you where you are clearly wrong, you always reply the same. It has nothing to do with the reply you receive and you just dodge the question
Your ramble to me wasnt actually for me however you spell lose! but you march on regardless, trample over the reality and facts of what was written! sounds familiar?
-
Once again I couldnt care less. You dont like shot dead. So what? When something is pointed out to you where you are clearly wrong, you always reply the same. It has nothing to do with the reply you receive and you just dodge the question
Your ramble to me wasnt actually for me however you spell lose! but you march on regardless, trample over the reality and facts of what was written! sounds familiar?
Perfect... you don't care, that is ok.... I don't care that you don't care, so what's to care about??
Still don't believe the crap on the stand @)(++(*
-
Perfect... you don't care, that is ok.... I don't care that you don't care, so what's to care about??
Still don't believe the crap on the stand @)(++(*
and all because you know better than Tabak and guess what ???? he doesnt care either. He must love prison. Not a peep out of him!
-
and all because you know better than Tabak and guess what ???? he doesnt care either. He must love prison. Not a peep out of him!
And that is weird.... In anyones book...!
-
No just yours!
-
The simple fact that people from different countries understand terms differently is extremely important to this case... I could write my my local dialect and you wouldn't know what the Hell I was saying!
And that applies to many things... context country, regional dialect... etc etc...
-
No just yours!
But it is my interpretation of what you mean by that...
But in the dictionary..
yours
pronoun UK /jɔːz/ US /jʊrz/
yours pronoun (PERSON/PEOPLE ADDRESSED)
A2 the one(s) belonging to or connected with the person or group of people being spoken or written to:
Is this pen yours?
Unfortunately my legs aren't as long as yours.
I've got something of yours (= that belongs to you).
Yours is the room on the top floor, on the left.
B1 used at the beginning of some phrases written at the end of a letter, before giving a name:
Yours, Jack
Yours faithfully/sincerely, K. Maxwell.
More examples
Do you consider him a friend of yours?
Who works in the office next to yours?
That aftershave of yours is smelling out the whole house.
Sorry, I stupidly forgot to bring my copy of the report - could I look at yours?
There's an old pair of shoes of yours lying in the bottom of the wardrobe.
i took it that you meant that Dr Vincent Tabak belonged to me in some way, ie.. a relative or friend..
-
Why do you keep asking about where I stand on that subject... Why is it relevant...??
The content of the porn searches has been described in many ways, and as the porn wasn't seen as relevant at trial, it cannot have been illegal..
The series mentioned by the media was a series of Porn called 'Sex and Submission".. which I posted about long ago and was a pay to view series on the adult channel I believe...
So whether or not I have an opinion on porn, isn't relevant to a Murder that a man went to trial for...
Or is that the point.... Was it supposed to sway the jury even more??
Edit... In England the jury are made up of a variety of people from all faiths and back grounds, If you are on the electoral role, you can be called at any time, I believe....
We do not have a system like they do in America, when they know about each juror and what maybe they may vote like, where they appear, I glean, to pick and chooses which Juror they want to keep... ( I do not know this as fact.. I state I glean this)
In England once you are picked as a juror, that is it, there needs to be a bloody good reason why you cannot be on a particular jury... Otherwise, it's whoever is in court at that time...
So you may end up with a jury of 12 people whom are NOT religious... So it wouldn't really be a morality issue, if it could be seen as a morality issue..
So maybe you cannot apply the same tactics in an English court room that you could apply in an American court room..
Your man Tabak was given extra time for having 145 filthy, disgusting images of children - so they were indeed illegal. You don't think there is anything wrong with that? They were bad enough to have him placed on the sex offenders register - that's bad!
-
infamy... That was the other day.....
Now I'm laughing as I was thinking about it...
Imfamy Imfamy, they've got in in for me... @)(++(* @)(++(*
It's a crap but funny joke from a the carry on series of films...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhF32XC_7vc
Forgot about all the innuendo's... "Bristols"... means Boobs, breasts, titties, whatever else you wish to call them..
-
infamy... That was the other day.....
Now I'm laughing as I was thinking about it...
Imfamy Imfamy, they've got in in for me... @)(++(* @)(++(*
It's a crap but funny joke from a the carry on series of films...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhF32XC_7vc
Forgot about all the innuendo's... "Bristols"... means Boobs, breasts, titties, whatever else you wish to call them..
excuse me..you attacked me for making you feel guilty when I never asked a question about how you feel about the porn. Caroline is back now but you have failed to reply to her? strange
-
Your man Tabak was given extra time for having 145 filthy, disgusting images of children - so they were indeed illegal. You don't think there is anything wrong with that? They were bad enough to have him placed on the sex offenders register - that's bad!
The image amount changed for one...
Which Sex offenders register are you refering too, that stupid data base on the internet, made by a person obssesed with paedo's..
I have not and am not likely to see any evidence of Dr Vincent Tabak being on any register, as I do not have access..
I do not know his trial number for that offence either... !
-
The image amount changed for one...
Which Sex offenders register are you refering too, that stupid data base on the internet, made by a person obssesed with paedo's..
I have not and am not likely to see any evidence of Dr Vincent Tabak being on any register, as I do not have access..
I do not know his trial number for that offence either... !
You have read everything available about Tabak and its clear he is on the Register so why pretend you dont know this? You had a debate previously about when the registration will start
The online database is someone who is attempting to warn others what animals are out there who could abuse their children. Would not say he is obsessed...
-
excuse me..you attacked me for making you feel guilty when I never asked a question about how you feel about the porn. Caroline is back now but you have failed to reply to her? strange
Not strange... head mashed, decided to take itself off, for a little adventure, culminating, in remembering about a post, culminating in me remembering where the Imfamy, originated from in my tiny little mind..!
I do not have to answer everyones questions... I am not under interogation...
-
Not strange... head mashed, decided to take itself off, for a little adventure, culminating, in remembering about a post, culminating in me remembering where the Imfamy, originated from in my tiny little mind..!
I do not have to answer everyones questions... I am not under interogation...
no but you are ok to accuse me of making you feel guilty when in fact it wasnt me asking. That was my point! selective understanding and reading skills when its suits
-
You have read everything available about Tabak and its clear he is on the Register so why pretend you dont know this? You had a debate previously about when the registration will start
The online database is someone who is attempting to warn others what animals are out there who could abuse their children. Would not say he is obsessed...
If as you say i have read everything about Tabak.. Then all that means is what is out there at the time and on the internet is all there is... Which adds up to FA!
-
no but you are ok to accuse me of making you feel guilty when in fact it wasn't me asking. That was my point! selective understanding and reading skills when its suits
But at what point am I referring to Jixy... A recent post by maybe you or Caroline, or all the earlier posts when you joined in to give me grief about Andrew Ashman, whom I had never heard of until you and the people you were agreeing with at the time thought it would be a weeze to call me that...
Strange thing being... Why would anyone call me that...
I keep saying we are not in America, we don't have data bases the public can view, so I had no idea who Andrew Ashman was or cared who Andrew Ashman was, it wouldn't have been reported Nationally , and it wasn't in my local rag... And I have no need to check everyone in my town or neighbourhood that might be on an unofficial register...
I'm not a nonce stalker for FS...
So why should a random persons name affect me? And who's bright idea was it to call it me in the first place??
That is numpty behaviour by anyones standard...
-
But at what point am I referring to Jixy... A recent post by maybe you or Caroline, or all the earlier posts when you joined in to give me grief about Andrew Ashman, whom I had never heard of until you and the people you were agreeing with at the time thought it would be a weeze to call me that...
Strange thing being... Why would anyone call me that...
I keep saying we are not in America, we don't have data bases the public can view, so I had no idea who Andrew Ashman was or cared who Andrew Ashman was, it wouldn't have been reported Nationally , and it wasn't in my local rag... And I have no need to check everyone in my town or neighbourhood that might be on an unofficial register...
I'm not a nonce stalker for FS...
So why should a random persons name affect me? And who's bright idea was it to call it me in the first place??
That is numpty behaviour by anyones standard...
@)(++(*
you like to bring him into it dont you. double bluff and all that. You post like you do and our posts will be deleted. Again like the rest of your posts just because you say it doesnt mean its true
-
Twas Paul of the red shade whom said :
As always when points of order , facts and truths are shown and proven time and time again you fail to come up with an answer why is that & lets not hide behind your fake name anymore Drew Ashman lets just say we all know you are fake , A Conman, have had more faces than a town hall clock as a Gasman, Film Maker, Researcher ,criminologist, Internet blogger, forum troll and a Numpty .....
-
Twas Paul of the red shade whom said :
Very numpty behaviour to quote you to post this... good deflection though, worth a try
I dont see anyone here saying they are called Paul. So twice today you have quoted me when it was someone else.
Thought you were good at research or is it the poor me card again? you should make a film
-
Can I just say I signed into this forum tonight to reply to a comment made by Angelo. I haven't posted on this thread for a while because its pretty much pointless.
Nine you straight away mentioned my likes on said post quickly followed by my choice of picture and slam straight into a mention of ' a man you don't know'
You brought Drew aka Mr Andrew Ashman to the table for whatever reason so please don't start pointing the finger at others. Its all part of the game!
Not True....
As always when points of order , facts and truths are shown and proven time and time again you fail to come up with an answer why is that & lets not hide behind your fake name anymore Drew Ashman lets just say we all know you are fake , A Conman, have had more faces than a town hall clock as a Gasman, Film Maker, Researcher ,criminologist, Internet blogger, forum troll and a Numpty .....
After a few little games that were had having try to guess what on earth you were on about...
-
The issue in hand is whether or not Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna yeates, and i have said I do not believe that he did, the tale on the stand hasn't got evidence to back it up!
Have we changed issues to talk about you again? cant keep up.
-
Not True....
After a few little games that were had having try to guess what on earth you were on about...
Just what are you trying to achieve? You want to get the challengers to your posts removed so you can ramble on by protesting about something and making it instantly believable.
-
in a minute you will be 8)><( and saying you are being bullied. Post it still doesnt make it true. Have you run out of things to defend Tabak with?
Not that you defended his child porn issues you just turned the tables on the posters
-
in a minute you will be 8)><( and saying you are being bullied. Post it still doesnt make it true. Have you run out of things ot defend Tabak with?
Not that you defended his child porn issues you just turned the tables on the posters
Jixy........ I wasn't the one who changed their avatar to Drew Ashman at that time... It was you... The reason for it you didn't make clear... It could have been some kind of joke I do not know..
I'm not here to play tit for tat.. But that appears to be what you want.. to rile me for some strange reason...
-
Jixy........ I wasn't the one who changed their avatar to Drew Ashman at that time... It was you... The reason for it you didn't make clear... It could have been some kind of joke I do not know..
I'm not here to play tit for tat.. But that appears to be what you want.. to rile me for some strange reason...
excuse me ... but i know you live in fantasy land but who brought this up today and you mention tit for tat. Is the convo getting too much for you? someone hit a nerve so you turn it back on me to take the heat off of you?
What a strange way to carry on.
You never did explain why you called yourself Nine despite being asked? Guess you are the only one who thinks they deserve to ask all the questions.
Cue the excuses
-
There is a name for people who behave like you do, Maybe you should make better use of Google and work on it!
-
excuse me ... but i know you live in fantasy land but who brought this up today and you mention tit for tat. Is the convo getting too much for you? someone hit a nerve so you turn it back on me to take the heat off of you?
What a strange way to carry on.
You never did explain why you called yourself Nine despite being asked? Guess you are the only one who thinks they deserve to ask all the questions.
Cue the excuses
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
There is a name for people who behave like you do, Maybe you should make better use of Google and work on it!
Thank you Jixy X
-
short post &%%6 that makes a change and a pleasant one. 8(0(*
-
And yes the X is a kiss... A sarcastic Kiss, but a Kiss all the same...
It is not just one X as in XXX Amsterdam, If each was a syllable one X would be AM...
Or if i'm talking syllables, is it the first X or the last X and do I mean 'Dam'..
Yes.. sarcasm is the lowest form of wit... But it F***ing funny though... @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
pleasant change not a pleasant post ...quick change of subject too. 8((()*/
-
pleasant change not a pleasant post ...quick change of subject too. 8((()*/
I'm conversing with you Jixy, I am not under interogation!! xx
-
no you just didnt want to answer which speaks volumes. Enjoy conversing
-
And yes the X is a kiss... A sarcastic Kiss, but a Kiss all the same...
It is not just one X as in XXX Amsterdam, If each was a syllable one X would be AM...
Or if i'm talking syllables, is it the first X or the last X and do I mean 'Dam'..
Yes.. sarcasm is the lowest form of wit... But it F***ing funny though... @)(++(* @)(++(*
And AM doesn't mean Ante Meridiem as in time.... Though it could do if you choose to take it that way...
-
no you just didnt want to answer which speaks volumes. Enjoy conversing
Well shall I in future state...
No Comment!!
-
Can we please stop sniping at each other. You know what this thread is about. Either keep to the topic in hand, or don't post.
-
Well shall I in future state...
No Comment!!
Where have I heard that response before???? Oh yes, all throughout Dr Vincent Tabak's statements...
The coincidences keep coming and coming... @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Can we please stop sniping at each other. You know what this thread is about. Either keep to the topic in hand, or don't post.
Apologies mrswah... I was a keeper, i eventually get reeled in...
That is why I haven't responded to the posts, and talked to myself on here a lot of the time, i ignored it and thought that it was a wind up again..
-
Apologies mrswah... I was a keeper, i eventually get reeled in...
That is why I haven't responded to the posts, and talked to myself on here a lot of the time, i ignored it and thought that it was a wind up again..
you were the instigator now pleading innocence....now that isnt familiar is it? NOPE
-
you were the instigator now pleading innocence....now that isnt familiar is it? NOPE
Jixy this is not a playground..
-
Nope I just quoted a fact. I know its rare on this thread but I have to try. Mrswah said so
-
And then I feel exhausted by it all, and question why I post on here... I don't really know what this site is about to be honest.. For all I know it could be a wind up in itself..
And everything I have looked at was in vain....
-
Nope I just quoted a fact. I know its rare on this thread but I have to try. Mrswah said so
At least we agree on something... Not one thing stated about this case is fact.... It could all be fiction... And you wonder why I keep asking what is real or not...!!
-
At least we agree on something... Not one thing stated about this case is fact.... It could all be fiction... And you wonder why I keep asking what is real or not...!!
I know but you have been dedicated with your version of the case. give you that. The facts appeared in the court room, but sadly didnt make it into your posts
-
The image amount changed for one...
Which Sex offenders register are you refering too, that stupid data base on the internet, made by a person obssesed with paedo's..
I have not and am not likely to see any evidence of Dr Vincent Tabak being on any register, as I do not have access..
I do not know his trial number for that offence either... !
NO! Not the one on the internet! The state sex offenders register!
https://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/2015-03-02/peadophile-killer-vincent-tabak-jailed-for-another-10-months/
There's a LOT you don't know but then again, what you don't know - you make up!
-
or does know but seems to pretend they dont know!
-
The simple fact that people from different countries understand terms differently is extremely important to this case... I could write my my local dialect and you wouldn't know what the Hell I was saying!
And that applies to many things... context country, regional dialect... etc etc...
No one knows what the hell you're on about most of the time and dialect and language is yet another distraction you're trying to weave in.
-
Jixy, do you really believe if you keep saying the same thing to me I am going to change my mind... Child abuse images/ watching porn, are not relevant to the Murder of Joanna Yeates, no matter how many times you tell me they are...
I am dealing with one case... That is The Murder... Other issues have been dealt with seperately, and were not relevant at the trial... The images of the children again, dealt with, apparently some years and years later... which makes no sense either... !!
So trying to make me look or feel guilty by insinuating that I support people who have inapproriate images of Children and are sentenced for such a crime won't wash...
The issue in hand is whether or not Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna yeates, and i have said I do not believe that he did, the tale on the stand hasn't got evidence to back it up!
Who is trying to make you feel 'guilty'? What an odd remark! The reason I asked you the question was due to the flippant comment you made a few days ago when you insinuated that 'he was simply looking at pictures' (or words to that effect). Just today you have played down the images by suggesting they couldn't have been illegal when you know fine well he received an extra sentence in connection with them!
By the way I have no idea who Andrew Ashman is/was and not sure why you have injected him into the picture!
-
I didn't inject him into the picture, that was another forum member, I too had No idea who he was...
-
I didn't inject him into the picture, that was another forum member, I too had No idea who he was...
Oh yes you did!
-
Oh yes you did!
You're now making it sound like a Punch and Judy Show...
"Who's a pretty Boy then?"!
-
No one is making it sound like anything. Just you avoiding another question.
-
I didn't inject him into the picture, that was another forum member, I too had No idea who he was...
I can't see that anyone else brought him up - bit weird if you ask me!
-
You're now making it sound like a Punch and Judy Show...
"Who's a pretty Boy then?"!
Think you mean a Pantomime and it's been that for sometime!
-
No one is making it sound like anything. Just you avoiding another question.
Too many rabbit holes to disappear down @)(++(*
-
Think you mean a Pantomime and it's been that for sometime!
No I meant Punch and Judy... I saw it as a kid, similar format in part to Pantomine... Depending on who was doing the show, and depending if kids were getting involved, the person doing the show would repeat the phrase, to encourage the children to participate..
http://www.punchandjudy.com/howtoscript/fight.htm
-
No one is making it sound like anything. Just you avoiding another question.
I am not under interrogation... I can pick and chose what I want to answer.... It's a forum, not a Police Cell.. And even there I have the choice whether to speak or not..
-
No I meant Punch and Judy... I saw it as a kid, similar format in part to Pantomine... Depending on who was doing the show, and depending if kids were getting involved, the person doing the show would repeat the phrase, to encourage the children to participate..
http://www.punchandjudy.com/howtoscript/fight.htm
Ironic that P&J is about a psychopathic male who is violent towards women! @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
ow." Replies Punch. She starts sobbing and says she'll go and get a BIG STICK. Punch says he doesn't want a big stick. "Oh yes you do!" says Judy. While Judy is down getting it Punch calls out "Oh no I don't!"
"Oh yes you do!"
"Oh no I don't!
The phrases the children are encouraged to repeat after they have been said..
-
Ironic that P&J is about a psychopathic male who is violent towards women! @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Im getting lost here trying to catch up Caroline, who’s PJ and Andrew Ashman? Where do they fit in?
-
Ironic that P&J is about a psychopathic male who is violent towards women! @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
It's from the 1800's I think... It's not real, I'm sure they probably don't allow the show anymore.. But children back then would maybe have viewed it like a cartoon is viewed these days..
The wouldn't think , I'll try that when I get home...
Back in the 1800 I don't think they thought about psychology, What may have been normal and acceptable then, isn't by today's standards.
I've just checked and I stand corrected... Earliest recorded was the 1700's in England and originated earlier in Italy..
Once commonplace at every seaside resort throughout the country, Punch & Judy shows have been entertaining audiences for many generations.
The show as we know it today has its origins traceable to the Commedia dell Arte street theatre of 16th Century Italy and most probably goes back even further than this. Commedia del Arte had many actors and players; each demanding high fees. It is thought that to keep costs down string puppets (marionettes) replaced the actors in the 17th Century.
http://thepjf.com/history_of_punch_and_judy.html
-
Im getting lost here trying to catch up Caroline, who’s PJ and Andrew Ashman? Where do they fit in?
Lard have mercy on my small bits... @)(++(*
-
Lard have mercy on my small bits... @)(++(*
You've got BALLS Billy 😂😂😂
-
You've got BALLS Billy 😂😂😂
Opps! @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Im getting lost here trying to catch up Caroline, who’s PJ and Andrew Ashman? Where do they fit in?
No idea RJ - I think we have entered a parallel universe @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
I am not under interrogation... I can pick and chose what I want to answer.... It's a forum, not a Police Cell.. And even there I have the choice whether to speak or not..
Sadly your choice is usually to speak but hey...transparent and predictable..
Less is more! 8)--))
-
Sadly your choice is usually to speak but hey...transparent and predictable..
Less is more! 8)--))
Is that the point, I don't apparently know my place?
Has this got something to do with social standing?
-
“In reality, I don’t think the flying monkeys realize what they are doing. I trust that these people actually believe in the righteousness and the “cause” of the narcissist.
https://pro.psychcentral.com/recovery-expert/2016/07/the-narcissists-flying-monkeys/
In reality Nicholas, they do realise what they are doing, they don’t give a FLYING MONKEY about anyone but themselves.
-
I'm talking about the child porn, possession of which is a crime, not the adult porn, which isn't. Not pretending anything! You should "know" me better by now!!
We have already explained the reasons why this evidence was never submitted at his trial and you have commented on this before, you either accept it or don’t. Adult porn, yes millions watch it but, how many sick Bast@@@@ watch this.
Tabak watched films in which women were abused, humiliated and physically restrained by having hands placed around their throats. In others, women were bound and gagged, then choked before having intercourse. Tabak, who transported Miss Yeates’s body in the boot of a car, also viewed images of semi-naked women lying bound and gagged in the boot of a car. Not mentioning the vile and disgusting child porn images.
Oh I forgot to mention, he put his credit card details in to these sites as well, all by mistake I suppose.
One site he looked at was called 007exoticgirls. He paid a subscription to another, theeroticreview, which offers "escort contact information". Names in which police found he had shown an interest included "Princess Butter" and "Rebecca Divine".
-
Going back to the text again for a minute.
DCI Phil Jones in the Countdown to Murder program say at 24:56
What we know is that at 25 past nine (next bit isn't clear could be 1;25 or 9:25) on the Friday evening, he text his girlfriend and, er.. in his text he said, "Missing you loads I'm Bored V XXX
DCI Phil Jones doesn't say kiss, kiss, kiss, he states X X X
DCI Phil Jones just states Friday Evening, he doesn't state the date, so which Friday evening is he referring too?
Yesterday I suggested that the text was possibily sent when he was being interviewed by the Police in Holland.
New Years Eve was also a Friday evening, so was Christmas Eve..
Which Friday was it that Dr Vincent Tabak sent the text?
But, DCI Jones has clarified it way XXX therefore I am correct in suggesting that XXX stood for Amsterdam?
The editing of the program makes suggestions and we decide for ourselves, but I'm trying to clarify, what the text meant and where and on what date was it sent?
-
We have already explained the reasons why this evidence was never submitted at his trial and you have commented on this before, you either accept it or don’t. Adult porn, yes millions watch it but, how many sick Bast@@@@ watch this.
Tabak watched films in which women were abused, humiliated and physically restrained by having hands placed around their throats. In others, women were bound and gagged, then choked before having intercourse. Tabak, who transported Miss Yeates’s body in the boot of a car, also viewed images of semi-naked women lying bound and gagged in the boot of a car. Not mentioning the vile and disgusting child porn images.
Oh I forgot to mention, he put his credit card details in to these sites as well, all by mistake I suppose.
One site he looked at was called 007exoticgirls. He paid a subscription to another, theeroticreview, which offers "escort contact information". Names in which police found he had shown an interest included "Princess Butter" and "Rebecca Divine".
Evidence, you have the evidence, that is so good to hear... Could I have a look at a copy of the credit card transactions ... If it's not too much bother... thanks
-
Evidence, you have the evidence, that is so good to hear... Could I have a look at a copy of the credit card transactions ... If it's not too much bother... thanks
My we are touchy this morning Billy, it’s not my fault ITV have took JEREMY KYLE off for you!
-
therefore I am correct in suggesting that XXX stood for Amsterdam?
No, you're not!
-
No, you're not!
Not back to the PJ's?
-
So who's touchy this morning? I'm great thank... Not that you care @)(++(* Just passing comment..
Jeremy Kyle show, was a bit gladiatorial... Now I was just looking at ITV about it, because it is not something I watch, so wouldn't know if the show was on repeat.. Is he really called Jeremy Kyle? Or was it so he could appeal to the masses? Jezza??
ITV website, doesn't have an update since October 30th 2018 has it been on repeat??
Details from the website..
Why only one email address??
Dear me, vulnerable people will reach out to anyone, and some do it just for the money, are they really all trained staff at the end of the phone?
So I suppose, they probably all end up sending their story via email anyway, along with a phone number etc... Seeing as they will need to refer back to what their story would be.
How many people end up sending stories to them? And why isn't the email address have anything to do with Jermey Kyle??
The Lie detector test, hate it, a tool used in American Policing, that obviously isn't accurate, otherwise I'm sure you'd see it in court in America..
***IMPORTANT: PLEASE REMEMBER TO SEND US YOUR PHONE NUMBER IN YOUR EMAIL SO WE CAN CONTACT YOU AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. THANKS.***
What was the point of the phone numbers??? @)(++(* No-one is going to ring them..
So email it is then...
OK... who actually receives the emails?? I say this because anyone could pass details on,.. Anyone could be collecting these details..
Never thought about programs like that before and what their real agenda's maybe,(imo) and now my little brain is working overtime.. *%6^
Thanks for the update, I’m sure ITV will have it back on for you in the near future, it might keep you of here a while @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Never thought about programs like that before and what their real agenda's maybe,(imo) and now my little brain is working overtime.. *%6^
THat's because you're too busy working on your own. 8((()*/
-
Please keep on topic! Thanks.
-
Clifton People the online local forum/magazine/news that no longer exists had many people whom published on there.
Clifton People
@cliftonpeople
Follow Follow @cliftonpeople
More
Pics released of missing Clifton woman Joanna Yeates, police say they are concerned for her safety: http://tinyurl.com/2awm4q7
4:32 am - 21 Dec 2010
https://twitter.com/cliftonpeople/status/17195598180515841
Clifton People
@cliftonpeople
Follow Follow @cliftonpeople
More
New pics released by police of Joanna Yeates, who has been missing from her Clifton flat since Friday: http://tinyurl.com/2fj4qfm
9:02 am - 21 Dec 2010
https://twitter.com/cliftonpeople/status/17263621079834624
Clifton People
@cliftonpeople
Follow Follow @cliftonpeople
More
SimonPeevers published Missing Clifton woman Joanna Yeates has been described as a 'vibrant young woman' by her ... http://bit.ly/e5Vr2x
2:28 am - 22 Dec 2010
https://twitter.com/cliftonpeople/status/17526935408087040
We have: Pics released of missing Clifton woman Joanna Yeates, police say they are concerned for her safety on the 21st December 2010 (4:32 am)
Within a few hours we have: New pics released by police of Joanna Yeates, who has been missing from her Clifton flat since Friday: on the 21st December 2010 (9:02am)
What was the original picture released and was it released by the Police?
Clifton people have not tweeted since 2014, whom owned the website I have no idea..
Clifton people are one of the earliest to make comment on the Missing status of Joanna Yeates.
21st December 2010 at 4:32am.
I'm unsure what their time clock is set too, which makes it difficult to know if the time on the tweet is accurate.. But it is an early indication of the interest made after Joanna Yeates is reported Missing on the 20th December 2010 according to the trial.
-
These posts are from Simon Peevers facebook
Simon Peevers
21 December 2010 ·
TweetDeck
·
Pics released of missing Clifton woman Joanna Yeates, police say they are concerned for her safety: http://tinyurl.com/2awm4q7
The time of that post is 12:32 on the 21st December 2010, I hovered over the date of the post which gave me the time.
Simon Peevers
21 December 2010 ·
TweetDeck
·
New pics released by police of Joanna Yeates, who has been missing from her Clifton flat since Friday: http://tinyurl.com/2fj4qfm
The time of that post is 17:02 on the 21st December 2010
The intro about Simon on his facebook page
Intro
B2B and PR manager at RAC
Senior Account Manager at Bray Leino, Bristol
Works at Bristol Evening Post
Worked at Local World
Former Reporter at Western Gazette Co Ltd
Studied Classics at King's College London
Went to Salisbury College.
Lives in Bristol, United Kingdom
He's a former reporter, works at Bristol Evening Post according to his blurb..
I'm trying to establish where the information came from and how it spread so quickly and became big news at the time.
Reports I presume have many contacts and contacts in the business and that may go somewhere to understanding why all the media where involved at such an early time..
Still unclear as to what the early image of Joanna Yeates was, and where it originated from.
-
Poor Tanja, living with such a monster and not knowing him really,
Vincent Tabak kept a hoard of child pornography on his laptop, it emerged yesterday.
Joanna Yeates’s murderer was found to have a stash of up to 30 images of children being abused, according to a police source.
All of the images fall under the second most serious level of child pornography, known as Category Four, which includes sexual activity between an adult and a child.
The 33-year-old Dutchman is already known to have been obsessed with pornographic images of women being strangled and abused.
One thing for sure, he’s in the right place.
-
In my opinion he was a very very dangerous man, normally paedofile’s have one sexual deviance, he had numerous deviance’s, he liked to view extreme child porn and he liked to view extreme violent porn and he liked to go with prostitutes behind his girlfriends back. A serial killer in the making and our children are a lot safer with this monster behind bars.
-
Again from Simon Peevers facebook post
Simon Peevers
23 December 2010 · 17:44
Upload pic of Jo Yeates to profile pic to help raise awareness and find her: http://tinyurl.com/2ers763
The image that is attached to that post I will attach here, two interesting things about the image, it's the image with the facebook forum at the bottom of it..
At the bottom of the image on facebook, it has a different wordpress address even though if you type it in to the web bar it will bring you to the wordpress we know today.
HELPFINDJO.FILES.WORDPRESS.COM
The link on facebook takes you to this poster : and website:
https://helpfindjo.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/profile_findjo.jpg?fbclid=IwAR0tQLg13-Z8iwlNLStvhXD8ucFyBh3qeS4pxOK7pQjT4GgXx6plpLeDsJU
The wordpress is now know as https://helpfindjo.wordpress.com/
But it's clear to see the address of the picture is the Jo files one..
So I am unsure as to when the change of address happened at the moment.
Now I remember hearing that term Jo Files before, it was splashed across the media at the time, and I'm sure CJ stated something at the Leveson about this.
(http://www.anorak.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/mirror.jpg)
https://www.anorak.co.uk/270534/reviews/joanna-yeates-the-sheds-donald-rumsfeld-and-badly-lit-sex.html
Anorak news too pointed us to all of the various newspapers at the time, but I do not know who owns anorak news, or what the connection might be..
Clifton People
@cliftonpeople
Follow Follow @cliftonpeople
More
New campaign for Jo Yeates: Pls RT:Joanna Yeates, missing from Clifton, #bristol since Friday. http://bit.ly/fAZCXp for info #helpfindjo
6:06 am - 23 Dec 2010
https://twitter.com/cliftonpeople/status/17944162808635392
New campaign for Jo Yeates: Pls RT:Joanna Yeates, missing from Clifton,
I'm unsure whether or not Clifton People are saying that there is a New Campaign as in a renewed effort, or they mean something else.
But the tiny url takes us to: https://helpfindjo.wordpress.com/
That could be automatic, that why I say I'm unsure, I didn't know if that was when the wordpress changed names
and that was what the tweet was about, seeing as we know it was originally called: HELPFINDJO.FILES.WORDPRESS.COM
I remember DCI Jones talking of the timings, and these tweets and posts made me think about that,
Now I'm wondering about the timings, and whether or not each social media was set to a different time, giving us an unclear picture of what time events happened..
I've said I do not know whether or not things are made up and whether or not this is just a set of journalists making a point..
Simon Peevers is connected to the media by his status, is a journalist, he published not only on Clifton people, he tweets about the case and facebooks about the case and his word press post tells us that the wordpress page originally had a different web address.
Oddly enough he too is a keen runner:
https://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/2007/news/peevers-breaks-the-10km-barrier/
Bristol Evening Post reporter Simon Peevers has finally managed to break the 10km barrier in his build-up to the BUPA Bristol Half Marathon.
So what connection is he to all of this? He is living the dream in Clevedon according to his status on twitter and before then he lived where in Bristol? BS8 according 192.com
What's the connection, ?? who knew who? Did he ever have cause to interview CJ at any time in his career?
Is he the source of some of the images?
The media all became involved extremely early on, it became national news in no time. With Skynews asking for friends of Joanna Yeates to come forward, which I'll post next.. Taking an unusual step in using social media to seek interviews with any friends of Joanna Yeates.
Always puzzling...
-
Harriet Tolputt
@HarrietTolputt
Follow Follow @HarrietTolputt
More
Looking for friends of Jo Yeates to talk on Sky News to keep publicity going. Pls RT. #helpfindjo
10:54 am - 23 Dec 2010
https://twitter.com/HarrietTolputt/status/18016591648137216
Did anyone give an interview??
Harriet as we can see wants to keep the publicity going, an odd turn of phrase, and why is she wishing to keep the publicity going?
Appealing for friends of a Missing person is one thing, but a direct appeal about keeping the publicity going is quite another..
And of course we have Simon Peevers listed as one of the retweeters... There's a surprise..
Things always spring to mind, and coincidence is something to question...
Did someone come forward to be interviewed by Skynews??
You see the only interview of any friend of Joanna Yeates I can think of is the interview with Rebecca Scott..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_5Kt94oXos
Now the published date and the date the media tell us about this interview is 12th January 2011
Avon and Somerset Police
Published on 12 Jan 2011
Nearly a month since Joanna Yeates went missing from her home in Caynage Road Clifton; one of her best friends has spoken for the first time of her loss.
Rebecca Scott, 25, spoke openly of their 10 year friendship. She said: "Jo and I met over 10 years ago at the college where we studied. We were 15 years old and hit it off straight away, we were inseparable and have always remained close friends, even when we went off to separate universities.
Anyone who would like to contact the police can call 101 or Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111. You can also visit our Facebook site or website www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/jo where there is a dedicated Operation Braid page.
Category
News & Politics
The video was from the original web page: www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/jo
So, it might have been published on the 12th January 2011, but when was the video made, and who made it?
Was Rebecca Scott the only friend to come forward to be interviewed? She is the only friend of Joanna yeates that i have seen on video doing an interview, did SKY News actually do this interview??
The coincidences in this case are many, and that depends on whether or not you believe in coincidence.. But they just keep on coming!
-
The skynewsgather profile was tweeted at about this
Maria Soleil
@MariaSoleil
Follow Follow @MariaSoleil
More
RT @skynewsgatherer: Looking for friends of Jo Yeates to talk on Sky News to keep publicity going. Pls RT. #helpfindjo
11:05 am - 23 Dec 2010
https://twitter.com/MariaSoleil/status/18019382592536576
So who really is @skynewsgatherer?? Did Harriet Tolputt have 2 twitter accounts during this time?
@skynewsgatherer was a part of SkyNews this tweet from 2012 shows us that, as they encourage followers for that account..
Sky News
Verified account
@SkyNews
Follow Follow @SkyNews
More
Follow @skynewsgatherer for the latest on a reported #hostage situation in Tottenham Court Road, central London http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16217431 …
5:34 am - 27 Apr 2012
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/195853427010572288
So not only was Harriett Tolputts account tweeting about wanting to interview any of Joanna Yeates friends, so was the @skynewsgatherer..
Besides SKYNEWS, who is @skynewsgatherer connected to? I mean in terms of this case??
-
This tweet had me thinking:
Neal Mann
Verified account
@fieldproducer
Follow Follow @fieldproducer
More
RT @skynewsgatherer Defence lawyers tells me no one at Croydon or Camberwell granted bail over riot-related offence. #ukriots
7:59 am - 10 Aug 2011
https://twitter.com/fieldproducer/status/101306745279881216
What was reported in the media at the time of Dr Vincent Tabak's arrest and charge we only know about from the media.. We Have not seen a charge sheet of Dr Vincent Tabak, when he was arrested..
Dr Vincent Tabak never applied for bail and I couldn't understand why..??
Here's a scenario..
Was he involved in some type of protests etc around the time?? We have Julian Assange at court in December 2010
and I keep trying to understand why Dr Vincent Tabak never applied for bail... (maybe he was never granted bail)
We are told that Dr Vincent Tabak had no criminal record, we do not know if he was ever arrested for anything though..
Is it possible he was arrested to do with a demonstration or similar?
He appeared at the Old Bailey on the 5th May 2011, he had a different trial number and it was in court room 2 , a special court room, which I have posted about before...where people are on trial from the likes of terrorism and other special cases.
We have no idea whom Dr Vincent Tabak is connected too or knows, we have no idea what political persuasions he may have, no idea whatsoever. We have a story and that is all..
Could Dr Vincent Tabak have appeared at The Old Bailey in relation to something else different entirely?
Could it be Political?
Could something he may have done, given him a greater sentence than Manslaughter?
I have no idea, but this case is off... I have said this all along...
-
“Fantasists is a pathological lying disorder in which a person couldn’t differentiate between the fantasies and the real world
“Life is hard and tough, but living in fantasy is not the only solution, is it?
https://www.procaffenation.com/fantasists-strange-mental-illness/
-
There appears to be a recurring theme and a list of coincidences a mile long..
We had the Lest we Forget we always had the connection to the army somewhere a long the line and Simon Peevers is no stranger to that sort of thing, he has images on his facebook account from a tour of Afghanistan in 2007, the image says... on his photo page..
It's the Jo files... That keeps coming back to me, and the tweeting of a trial that was only done when Julian Assange was in court, I have posted about that.
So what are the JO FILES?? Are they leaked documents??
Were the media not allowed to state anything more about Julian Assange, so came up with an idea, to keep it in the media?
Was Joanna Yeates Missing, something else entirely?
The coincidences keep coming, and somewhere along the line, I don't know why I want to go back to Julian Assange, but I do, and that not because he's been in the media recently, I posted about him before.
The reason being he was the only case i could find where the media were given permission to tweet from the court room.
So what is this really about? Why did they arrest Dr Vincent Tabak? Had he passed on any files??
Are the JO FILES something to do with wiki leaks??
This case cannot make no sense for no reason, and those in the media would be aware of anything to do with wiki leaks files, they would be restricted on what they could report, but, what better way to keep the talk of it going...
What actually happened to Joanna Yeates I am not sure...
I couldn't say whether or not she was in the forces, or what ever...
Is Dr Vincent Tabak known by any other name... Many people in this case have assumed roles, take Perter Brotherton for instance, he assumed the role of Chaplain..
I know you all think I'm mad, but this case makes no sense whatsoever... (imo)
-
Was Dr Vincent Tabak a Whistle Blower??
Anything in this case is possible..
-
Anything in this case is possible..
If you have the mindset of David Ike
-
If you have the mindset of David Ike
Or Tesko and Ali Bongo @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
How are people connected?
Clifton People
@cliftonpeople
Follow Follow @cliftonpeople
More
MartiniBooth published The killer of Clifton, Bristol, landscape architect Joanna Yeates appeared at Bristol Cro... http://bit.ly/oR4uW8
6:05 am - 20 Sep 2011
0 replies . 0 retweets 0 likes
https://twitter.com/cliftonpeople/status/116136006738124800
Took me a minute to find Martini Booth, I believe it is Martin Booth whom is on the friends list on Facebook of Simon Peevers:
https://www.facebook.com/simon.peevers.9/friends?lst=100001263656539%3A877505135%3A1557896264&source_ref=pb_friends_tl
Martin Booth whom on his facebook page states:
Intro
Editor at Bristol24/7
Worked at Creative England
Lives in Bristol, United Kingdom
From Croxley Green
On Martin's friends list we have Luke Aikman;
Intro
CEO & Founder at Nudge Digital
Former CEO & Founder at Young British Entrepreneur
Former Entrepreneur in Residence at University of Bristol
Former Chief executive officer at Loccit
Former Retired > at Off The Piste
Lives in Bristol, United Kingdom
From London, United Kingdom
The very same Luke Aikman whom had his friends test the loccit app I posted about, the same Luke Aikman whom was friends with Nicko Brooko, who was rallying around putting up flyers and organising everything.
So is the origin of all this The Newspapers where Simon Peevers originally worked?
Was it friends of Simon Peevers and Martin Booth whom were on the Joanna Yeates missing page on facebook??
They are all connected and it only takes one message for everyone to know.
-
Simon Peevers who's friends include Darren Bane, the very same man whom was there and was pointing plenty, when the media arrived on Longwood lane, with fire engines etc..
https://www.facebook.com/simon.peevers.9/friends?lst=100001263656539%3A877505135%3A1557896264&source_ref=pb_friends_tl
From Darren Banes facebook
Intro
Working wordsmith, doting dad, pretend prestidigitator, jolly hockeyologist, diligent dreamer.
Pr Manager at Empica
From Bristol, United Kingdom
Married to Deborah Bane
darrenbane.co.uk
Where was the information coming from?
Darren Bane didn't appear at the Leveson, yet he was there on Longwood Lane and dealt with the media for Avon and Somerset Police. His was the face on show..
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15742;image)
Was most people on the facebook Missing group friends? Is this why there appears to be many random tweets at random times...
The connections are there, I still do not know what the origin is?
But everyone says there was a leak, but from where?
And which way around??
-
Jo Files.. Back to it again...
If Jo File isn't anything to do with Documents, is it a name as in Jophile??
Just a thought...
-
Jo Files.. Back to it again...
If Jo File isn't anything to do with Documents, is it a name as in Jophile??
Just a thought...
There are no files, it's just a name someone came up with for a newspaper article. @)(++(*
-
[/quote]Is Dr Vincent Tabak known by any other name..
The one that springs to mind is PAEDOPHILE
-
Jo Files.. Back to it again...
If Jo File isn't anything to do with Documents, is it a name as in Jophile??
Just a thought...
Or PAEDOPHILE? Afterall, that's what he is! However, back in the real world - it's nothing but a headline in a newspaper!
-
Was Dr Vincent Tabak a Whistle Blower??
Anything in this case is possible..
Only in your mind!
-
From the facebook group
JOANNA YEATES, MISSING SINCE 17/12/10
Luke Aikman to JOANNA YEATES, MISSING SINCE 17/12/10
27 December 2010 at 16:59 ·
Thoughts out to Gregg and the family.
Just thought I'd add this to go with earlier posts..
-
JOANNA YEATES, MISSING SINCE 17/12/10
Simon Peevers to JOANNA YEATES, MISSING SINCE 17/12/10
23 December 2010 at 18:55 ·
Hello, I run the Clifton People hyperlocal website and have of course been following events closely. It is open source which means anybody can post content on it, free to use of course, please feel fre...
Latest Clifton Home news | Clifton
www.cliftonpeople.co.uk
Simon Peevers advertising his website cliftonpeople.co.uk
So it's now established he's Clifton People
I cannot find any other posts on the Missing site by Simon, just this one, I did a search and only that showed up.
-
JOANNA YEATES, MISSING SINCE 17/12/10
Simon Peevers advertising his website cliftonpeople.co.uk
So it's now established he's Clifton People
I cannot find any other posts on the Missing site by Simon, just this one, I did a search and only that showed up.
And?
-
In my opinion he was a very very dangerous man, normally paedofile’s have one sexual deviance, he had numerous deviance’s, he liked to view extreme child porn and he liked to view extreme violent porn and he liked to go with prostitutes behind his girlfriends back. A serial killer in the making and our children are a lot safer with this monster behind bars.
And, it seems that nobody noticed anything amiss with him.
Not his girlfriend, who was planning to marry him, not her parents, not his siblings, who were happy for him to be in the company of their children, not his female colleagues (nobody came forward to say he was weird, or that he had harrassed them), not Tanja's friends, not his former friends in Holland. Surely, he wasn't THAT good an actor.
To me, that seems very strange------perhaps I haven't met enough criminals.
-
And, it seems that nobody noticed anything amiss with him.
Not his girlfriend, who was planning to marry him, not her parents, not his siblings, who were happy for him to be in the company of their children, not his female colleagues (nobody came forward to say he was weird, or that he had harrassed them), not Tanja's friends, not his former friends in Holland. Surely, he wasn't THAT good an actor.
To me, that seems very strange------perhaps I haven't met enough criminals.
That is EXACTLY how paedophiles operate, mrswah.
Blimey, I could tell you some tales. %56&
-
And, it seems that nobody noticed anything amiss with him.
Not his girlfriend, who was planning to marry him, not her parents, not his siblings, who were happy for him to be in the company of their children, not his female colleagues (nobody came forward to say he was weird, or that he had harrassed them), not Tanja's friends, not his former friends in Holland. Surely, he wasn't THAT good an actor.
To me, that seems very strange------perhaps I haven't met enough criminals.
The Yorkshire Ripper managed to murder 13 women and no one saw anything strange in him either! They don''t wear badges. Clearly they are going to hide that side of themselves for obvious reasons.
-
More excuses to defend a monster! It's already been stated that is exactly how paedos operate or they would fail! Just shows how calculating not placid he really is.
Yet still the excuses come because no one notices. Hardly gonna shout his love for looking at children being abused from the roof tops is he?
The problem is HIM no one else!
he admitted it... he wasnt forced into watching the images or confessing. The only people being forced into something they didnt want, were the CHILDREN!!!!
-
Clifton People
@cliftonpeople
Follow Follow @cliftonpeople
More
noely77 posted Vincent Tabak was the victim of a police stitch up. He confessed...: Discussion http://bit.ly/zoM37o
4:31 am - 31 Jan 2012
https://twitter.com/cliftonpeople/status/164324987572977665
This tweet struck a chord... noely77
The only person I remember saying it was a stitch up was Noel O'Gara, But it's difficult to find the exact date Noel O'Gara said that, he was on the Discussion and it was closed down, he does say it on his own facebook page about the case, but that was set up after the Discussion I think... was Noel on Clifton people?
The fact that it says the word 'Discussion' in the tweet, I was wondering if it was referring to the facebook page , Joanna Yeates Discussion of the case. Or if Clifton People had it's own forum, and it was discussed on there??
That's peculiar...
Saturday 10th March 2012 ( Facebook Group.. Rest in Peace Joanna Yeates) Noel said this..
Noel O'Gara when you show your true identity I might give a detailed reply but for now you are one of the police liaison officers who sweet talked and lied to the family that the police had found her killer while knowing that you had stitched up an innocent bewildered man.
https://www.facebook.com/113143842092771/posts/joanna-yeates-cannot-rest-in-peace-while-her-killer-remains-a-free-man-and-a-pat/287885364618617/
So I am unsure if Noel O'Gara had said that exact phrase on The Discussion of the group,...
And looking at the date, I'm guessing The Discussion group may have been closed down at that point, not sure why Noel is on The Rest in Peace Joanna Yeates group?
That's puzzled me now.. I thought I'd landed on Noel's Facebook page about the Case, but I hadn't..
Why I thought it was Noel's page was because of this
Noel O'Gara to Rest in Peace Joanna Yeates
6 March 2012 ·
Joanna Yeates cannot rest in peace while her killer remains a free man and a patsy is serving time for her murder.
First the police intended to stitch up Chris Jefferies the landlord. He was home alone and his dna was in his flat and the media had demonised him. By a stroke of good luck they decided against proceeding and released him.
They decided that Vincent Tabak was a better mark. He had no support being a Dutch academic and was also home alone and lived next door to Jo.
He was stitched up for the murder and his confession was coerced from this vulnerable lad who couldnt cope with the isolation and brainwashing. See some of the evidence here. http://www.suffolkstrangler.com/vincenttabak.htm
He was advertising his suffolkstrangler site and that is on his facebook site also .. This post was at the top of the page on the Rest in Peace page..
OMG... That was weird... That web link I have put up, now I do not know how I got that actual link, I was searching facebook and just clicked, it...But when I clicked posts I have this address:
https://www.facebook.com/pg/Rest-in-Peace-Joanna-Yeates-113143842092771/posts/?ref=page_internal
Can someone explain how that happened?
I went to the posts to search for Noel and it said sorry no results, thats when I realised they were different.
That weird.... Or am I just being thick here?
It's like a mirror page.. I recognised Vicki Roust's name on there, now I cannot remember which group/forum she was in..
Puzzled, I went to see how it may have happened, When I click on community on the left hand side, this is when Noel O'Gara's post shows up and Vicki Roust..
But I still don't get how Noel shows up on the Community page and is not a member of that group.. Can someone explain?
I started just looking for the quote of Noel's and ended up confused about the pages...
-
The Yorkshire Ripper managed to murder 13 women and no one saw anything strange in him either! They don''t wear badges. Clearly they are going to hide that side of themselves for obvious reasons.
I have read a couple of books about the Yorkshire Ripper. Sutcliffe's friend, Trevor Birdsall, had actually written to the police saying that he thought his friend was the Ripper, but was ignored. One of his brothers suspected him too.
-
And, it seems that nobody noticed anything amiss with him.
Not his girlfriend, who was planning to marry him, not her parents, not his siblings, who were happy for him to be in the company of their children, not his female colleagues (nobody came forward to say he was weird, or that he had harrassed them), not Tanja's friends, not his former friends in Holland. Surely, he wasn't THAT good an actor.
To me, that seems very strange------perhaps I haven't met enough criminals.
Maybe we should get them a badge to wear, that way we would spot them before they did it.
-
More excuses to defend a monster! It's already been stated that is exactly how paedos operate or they would fail! Just shows how calculating not placid he really is.
Yet still the excuses come because no one notices. Hardly gonna shout his love for looking at children being abused from the roof tops is he?
The problem is HIM no one else!
he admitted it... he wasnt forced into watching the images or confessing. The only people being forced into something they didnt want, were the CHILDREN!!!!
Merely making observations, that is all.
You would think the tabloids would have managed to sniff out something, other than an account by an "escort" that was never verified by the police. He was aged 32, one would think he would have had some sort of "form" by then.
-
Merely making observations, that is all.
You would think the tabloids would have managed to sniff out something, other than an account by an "escort" that was never verified by the police. He was aged 32, one would think he would have had some sort of "form" by then.
Hardly... He admitted it and from what Real Justice posted he paid for it.
Why is it so hard for you to accept any wrong doing by Tabak?
-
This poster on the Joanna Yeates Missing group is the first I have found of directing people over to the Joanna yeates Rest in Peace Group
Michelle Kirk-Casey to JOANNA YEATES, MISSING SINCE 17/12/10
28 December 2010 at 19:32 ·
...Why are u all arguing over who is or is'nt an admin etc....does that really matter. My daughter died and I can honestly say myself friends and family would not have dreamt of behaving like this nor act...
1212
14 comments
Michelle Kirk-Casey This page seems to be arguement free so have gone there instead, link below http://www.facebook.com/pages/Rest-in-Peace-Joanna-Yeates/113143842092771?v=wall
-
I saw this on the right hand side of the page, when I clicked home on the.." Rest in Peace Joanna Yeates"
Page Transparency
See more
Facebook is showing information to help you better understand the purpose of a Page. See actions taken by the people who manage and post content.
Page created – 22 December 2010
So I clicked for more information...
The Transparency information is interesting For The Rest in Peace Joanna Yeates:
Primary country location of people who manage this Page includes:
United Kingdom (2)
Germany (1)
United States (1)
Here's the page history
Page created - Rest in Peace Joanna Yeates
22 December 2010
How can you set up a page called rest in peace Joanna Yeates on the 22nd December 2010, before anyone knew she was dead!!
Page history
Page created on 22 December 2010 – Rest in Peace Joanna Yeates
Page name has not changed
Merged with 0 other Pages.
That is more than strange....
I keep saying things are made up.... This makes me wonder about me saying that even more!
-
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15758;image)
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15760;image)
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15762;image)
How is that even possible????
And you all think I'm mad... *%87 *%87 *%87
-
On The 30th December 2010 we get the admin, I'd call them stating what this page is about..
Rest in Peace Joanna Yeates
30 December 2010 ·
Please remember, this page isn't for speculation about Joanna's death, or any aspects of the case.
It's a memorial for us to pay our respects to her, nothing more, nothing less. Thanks.
RIP Joanna <3
231231
https://www.facebook.com/Rest-in-Peace-Joanna-Yeates-113143842092771/
So.. you set up a page called Rest in Peace Joanna Yeates on the 22nd December 2010
According to the trial Joanna Yeates was reported Missing on the 20th December 2010, ordinarily 48 hour will pass before something is done about a Missing person...
But according to this facebook page,... She's been Missing is now dead and all before The Yeates do their second appeal on the 23rd December 2010...
OMG!!! *%87
Edit..Joanna Yeates was found according to a lot of reports on the 25th December 2010 on a grass verge on Longwood lane..
-
Hardly... He admitted it and from what Real Justice posted he paid for it.
Why is it so hard for you to accept any wrong doing by Tabak?
It is somewhat hard for me to believe that he wasn't "stitched up", I admit, and I'm sure all my doubts about his conviction are posted on the forum somewhere, so there is little point in repeating them.
I might be wrong, and he might be as guilty as sin-----I have always admitted that, too.
If I do come to believe that he is definitely guilty, then he will be as abhorrent to me as he is to the rest of you. Until then, I will be expressing views that are different from yours, BUT I am not excusing the crimes for which he was convicted.
-
It is somewhat hard for me to believe that he wasn't "stitched up", I admit, and I'm sure all my doubts about his conviction are posted on the forum somewhere, so there is little point in repeating them.
I might be wrong, and he might be as guilty as sin-----I have always admitted that, too.
If I do come to believe that he is definitely guilty, then he will be as abhorrent to me as he is to the rest of you. Until then, I will be expressing views that are different from yours, BUT I am not excusing the crimes for which he was convicted.
you find it hard to believe that he wasnt stitched up is exactly the same as excusing his crimes. He admitted it. why do you think better? differently to him?
He WAS convicted on the child porn he loved to look at so dont excuse it as someone else's fault!
-
I have read a couple of books about the Yorkshire Ripper. Sutcliffe's friend, Trevor Birdsall, had actually written to the police saying that he thought his friend was the Ripper, but was ignored. One of his brothers suspected him too.
How far into the investigation? How many had he killed? Tabak killed one! Initially no one suspected Sutcliffe or he wouldn't have managed a list of 13. Tabak was caught before his list grew.
-
(ty6e[
On The 30th December 2010 we get the admin, I'd call them stating what this page is about..
https://www.facebook.com/Rest-in-Peace-Joanna-Yeates-113143842092771/
So.. you set up a page called Rest in Peace Joanna Yeates on the 22nd December 2010
According to the trial Joanna Yeates was reported Missing on the 20th December 2010, ordinarily 48 hour will pass before something is done about a Missing person...
But according to this facebook page,... She's been Missing is now dead and all before The Yeates do their second appeal on the 23rd December 2010...
OMG!!! *%87
Edit..Joanna Yeates was found according to a lot of reports on the 25th December 2010 on a grass verge on Longwood lane..
Where dose it show the page was setup on 22nd?
-
(ty6e[
Where dose it show the page was setup on 22nd?
Yet another wild goose chase for what?!!! The "Rest in Peace" title was probably changed from an earlier one (such as "Find Joanna Yeates") when they discovered later that her body had been found.
-
Yet another wild goose chase for what?!!! The "Rest in Peace" title was probably changed from an earlier one (such as "Find Joanna Yeates") when they discovered later that her body had been found.
Yes, I thought of that but as far as I can see, the first post was on 25th Dec.
-
Yes, I thought of that but as far as I can see, the first post was on 25th Dec.
Having looked again with a magnifying glass, so it was... yawn!
-
Having looked again with a magnifying glass, so it was... yawn!
Looks like it's been merged with a another page - no mystery.
-
Looks like it's been merged with a another page - no mystery.
Yeah, just noticed that after I posted. Must take this hairshirt off and stop punishing myself. 8(8-))
-
... and hope I don't see any more "whoms".
-
Yeah, just noticed that after I posted. Must take this hairshirt off and stop punishing myself. 8(8-))
Send it to Tabak - he need it more than you @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
... and hope I don't see any more "whoms".
What be one of those?
-
What be one of those?
"Whom" instead of "who", as used countless times by the most prolific poster here.
-
"Whom" instead of "who", as used countless times by the most prolific poster here.
Ah! Got ya! I rarely read the whole post but must admit to being slightly irritated by Tabak's full title being repeated over and over and over ...... %56&
-
Looks like it's been merged with a another page - no mystery.
Thats fine, I'm still trying to work out about the original forum, I keep saying I was a member, But I'm assuming I had to be, to be able to read it, so now i'm unsure....
mrswah maybe able to clarify that, whether you had to be a member to read the old forum or not at the time...
-
Good job, unsure about everything... time to leave you all too it...
-
Thats fine, I'm still trying to work out about the original forum, I keep saying I was a member, But I'm assuming I had to be, to be able to read it, so now i'm unsure....
mrswah maybe able to clarify that, whether you had to be a member to read the old forum or not at the time...
I cant remember, to be honest!!
-
Good job, unsure about everything... time to leave you all too it...
Until next time @)(++(*
-
How far into the investigation? How many had he killed? Tabak killed one! Initially no one suspected Sutcliffe or he wouldn't have managed a list of 13. Tabak was caught before his list grew.
Caroline, will PM you about this, as it's off topic.
-
The Missing Express article.. The one where we get an image of Jo years parents and a Coldplay article, as it has been edited: And the talk of DNA on Lips..
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Jo Yeates: Murder of Joanna being used to collect DNA..using Jo's mother in her grief , a dispicable tactic !!!!!
THE GRIEVING mother of Joanna Yeates last night called for all her daughter’s friends and colleagues to be DNA tested to eliminate them from the murder inquiry.
Teresa Yeates has urged detectives to focus DNA sampling on the small group of people her daughter knew and then to include men in the upmarket district of Clifton in Bristol where Jo lived with her boyfriend Greg Reardon.
Her call comes as a national poll conducted by the Sunday Express shows a majority of people across the UK want all 250,000 men in Bristol to be DNA tested.
Nearly 2,000 people in major towns and cities were asked by OnePoll if all men in Bristol should have DNA testing and 57 per cent said yes.
In Bristol 245 people were interviewed with 54 per cent for and 46 per cent against.
Last week Kerry McCarthy, Labour MP for Bristol East, led the calls for citywide DNA testing but so far murder squad detectives have ruled out a mass DNA trawl of the city. They may change their minds after considering the views of the Yeates family.
It is thought a tiny sample of DNA was found on Jo’s lips. It may have got there when the killer was dumping her body, which was found covered in snow on Christmas Day three miles from her home.
Speaking from her home in Ampfield, near Romsey, Hampshire, Mrs Yeates, 58, said: “To be honest, I don’t think all men in Bristol should be DNA tested. I think it would be pointless. I think there should be DNA testing for people who live in the Clifton area and DNA testing of people Jo was acquainted with.”
Asked if that should include Jo’s colleagues, she replied: “I don’t see why not. I don’t believe any of her work colleagues were involved in any of this. I haven’t met all of them but that is my gut feeling. It is better to eliminate them.”
It is understood police have been highly selective in who they ask for DNA swabs but they have tested some of her 200 Facebook friends.
Colleagues who were connected to her social networking site, or who had sent her e-mails or texts outside of work, are thought to have been asked to supply swabs.
Dr Carolyn Morton, a principal lecturer in forensic science at the University of West England in Bristol, said it was possible the DNA could have come from anyone Miss Yeates was with on the evening she went missing, including colleagues she could have kissed when she left the pub. She said the police had to find where the saliva came from. So far none of her workmates who joined Jo for Christmas drinks on the day she went missing, Friday, December 17, has been named or has spoken publicly about her.
BDP, the company for which 25-year-old landscape architect Jo worked, is talking to her mother and father David, 63, about a suitable memorial.
A spokeswoman said: “Jo loved flowers, so a beautiful landscaped space would perhaps be the most fitting memorial.”
It is unclear whether Jo’s 27-year-old boyfriend Greg will return to work for BDP in the office he once shared with Jo. He has told friends that even the thought of a brief return to Bristol upsets him.
Mrs Yeates confirmed to the Sunday Express that she would now not be playing the part of her daughter in a BBC Crimewatch reconstruction to be broadcast on January 26.
As she is the same height as her daughter and looks similar, she had been prepared to go through the emotional ordeal.
Last night she said: “They will be getting somebody else for the reconstruction but it is definitely not me, I can confirm that.”
It is thought either an actress or a serving Avon and Somerset female police officer will play the role for the programme which frustrated detectives hope will produce a breakthrough lead.
Police sources say they have found no significant links between Jo’s murder and that of Glenis Carruthers, a young woman strangled in Clifton 37 years ago, after cold case detectives reopened their files last week.
Read more: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/223433/DNA-all-Joannma-Yeates-friends-begs-her-mother/DNA-all-Joannma-Yeates-friends-begs-her-mother#ixzz1BCf45ZTp
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/223433/DNA-all-Joannma-Yeates-friends-begs-her-mother/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latestNewsViaRoyphjacobsInGoogleReader+%28%22latest+news%22+via+royphjacobs+in+Google+Reader%29&utm_content=Twitter
http://steelmagnolia-gossips.blogspot.com/2011/01/jo-yeates-murder-of-joanna-being-used.html
-
https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2011/jan/19/dailymail-joanna-yeates
Media
Liz Jones plumbs the depths in report on Joanna Yeates murder
Mail on Sunday writer Liz Jones has attracted widespread odium with her article about the murder of Joanna Yeates.
Commenters to the Mail's website and on Twitter have registered their scorn at the content and tone of her piece, headlined Is lovely Jo becoming just another thumbnail on the police website?
One commenter considered it to be "shameful, inept, morbid, irrelevant, patronising rubbish." Another thought it "an unbelievably ill conceived piece of non-journalism." A third wrote: "This article is voyeuristic, utterly pointless, and distasteful in the extreme."
And there were almost 200 commenters to the MoS site [shared with the Daily Mail] expressing similar views. Elsewhere, a journalistic critic, Jonathan Harwood, noted sarcastically that is was likely "to become one of the most celebrated pieces of journalism for years."
Jones's fatuous article is built around a retracing of Joanna's last steps in Bristol. It is replete with meretricious pseudo psychological "insights".
Example one: she visits the supermarket where Joanna bought what she calls "an upmarket pizza" and remarks: "The choice tells me Jo wanted a lovely life, something above the ordinary."
Example two: arriving at Clifton suspension bridge and finding she doesn't have the correct change to pay the toll, she writes:
"Isn't it interesting that you can snatch a young woman's life away from her in the most violent, painful, frightening way possible, take away her future children, her future Christmases, take away everything she loves, and yet there are elaborate systems in place to ensure you do not cross a bridge for only 30 pence?"
This absurd stuff attracted mockery across the Twittersphere, with hundreds of comments lampooning her self-referential approach to the tragedy.
Examples: "At Martin Luther King Jr's funeral: "Does anybody want to hear about my dream?"... "As the bomb went off and wrecked the bus, I wondered once again if Ken Livingstone's congestion charge was really working"... "These people in Australia losing their homes reminds me of my country mansion that I'm selling to buy a smaller mansion."
Best of all, go the the Daily Mash, Is lovely Liz becoming just another thumbnail on the Daily Mail website?
Sources: Tabloid Watch/First Post/Mail on Sunday/Daily Mash
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1347621/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Becoming-just-thumbnail-police-website.html
Is lovely Jo becoming just another thumbnail on the police website?
By LIZ JONES FOR THE MAIL ON SUNDAY
UPDATED: 13:50, 17 January 2011
IIt's Friday night and I’m in the Ram bar on Park Street in Bristol.
This is where Joanna Yeates spent her last evening before she set off up the hill, past all the twinkly shops and bars (a Habitat, a Space NK beauty emporium; Bristol is nothing if not upwardly mobile) towards her death.
The bar is OK but ordinary. The wine list, chalked on a board, says ‘Lauren Perrier’.
I wish she had spent what were probably her last hours on earth somewhere lovelier. The food is awful (I ask for a veggie burger and it comes without the burger – and without the bun!) but the young women behind the bar are sweet with huge, wary eyes.
Alex is working her way through uni, where she is studying English. She comes from London and her parents are now terrified something is going to happen to her.
She was working in the bar on the night of December 17, when Joanna was having a drink before heading home. ‘I don’t remember her,’ she says.
‘It was so busy that night. I used to walk home but I always get a cab now.’
Lyn, with white blonde hair, who was also working here that night, says she is ‘more fearful now, I’m more nervous. It’s just so mysterious’.
I leave the bar at 8pm and retrace Joanna’s steps. Even though it’s January, the streets are packed. There are a couple of women joggers but they are with boyfriends or husbands.
I walk past the beautiful university building on my right, with Waitrose on my left. I wander the bright aisles, full of young women rushing round after work, leaving with carrier bags and expectation.
I head up the hill towards Clifton, the leafy part of the city. It’s quieter now, and darker. I find Tesco, and go in. I almost buy that upmarket pizza; the choice tells me Jo wanted a lovely life, something above the ordinary.
There is one police van on the green as I turn right into Canynge Road.
I bet Jo’s heart lifted as she reached this junction, looking forward to the feeling only a Friday night near Christmas can give you.
As I near her basement flat, at No 44, the road is quiet. Earlier in the day there had been an ITN news van here but it has gone now. I’m reassured to see two policemen standing vigil at her iron gate, either side of a small, discreet pile of flowers in varying degrees of decay.
I tell them I’m spooked, walking here. ‘Don’t be spooked,’ one says. ‘Residents are campaigning to get brighter street lights installed.’ So the antique, lovely ones are to disappear to be replaced by ugly ones because of something even uglier.
That afternoon I had gone to the lane where Jo’s body was found. It was horrible and windswept. I don’t know what I had expected but not this.
There was no ceremony here, no policeman, just that lovely face on a now dog-eared poster. I got the feeling the world is starting to forget Jo, that she’ll become just another thumbnail on the Avon and Somerset Police website, along with the faces of the other murder victims no one can recall.
I’d have expected the cars to slow down here to show respect but they sped past, carrying people on their way home from work. The lane is narrow. I can’t see how a car stopped here and a man struggled with a body without being beeped at and told to get out the way, as I was.
There were no messages with the flowers, just one card, still sealed in its Cellophane. The person who left it hadn’t bothered to scrawl a note.
Leaving Jo’s flat, I return to my car. My satnav takes me to the Clifton Suspension Bridge.
The theory is the killer took the long route from the flat to where he dumped the body to avoid the CCTV cameras. Perhaps he also wanted to avoid the 50p toll.
I don’t have 50p and try tossing 30p and a White Company button into the bucket. It doesn’t work.
There is now an angry queue behind me. Isn’t it interesting that you can snatch a young woman’s life away from her in the most violent, painful, frightening way possible, take away her future children, her future Christmases, take away everything she loves, and yet there are elaborate systems in place to ensure you do not cross a bridge for only 30 pence?
Finally, a man in a taxi jumps out, and runs to me brandishing a 50p piece.
‘Not all men are monsters,’ he says, grinning. Maybe not. But one monster is all it takes.
http://steelmagnolia-gossips.blogspot.com/2011/01/httpwww_17.html
Monday, January 17, 2011
Is lovely Liz becoming just another thumbnail on the Daily Mail website?
17-01-11
Karen Fenessey retraces the steps of Liz Jones, the night she wrote her article for the Mail on Sunday
It's Friday night and I am in a bar not far from Liz Jones's house near Taunton. This is where Liz stopped off for a drink before she set off home past all the twinkly shops (a Boots, a [Name removed]B Sports, a 'Marks and Sparks'; Taunton is nothing if not a place that has some shops) towards her laptop computer.
I wish she had spent what were probably her last hours before writing her article somewhere lovelier. The food is awful (I ask for sausage and chips and it comes without the sausage - and without the chips!) but the young women behind the bar are sweet with huge, wobbly eyes.
Alex is working her way through uni, where she is studying something called 'English'. She comes from London and her parents are now terrified she might become a journalist for the Daily Mail. She was working here that night. She says she saw things. With her eyes.
Lyn, with very very very very blonde hair, who was also working here that night, says she is 'more fearful of newspapers now, I'm more nervous. It's just so mysterious how someone could have written an article like that'.
I leave the bar at 8pm and retrace Liz's steps. Even though it's January, the streets have people on them all walking somewhere or other. There are a couple of women joggers but they are with boyfriends or husbands who are reading the Independent.
I walk past a university building on my right (no doubt full of people with pens) with Waitrose on my left. I wander the bright aisles, full of young women rushing round after work - it's almost as if they are shopping. They leave with carrier bags full of expectation and yoghurt.
I head up the hill towards the leafy part of Taunton. It's quieter now, and darker. I find Tesco, and go in. This also turns out to be a shop. I almost buy the same upmarket pizza that Liz bought; the choice tells me she liked ham, but really good ham. Not ham that was full of water and hormones. Ham that you can get from a nice village butcher full of young women rushing around.
When I reach Liz's sleepy village, there is one police van on the green as I turn right into her street.
I bet her heart lifted as she reached this spot, looking forward to the feeling only a Friday night spent composing something utterly unspeakable for the Mail on Sunday can give you.
As I near her house, the road is quiet. It's almost as if there are no other people in the immediate vicinity. Earlier in the day there had been an ITN news van but I notice from the absence of big vans with 'ITN' written on the side that it has gone now. I'm reassured to see two policemen standing vigil at her iron gate, either side of a small, discreet pile of dog turds in varying degrees of decay.
I tell them I'm spooked, walking here. 'Don't be spooked,' one says. 'Residents are campaigning to get brighter street lights installed so they can see Liz Jones coming and pretend to be statues.' So the old antique, lovely nice ones are to disappear to be replaced by not nice ones that are all new because of something even not nicer.
That afternoon I had gone to the newsagent where Liz's article was discovered. It was horrible and windswept. I don't know what I had expected. A newsagent possibly. I'm not really sure.
There was no ceremony here, no policeman, just the article on a now dog-eared poster. I got the feeling the world is starting to forget Liz, that she'll become just another thumbnail on the Daily Mail website, along with Peter Hitchens, Jan Moir and that f....ing lunatic Melanie Phillips.
I'd have expected the cars to slow down here to show respect but they sped past, as if people were driving them. Were they driving home from work? Did the police even care? The lane is narrow. I can't see how someone could have come out of the newsagent with a copy of the Daily Mail without being beeped at and told to get out the way, as I was just because I was standing in the middle of the road.
There were no messages with the turds, just one card, still sealed in its Cellophane. The person who left it hadn't bothered to remove the Cellophane or write on the Cellophane. I thought about Cellophane. Did the police even care?
Leaving the newsagent, I return to my car. My satnav takes me to the M6.
The theory is Liz's article took the long route from her house to the newsagent to avoid the CCTV cameras. Perhaps it also wanted to avoid paying the £5 toll.
I don't have £5 and try tossing a Kraft cheese single and a Michael Bublé CD into the toll booth. It doesn't work.
There is now an angry queue behind me. Isn't it interesting that you can write an article for the Mail on Sunday in the most violent, painful, frightening way possible and yet there are elaborate systems in place to ensure you do not get to break the law?
Finally, a man in a taxi jumps out, and runs to me brandishing a £5 note.
'Not all men are Liz Jones,' he says, grinning. Maybe not. But one Liz Jones is all it takes.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/opinion/columnists/is-lovely-liz-becoming-just-another-thumbnail-on-the-daily-mail-website?-201101173437/
Posted by SteelMagnolia at 11:15 AM
So this whole things is about journalism.... And I've wasted all of this time on what appears to be someones idea of a joke.. 8@??)( 8@??)(
Edit.. Bad Journalism, sensationalising tragedy, illiterate reporting, bad grammar, and everything else you can think of... That is what this is all about... Cheers!
Double Edit.. So I take it the Sobbing Girl is....Liz Jones!!
-
Give me strength! Just HOW long has it taken you to get a grip on what most of us know innately? At it's best, journalism is a wonderful, informative, and useful means of giving us truthful information. At it's worst, now they can no longer be compared with "Page 3" journalism -and I'll add, here, that even the best journalists/authors have 'dry' periods during which they may lower their standards and feed off whatever happens to be the current titillation- like all publications, which are now no longer used to wrap fish and chips or wipe bottoms, they become part of the recycling effort.
I am amazed to see that you're still posting! You were wittering on about your stupidity and ineptness before I went away, nearly a fortnight ago, yet here you STILL are, despite assuring us, on numerous occasions, that you'd no longer be posting on this dead and buried subject, repeating exactly what you were saying then!!! You appear to have stubbornness and tenacity similar to that of Teresa May who has never learned that the best performers leave the stage whilst they're still on top and their audience is crying out for more.
-
Jo Y eates...
Noticed in the church the sign that said: Jo Yeates.. kept trying to think what it meant.. All I could see was JO Yeates
Jo Yeates...
Meaning: Journalist Of the Year Eates...Should have said ate, that is why we have the Different spelling of Yeates (Yates)
See all about inept Journalists, just as well i'm not one... &^^&* Nice way to waste my life.. 8((()*/
https://www.gettyimages.no/detail/video/police-officers-searching-through-rubbish-in-bins-int-news-footage/659221024?adppopup=true
Did it say:..
* Journalist of the Year eates (JOY Eates)
*Journalists of the Year ate ( JOY ate)
* Journalist of the Year eat ( JOY eat)
Leaving us with JoY eat is Missing an "S"!!!
-
Give me strength! Just HOW long has it taken you to get a grip on what most of us know innately? At it's best, journalism is a wonderful, informative, and useful means of giving us truthful information. At it's worst, now they can no longer be compared with "Page 3" journalism -and I'll add, here, that even the best journalists/authors have 'dry' periods during which they may lower their standards and feed off whatever happens to be the current titillation- like all publications, which are now no longer used to wrap fish and chips or wipe bottoms, they become part of the recycling effort.
I am amazed to see that you're still posting! You were wittering on about your stupidity and ineptness before I went away, nearly a fortnight ago, yet here you STILL are, despite assuring us, on numerous occasions, that you'd no longer be posting on this dead and buried subject, repeating exactly what you were saying then!!! You appear to have stubbornness and tenacity similar to that of Teresa May who has never learned that the best performers leave the stage whilst they're still on top and their audience is crying out for more.
Yes I am stupid and probably inept, but I'm not trying to pretend I can write....
And what's the point of wasting time on a joke by journalists...
Or was it them making a stand, as to the fact most of those whom write articles, should know how to spell, and use the correct GRAMMAR!
Think they need to spend some more time on Maths too, as I stated... It doesn't add up!
-
I suppose it just goes to show, I was as gullible as the next person... Just took me longer to work it out..!
Just as well I don't buy Newspapers anymore, waste of good money..(imo)
-
It was the Facebook Friends of Alla Yeates... Chris Yeates was there, but was removed from Facebook, he was known as Chris Eates,... At first I thought it was so he couldn't be identified, but I do not believe that to be true now...
So here's to eating your words...
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15782;image)
-
And I'll go a little further..
By PAUL REVOIR FOR MAILONLINE
UPDATED: 10:43, 6 November 2010
Ex-GMTV presenter given the boot when Christine Bleakley moved to ITV finds new role... replacing BBC strikers
Corporation stars Kearney, Edwards and Bruce refuse to cross picket lines in row over pension plans
Managers drafted in to present items on BBC News 24 TV channel
Flagship radio shows replaced with pre-recorded content
The BBC strike was good news for former GMTV presenter Emma Crosby, who was brought back into the limelight yesterday to read the One O’Clock News on BBC1.
She then carried on through the afternoon on the BBC News Channel. The 33-year-old was poached from Sky to co-host GMTV in 2009 in a reported £120,000-a-year deal, replacing long-serving presenter Fiona Phillips, who quit after 16 years.
But she was axed from the ITV show in August when ITV opted to revamp its breakfast schedule and launch the new morning show Daybreak, which has proved a ratings disaster.
Despite dire warnings from the National Union of Journalists about the amount of disruption, the BBC actually managed to provide a much fuller TV news service than was expected.
Presenters including Radio Five Live's Nicky Campbell took part in the action and TV newsreaders Fiona Bruce and Huw Edwards were expected to join in later today.
Radio 4's flagship Today programme was forced off the air, while World At One and PM programmes were also be scrapped.
Members of the National Union of Journalists began their 48-hour stoppage at midnight, immediately mounting picket lines across the country, including Bush House, Broadcasting House and TV Centre in London.
The union is planning another 48-hour strike on November 15 and 16, with threats of further disruption over Christmas.
Pre-recorded programmes filled Today's three-hour slot, while Radio Five was also forced to cancel a number of live programmes and replace them with pre-recorded shows.
After the 6am news bulletin on Radio Four, in which the strike was the fourth item, a BBC announcer told listeners there would be a programme on Lord Kitchener, broadcast in place of Today.
Listeners were told: 'We are sorry but as you heard in the news, because of industrial action called by the National Union of Journalists, we are unable to bring you our scheduled programme.'
Martha Kearney
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1327003/BBC-STRIKE-Ex-GMTV-presenter-Emma-Crosby-breaks-strike-1-OClock-News.html
Maybe it was to do with strike action, and leaving amateur journalists loose with a story.. Not confirming sources etc etc etc... And no command of the English written language...
Or maybe this was their protest!!!
Edit.. Or just plain and simple bad journalisms and not understanding Abbreviations/Acronyms...
Alternatively, someone nicked someone else story, before they were ready to go to print, and misunderstood the message?
-
Or was the message just an abbreviation..
Joy 8 with the "S" Missing??
8 abbreviation
used in electronic messages to replace ‘-ate’ or ‘-eat’
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/thesaurus-category/british/abbreviations-used-in-emails-and-text-messages
So misinterpretation of text messages, that may or may not be used in Journalism..
Hotel V Amsterdam ... VXXX
Not anything else one can say.. really.. @)(++(*
-
PLEASE keep on topic. Lyrics from You Tube are not on topic!! Many thanks
-
Jo Y eates...
Noticed in the church the sign that said: Jo Yeates.. kept trying to think what it meant.. All I could see was JO Yeates
Jo Yeates...
Meaning: Journalist Of the Year Eates...Should have said ate, that is why we have the Different spelling of Yeates (Yates)
See all about inept Journalists, just as well i'm not one... &^^&* Nice way to waste my life.. 8((()*/
https://www.gettyimages.no/detail/video/police-officers-searching-through-rubbish-in-bins-int-news-footage/659221024?adppopup=true
Did it say:..
* Journalist of the Year eates (JOY Eates)
*Journalists of the Year ate ( JOY ate)
* Journalist of the Year eat ( JOY eat)
Leaving us with JoY eat is Missing an "S"!!!
I make no apologies for saying you are completely bonkers!
-
It was the Facebook Friends of Alla Yeates... Chris Yeates was there, but was removed from Facebook, he was known as Chris Eates,... At first I thought it was so he couldn't be identified, but I do not believe that to be true now...
So here's to eating your words...
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15782;image)
He wasn't removed, he changed his name to avoid people like you doing shit like this!
-
Or was the message just an abbreviation..
Joy 8 with the "S" Missing??
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/thesaurus-category/british/abbreviations-used-in-emails-and-text-messages
So misinterpretation of text messages, that may or may not be used in Journalism..
Hotel V Amsterdam ... VXXX
Not anything else one can say.. really.. @)(++(*
Is your life -off forum- so completely devoid of purpose that you need to get you teeth into anything, however meaningless, OR is this sudden transference to the quality -or otherwise- of journalism your way of excusing yourself for your ludicrous belief in the innocence of a man who's admitted his guilt?
-
Is your life -off forum- so completely devoid of purpose that you need to get you teeth into anything, however meaningless, OR is this sudden transference to the quality -or otherwise- of journalism your way of excusing yourself for your ludicrous belief in the innocence of a man who's admitted his guilt?
Hopefully ITV will replace Jeremy Kyle with more meaningless shit for him! Might get him off Facebook for a while when they do @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
He’s not been the same April since Jezza got axed from his screen 8)><( 8)><( 8)><(
-
Jo Y eates...
Noticed in the church the sign that said: Jo Yeates.. kept trying to think what it meant.. All I could see was JO Yeates
Jo Yeates...
Meaning: Journalist Of the Year Eates...Should have said ate, that is why we have the Different spelling of Yeates (Yates)
See all about inept Journalists, just as well i'm not one... &^^&* Nice way to waste my life.. 8((()*/
https://www.gettyimages.no/detail/video/police-officers-searching-through-rubbish-in-bins-int-news-footage/659221024?adppopup=true
Did it say:..
* Journalist of the Year eates (JOY Eates)
*Journalists of the Year ate ( JOY ate)
* Journalist of the Year eat ( JOY eat)
Leaving us with JoY eat is Missing an "S"!!!
To be honest, this isn't only crazy bullshit - it's offensive and seems deliberately so. You've either completely lost the plot or you're taking the piss out of a murder victim. Not sure what you're getting out of this but it certainly says a LOT about you! *&^^& %56&
-
All of this thread ought to be called VEXIT, as always just my opinion.
-
In my opinion all of this thread has been about Nine and not the murder of Joanna Yeates oh and of course the murderer VT.
I think that Nine is a lonely soul.
-
All of this thread ought to be called VEXIT, as always just my opinion.
It has certainly given rise to no little vexation.
-
Jo Y eates...
Noticed in the church the sign that said: Jo Yeates.. kept trying to think what it meant.. All I could see was JO Yeates
Jo Yeates...
Meaning: Journalist Of the Year Eates...Should have said ate, that is why we have the Different spelling of Yeates (Yates)
See all about inept Journalists, just as well i'm not one... &^^&* Nice way to waste my life.. 8((()*/
https://www.gettyimages.no/detail/video/police-officers-searching-through-rubbish-in-bins-int-news-footage/659221024?adppopup=true
Did it say:..
* Journalist of the Year eates (JOY Eates)
*Journalists of the Year ate ( JOY ate)
* Journalist of the Year eat ( JOY eat)
Leaving us with JoY eat is Missing an "S"!!!
And to think a young woman had her life taken and yet you had ALL this to cope with!
Just to recap the victims are Jo her family and CJ! Not Tabak and certainly NOT you
Everything you have done to waste your own time, you did with free will and the supposed knowledge that you know better than Tabak
Jo on the other hand had NO choice!
disgraceful! such lack of respect
-
Nice one Jixy, you've posted what I have been thinking for a while now.
The thought of Nine championing the cause of a murderer I find nauseating.
In fact I can't fathom out why Nine does it, especially when VT admitted that he killed Joanna.
It can only be put down to the fact that Nine does not have a life.
Nine there is a whole world out there, life is short, don't waste your time on this pervert.
-
Thanks Nina. All your points are spot on too and they are in nice short posts, always a blessing
-
I'll go back to this, you appear to believe I am being unkind, I may not be right on some of the suggestions I have given, trying to understand why nothing makes sense, trying to understand, what the text message that Dr Vincent Tabak sent meant..
I have gone around in circles, I have tried asking the obvious questions and I have tried asking obscure questions. The same answer always applies, It makes no sense..
If we had over 80 police men working on this case, why hadn't they covered every avenue? Why hadn't they eliminated/interviewed, 200+ friends of Joanna Yeates... friends here and in far flung places. Work friends, acquaintances etc, etc, etc..
CJ was arrested on the 30th December 2010, then released on Police Bail January 2010, He was finally released early March 2011. DCI Phil Jones reasoning at the Leveson for this was because of a blood stained trainer, that was found underneath the sink behind the kick-board..
So at this point they obviously were still treating CJ as a suspect, or else they would have released him sooner.. Therefore, how in less than 3 weeks after CJ's 3 days ordeal in custody, had they managed to arrest Dr Vincent tabak?
Ann Reddrop had said that they were looking at him since late December 2010 when she appeared outside Bristol Crown Court, did she mean the 31st December 2010,...
They were either looking at Dr Vincent Tabak as a valid suspect in December 2010 or they were not, and if they were, why did they not wait for Dr Vincent Tabak to return to the UK, as he had suggested he would talk on his return, they were desperate to speak to him and flew out to Holland to question him...
My question therefore being, WHY?? If he was a suspect...caution him... But I do not think they could caution him on another countries soil without their cooperation and surely someone from Holland's Police department would be there ..
That in itself is something to question.. If you think my posts, are ridiculous, then ponder these questions that I was trying to understand and pointed out before..
* I was trying to question why a man has gone to trial apparently guilty only to be found more guiltier....
* I am trying to understand , where the evidence lead to it being Dr Vincent Tabak....
* I am trying to understand why thing do not add up...
* I am trying to understand why witness's were not called...
* I am trying to understand why no-one stood in support of Dr Vincent Tabak...
* I am trying to understand why the CCTV of Canygne Road for Friday 17th December 2010 was not shown to the
jury
* I am trying to understand why CJ's second witness statement is such a secret
* I am trying to understand where the time stamp went to...
* I am trying to understand why Colin Port state that The HopHouse Pub, was the last CCTV images of Joanna
yeates
* I am trying to understand by which method Joanna Yeates arrived home seeing the Hophouse pub is the last
sighting
* I am trying to understand, why evidence bags were taken from Peter Stanleys house
* I am trying to understand, why Tanja Morson was not in court
* I am trying to understand why The Defence helped (imo) bury their client
* I am trying to understand, why the media stay silent
* I am trying to understand why no-one speaks of this case
* I am trying to understand, the motive for this attack
* I am trying to understand , how one person can carry a dead body so many times....
* I am trying to understand why Dr Vincent Tabak would take the body around to his house....
* I am trying to understand why he didn't just leave her in situ and close the door...
* I am trying to understand why no body fluids were found in Joanna Yeates Flat
* I am trying to understand why no body fluids were found in Dr Vincent Tabaks Flat
* I am trying to understand why a flat doesn't look frozen in time....
* I am trying to understand how tiles came be painted, in a flat frozen in time,
* I am trying to understand why you need so many fire engines to recover a person from a grass verge...
* I am trying to understand, why Dr Vincent Tabak appeared at The Old Bailey
* I am trying to understand, why the head of the complex case unit saw a simple murder through to the bitter end..
* I am trying to understand, why this case gets mentioned in odd legal papers
* I am trying to understand, the significance of this case
* I am trying to understand, why builders remove a door that could have potential evidence on it
* I am trying to understand why the same builders are not wearing protective clothing
* I am trying to understand why the intercom panel was removed
* I am trying to understand, why Dr Vincent Tabak flat was put up for rent, before trial
* I am trying to understand, why the jury then were even taken to Dr Vincent Tabaks flat
* I am trying to understand why the parents want people to know that there was a "Piles or Piles of Washing" when
they entered the flat/...
* I am trying to understand why they removed Joanna Yeates Christmas Tree from a flat frozen in time
* I am trying to understand why Dr Delaney states Joanna yeates had a flower patterned top on, but in the Ram her
top is clearly Plain.....
* I am trying to understand , why the story on the stand matches the information that was already in the media...
* I am trying to understand, why Dr Vincent Tabak wasn't cautioned when they believed he was a suspect in
December yet interviewed him as a witness...
* I am trying to understand, why a Missing persons case was being treated as a Murder inquiry from the beginning..
* I am trying to understand why the change of command got broken when DCI Phil Jones took over the inquiry..
* I am trying to understand why we were made aware of every detail of this case, before Joanna Yeates had been
found...
* I am trying to understand why witness statements were just read out....
* I am trying to understand why there was not hoards of screaming public baying for blood outside the court at trial.
* I am trying to understand why Dr Vincent Tabak didn't apply for bail..
* I am trying to understand , why Dr Vincent Tabak changed representation..
* I am trying to understand, why no-one saw a body on Longwood Lane for over 8 days
* I am trying to understand, why Dr Kelly Sheridan didn't take the stand with her fibre analysis of the Ikea bedding
* I am trying to understand why it takes only 48 hrs to turn around all the forensics in this case
* I am trying to understand how they had the suspects clothes to test in this 48 hour window...
* I am trying to understand, why the computer data wasn't challenged, when said computer could have been used
by more than one person
* I am trying to understand how searches were made on Dr Vincent Tabak's laptop at 1:46am and 1:47am on
Saturday the 18th December 2010, when Dr Vincent Tabak was busy picking up his girlfriend
* I am trying to understand what is so important about Joanna Yeates
* I am trying to understand, what is so important about Dr Vincent Tabak
* I am trying to understand, why no witness can put Dr Vincent Tabak either on Canygne Road or anywhere else
that evening.. ( Apparently CJ can, as he spoke to Dr Vincent Tabak on his way out to the Gym...)
* I am trying to understand why the ASDA time stamps are Missing
* I am trying to understand, why there is no CCTV of the Megane travelling to longwood lane or Asda
* I am trying to understand, how a CCTV image of an unidentified car on Park Street, is supposed to be Dr Vincent
Tabak's car
* I am trying to understand why the CCTV footage of Dr Vincent Tabak' Police interviews were not shown to the
jury, even if they were no comment interviews...
* I am trying to understand why CJ's name is mentioned in court, yet he doesn't appear
* I am trying to understand in July 2011 it was stated that Dr Vincent Tabak was guilty because of a plea... A plea
he could have changed at any time before he reached trial....
* I am trying to understand, why everyone wants this case to just go away
* I am trying to understand, why the Lehmans were so upset at trial
* I am trying to understand why the media were allowed to tweet this case
* I am trying to understand, why the Tabak's say nothing of this case
* I am trying to understand, hiw Crimewatch had footage of Dr Vincent Tabak's car outside Canygne Road main
entrance
* I am trying to understand , why a man resembling Dr Vincent Tabak, is telling the driver where to park this car,
when that car has a designated parking space..
* I am trying to understand how Geoffrey Hardyman statement about Joanna Yeates cat, can be seen as a
statement for the defence
* I am trying to understand why Geoffrey Hardymans statement was ever used in court seeing as he witnessed
nothing having had a cold and gone to bed....
* I am trying to understand why BDP announced that Joanna Yeates had been found on the 24th December 2010 on
there website
* I am trying to understand , why Jess Siggers was wanting to look for Joanna yeates the weekend before she went
missing
* I am trying to understand why the facebook page was removed
* I am trying to understand why the original facebook page was actually a forum and not a group
* I am trying to understand why The Missing group didn't set up as a forum
* I am trying to understand why people on the Missing Group had similar names to those of us on said facebook
forum
* I am trying to understand, why a complete stranger would be a more likely suspect than someone who, new her
* I am trying to understand where the sobbing girl disappeared too
* I am trying to understand why Joanna yeates would open the door to a complete stranger....
* I am trying to understand why Dr Vincent Tabak would shit on his own door step
* I am trying to understand why that day of all days Dr Vincent tabak decided to act on his apparent urges
* I am trying to understand , why no other woman were at trial, accussing Dr Vincent Tabak of similar acts
* I am trying to understand, why there are many holes that could have a legal challenge are left wide open
* I am trying to understand how the Dutch authorities cooperated, with the CPS to allow questioning on their soil of
one of there citizens
* I am trying to understand the urgency of the Holland interview
* I am trying to understand , why Dr Vincent Tabak didn't dump his laptop in a body of water in Holland
* I am trying to understand, why this conviction has never sat properly with me...
And if as mrswah said it is possible he could be guilty... Guilty of what exactly.... And shouldn't there be evidence to support this guilt.... Shouldn't there not be any reason not to question this case in so many ways....
If Dr Vincent Tabak is guilty, Guilty how and Why... The anomalies shouldn't be so vast.... The questions shouldn't be so many.... And civilians shouldn't be giving testimony to what they did in a Police capacity as an Officer who had been given various titles along the way to why he tried to stop a body from thawing....
Because the reason he had to try to stop a body from thawing brings me to a conclusion of he was trying to save some type of evidence... For all we know it could have been a finger print, it could have been a boot impression, it could have been anything... But that statement has not been cleared up, just like many things in this case....
Which can only bring me to a conclusion that there is more to this case than meets the eye... More to Dr Vincent Tabak than a story told on a stand.... More to why Joanna Yeates was murder....
And if questioning the guilt or innocence of Dr Vincent Tabak is too much for some.... maybe some should question the implications of the possibility that he is innocent.... Because that obviously means a killer is walking about free to this day... A killer who may get the same urge to kill again... A killer who knows he/she has managed to get away with this crime.... A killer who may feel more confident in future....
And when another person looses a son or daughter to this killer, maybe then people might think , we should have questioned that case more.... We should have gone with our thoughts on the case, we should have gone with our questions on the case.....
We should have demanded solid evidence to support Dr Vincent Tabak's tale on the stand..... And if he was protecting someone ... who and why?? By protecting someone doesn't make him guilty of murder.... It may make him something else in peoples eyes, but not of the deliberate act of ending someone life by his hand....
So yes, one could say I am being bias.... I am being bias because I do not understand why the evidence doesn't stack up.... And it has never stacked up....
And I question why they were so desperate to put and keep Dr Vincent Tabak behind bars from the day of his arrest... Without anyone being concerned for his rights... without the Dutch Authorities questioning why one of their citizens were being treated in this way....
-
Those were points I had made from a previous post....
At the end of all that, I then go back to it being about Journalists... And that is the reason for their silence, they have made their point and do not need to speak about this anymore.. Which also means that legal experts do not need to speak about this either...
You can't have it both ways... Either Dr Vincent Tabak wasn't treated correctly and was thrown in prison and the Dutch Authorities sat back and said nothing, allowing for one of their citizens to rot in a British Prison with horrendous conditions.. Or the scenario is different..
I cannot see the Dutch Officials, being happy with one go their citizens languishing in one of her majesties hotels..
Dutch judges halt extradition to 'inhuman' HMP Liverpool
The extradition from the Netherlands of a suspected drugs smuggler has been suspended over Dutch judges' concern about the state of a UK jail.
The judges refused to send the man back to HMP Liverpool due to fears over "inhuman and degrading" conditions, the Liverpool Echo reported.
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) said: "Since providing reassurances the court has postponed its decision."
A spokeswoman said the judges wanted more information.
The judgment also referred to conditions in HMP Bedford and HMP Birmingham.
Although he is not named in court documents seen by the BBC, the fugitive's links to Liverpool mean it is likely he would be held at Liverpool prison.
In a statement, the MoJ said: "We strongly refute the idea that any of our prisons provide inhuman or degrading conditions.
"There have been significant improvements since the inspections of Liverpool, Birmingham and Bedford prisons and neither our domestic courts nor the European Court of Human Rights has ever ruled that they are in breach of Article 3."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-48225676
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/CF55/production/_99177035_liverpooljailcomp.jpg)
Therefore maybe you can understand why I question everything... Nothing adding up ever, so for me to suggest alternative scenario's, which may appear wild and fantastic, isn't really that ridiculous, when you come to realise how the Dutch Officials were in there straight away in support of this citizen...
Dr Vincent Tabak wasn't extradited as here came back to the UK by his own free will, even so, what does that say about Dr Vincent Tabak ,stating he thought he'd be caught at any moment? And why haven't the Dutch authorities intervened in Dr Vincent Tabak's detention in a UK prison to this day??
And then I come full circle again.. Wondering if it has all been made up!
Can you understand where I'm coming from?
The only other answer I can think of is that this was 'Trial by Media".... And the media played their part.. And seeing as the trial is over, the media no longer need to speak of it, they made their point.. So there is nothing new to add... All their evidence was in the media at the time, therefore no physical evidence could be brought..
The point of it all I do not know, but hoodwinked I have been..
If you think I am being unfeeling , just look at my questions that I was trying to understand and make your own mind up about it....
Sense it does not make...
You see as citizens of a free world, I thought we were allowed to question things that concerned us and not be made out to be some kind of loony, because one doesn't follow the status quo....
That nagging doubt that has been with me for years about this case, had me looking for answers, but I found even more questions...
People pointing fingers in the beginning at whom ever was maybe in the picture, satisfied most, I myself had been caught up in all that.. But when you try to strip it all back to the bare bones, and ignore peoples comments sometimes, you then have time to look at what is in front of your eyes.. Ignoring peoples suggestions and coming to your own conclusions..
That is all I have done, no different to people finger pointing based on what they believed they knew, I have looked at virtually everything and there are not many choices left..
So anyone can believe what they want to believe about this case, anyone is entitled to their own opinion, as am I..
If no-one questions anything anymore, and goes along with what they are told is true, whether it is or not, then what are we left with??
The End.
Edit....
Is this about Leverage?? If it was all done by the media, then when it comes to freedom of speech etc, they can bring this out and wave it all about.... Just a thought...
-
Nine I haven't read all of your horrendously long post, but if you don't understand things why don't you contact the people who do, like Avon and Somerset Police?
You won't though will you. You don't do debate and you never contact the people who know these things, you haven't even tried to find out which prison VT is in to ask him questions. Not that I think he would answer you.
You really ought to stop all of this. As posters have said you are disrespectable to all the people you drag up for your posts.
-
Nine I haven't read all of your horrendously long post, but if you don't understand things why don't you contact the people who do, like Avon and Somerset Police?
You won't though will you. You don't do debate and you never contact the people who know these things, you haven't even tried to find out which prison VT is in to ask him questions. Not that I think he would answer you.
You really ought to stop all of this. As posters have said you are disrespectable to all the people you drag up for your posts.
Makes you wonder Nina why anyone wants to be on Facebook, you have people like Billy trolling or Lurking with nothing better to do. Goes against what Facebook is supposed to be about, reconnecting friends and finding friends. I feel sorry for these unsuspecting people Billy keeps posting on here. Scandalous really, if only they knew.
-
Makes you wonder Nina why anyone wants to be on Facebook, you have people like Billy trolling or Lurking with nothing better to do. Goes against what Facebook is supposed to be about, reconnecting friends and finding friends. I feel sorry for these unsuspecting people Billy keeps posting on here. Scandalous really, if only they knew.
Perhaps some of them do RJ. I have often thought that one day the law will change and people like Nine had better watch out!
Christopher Jefferies has form for suing and I do hope he has a go at some of the slurs that have been posted about him, nine years after the event.
Personally I do not `do' Facebook, Twitter and the rest. Call me old school but I do things face to face or on the `phone.
-
* I was trying to question why a man has gone to trial apparently guilty only to be found more guiltier.... Because he pleased guilty to manslaughter and he was tried for MURDER!
* I am trying to understand , where the evidence lead to it being Dr Vincent Tabak.... He confessed! They had DNA!
* I am trying to understand why thing do not add up... They DO!
* I am trying to understand why witness's were not called... because he CONFESSED TO KILLING HER!
* I am trying to understand why no-one stood in support of Dr Vincent Tabak... Why would they? Most people would defend a person like Tabak - MOST PEOPLE!
* I am trying to understand why the CCTV of Canygne Road for Friday 17th December 2010 was not shown to the
jury Because he CONFESSED!
* I am trying to understand why CJ's second witness statement is such a secret is it?
* I am trying to understand where the time stamp went to... ?
* I am trying to understand why Colin Port state that The HopHouse Pub, was the last CCTV images of Joanna
yeates No idea but not relevant give CONFESSED!
* I am trying to understand by which method Joanna Yeates arrived home seeing the Hophouse pub is the last
sighting She walked
* I am trying to understand, why evidence bags were taken from Peter Stanleys house No idea but not relevant given that Tabak CONFESSED
* I am trying to understand, why Tanja Morson was not in court because sh didn't want to be associated with a perverted killer!
* I am trying to understand why The Defence helped (imo) bury their client - They didn't have much scope given that he confessed and had been viewing violent porn before murdering Joanna
* I am trying to understand, why the media stay silent - stay silent? According to you, the whole thing is media led!
* I am trying to understand why no-one speaks of this case because most people KNOW he's guilty!
* I am trying to understand, the motive for this attack - perversion!
* I am trying to understand , how one person can carry a dead body so many times.... Really?
* I am trying to understand why Dr Vincent Tabak would take the body around to his house.... Really?
* I am trying to understand why he didn't just leave her in situ and close the door... Need to ask him that!
* I am trying to understand why no body fluids were found in Joanna Yeates Flat - what kind of body fluids and why would there be body fluids?
* I am trying to understand why no body fluids were found in Dr Vincent Tabaks Flat because he wrapped her body. Not sure what fluids you think there would be?
* I am trying to understand why a flat doesn't look frozen in time.... that makes no sense
* I am trying to understand how tiles came be painted, in a flat frozen in time, nor dose this
* I am trying to understand why you need so many fire engines to recover a person from a grass verge... nor this
* I am trying to understand, why Dr Vincent Tabak appeared at The Old Bailey Where would you like him to appear? The Palladium?
* I am trying to understand, why the head of the complex case unit saw a simple murder through to the bitter end.. This you should be able to understand - you have no part in it yet can't stop prattling on about it! He of course had a reason! He wanted to see the sick perverted Tabak behind bars for murdering a young beautiful woman and destroying the lives of her family and friends! Whats your excuse?
That's as far as I am going with this reply. Lost the will to live getting this far!
-
That's as far as I am going with this reply. Lost the will to live getting this far!
Sterling effort, Caroline, which I fear will fall on deaf ears. It, aka "..." appears to be carried away by their own rhetoric.
-
A question.
This forum is for debate on MOJs. The rules are that we are not supposed to be offensive or
abusive to other posters but not to the dead or their families?
We have one prolific poster, ....... who is and has been very offensive about the victim Joanna
Yeates and her family, also Christopher Jefferies and all who dared talk to the media
or posted on Facebook etc., way back in 2010/2011.
Now considering that this is not a MOJ, how come that ...... can be very offensive to people who
are not on this forum?
Also ...... will not reply or debate to other posters, but just posts another long, long post about
something that is nothing to do with VT, the only subject ..... will not post about.
John has repeatedly asked ...... not to post these long posts, but is ignored, as are the rest of us.
One rule for one and not the majority.
So how does this work mrswah?
-
A question.
This forum is for debate on MOJs. The rules are that we are not supposed to be offensive or
abusive to other posters but not to the dead or their families?
We have one prolific poster, ....... who is and has been very offensive about the victim Joanna
Yeates and her family, also Christopher Jefferies and all who dared talk to the media
or posted on Facebook etc., way back in 2010/2011.
Now considering that this is not a MOJ, how come that ...... can be very offensive to people who
are not on this forum?
Also ...... will not reply or debate to other posters, but just posts another long, long post about
something that is nothing to do with VT, the only subject ..... will not post about.
John has repeatedly asked ...... not to post these long posts, but is ignored, as are the rest of us.
One rule for one and not the majority.
So how does this work mrswah?
As a moderator, I cannot get into arguments, but I am not going to ignore your question either!
MOJ forums, by their nature, are likely to upset the families of victims, I'm afraid, but then I doubt if many of the families read them.
I cannot be sure that VT's conviction is not a miscarriage of justice: even if he was guilty of manslaughter, it would be an MOJ, as he was convicted of murder. On the other hand, I have always conceded that I might be wrong. That is the best I can do!
Over the last few weeks, I have become very unhappy at the direction the forum is taking------for a number of reasons. It was only yesterday that I asked John for advice, and I am awaiting his reply.
-
Lets stop this now...
Remove all of my posts thank you.. And remove my account ... thank you
I do not wish to get into a discussion about this final decision, ... thank you
-
Thank you for your generic reply mrswah, but you haven't addressed the points I was raising.
One being, how far is a poster allowed to go about people who are not on this forum, but victims of a terrible event. I can give you a cite on one which I found way beyond the pale, but you may want to PM me on that one.
I see no argument and I don't have one with this poster, just the way that .......... is allowed to flout, as I see it, the rules of the forum, if so can I do it too?
I can go on but wont, I would appreciate an answer to the points that I've raised though.
-
Lets stop this now...
Remove all of my posts thank you.. And remove my account ... thank you
I do not wish to get into a discussion about this final decision, ... thank you
Why make others responsible? Take responsibility for your own behaviour and stop posting instead of teasing with the promise.
-
Lets stop this now...
Remove all of my posts thank you.. And remove my account ... thank you
I do not wish to get into a discussion about this final decision, ... thank you
Lets stop this now? Remove all of my posts? How many times have you said that now? Only to return with more reams of self indulgent bollocks! You don't wish to get into a 'discussion' about anything - you can't discuss or debate. You ask questions and people give up their time to answer, an answer which you just ignore. I don't understand the point of your posts at all. Initially, I thought you might be genuine (if a little naive), now I think you're posts are nothing more than attention seeking and they are more about you than Vincent Tabak or Jo Yeates!
-
As a moderator, I cannot get into arguments, but I am not going to ignore your question either!
MOJ forums, by their nature, are likely to upset the families of victims, I'm afraid, but then I doubt if many of the families read them.
I cannot be sure that VT's conviction is not a miscarriage of justice: even if he was guilty of manslaughter, it would be an MOJ, as he was convicted of murder. On the other hand, I have always conceded that I might be wrong. That is the best I can do!
Over the last few weeks, I have become very unhappy at the direction the forum is taking------for a number of reasons. It was only yesterday that I asked John for advice, and I am awaiting his reply.
I agree with your point that because of the nature of the discussion, loved ones are likely to be upset. However, there is a big difference between being upset by the nature of the discussion and someone being totally disrespectful. Jo Yeates lost her life when she was murdered, all that's left is her memory and when even that is disregarded as 'fake news' or her name twisted into idiotic abbreviations which have nothing to do with the case (and more to do with a certain posters need for attention), then it's a step too far IMO.
-
As a moderator, I cannot get into arguments, but I am not going to ignore your question either!
MOJ forums, by their nature, are likely to upset the families of victims, I'm afraid, but then I doubt if many of the families read them.
I cannot be sure that VT's conviction is not a miscarriage of justice: even if he was guilty of manslaughter, it would be an MOJ, as he was convicted of murder. On the other hand, I have always conceded that I might be wrong. That is the best I can do!
Over the last few weeks, I have become very unhappy at the direction the forum is taking------for a number of reasons. It was only yesterday that I asked John for advice, and I am awaiting his reply.
Oh come on, when someone talks none sense suggesting that Tabak and Joanna or Tabak and CJ could be related or Tabak could have been in Holland on the day of the murders, that is trolling and taking the mick. He’s nothing but disruptive and on purpose causing other posters to follow suit spoiling debate.
-
Oh come on, when someone talks none sense suggesting that Tabak and Joanna or Tabak and CJ could be related or Tabak could have been in Holland on the day of the murders, that is trolling and taking the mick. He’s nothing but disruptive and on purpose causing other posters to follow suit spoiling debate.
Plus there was certainly some ramping up last week.
-
Oh come on, when someone talks none sense suggesting that Tabak and Joanna or Tabak and CJ could be related or Tabak could have been in Holland on the day of the murders, that is trolling and taking the mick. He’s nothing but disruptive and on purpose causing other posters to follow suit spoiling debate.
Nobody is causing other posters to "follow suit and spoil the debate" apart from the other posters themselves, IMO.
If you think someone is talking nonsense, the best thing is to ignore them, and start a debate of your own!!
-
I agree with your point that because of the nature of the discussion, loved ones are likely to be upset. However, there is a big difference between being upset by the nature of the discussion and someone being totally disrespectful. Jo Yeates lost her life when she was murdered, all that's left is her memory and when even that is disregarded as 'fake news' or her name twisted into idiotic abbreviations which have nothing to do with the case (and more to do with a certain posters need for attention), then it's a step too far IMO.
I agree that some of the ideas being put forward are very far-fetched, and certainly do not reflect my own misgivings regarding Tabak's convection.
-
I agree that some of the ideas being put forward are very far-fetched, and certainly do not reflect my own misgivings regarding Tabak's convection.
It may also be worth considering that some of Tabak's 'friends'/supporters/co-porn enthusiasts, who are titillated by watching sexual violence and, in particular, pictures of children being violated, might infiltrate forums to expound his innocence by demolishing the characters of his victim and her family. I raise this point now, because having missed conversations for nearly a fortnight, I read them last night and was struck by a discussion which superficially appeared to have no correlation to Tabak, ie, Punch and Judy shows and how they 'would have'? affected Victorian children, but of course, the Victorian era provided a rich and endless supply of victims for those who wanted to watch or indulge themselves by participating in sex with children, evidenced by the number of bodies, including the newly born, found dumped after these perverts had taken their pleasure. It is of interest that the chief proponent of Tabak's innocence chooses to entirely overlook/brush aside as being of no moment, Tabak's involvement in this nefarious pleasure......................and if you'll forgive me for suggesting it, the naivety of those, like you, who question how such a 'nice' man as Tabak -and nameless, countless others who hide behind facades of respectability- could get away with it without raising suspicion or detection, is a form of denial. NONE of these, so called, pillars of society, have PAEDOPHILE etched across their foreheads.
-
It may also be worth considering that some of Tabak's 'friends'/supporters/co-porn enthusiasts, who are titillated by watching sexual violence and, in particular, pictures of children being violated, might infiltrate forums to expound his innocence by demolishing the characters of his victim and her family. I raise this point now, because having missed conversations for nearly a fortnight, I read them last night and was struck by a discussion which superficially appeared to have no correlation to Tabak, ie, Punch and Judy shows and how they 'would have'? affected Victorian children, but of course, the Victorian era provided a rich and endless supply of victims for those who wanted to watch or indulge themselves by participating in sex with children, evidenced by the number of bodies, including the newly born, found dumped after these perverts had taken their pleasure. It is of interest that the chief proponent of Tabak's innocence chooses to entirely overlook/brush aside as being of no moment, Tabak's involvement in this nefarious pleasure......................and if you'll forgive me for suggesting it, the naivety of those, like you, who question how such a 'nice' man as Tabak -and nameless, countless others who hide behind facades of respectability- could get away with it without raising suspicion or detection, is a form of denial. NONE of these, so called, pillars of society, have PAEDOPHILE etched across their foreheads.
Great post April, mrswah suggests ignoring offensive posts, I’m sorry I was brought up to defend the bullied and trolled, especially when they cannot defend themselves. It’s people like Billy that gets the forum a bad name, this forum was born out of defending a family that couldn’t defend itself and ludicrous posts by Tesko.
-
It may also be worth considering that some of Tabak's 'friends'/supporters/co-porn enthusiasts, who are titillated by watching sexual violence and, in particular, pictures of children being violated, might infiltrate forums to expound his innocence by demolishing the characters of his victim and her family. I raise this point now, because having missed conversations for nearly a fortnight, I read them last night and was struck by a discussion which superficially appeared to have no correlation to Tabak, ie, Punch and Judy shows and how they 'would have'? affected Victorian children, but of course, the Victorian era provided a rich and endless supply of victims for those who wanted to watch or indulge themselves by participating in sex with children, evidenced by the number of bodies, including the newly born, found dumped after these perverts had taken their pleasure. It is of interest that the chief proponent of Tabak's innocence chooses to entirely overlook/brush aside as being of no moment, Tabak's involvement in this nefarious pleasure......................and if you'll forgive me for suggesting it, the naivety of those, like you, who question how such a 'nice' man as Tabak -and nameless, countless others who hide behind facades of respectability- could get away with it without raising suspicion or detection, is a form of denial. NONE of these, so called, pillars of society, have PAEDOPHILE etched across their foreheads.
Ha ! Yes, April, I'll forgive you! Naïve I might be, and I have never said I'm right, just that I question VT's conviction. Why? Well, my reasons are all over this thread, and I have nothing new to say, so no point in repeating them.
From what I know, we don't have anyone posting on here who knows VT, or who supports the abuse of children, but your post is interesting all the same, and I have no illusions about the type of people who MIGHT infiltrate forums. Anyone could do so.
-
Great post April, mrswah suggests ignoring offensive posts, I’m sorry I was brought up to defend the bullied and trolled, especially when they cannot defend themselves. It’s people like Billy that gets the forum a bad name, this forum was born out of defending a family that couldn’t defend itself and ludicrous posts by Tesko.
I am aware that this forum was started in reaction to the "Blue Forum", of which I know very little, in fact, and I certainly know very little about Mike Tesko. As I have said before,if you do not wish to ignore posts that you believe to be offensive, it is better to report them than retaliate, as it keeps the forum civil, and brings the postings to the attention of those who run the forum.
-
I am aware that this forum was started in reaction to the "Blue Forum", of which I know very little, in fact, and I certainly know very little about Mike Tesko. As I have said before,if you do not wish to ignore posts that you believe to be offensive, it is better to report them than retaliate, as it keeps the forum civil, and brings the postings to the attention of those who run the forum.
I don't agree Mrswah, some people need to be challenged and hiding behind a moderator won't do that.
-
Ha ! Yes, April, I'll forgive you! Naïve I might be, and I have never said I'm right, just that I question VT's conviction. Why? Well, my reasons are all over this thread, and I have nothing new to say, so no point in repeating them.
From what I know, we don't have anyone posting on here who knows VT, or who supports the abuse of children, but your post is interesting all the same, and I have no illusions about the type of people who MIGHT infiltrate forums. Anyone could do so.
THAT'S my whole point, mrswah, and possibly it's missed you. You state "From what I know............." but it remains that you don't know because it would be extremely difficult for you to know. Having "no illusions about the type of people who MIGHT infiltrate forums" may not necessarily make it possible to recognize one of their number.....................which is why so many elude capture.
-
Oh come on, when someone talks none sense suggesting that Tabak and Joanna or Tabak and CJ could be related or Tabak could have been in Holland on the day of the murders, that is trolling and taking the mick. He’s nothing but disruptive and on purpose causing other posters to follow suit spoiling debate.
I wasn't trying to take the mick... The whole point of this particular thread, was to try and identify, any avenues the Police could have looked at or not.... And eliminate various lines of inquiry....
Or Dr Vincent Tabak's defence team, which apparently he had 2 of... might have investigated a little further other avenues... But the Platinum service isn't available for all apparently...
With the extremely quick arrest of dr Vincent Tabak whilst CJ was still on Police bail, I was trying to determine what methods were used to cross reference any evidence or interview the wide range of people that were either close to Joanna Yeates or connected to her in some way....
That apparently doesn't appear to have taken place...
THAT'S my whole point, mrswah, and possibly it's missed you. You state "From what I know............." but it remains that you don't know because it would be extremely difficult for you to know. Having "no illusions about the type of people who MIGHT infiltrate forums" may not necessarily make it possible to recognize one of their number.....................which is why so many elude capture.
Whom you may know about whom infiltrates various forums I have no idea... I m not associated with anyone.. Nor am I a fan admirer of anyone..
Before the old adage of I am a fan of Dr Vincent Tabak comes back my way, I am not a fan in the true sense of the word.... as some keep saying, as I know nothing about him, other than what has been written... Rather as I have explained countless times.. I AM A concerned citizen who felt that this case and trial never sat right with me.... It just doesn't add up... And we can argue that point until the cows come home , but I will not change my stance.... And as to whether I feel it is all made up or not ..I still do not know... But it is bonkers....
But if a man named Dr Vincent Tabak is in prison at this moment in time for this crime, I hope that in some way, someone will look at this case.... No man nor woman, should be in prison when there is doubt, no man nor women, should feel that not one person in this world might take an interest and maybe give a little hope....
I have never felt this strongly about anything before , where I have actually taken to the internet to raise the questions I have raised... Some people describe it as trolling...
My God.... So if you believe in something, no matter what, and have a different opinion to others and basically stand out like a sore thumb, because everyone else has a different stance, then you are a troll..
If you take the time to try to cross reference every bit of information that you believe is valid an may have relevance, you can be described as a troll...
You may see me as a troll... but that's your issue and not mine...
I have not been disrespectful... And certainly aspects I have had to bring up, because, that is the nature, of trying to understand everything... CJ... I have been backwards and forwards with him... I have not pointed any fingers at CJ... rather I have tried to understand his role, and that is based on what was stated at The Leveson and what he himself has stated in interviews..
I cannot point fingers... As I do not know in which direction they should go.... This case is odd..
It is...
And I may go away from this wondering what made me spend so much time, trying to understand what happened back in 2010/2011...
I do not know what this forum is about... I have never really understood it... But when i came across it,...It happened to be the only forum at the time discussing this case...
And in my experience, in this case everyone appears to behave in a strange way... which I do not understand either...
My experience of forums is limited... Until I came across the facebook forum of Joanna Yeates, the only forum I had ever been involved with realistically was a forum on a smartphone called handspring/palm/treo.. This I have explained.. many times...
To be actively involved in any forum as much as I have with this forum is a first for me... It is new territory...
And I continue to post... why..??
Simple really, everyone appears to be trying their best to dissuade me.. why I have no idea... This case is not BLACK OR WHITE... It's complex, you only have to ask Ann Reddrop about that..
So why would she settle on such a weak case?? Why would she continue in her endeavours to take a Dutch national to court on ...
??? What Evidence???
Everyone is strangely quite about this case... I have no idea why... I have mrswah, saying Dr Vincent Tabak is in prison.. There has been freedom of information requests... People whom I really do not know who they are have been looking at this case and investigated various aspects of it over the years.. that apparently being leonora... And I only know him by his reputation to do with this case... otherwise, he might as well be a pig in a poke... Don't know the guy....
Sometimes I think I have made a mistake, coming this far, with this case.... But that is based on my own misgivings as to how my intentions may be perceived..
What actually is wrong, with a genuine citizen, voicing their concerns about the imprisonment of anyone?? If doubts are there, and questions can still be asked, then what I have done is simply explore these avenues...
Great post April, mrswah suggests ignoring offensive posts, I’m sorry I was brought up to defend the bullied and trolled, especially when they cannot defend themselves. It’s people like Billy that gets the forum a bad name, this forum was born out of defending a family that couldn’t defend itself and ludicrous posts by Tesko.
Tesko... No idea whom you are referring too... Never heard of ... It reminds me when certain posters whom started calling me Andrew Ashman, whom I had never heard of before either....
And whilst we are at it.... MWT... not a fan of his either.... He a surprise in a box... I believe I was slightly misinformed, by way of general publicity, that he had capabilities, that never came to fruition.... And do not need to elaborate on that...
I am your... as random as they come, stupid individual, that thought people cared..... I hoped I was helping, I hoped someone may take notice...
But....... The more i have looked at what is available, the more i question the whole, case... Many many times I have been in two minds as to whether it is real or not, and that is not intended as disrespect to anyone..,
But I know the is how you will all see it..
But the Platinum service isn't available for all apparently...
When Ian Kelcey made that comment about platinum service, I was not really ,shocked, but at the same time I was...
It was a dawning and realisation that the odds were stacked firmly against any individual, whom did not have the where with all , to attack??? investigate??? defend themselves at any time and any situation in our criminal justice system if the funds we not free flowing...
I sometimes think about the amount of time I have spent writing here, without the real PAPERS... without the FILES or the 1300 PAGE DOCUMENT in front of me , being able to question every detail of those papers/files and documents...
But all I can say... Is what I believe I have brought to the table based on some peoples TV statements, and some peoples, Leveson inquiry statements alone.. And of course other avenues I have looked at, then how can any person facing the judiciary be able to mount a defence, without the time or resources to do so???... When it has taken me on my own , a long time to question what we apparently already know...
I am not a troll.... Even though several people say I am... I have nothing against trolls, in which I literally mean, those cute, little dolls from the 60's and 70's..
I have stuck my neck out so far with this i resemble a giraffe..... I feel uncomfortable sometimes, about it , but remember , why i started it...
So next time you hear hooves... don't think horses, think giraffes!
Edit... As for the length of my post... Either suck it up or don't waste your time reading them... It isn't compulsory... No disrespect intended... ?{)(**
-
I wasn't trying to take the mick... The whole point of this particular thread, was to try and identify, any avenues the Police could have looked at or not.... And eliminate various lines of inquiry....
Or Dr Vincent Tabak's defence team, which apparently he had 2 of... might have investigated a little further other avenues... But the Platinum service isn't available for all apparently...
With the extremely quick arrest of dr Vincent Tabak whilst CJ was still on Police bail, I was trying to determine what methods were used to cross reference any evidence or interview the wide range of people that were either close to Joanna Yeates or connected to her in some way....
That apparently doesn't appear to have taken place...
Whom you may know about whom infiltrates various forums I have no idea... I m not associated with anyone.. Nor am I a fan admirer of anyone..
Before the old adage of I am a fan of Dr Vincent Tabak comes back my way, I am not a fan in the true sense of the word.... as some keep saying, as I know nothing about him, other than what has been written... Rather as I have explained countless times.. I AM A concerned citizen who felt that this case and trial never sat right with me.... It just doesn't add up... And we can argue that point until the cows come home , but I will not change my stance.... And as to whether I feel it is all made up or not ..I still do not know... But it is bonkers....
But if a man named Dr Vincent Tabak is in prison at this moment in time for this crime, I hope that in some way, someone will look at this case.... No man nor woman, should be in prison when there is doubt, no man nor women, should feel that not one person in this world might take an interest and maybe give a little hope....
I have never felt this strongly about anything before , where I have actually taken to the internet to raise the questions I have raised... Some people describe it as trolling...
My God.... So if you believe in something, no matter what, and have a different opinion to others and basically stand out like a sore thumb, because everyone else has a different stance, then you are a troll..
If you take the time to try to cross reference every bit of information that you believe is valid an may have relevance, you can be described as a troll...
You may see me as a troll... but that's your issue and not mine...
I have not been disrespectful... And certainly aspects I have had to bring up, because, that is the nature, of trying to understand everything... CJ... I have been backwards and forwards with him... I have not pointed any fingers at CJ... rather I have tried to understand his role, and that is based on what was stated at The Leveson and what he himself has stated in interviews..
I cannot point fingers... As I do not know in which direction they should go.... This case is odd..
It is...
And I may go away from this wondering what made me spend so much time, trying to understand what happened back in 2010/2011...
I do not know what this forum is about... I have never really understood it... But when i came across it,...It happened to be the only forum at the time discussing this case...
And in my experience, in this case everyone appears to behave in a strange way... which I do not understand either...
My experience of forums is limited... Until I came across the facebook forum of Joanna Yeates, the only forum I had ever been involved with realistically was a forum on a smartphone called handspring/palm/treo.. This I have explained.. many times...
To be actively involved in any forum as much as I have with this forum is a first for me... It is new territory...
And I continue to post... why..??
Simple really, everyone appears to be trying their best to dissuade me.. why I have no idea... This case is not BLACK OR WHITE... It's complex, you only have to ask Ann Reddrop about that..
So why would she settle on such a weak case?? Why would she continue in her endeavours to take a Dutch national to court on ...
??? What Evidence???
Everyone is strangely quite about this case... I have no idea why... I have mrswah, saying Dr Vincent Tabak is in prison.. There has been freedom of information requests... People whom I really do not know who they are have been looking at this case and investigated various aspects of it over the years.. that apparently being leonora... And I only know him by his reputation to do with this case... otherwise, he might as well be a pig in a poke... Don't know the guy....
Sometimes I think I have made a mistake, coming this far, with this case.... But that is based on my own misgivings as to how my intentions may be perceived..
What actually is wrong, with a genuine citizen, voicing their concerns about the imprisonment of anyone?? If doubts are there, and questions can still be asked, then what I have done is simply explore these avenues...
Tesko... No idea whom you are referring too... Never heard of ... It reminds me when certain posters whom started calling me Andrew Ashman, whom I had never heard of before either....
And whilst we are at it.... MWT... not a fan of his either.... He a surprise in a box... I believe I was slightly misinformed, by way of general publicity, that he had capabilities, that never came to fruition.... And do not need to elaborate on that...
I am your... as random as they come, stupid individual, that thought people cared..... I hoped I was helping, I hoped someone may take notice...
But....... The more i have looked at what is available, the more i question the whole, case... Many many times I have been in two minds as to whether it is real or not, and that is not intended as disrespect to anyone..,
But I know the is how you will all see it..
But the Platinum service isn't available for all apparently...
When Ian Kelcey made that comment about platinum service, I was not really ,shocked, but at the same time I was...
It was a dawning and realisation that the odds were stacked firmly against any individual, whom did not have the where with all , to attack??? investigate??? defend themselves at any time and any situation in our criminal justice system if the funds we not free flowing...
I sometimes think about the amount of time I have spent writing here, without the real PAPERS... without the FILES or the 1300 PAGE DOCUMENT in front of me , being able to question every detail of those papers/files and documents...
But all I can say... Is what I believe I have brought to the table based on some peoples TV statements, and some peoples, Leveson inquiry statements alone.. And of course other avenues I have looked at, then how can any person facing the judiciary be able to mount a defence, without the time or resources to do so???... When it has taken me on my own , a long time to question what we apparently already know...
I am not a troll.... Even though several people say I am... I have nothing against trolls, in which I literally mean, those cute, little dolls from the 60's and 70's..
I have stuck my neck out so far with this i resemble a giraffe..... I feel uncomfortable sometimes, about it , but remember , why i started it...
So next time you hear hooves... don't think horses, think giraffes!
Edit... As for the length of my post... Either suck it up or don't waste your time reading them... It isn't compulsory... No disrespect intended... ?{)(**
No one is looking at it because there is nothing to look into - you need to SUCK that up! 8((()*/
-
No one is looking at it because there is nothing to look into - you need to SUCK that up! 8((()*/
Thank you for your valued contribution..... ?{)(**
-
I always think its very strange when people explain away questions that they were never asked but dodge the ones that were asked
Some people's posts are their trademark even when they are too blind to see!
-
No one is looking at it because there is nothing to look into - you need to SUCK that up! 8((()*/
I wouldn't agree that there is nothing to look into-----although I think we have probably looked into most of it by now !
-
Thank you for your valued contribution..... ?{)(**
Wish I could say the same.
-
I wouldn't agree that there is nothing to look into-----although I think we have probably looked into most of it by now !
Such as?
-
Thank you for your valued contribution..... ?{)(**
I agree . Caroline has highlighted some great facts.
-
I wouldn't agree that there is nothing to look into-----although I think we have probably looked into most of it by now !
Most starting points for a miscarriage of justice usually start with the person themselves claiming they are wrongly convicted
But hey some people know better than the guilty party obviously dont they?
-
Most starting points for a miscarriage of justice usually start with the person themselves claiming they are wrongly convicted
But hey some people know better than the guilty party obviously dont they?
I have never been happy about the conviction, so I have questioned it. That is all.
-
Such as?
It's all in the thread somewhere, although I don't blame you if you dont want to read all my old posts. There are rather a lot of them.
-
another thing strange about this forum is how quick other members posts get edited but someone else can show no respect for a dead young woman and her family and they can rant on and on and on
-
I have never been happy about the conviction, so I have questioned it. That is all.
Its a good job Tabak is ok with it then
-
Some posts have been unnecessarily aggressive and combative recently which is not conducive to constructive debate. By all means promote opinion and explore theories as long as such are based on facts and accepted understanding.
Finally, please keep posts amicable and informative at all times. TY.
-
Its a good job Tabak is ok with it then
[/quote
Just because we don't hear about him speaking out does not definitely mean that he is ok with it.
-
another thing strange about this forum is how quick other members posts get edited but someone else can show no respect for a dead young woman and her family and they can rant on and on and on
There are rules for this forum, Jixy. I do try to adhere to them!
-
I sometimes think about the amount of time I have spent writing here, without the real PAPERS... without the FILES or the 1300 PAGE DOCUMENT in front of me , being able to question every detail of those papers/files and documents...
Quite rightly in this country the files of criminal cases are not put up on the web. Just my opinion.
-
I sometimes think about the amount of time I have spent writing here, without the real PAPERS... without the FILES or the 1300 PAGE DOCUMENT in front of me , being able to question every detail of those papers/files and documents...
Quite rightly in this country the files of criminal cases are not put up on the web. Just my opinion.
Yes, nina, I think you are right that files should not automatically put up on the web. Mind you, I would love to see them!! I would love to be able to look at that 1300 page document, and be able to make my mind up, once and for all.
-
Yes, nina, I think you are right that files should not automatically put up on the web. Mind you, I would love to see them!! I would love to be able to look at that 1300 page document, and be able to make my mind up, once and for all.
Fair play mrswah, but the syntax on the bit of Sally what's her name 1300 pages didn't seem right to me, so I came to the conclusion that she was not English and may not have been at the trial and therefore took it with a large pinch of salt.
Why don't you try to contact her?
-
The mentioning of the CCTV of Greg and Joanna Yeates walking to work... Where was this CCTV from?? Canygne Road or on route to their place of work.. mrswah, have you every seen this CCTV?
The order in which actions take place is vital to be able to form a complete picture, Ann Reddrop tells us on one of the many TV documentaries that it is the phone ringing in Joanna Yeates pocket that the panic sets in for Greg, but it is when, he has searched her rucksack, that causes the panic.. The timing of each action is important....
We have gone from not too concerned about the whereabouts of Joanna Yeates, to the annoyance that the flat is untidy, to, not really too worried as she may turn up at work on Monday... To ringing her phone and searching her rucksack, and that was what triggered the panic....
He then calls Joanna Yeates parents at 12:36am. I believe he called the Police at 12:45am on the same Monday 20th December 2010 morning....
But according to CJ , Joanna yeates was reported missing on the 19th December 2010, it is stated in his Leveson inquiry.. So if the statement made by CJ is accurate, the only assumption I can make was that it had to be one of the friends that Greg rang before he called Joanna Yeates parents and the Police, whom informed the Police that Joanna Yeates was Missing..
#joyeates parents at 12.36am then emergency services, police arrived 2am
Emergency Services? I have to assume that was the Police... seeing as the Police turn up at 2:00am
Within an hour and 45 minutes, the Police have turned up at the flat of Joanna Yeates and Greg Reardon, based purely on a Missing person report... The flat hadn't indicated a violent struggle, or Greg would have stated so, Joanna yeates cannot have been a tidy person, if the mess hadn't alerted Greg...
He's convinced she off having fun with a friend, which friend?..... He had obviously initially thought she had gone to a friend's house:
heard it ringing in the flat, still thought she might be at friend's house
because he 'still' thought she might be at a friends house...
He appears calm if not slightly irked that she wasn't back when he returned home... Nothing unusual in that...
We know from reports he ate, he has taken until 9:00pm on Sunday 19th December 2010 to ring her, to see if she had forgotten about the apprentice show....
Her not taking her keys... her purse being in her bag, and her glasses.... Is that enough for someone, to be seen as Missing... ?
She had been to the cash point with Darragh Bellew early on the Friday 17th December 2010 evening, she could easily have taken out plenty money... If Greg was at home, as she was expecting, he could have let her in when she arrived home... The only reason I am pointing this out is because, he thought she may still turn up for work on Monday 20th December 2010..
It is what he tells the Police... so the only thing in her Rucksack is the glasses, that may make a difference, but it is difficult to know if they were important, as no medical history of Joanna Yeates was brought forth at trial..
The friends he rang cannot include Rebecca Scott... As it was the Police whom inform Rebecca Scott about her friend Joanna Yeates, Rebecca tells us this in her videoed interview..
So the full version of events are not there for the weekend of the 17th December 2010 to the 19th December 2010...
Were these friends that Greg rang ever interviewed? I have no idea... But it is always worth raising questions that give a fuller picture of events and time lines...
I still do not believe that Greg was really that concerned, I am not trying to be disrespectful, but based on what we have been told, at no point does he tell us he went out looking for her.. We know David and Teresa Yeates do this when they arrive at Joanna Yeates flat, Teresa Yeates even telling us on video that she was banging on the boots of cars, and looking over walls etc...
If memory serves me correctly Theresa Yeates tells us in an interview that it was she whom told Greg to call the Police, he does this after he comes off the phone with The Yeates...
The panic I believe is the Yeates panic, that's the impression I get, Greg is more irritated than anything else, he rang CJ, but didn't go up to his flat to disturb him on Sunday 19th December 2010, as CJ, tells us it isn't till morning that he notices on his phone that Greg had called him...
He cannot have thought Joanna Yeates had gone to see Rebecca Scott otherwise he would have rang her, but he didn't...
If Greg is trying to ascertain the whereabouts of Joanna Yeates, he may have rung her parents, on the off chance she went there... And that is when I believe the panic set in.... The Yeates themselves prompt Greg to call the Police.. As Greg has explained he was already thinking that Joanna Yeates may turn up for work on the Monday 20th December 2010 morning... So he cannot have been that worried... (imo)
We have the parents arriving and of the strong belief that their daughter has been abducted... now I still can't get my head around that, there had to be something that they knew or believed as to why someone would wish to abduct their daughter.....
They cannot ascertain from the state of the Flat anything, as Greg lives there and has gone around tidying up... Everything must have appeared quite normal when they arrived as David Yeates had even noticed the washing pile...
We know from Theresa, that she found a receipt, which indicated that Joanna Yeates had returned home...
Joanna Yeates is an adult woman, who's boyfriend of 2 years appears to be taking things in his stride, it is the impression he gives me... He appears annoyed and is only really trying to locate Joanna Yeates whereabouts... Nobody mentions Rebecca and the possibility of Joanna Yeates seeing her best friend that weekend, we have come to the end of term and everyone is going home for the Christmas holiday.. It was possible Joanna yeates went to see her best friend...
But I do not understand why no-one rang Rebecca Scott to see if she had seen or heard anything from `Joanna Yeates..
Which friends had Greg expected Joanna Yeates to see, who's house had he believed she may have gone too? It cannot have been Rebecca Scott, otherwise he would have contacted her, but that doesn't happen..
The Police arrive at 2:00am on Monday 20th December 2010, they arrive before Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja morsonarrive home, so I am trying to understand why not only did the David Yeates talk to Tanja on the lawn in the front, but they then went around to Tanja and Dr Vincent Tabak's flat to talk to them.. So too did the Police...
A couple whom did not know their neighbour apparently, being a couple of interest, as to be knocked up by the Police, to ask if they had seen Joanna Yeates... Dr Vincent Tabak whom had not long arrived back from the USA on a business trip and having no contact with the new couple next door...
CJ, on the other hand as a landlord, may or may not have seen if Joanna Yeates had ventured out that weekend, or if Joanna Yeates needed his assistance with anything that weekend, he being the most likely person to assist....
But they do not bang on his door, they for what ever reason bang on the door of the couple at number 2 flat of the same building, a couple as I have explained had no real reason to know anything about the comings and going of their new neighbours, whom they could not have noticed in such a short space of time any routines they may or may not have had... Seeing as Dr Vincent Tabak had spent weeks away in the USA, giving him little to no time at all to maybe have even seen the new couple..
I'm still confused as to why Joanna Yeates parents believed that Joanna Yeates had been abducted... I am still confused as to why they would believe she may be in the boot of any car.... I am confused as to why Greg doesn't react in the same way... so much so, he hasn't taken the time to call Joanna Yeates best friend Rebecca Scott... Or physically leave the flat to go out looking for her....
I am not trying to be disrespectful, I am trying to understand the turn of events that took place that weekend, turn of events that really should have indicated as to why Dr Vincent Tabak would be a suspect in the first place...
And why the idea that someone may have abducted Joanna Yeates was even a possibility, seeing as no indication in the flat had prompted her boyfriend to come to that conclusion...
I question the possibilities of what I see.. and I am still not clear as to how the Police turned up so quickly to the Flat of Joanna Yeates when she had been reported as a Missing person.... I believe ordinarily the Police wait 48 hours, unless someone is a vulnerable adult, or if abducted/kidnapped you would have expected something to indicate this.... (imo)
If Joanna Yeates was such a vulnerable adult, then why hadn't Greg responded in the same way? What was it that had the Yeates convinced their adult daughter had been abducted?
I have always been confused with that statement, but that is me.... And if that is what truly was believed for whatever reason, why on earth would a Dutch National, whom didn't know his next door neighbour abduct her?
There has to be something that the Yeates had either been made aware of or told, to believe that their adult daughter had been abducted...(imo) and I am not trying to be disrespectful, rather trying to understand the turn of events for that weekend come Monday Morning the time span of Friday 17th December 2010 to Monday 20th December 2010..
-
Yes, nina, I think you are right that files should not automatically put up on the web. Mind you, I would love to see them!! I would love to be able to look at that 1300 page document, and be able to make my mind up, once and for all.
I agree with you on that one mrswah.
-
I have never been happy about the conviction, so I have questioned it. That is all.
-
You've forgotten all about the weather and the state of the pavements and roads.
They needn't have necessarily walked all the way to work, think about it they could have taken the 8 or 9 bus which is just round the corner at Christchurch and has CCTV on them.
-
You state that you are not being disrespectful to Greg or Christopher Jefferies, but your insinuation lingers like a bad smell. Just my opinion.
-
You've forgotten all about the weather and the state of the pavements and roads.
They needn't have necessarily walked all the way to work, think about it they could have taken the 8 or 9 bus which is just round the corner at Christchurch and has CCTV on them.
Or they could have driven in Joanna Yeates car that is not used until that Friday evening...
So I have no idea as to why they chose to walk to work that morning, or how much snow was around, but you were in the area at the time Nina, maybe you could elaborate on the weather conditions of Friday morning the 17th December 2010..
They may have liked a stroll, so I cannot see them taking the bus, as a car was already available to them at that time....
And of course there is always the possibility that they too did a car share type of journey...
You may have hit the nail on the head.... maybe the CCTV came from a bus... But that hasn't been established, but it is true, it is a possibility..
-
You state that you are not being disrespectful to Greg or Christopher Jefferies, but your insinuation lingers like a bad smell. Just my opinion.
I am not insinuating anything, only trying to understand what happened that weekend, that is all...
-
Or they could have driven in Joanna Yeates car that is not used until that Friday evening...
So I have no idea as to why they chose to walk to work that morning, or how much snow was around, but you were in the area at the time Nina, maybe you could elaborate on the weather conditions of Friday morning the 17th December 2010..
They may have liked a stroll, so I cannot see them taking the bus, as a car was already available to them at that time....
And of course there is always the possibility that they too did a car share type of journey...
I was under the impression that the car wasn't working, remember that Greg had to get a jump start after the two of them had had lunch. We know that the two of them walked to the pub.
You try to get a parking space even back then in Bristol. So I would rule out the car.
These two people were athletic people and perhaps enjoyed a challenge, or even skied!!
As for them not taking the bus, how come you think this, were you here in Bristol in 2010?
I have been over the weather and the route that Joanna would have taken on the walk home about two years ago, but you were not interested. Look back and see.
-
Its a good job Tabak is ok with it then
[/quote
Just because we don't hear about him speaking out does not definitely mean that he is ok with it.
There his conviction remains unchallenged!
-
The route that Joanna would have taken on the walk home would have been the one that they both took in the morning. It was the only plausible one being a main road, but of course I don't know this 100%.
-
The only person i haven't covered in all this is Joanna Yeates boyfriend... Greg
Here are some of the tweets reporters tweeted at the time, from the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak..
https://twitter.com/evansma/status/125904166278275072
https://twitter.com/evansma/status/125923921613701120
https://twitter.com/stevenmorris20/status/125924909397458945
https://twitter.com/evansma/status/125925373329424384
https://twitter.com/stevenmorris20/status/125926420173168641
https://twitter.com/evansma/status/125926680329072641
https://twitter.com/evansma/status/125927663843020801
https://twitter.com/stevenmorris20/status/125927680645410816
https://twitter.com/evansma/status/125936002471706624
https://twitter.com/stevenmorris20/status/125929218935758848
https://twitter.com/stevenmorris20/status/125928034569175040
The mentioning of the CCTV of Greg and Joanna Yeates walking to work... Where was this CCTV from?? Canygne Road or on route to their place of work.. mrswah, have you every seen this CCTV?
The order in which actions take place is vital to be able to form a complete picture, Ann Reddrop tells us on one of the many TV documentaries that it is the phone ringing in Joanna Yeates pocket that the panic sets in for Greg, but it is when, he has searched her rucksack, that causes the panic.. The timing of each action is important....
We have gone from not too concerned about the whereabouts of Joanna Yeates, to the annoyance that the flat is untidy, to, not really too worried as she may turn up at work on Monday... To ringing her phone and searching her rucksack, and that was what triggered the panic....
I do not know exactly which order these tweets are in... I can use the time and in doing so he went from Panic to thinking she'd turn up for work on Monday...
He then calls Joanna Yeates parents at 12:36am he I believed called the Police at 12:45am on the same Monday 20th December 2010 morning....
But according to CJ , Joanna yeates was reported Missing on the 19th December 2010, it is stated in his Leveson inquiry.. So if the statement made by CJ is accurate, the only assumption I can make was that it had to be one of the friends that Greg rang before he called Joanna Yeates parents and the Police, whom informed the Police that Joanna Yeates was Missing..
#joyeates parents at 12.36am then emergency services, police arrived 2am
Emergency Services? I have to assume that was the Police... seeing as the Police turn up at 2:00am
Within an hour and 45 minutes, the Police have turned up at the flat of Joanna Yeates and Greg Reardon, based purely on a Missing person report... The flat hadn't indicated a violent struggle, or Greg would have stated so, Joanna yeates cannot have been a tidy person, if the mess hadn't alerted Greg...
He's convinced she off having fun with a friend, which friend?..... He had obviously initially thought she had gone to a friend's house:
heard it ringing in the flat, still thought she might be at friend's house
because he 'still' thought she might be at a friends house...
He appears calm if not slightly irked that she wasn't back when he returned home... Nothing unusual in that...
We know from reports he ate, he has taken until 9:00pm on Sunday 19th December 2010 to ring her, to see if she had forgotten about the apprentice show....
Her not taking her keys... her purse being in her bag, and her glasses.... Is that enough for someone, to be seen as Missing... ?
She had been to the cash point with Darragh Bellew early on the Friday 17th December 2010 evening, she could easily have taken out plenty money... If Greg was at home, as she was expecting, he could have let her in when she arrived home... The only reason I am pointing this out is because, he thought she may still turn up for work on Monday 20th December 2010..
It is what he tells the Police... so the only thing in her Rucksack is the glasses, that may make a difference, but it is difficult to know if they were important, as no medical history of Joanna Yeates was brought forth at trial..
The friends he rang cannot include Rebecca Scott... As it was the Police whom inform Rebecca Scott about her friend Joanna Yeates, Rebecca tells us this in her videoed interview..
So the full version of events are not there for the weekend of the 17th December 2010 to the 19th December 2010...
Were these friends that Greg rang ever interviewed? I have no idea... But it is always worth raising questions that give a fuller picture of events and time lines...
I still do not believe that Greg was really that concerned, I am not trying to be disrespectful, but based on what we have been told, at no point does he tell us he went out looking for her.. We know David and Teresa Yeates do this when they arrive at Joanna Yeates flat, Teresa Yeates even telling us on video that she was banging on the boots of cars, and looking over walls etc...
I'm trying to work out what prompts Greg...?
If memory serves me correctly Theresa Yeates tells us in an interview that it was she whom told Greg to call the Police, he does this after he comes off the phone with The Yeates...
The panic I believe is the Yeates panic, that's the impression I get, Greg is more irritated than anything else, he rang CJ, but didn't go up to his flat to disturb him on Sunday 19th December 2010, as CJ, tells us it isn't till morning that he notices on his phone that Greg had called him...
He cannot have thought Joanna Yeates had gone to see Rebecca Scott otherwise he would have rang her, but he didn't...
If Greg is trying to ascertain the whereabouts of Joanna Yeates, he may have rung her parents, on the off chance she went there... And that is when I believe the panic set in.... The Yeates themselves prompt Greg to call the Police.. As Greg has explained he was already thinking that Joanna Yeates may turn up for work on the Monday 20th December 2010 morning... So he cannot have been that worried... (imo)
We have the parents arriving and of the strong belief that their daughter has been abducted... now I still can't get my head around that, there had to be something that they knew or believed as to why someone would wish to abduct their daughter.....
They cannot ascertain from the state of the Flat anything, as Greg lives there and has gone around tidying up... Everything must have appeared quite normal when they arrived as David Yeates had even noticed the washing pile...
We know from Theresa, that she found a receipt, which indicated that Joanna Yeates had returned home...
Joanna Yeates is an adult woman, who's boyfriend of 2 years appears to be taking things in his stride, it is the impression he gives me... He appears annoyed and is only really trying to locate Joanna Yeates whereabouts... Nobody mentions Rebecca and the possibility of Joanna Yeates seeing her best friend that weekend, we have come to the end of term and everyone is going home for the Christmas holiday.. It was possible Joanna yeates went to see her best friend...
But I do not understand why no-one rang Rebecca Scott to see if she had seen or heard anything from `Joanna Yeates..
Which friends had Greg expected Joanna Yeates to see, who's house had he believed she may have gone too? It cannot have been Rebecca Scott, otherwise he would have contacted her, but that doesn't happen..
The Police arrive at 2:00am on Monday 20th December 2010, they arrive before Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja morsonarrive home, so I am trying to understand why not only did the David Yeates talk to Tanja on the lawn in the front, but they then went around to Tanja and Dr Vincent Tabak's flat to talk to them.. So too did the Police...
A couple whom did not know their neighbour apparently, being a couple of interest, as to be knocked up by the Police, to ask if they had seen Joanna Yeates... Dr Vincent Tabak whom had not long arrived back from the USA on a business trip and having no contact with the new couple next door...
CJ, on the other hand as a landlord, may or may not have seen if Joanna Yeates had ventured out that weekend, or if Joanna Yeates needed his assistance with anything that weekend, he being the most likely person to assist....
But they do not bang on his door, they for what ever reason bang on the door of the couple at number 2 flat of the same building, a couple as I have explained had no real reason to know anything about the comings and going of their new neighbours, whom they could not have noticed in such a short space of time any routines they may or may not have had... Seeing as Dr Vincent Tabak had spent weeks away in the USA, giving him little to no time at all to maybe have even seen the new couple..
I'm still confused as to why Joanna Yeates parents believed that Joanna Yeates had been abducted... I am still confused as to why they would believe she may be in the boot of any car.... I am confused as to why Greg doesn't react in the same way... so much so, he hasn't taken the time to call Joanna Yeates best friend Rebecca Scott... Or physically leave the flat to go out looking for her....
I am not trying to be disrespectful, I am trying to understand the turn of events that took place that weekend, turn of events that really should have indicated as to why Dr Vincent Tabak would be a suspect in the first place...
And why the idea that someone may have abducted Joanna Yeates was even a possibility, seeing as no indication in the flat had prompted her boyfriend to come to that conclusion...
I question the possibilities of what I see.. and I am still not clear as to how the Police turned up so quickly to the Flat of Joanna Yeates when she had been reported as a Missing person.... I believe ordinarily the Police wait 48 hours, unless someone is a vulnerable adult, or if abducted/kidnapped you would have expected something to indicate this.... (imo)
If Joanna Yeates was such a vulnerable adult, then why hadn't Greg responded in the same way? What was it that had the Yeates convinced their adult daughter had been abducted?
I have always been confused with that statement, but that is me.... And if that is what truly was believed for whatever reason, why on earth would a Dutch National, whom didn't know his next door neighbour abduct her?
There has to be something that the Yeates had either been made aware of or told, to believe that their adult daughter had been abducted...(imo) and I am not trying to be disrespectful, rather trying to understand the turn of events for that weekend come Monday Morning the time span of Friday 17th December 2010 to Monday 20th December 2010..
How long do your posts actually have to be? Thought we were sticking to facts only.
Shame you don't apply so many questions with Tabaks guilt in your mind and work backwards
-
Or they could have driven in Joanna Yeates car that is not used until that Friday evening...
So I have no idea as to why they chose to walk to work that morning, or how much snow was around, but you were in the area at the time Nina, maybe you could elaborate on the weather conditions of Friday morning the 17th December 2010..
They may have liked a stroll, so I cannot see them taking the bus, as a car was already available to them at that time....
And of course there is always the possibility that they too did a car share type of journey...
I was under the impression that the car wasn't working, remember that Greg had to get a jump start after the two of them had had lunch. We know that the two of them walked to the pub.
You try to get a parking space even back then in Bristol. So I would rule out the car.
These two people were athletic people and perhaps enjoyed a challenge, or even skied!!
As for them not taking the bus, how come you think this, were you here in Bristol in 2010?
I have been over the weather and the route that Joanna would have taken on the walk home about two years ago, but you were not interested. Look back and see.
Here is what you said:
(6) Did it snow on Friday 17th December 2010? ........ No, it started snowing heavily approx. 1.30am Saturday 18th December.
Like most towns Bristol Council clear the main roads of snow, the rest is left to residents or the shops to clear or not to clear. Park Street is a hill and also a main thoroughfare so it was cleared of snow. Waitrose is on the triangle at the top of Park Street and so that too was cleared of snow.
Bristol did have snow, off the top of my head, about 4-5 days before the 17th, but remember it was icy cold and snow cleared or not turned to ice.
So the CCTV mentioning the walking to work without where or timestamp, is difficult to pinpoint, as you can see by your own posts, that giving an option of them not leaving from their own home that morning, maybe they were elsewhere, where it had snowed. I do not know... As I haven't seen the CCTV of this journey of the two of them...
It has been noted about what you stated and that goes with the statement made by DCI Phil Jones on video that it snowed at 2:00am on the Saturday 18th December 2010..
They may or may not have left for work from Canygne Road, I cannot say that for sure... And it is known in general, that one area can have snow whilst another area is free from snow some miles apart, depending on the height of said area...
Just a thought..
-
I knew that you would have kept copies of posts !! Sad.
Canynge Rd like most of the residential roads in Clifton had not been totally cleared from the snowfall of 4 days prior to the 17/10/2010. Just the odd driveway cleared by the owner, the road was ok'ish because cars had passed over it.
You have to remember that during those 4 days the weather was well below freezing with a biting wind, so the snow shovelled from driveways were still mounds of ice on Friday 17th. There was also black ice on both the road and pavements.
Also you have to get from Clifton village to Park Street which is quite a way from the village.
You are correct about the weather being different on the other side of town, the other week a friend who lives over in Totterdown commented on the thunder storm that they had had. In Clifton we just had light rain for about 5 minutes.
-
The mentioning of the CCTV of Greg and Joanna Yeates walking to work... Where was this CCTV from?? Canygne Road or on route to their place of work.. mrswah, have you every seen this CCTV?
The order in which actions take place is vital to be able to form a complete picture, Ann Reddrop tells us on one of the many TV documentaries that it is the phone ringing in Joanna Yeates pocket that the panic sets in for Greg, but it is when, he has searched her rucksack, that causes the panic.. The timing of each action is important....
We have gone from not too concerned about the whereabouts of Joanna Yeates, to the annoyance that the flat is untidy, to, not really too worried as she may turn up at work on Monday... To ringing her phone and searching her rucksack, and that was what triggered the panic....
He then calls Joanna Yeates parents at 12:36am. I believe he called the Police at 12:45am on the same Monday 20th December 2010 morning....
But according to CJ , Joanna yeates was reported missing on the 19th December 2010, it is stated in his Leveson inquiry.. So if the statement made by CJ is accurate, the only assumption I can make was that it had to be one of the friends that Greg rang before he called Joanna Yeates parents and the Police, whom informed the Police that Joanna Yeates was Missing..
#joyeates parents at 12.36am then emergency services, police arrived 2am
Emergency Services? I have to assume that was the Police... seeing as the Police turn up at 2:00am
Within an hour and 45 minutes, the Police have turned up at the flat of Joanna Yeates and Greg Reardon, based purely on a Missing person report... The flat hadn't indicated a violent struggle, or Greg would have stated so, Joanna yeates cannot have been a tidy person, if the mess hadn't alerted Greg...
He's convinced she off having fun with a friend, which friend?..... He had obviously initially thought she had gone to a friend's house:
heard it ringing in the flat, still thought she might be at friend's house
because he 'still' thought she might be at a friends house...
He appears calm if not slightly irked that she wasn't back when he returned home... Nothing unusual in that...
We know from reports he ate, he has taken until 9:00pm on Sunday 19th December 2010 to ring her, to see if she had forgotten about the apprentice show....
Her not taking her keys... her purse being in her bag, and her glasses.... Is that enough for someone, to be seen as Missing... ?
She had been to the cash point with Darragh Bellew early on the Friday 17th December 2010 evening, she could easily have taken out plenty money... If Greg was at home, as she was expecting, he could have let her in when she arrived home... The only reason I am pointing this out is because, he thought she may still turn up for work on Monday 20th December 2010..
It is what he tells the Police... so the only thing in her Rucksack is the glasses, that may make a difference, but it is difficult to know if they were important, as no medical history of Joanna Yeates was brought forth at trial..
The friends he rang cannot include Rebecca Scott... As it was the Police whom inform Rebecca Scott about her friend Joanna Yeates, Rebecca tells us this in her videoed interview..
So the full version of events are not there for the weekend of the 17th December 2010 to the 19th December 2010...
Were these friends that Greg rang ever interviewed? I have no idea... But it is always worth raising questions that give a fuller picture of events and time lines...
I still do not believe that Greg was really that concerned, I am not trying to be disrespectful, but based on what we have been told, at no point does he tell us he went out looking for her.. We know David and Teresa Yeates do this when they arrive at Joanna Yeates flat, Teresa Yeates even telling us on video that she was banging on the boots of cars, and looking over walls etc...
If memory serves me correctly Theresa Yeates tells us in an interview that it was she whom told Greg to call the Police, he does this after he comes off the phone with The Yeates...
The panic I believe is the Yeates panic, that's the impression I get, Greg is more irritated than anything else, he rang CJ, but didn't go up to his flat to disturb him on Sunday 19th December 2010, as CJ, tells us it isn't till morning that he notices on his phone that Greg had called him...
He cannot have thought Joanna Yeates had gone to see Rebecca Scott otherwise he would have rang her, but he didn't...
If Greg is trying to ascertain the whereabouts of Joanna Yeates, he may have rung her parents, on the off chance she went there... And that is when I believe the panic set in.... The Yeates themselves prompt Greg to call the Police.. As Greg has explained he was already thinking that Joanna Yeates may turn up for work on the Monday 20th December 2010 morning... So he cannot have been that worried... (imo)
We have the parents arriving and of the strong belief that their daughter has been abducted... now I still can't get my head around that, there had to be something that they knew or believed as to why someone would wish to abduct their daughter.....
They cannot ascertain from the state of the Flat anything, as Greg lives there and has gone around tidying up... Everything must have appeared quite normal when they arrived as David Yeates had even noticed the washing pile...
We know from Theresa, that she found a receipt, which indicated that Joanna Yeates had returned home...
Joanna Yeates is an adult woman, who's boyfriend of 2 years appears to be taking things in his stride, it is the impression he gives me... He appears annoyed and is only really trying to locate Joanna Yeates whereabouts... Nobody mentions Rebecca and the possibility of Joanna Yeates seeing her best friend that weekend, we have come to the end of term and everyone is going home for the Christmas holiday.. It was possible Joanna yeates went to see her best friend...
But I do not understand why no-one rang Rebecca Scott to see if she had seen or heard anything from `Joanna Yeates..
Which friends had Greg expected Joanna Yeates to see, who's house had he believed she may have gone too? It cannot have been Rebecca Scott, otherwise he would have contacted her, but that doesn't happen..
The Police arrive at 2:00am on Monday 20th December 2010, they arrive before Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja morsonarrive home, so I am trying to understand why not only did the David Yeates talk to Tanja on the lawn in the front, but they then went around to Tanja and Dr Vincent Tabak's flat to talk to them.. So too did the Police...
A couple whom did not know their neighbour apparently, being a couple of interest, as to be knocked up by the Police, to ask if they had seen Joanna Yeates... Dr Vincent Tabak whom had not long arrived back from the USA on a business trip and having no contact with the new couple next door...
CJ, on the other hand as a landlord, may or may not have seen if Joanna Yeates had ventured out that weekend, or if Joanna Yeates needed his assistance with anything that weekend, he being the most likely person to assist....
But they do not bang on his door, they for what ever reason bang on the door of the couple at number 2 flat of the same building, a couple as I have explained had no real reason to know anything about the comings and going of their new neighbours, whom they could not have noticed in such a short space of time any routines they may or may not have had... Seeing as Dr Vincent Tabak had spent weeks away in the USA, giving him little to no time at all to maybe have even seen the new couple..
I'm still confused as to why Joanna Yeates parents believed that Joanna Yeates had been abducted... I am still confused as to why they would believe she may be in the boot of any car.... I am confused as to why Greg doesn't react in the same way... so much so, he hasn't taken the time to call Joanna Yeates best friend Rebecca Scott... Or physically leave the flat to go out looking for her....
I am not trying to be disrespectful, I am trying to understand the turn of events that took place that weekend, turn of events that really should have indicated as to why Dr Vincent Tabak would be a suspect in the first place...
And why the idea that someone may have abducted Joanna Yeates was even a possibility, seeing as no indication in the flat had prompted her boyfriend to come to that conclusion...
I question the possibilities of what I see.. and I am still not clear as to how the Police turned up so quickly to the Flat of Joanna Yeates when she had been reported as a Missing person.... I believe ordinarily the Police wait 48 hours, unless someone is a vulnerable adult, or if abducted/kidnapped you would have expected something to indicate this.... (imo)
If Joanna Yeates was such a vulnerable adult, then why hadn't Greg responded in the same way? What was it that had the Yeates convinced their adult daughter had been abducted?
I have always been confused with that statement, but that is me.... And if that is what truly was believed for whatever reason, why on earth would a Dutch National, whom didn't know his next door neighbour abduct her?
There has to be something that the Yeates had either been made aware of or told, to believe that their adult daughter had been abducted...(imo) and I am not trying to be disrespectful, rather trying to understand the turn of events for that weekend come Monday Morning the time span of Friday 17th December 2010 to Monday 20th December 2010..
I have trimmed this post down slightly as it far exceeds what is acceptable as content in a single post.
-
I knew that you would have kept copies of posts !! Sad.
Canynge Rd like most of the residential roads in Clifton had not been totally cleared from the snowfall of 4 days prior to the 17/10/2010. Just the odd driveway cleared by the owner, the road was ok'ish because cars had passed over it.
You have to remember that during those 4 days the weather was well below freezing with a biting wind, so the snow shovelled from driveways were still mounds of ice on Friday 17th. There was also black ice on both the road and pavements.
Also you have to get from Clifton village to Park Street which is quite a way from the village.
You are correct about the weather being different on the other side of town, the other week a friend who lives over in Totterdown commented on the thunder storm that they had had. In Clifton we just had light rain for about 5 minutes.
I just looked at your posts Nina and found when you posted about the snow... firstly by looking at your profile, and staring at the beginning of what you had posted soon coming to the post about the snow..
-
And could 6 dots please use a proper username.
-
I have trimmed this post down slightly as it far exceeds what is acceptable as content in a single post.
I understand your concern Angelo222, but it now takes out of context, what I had written, and having the supporting information as to where i gained the conclusions my post states...
As I always like to evidence where I have obtained the information I post about regarding this case, i have always felt it important to show where this information was obtained...
But you are the moderator and I cannot argue with your decisions...
Having the supporting information is why my posts tend to be so long.... sorry..
-
Martin Brunt
Verified account
@skymartinbrunt
Follow Follow @skymartinbrunt
More
Jo Yeates murder trial: Jury watching CCTV of her journey home through Clifton village the night she died
3:40 AM - 10 Oct 2011
https://twitter.com/skymartinbrunt/status/123347261328592897
Martin Brunt
Verified account
@skymartinbrunt
Follow Follow @skymartinbrunt
More
Jo Yeates murder trial: Jury see CCTV "showing her texting" while buying cider on night she died
3:47 AM - 10 Oct 2011
https://twitter.com/skymartinbrunt/status/123348985770541056
Two important tweets from the SkyNews reporter:
CCTV footage showing Joanna Yeates journey home, a journey that would show whether or not Joanna Yeates reached home, CCTV footage that has not been released, which may or may not make aspects clearer.
Colin Port states at the Leveson that the Hophouse Pub was the last known sighting of Joanna yeates, even though the images from that pub were grainy, unless Joanna yeates actually went inside the Hophouse pub, which is not known.
How much of the journey did this CCTV show, or is it basically the clips we have seen of Joanna Yeates in The Ram pub and inside 3 shops??
The Texting whilst in the Bargain Booze shop where Joanna Yeates bought Cider is important to evaluate, whom she text and what time this text was. Joanna Yeates phone will record the time of the text and Bargain Booze would have not only the CCTV recored time but possibly the receipt from her purchase too would show the time of purchase.
It would give a more accurate picture of the time Joanna Yeates entered the shop...
The Killers program at 7:24 into the video, shows the time of the CCTV as 8:34pm, which I find a little odd as I would have expected a 24 hour clock to be available showing an exact time of entry to the shop, seeing as this documentary was made after the trial.
The Mirror report after the trial that Joanna Yeates was in bargain Booze at:
8.29pm: Miss Yeates buys two bottles of cider in Bargain Booze in Clifton Village.
Here's the complete timeline from The Mirror:
4.45pm: Mr Reardon walks to his girlfriend's office to say goodbye before driving to Sheffield to visit his family before Christmas.
5.20pm: Mr Reardon arrives home and is ready to set off at 6pm but Miss Yeates' Ford Ka will not start.
Around 6.00pm: Miss Yeates arrives at the Bristol Ram pub near her office for drinks with work colleagues.
6.40pm: Tabak arrives at Bristol Temple Meads train station and then cycles home to Canynge Road.
6.50pm: A neighbour helps to start the car and Mr Reardon leaves for Sheffield, arriving at 10.10pm.
7.15pm: Tabak sends his girlfriend a text from home saying "love you too" and "missing you" before she attends her employers' Christmas party.
7.46pm: Tabak is at home on his computer. He looks at a Dutch newspaper, a bank website, Google and the webmail for vacuum cleaner firm Dyson where Miss Morson works.
8.29pm: Miss Yeates buys two bottles of cider in Bargain Booze in Clifton Village.
8.33pm: The final CCTV sighting of Miss Yeates as she walks across a junction near the Hop House pub, 632 yards from home.
8.40pm to 8.45pm: She chats about the slippery pavement with a priest walking his dog.
Shortly before 8.49pm: A couple hear a woman scream twice as they arrive for a party across the road from Miss Yeates's flat in Canynge Road.
9.25pm: Tabak sends his girlfriend a text saying: "Miss you loads. It's boring here without you V xx". The prosecution claim that was after he killed the blonde landscape architect.
10.30pm: Around the same time Mr Reardon rings his girlfriend on their landline but does not get an answer. He then texts her saying: "Made it ok. Good traffic. Car wouldn't start had to get neighbour to start it. Ok now. Did you have a good time in the pub?" Mr Reardon does not get a reply.
:: Saturday December 18, 1.38am: Tabak collects Miss Morson. They are filmed arm in arm, by CCTV cameras as they go to a takeaway for food.
:: Sunday December 19: Mr Reardon reports Miss Yeates missing when he returns to Bristol from a weekend away visiting relatives in Sheffield.
Two notable points from the Mirrors coverage, it completely leaves out the Tesco's purchase of the Pizza, even though an image of the Pizza is shown in the article and the text that Dr Vincent Tabak sent Tanja
Tabak sends his girlfriend a text from home saying "love you too" and "missing you" before she attends her employers' Christmas party.
That text had me going back to what I had suggested the other text Dr Vincent Tabak sent meant.
I had suggested that the other text meant that Dr Vincent Tabak was possibly in Amsterdam at the time, we do not know the exact time and date.
"love you too" and "missing you"
Missing you loads, I'm Bored, VXXX
Two text messages that could be interpreted in a different way... There was a report in the Express I believe which had an interview with Dr Vincent Tabak and he says he wasn't here on the night Joanna Yeates disappeared, put that together with these 2 texts and you have a conversation between Tanja and Dr Vincent Tabak explaining how he is in Amsterdam and bored..
His first text from Home, does he mean Canynge Road?... Possibly
this explanation about the second text I have already covered..
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg528293#msg528293
The first text could be 2 answers to 2 questions, or more questions, seeing as we have never seen Tanja Morson phone record for that time we have no idea how many times she text Dr Vincent Tabak, she may have loved to text, she was obviously missing Dr Vincent Tabak as his responses suggest a mutual exchange..
The first text uses only 20 characters including spaces, are those words the only words within the text? were more characters used? Are the texts in the correct order? I do not know, as I haven't seen them only the reports, which brings me back to the Mirror's report and Missing the journey to Tesco's, and the journey in itself in a different order, as we know by the CCTV of Tesco's that Joanna Yeates was in there at 8:36pm at least..
If it is not possible to establish an accurate time of events for Joanna Yeates journey home, why accept that the two text messages were sent at certain times and in a certain order... There has never been any CCTV evidence showing Dr Vincent Tabak at Adsa sending a text as we are told he did..
The timings of this cases do not add up... that is plain to see... And the lack of other texts from either Tanja or Dr Vincent Tabak, makes it difficult to understand the full sequence of events, that and Tanja Morson being absent from the trial.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murder-trial-timeline-274703
-
* Three texts..
* CCTV footage of Dr Vincent Tabak entering Asda, with no time stamp
* CCTV footage of a car being driven down Park Street with no time stamp
* An interview with the Express saying he was here on the night Joanna Yeates went Missing
4 pieces of information that if interpreted differently could give a complete different outlook on Dr Vincent Tabak's journey
It is feasible that Dr Vincent Tabak did not go to the party with Tanja as he was not here, he was journeying back to his Flat in Canygne Road after being in Amsterdam..
His trip to Asda simply could have been on his way back from the Airport, rather than him driving aimlessly to the Airport, He purchased beer crisps and Rock salt.
He texts Tanja to tell her where he is, the infamous text that apparently shows guilt:
How are you. I am at the Asda buying some crisis
DCI Phil Jones states that Dr Vincent Tabak had meant to write the word crisps, but how do we know that? Did he actually buy any crisps? And why would he tell Tanja that, when the characters in texts at that time were limited...
As a person we have no idea what type of sense of humour Dr Vincent Tabak may have, the word CRISIS, could have meant something entirely different, but it was suggested that it was because of guilt or panic he made this unsubconcious error and wrote the word crisis instead of crisps..
We see Dr Vincent Tabak leaving Asda with a bag under his arm which may be the rock salt and a carrier bag, containing ?? We have never seen the receipt from this purchase, which would clearly show us the purchases made..
Did Dr Vincent Tabak enter Asda on his way back from the Airport? He entered Asda twice apparently, and there must have been a reason for this.. Did Tanja text him to tell him of the black ice that Nina has spoken of?
Friday 17th December 2010 Dr Vincent Tabak sends the text telling Tanja that he's
Missing you loads, I'm Bored, VXXX Explaining as i have suggested that he'd been at the Hotel "V" in Amsterdam and was bored, Missing her loads..
So did Tanja Morson text Dr Vincent Tabak whilst he was in ASDA? or when he'd jus left ASDA?
Was the text which is telling Tanja he is bored replied to? Did she ask him where he was?
And he replied;
How are you. I am at the Asda buying some crisis
Crisis possibly meaning beer... there are craft beers today called "Crisis" and Midlife Crisis'... maybe it was a term he used to describe the purchase of beer.. Or maybe it was tobacco he'd popped in for and then the text exchange between him and Tanja happened..
So what was Tanja's response?
My suggestions are no different to the prosecutions suggestions really, they suggested that Dr Vincent Tabak had Joanna Yeates in the car boot when he went to Asda and his journey was captured on CCTV on Park Street..
Park Streets CCTV is on the 18th December 2010, so that suggestion by the prosecution cannot be accurate..
So here is my suggestion for Dr Vincent Tabak's journey that evening, he's returned from the Airport and texts Tanja Missing you loads, I'm Bored, VXXX then enters Asda, he buys some Tobacco or maybe a lottery ticket on his way home.. She may text him asking him what he is doing, his reply is the infamous text
How are you. I am at the Asda buying some crisis
So does she text him again to explain about the icy conditions making his re-enty into Asda make sense, where he purchases some Rock Salt and Beer?
The last text being love you too" and "missing you that he had arrived back to Canynge Road and was telling her how much he loved and had Missed her?
So what times does he arrive back at Canynge Road? after he has been to Asda? Was the rock salt ever used or were the conditions at Canygne Road not as icy as he maybe anticipated?
Any combination of events can be applied to the timelines, and the reports in the media show us they have changed the combination of events on many occasions... So why is it we stick with the apparent combination of events for Dr Vincent Tabak, a combination of events he gathered from media stories at the time.. A combination of events that anyone could have clubbed together..
But if he was simply returning from Amsterdam that evening, and pops into Asda to buy tobacco for instance, maybe feeling slightly stressed after all the work he has done, then exchanges messages with Tanja and returns to Asda to buy Rock Salt and beer, leaving Asda and then returning home to Canygne Road...
The Police speak to everyone in the house, they had times in which they believed that Joanna Yeates had been Missing from, that being after she was last seen on CCTV and that being Friday 17th December 2010.. The Police could have been precise about the time they believed Joanna Yeates was last seen when speaking to the tenants and that is why Dr Vincent Tabak tell the express he wasn't here at the time..
We have no-one from Dr Vincent Tabak's place of work putting him at work that day... as far as I can remember, which also maybe supports the idea that he was not there at the Buro Happold Office that day....
And my scenario of an alternative answer to Dr Vincent Tabak's movements making more sense, than an intelligent man randomly killing his next door neighbour he has never met for no apparent reason..
Adding that to CJ statement of snow and seeing Dr Vincent Tabak in a elated mood, could support that Dr Vincent tabak was seen on the Saturday 18th December 2010 by CJ, as it snowed... a light dusting I believe... CJ isn't 100% it was Friday 17th December 2010 that he went to the gym, in his Leveson statement , he says he believes it was Friday 17th December 2010 he went to the gym... So maybe he didn't see Dr Vincent Tabak on the 17th December 2010 and it was the 18th..
If Dr Vincent Tabak had arrived back from Amsterdam on the 17th at a later time, then gone to Asda from the Airport, he would not have seen CJ going to the gym on the Friday... CJ could go to the gym multiple times, but establishing the day in which he conversed with Dr Vincent Tabak is important... The elated mood could simply be put down to him being on Holiday and not working, and being at home with Tanja...
There are many ways in which to interpret, the information we know about, but without all the pieces it is difficult to know for a fact.. So why is so much information Missing??
The texts of Dr Vincent Tabak need looking at in the context of the reply he gave to what Tanja had said, and Tanja,s texts need to be seen also, so a clearer picture go what the events of that evening were and not a scenario made by the prosecution and the defence of how events unfolded..
As I have proven, there are many ways in which something can be interpreted, especially with all the time stamps Missing..(imo)
There is very little if anything left to say, other than everyone believes that Joanna Yeates was dead by 9:30pm on Friday 17th December 2010..
What if anything actually establishes that fact, is a mystery, but the 17th December 2010 has always been the date of her disappearance, and the facebook page set up by friends and family has this date as their title.. And that meaning in my eyes there was a reason she was Missing from that date... And not because Dr Vincent Tabak tells a tale on the stand... That date was established before she was found dead..
Another point to add, The Mirror article states this timeline;
7.46pm: Tabak is at home on his computer. He looks at a Dutch newspaper, a bank website, Google and the webmail for vacuum cleaner firm Dyson where Miss Morson works.
7:46pm at home on his computer? A couple of points there... Is home Amsterdam? Is the computer his laptop? Is he checking things whilst waiting for his flight back to Bristol that evening? Is that why Longwood lane appears on a search, as a possible route home to canynge Road..
Again 7:46 pm.... What time was his computer set too? UK time? Or Amsterdam time??
If he is in Amsterdam as I have suggested, then the time he actually looked up anything on his computer would be an hour ahead of UK time.. making him sat at the Airport at 6:46pm that evening and not 7:46pm that evening if we are talking UK time..... Having correct times for events making the whole weekend make more sense... There has been no clarification about what the times Dr Vincent Tabak's computers/ devices had been set too.. No analysis of these devices to correctly pinpoint times of anything, just a few random times that appear to support a version of events told on the stand...
A flight time of an hour and 15 minutes, bringing him back to Bristol in plenty of time to stop of at Asda to maybe buy some Tobacco... Maybe he wanted a spliff, and Crisis was a term used for that.... We don't know... Then the texts between him and Tanja meaning what I have suggested... Giving us a completely different scenario of what Dr Vincent Tabak actually did on the weekend of the 17th December 2010 to the 19th December 2010..
Back then I do not know what the flight times between Amsterdam and Bristol were, they may have changed, they may not have changed, but 4 flights per day give us these times now..
10:00-10:15
13:00-13-15
19:20-19:40
22:00 -22:10
Giving the possibility that there were flights at the time coming from Amsterdam to bristol, in the time frame Dr Vincent Tabak had....
NB: My posts are my thoughts and scenario's about the case, based on reports, video's and The Leveson statements, a case that doesn't sit right, a case that has niggled me for an age.. You may not agree with what I have posted, but it might be food for thought.. And therefore may explain why Tanja was never called to the stand at trial...
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murder-trial-timeline-274703
-
And could 6 dots please use a proper username.
Do I have to change it? Is it part of forum rules? Maybe someone could suggest a user name...
-
Do I have to change it? Is it part of forum rules? Maybe someone could suggest a user name...
WHY do you keep banging on about why various persons weren't called as witnesses? Can you not understand that once Tabak -or any other suspect- has admitted their guilt, there's nothing for a prosecution to prove, therefore calling witnesses makes for unnecessary work, not to mention expense to the tax-payer.
Re the changing of you name. As you've already changed it -of your own volition- several times, I don't know why your questioning this request. I'm confident that many here could create a name for you. Whether or not you'd find them acceptable is a different question.
-
If he is in Amsterdam as I have suggested,
He wasn't in Amsterdam and the suggestion is ludicrous also, there is a time stamp on the Asda Video! It's simply not very clear on the internet examples.
-
He wasn't in Amsterdam and the suggestion is ludicrous also, there is a time stamp on the Asda Video! It's simply not very clear on the internet examples.
Here he is on the way in, 17/12/2010... but it's just an actor, not the real Vincent Tabak (in ......'s opinion).
(https://i.imgur.com/waeoOZ0.jpg)
-
Here he is on the way in, 17/12/2010... but it's just an actor, not the real Vincent Tabak (in ......'s opinion).
(https://i.imgur.com/waeoOZ0.jpg)
'Course it isn't. Anyone can see it's What's'isface off Eastenders. Better check his filming schedules.
-
'Course it isn't. Anyone can see it's What's'isface off Eastenders. Better check his filming schedules.
That's 'im... Dirty Den. Hadn't kicked the bucket in 2010.
-
He wasn't in Amsterdam and the suggestion is ludicrous also, there is a time stamp on the Asda Video! It's simply not very clear on the internet examples.
So, what does the time stamp say, Caroline? I can't make head or tail of it.
-
...... you've forgotten the weather again. As I remember it there were no flights in or out of Bristol International Airport for at least 2+ days, because of temperatures of around -7C.
So VT was not in Amsterdam but at home murdering his neighbour. Just my opinion.
-
So, what does the time stamp say, Caroline? I can't make head or tail of it.
NETFLIX 17/12/2010 (https://i.imgur.com/iI2CkNU.gif)
-
...... you've forgotten the weather again. As I remember it there were no flights in or out of Bristol International Airport for at least 2+ days, because of temperatures of around -7C.
So VT was not in Amsterdam but at home murdering his neighbour. Just my opinion.
My opinion too, that he was at home on the 17th. He and Tanja did go to Holland (but not Amsterdam) for New year, and I remember reading that they went by car and Eurotunnel.
-
NETFLIX 17/12/2010 (https://i.imgur.com/iI2CkNU.gif)
Ha ha. It does seem very strange that the date is very clear, but the time isn't.
-
He wasn't in Amsterdam and the suggestion is ludicrous also, there is a time stamp on the Asda Video! It's simply not very clear on the internet examples.
Its not Rocket Science is it Caroline. The Jury was shown the images so it must have had them on.
Date/timestamp: For video images to be admissible as evidence in a court of law, they must have a clear date/timestamp. This enables law enforcement/prosecution to prove that the incident in question occurred at the said date and time. Date/time stamping also helps in proving that a suspect was present at the scene of crime.
-
NETFLIX 17/12/2010 (https://i.imgur.com/iI2CkNU.gif)
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Ha ha. It does seem very strange that the date is very clear, but the time isn't.
\why is that strange? If someone wanted to fake the image they would make sure the time and date were both clearly visible. Why make the date visible and not the time? We know what time Tabak went to ASDA because he said so.
-
...... you've forgotten the weather again. As I remember it there were no flights in or out of Bristol International Airport for at least 2+ days, because of temperatures of around -7C.
So VT was not in Amsterdam but at home murdering his neighbour. Just my opinion.
There was then more snow on December 17 at Bristol Airport, followed by more three days later.
-
Ha ha. It does seem very strange that the date is very clear, but the time isn't.
Only to some 👍
-
Ha ha. It does seem very strange that the date is very clear, but the time isn't.
There either isn't a time (doubtful), or any numbers (before the illegible letters) are white, the same colour as the lampshade and are therefore hard to make out.
-
10:30 pm, take it or leave it... https://youtu.be/imdWN6n2gIQ?t=1953 (https://youtu.be/imdWN6n2gIQ?t=1953)
-
NETFLIX 17/12/2010 (https://i.imgur.com/iI2CkNU.gif)
Ha ha ha ha ha...
I didn't say that was exactly what Dr Vincent Tabak did, I brought it forward as a scenario... With so much information at trial being omitted, the possibilities are endless...
Me having a different scenario to others, really isn't that far fetched, when you consider that The Judge Rinder program 'Countdown to Murder".. has their own made up version of events... A program made after the trial....
Joanna Yeates is seen in a pink flowered patterned top in that program, she wears it all day long, even at lunch time... just as Dr Delaney had mentioned, a flower patterned pink top... and this was reported in the papers...
Yet in The Ram Pub Joanna Yeates is clearly wearing a plain top....
So when did she change her clothes?? When did she go home? Too many unanswered questions, to be happy with a version of events stated on the stand that could have been taken from any media report at the time..
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15798;image)
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15800;image)
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15802;image)
-
Ha ha ha ha ha...
I didn't say that was exactly what Dr Vincent Tabak did, I brought it forward as a scenario... With so much information at trial being omitted, the possibilities are endless...
Me having a different scenario to others, really isn't that far fetched, when you consider that The Judge Rinder program 'Countdown to Murder".. has their own made up version of events... A program made after the trial....
Joanna Yeates is seen in a pink flowered patterned top in that program, she wears it all day long, even at lunch time... just as Dr Delaney had mentioned, a flower patterned pink top... and this was reported in the papers...
Yet in The Ram Pub Joanna Yeates is clearly wearing a plain top....
So when did she change her clothes?? When did she go home? Too many unanswered questions, to be happy with a version of events stated on the stand that could have been taken from any media report at the time..
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15798;image)
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15800;image)
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15802;image)
You can't tell if the top has a pattern on it or not.
-
You can't tell if the top has a pattern on it or not.
Could say the same about the person in the video... Can you tell if it is Joanna Yeates? Could be... or someone similar?
Just a thought...
-
Here as she is leaving the Ram, her face is pixelated.. Difficult to tell who it is.. to be honest.... In fact there's a rather large square area going right across her face...
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15804;image)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxJwSkKu4IY
-
Could say the same about the person in the video... Can you tell if it is Joanna Yeates? Could be... or someone similar?
Just a thought...
Just helps a little when the person in question confirms it’s him don’t you think, poor Joanna never got the chance to defend herself.
Timeline 39- you ultimately went to Asda at approx 10.13 pm
Why did you go to the Asda supermarket? Tabak: I was not thinking straight. I think I took upon my original plan to go to Asda.
sent a text message to Tanja ‘How are you? I am at Asda. Buying some crisis.’ How did you feel?
Tabak: I just wanted to hear her voice; to get support and comfort.
Just a thought
-
Here as she is leaving the Ram, her face is pixelated.. Difficult to tell who it is.. to be honest.... In fact there's a rather large square area going right across her face...
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15804;image)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxJwSkKu4IY
Her face is pixelated on a picture copied from the original found on the internet, but it was clearly confirmed as was the fact that her top was patterend so whether it looks patterned to you or I, it must have been!
-
Just helps a little when the person in question confirms it’s him don’t you think, poor Joanna never got the chance to defend herself.
Timeline 39- you ultimately went to Asda at approx 10.13 pm
Why did you go to the Asda supermarket? Tabak: I was not thinking straight. I think I took upon my original plan to go to Asda.
sent a text message to Tanja ‘How are you? I am at Asda. Buying some crisis.’ How did you feel?
Tabak: I just wanted to hear her voice; to get support and comfort.
Just a thought
sent a text message to Tanja ‘How are you? I am at Asda. Buying some crisis.’ How did you feel?
Tabak: I just wanted to hear her voice; to get support and comfort.
Your quote is from the Sally Ramage papers... And looking at that I was always in two minds why it didn't appear to make sense..
I do not know whom Sally Ramage is, but mrswah informed the forum that this lady was at trial and she works in a legal capacity apparently.
I had used the Sally Ramage papers before, but I do not know whether this was what was stated at trial, so it is difficult to know if it is an accurate translation of the exchange between Dr Vincent Tabak and The Defence, or the prosecution...
This is one of the reasons, I started to use what was stated in the Leveson and any TV interviews people had given..
But I'll go with your quote for now, and try and understand what Dr Vincent Tabak's response meant..
sent a text message to Tanja ‘How are you? I am at Asda. Buying some crisis.’ How did you feel?
Tabak: I just wanted to hear her voice; to get support and comfort.
The only way in which Dr Vincent Tabak would hear anyone's voice from receiving a text, would be the notification sound set on his phone...
Therefore the only conclusion I can come to was that he somehow had Joanna Yeates voice on his phone, in one form or another...
But on saying that... the conclusion I would come to is he therefore had to know Joanna Yeates in some capacity...
Why would everyone therefore pretend he didn't know her?
I'm trying to understand what type of recording it could have been...
Looking at that again, it doesn't make sense, he wants the response from sending the text, maybe that is what is being referred too..
So didn't he physically type the text?
Did he speak the words?
The idea that Dr Vincent Tabak had a Blackberry phone, comes from the depiction in the Judge Rinder program, but for arguments sake lets say he did...
There's an app and at the time there was an app called Vlingo, a bit like Siri for Blackberry , where you could speak into the phone and it would record text messages and then it would read text messages/emails back to you that you had received.
Maybe Dr Vincent Tabak had such an app...
If that was the case, firstly the word in the text being "Crisis".. could have been an error from the app...
But going back to the wanting to hear her voice, then the voice is virtual... Not real, is that what you're trying to tell me....
Where all of the text messages and emails sent via a voice recognition app?
One thing I noticed in that text message was that there were no kisses, so I am staying with the idea at the moment that V XXX did mean
Hotel V Amsterdam, in some context...
I still do not understand why hearing her voice would bring comfort?
But it makes me question if that was the way in which Dr Vincent Tabak used his phone? If his phone was set up for a virtual assistant, then literally anyone could have sent those texts... I'm not saying they did, only that it is a possibility..
Going back to DCI Phil Jones, on one of the documentaries, he states something about a business phone... Did Dr Vincent Tabak carry both phones always?
DCI Phil Jones also says that Dr Vincent Tabak only answered to a question/questions surrounding a phone.
What were the questions? Maybe asking if it had a password to get access or not?? I have no idea....
From the Sally Ramage papers:
Did you normally take the phone when you went out?
Tabak: Yes.
Defence Counsel: When at home, where was the phone kept?
Tabak: In a little room.
Is Dr Vincent Tabak trying to say that he didn't take the phone out with him, but ordinarily would have done?
And why keep it in a little room??
What phone is he referring too?
Which little room?
A little room in his flat? or in the main house?
Is the phone the house phone?? eg: a mobile phone that is used as the house phone?
I don't know... I tie myself in knots... the possibilities are endless...
I can't get my head around, how a man can appear at trial, and appear in front of a jury, whom already know he plead guilty to Manslaughter in May 2011, as it was reported everywhere..
How the case in one way or another was in the media right up until trial.. As in all the reports regarding CJ and the July 2011 court case for contempt with the tabloids, and then CJ, being announced as a core participant in The Leveson before this trial.... Giving the possibility of the fade factor becoming redundant...
Until, Dr Vincent Tabak takes the stand... no-one knows what happened to her, there is nothing conclusive at this point to prove one way or another when she died and how and by whom's hand..
So Dr Vincent Tabak takes the stand as a "GUILTY" man, the jury knowing of this guilt, and for some bizarre reason only those of you in the Justice system may understand, he then goes on to explain, what the events were for Friday 17th December 2010... A story he told on the stand that could have been assembled from many of the media and social medias information that was about at the time..
No-one in the legal profession appears to object to this, which I find astounding....
Common sense tells us if he states nothing, the proof is then with the prosecution to prove the intent, but that is saying what has gone before is legally acceptable... And the prosecution appear to have only suggestions as to what too place rather than fact....
I don't get the Joanna Yeates case, and that is not any disrespect, because my understanding of law is virtually zero, I haven't the where withall to argue any point in the correct fashion....
It is like a case where every possible action is the incorrect action, every possible law connected to the case wasn't followed, it appears to be the opposite of how it is supposed to be....
Is it some intellectual joke? Some media exercise? Police training? Moot Trial....???
I don't know... It is never going to sit right with me, and as I have stated, I have tied myself up in enough knots and for what??
A man I am unsure is even real, A man I am unsure is in prison... And a case that will never make any sense to me...
It reminds me of how trials are treated in America, I'm not saying exactly, it just reminds me of that... Then I wonder if it was a trial of an American style model of justice??
I'm flummoxed, I don't get it... I don't understand why everyone reacts in the same way about this case...
The Old Grey matter can't be arsed, because it appears that it doesn't really matter anyway....
Therefore I don't know what else to say.....
Edit.... All I've managed to prove is that I am a gullible idiot.... But i suppose that's in the normal range of most humans..
-
sent a text message to Tanja ‘How are you? I am at Asda. Buying some crisis.’ How did you feel?
Tabak: I just wanted to hear her voice; to get support and comfort.
Your quote is from the Sally Ramage papers... And looking at that I was always in two minds why it didn't appear to make sense..
I do not know whom Sally Ramage is, but mrswah informed the forum that this lady was at trial and she works in a legal capacity apparently.
I had used the Sally Ramage papers before, but I do not know whether this was what was stated at trial, so it is difficult to know if it is an accurate translation of the exchange between Dr Vincent Tabak and The Defence, or the prosecution...
This is one of the reasons, I started to use what was stated in the Leveson and any TV interviews people had given..
But I'll go with your quote for now, and try and understand what Dr Vincent Tabak's response meant..
sent a text message to Tanja ‘How are you? I am at Asda. Buying some crisis.’ How did you feel?
Tabak: I just wanted to hear her voice; to get support and comfort.
The only way in which Dr Vincent Tabak would hear anyone's voice from receiving a text, would be the notification sound set on his phone...
Therefore the only conclusion I can come to was that he somehow had Joanna Yeates voice on his phone, in one form or another...
But on saying that... the conclusion I would come to is he therefore had to know Joanna Yeates in some capacity...
Why would everyone therefore pretend he didn't know her?
I'm trying to understand what type of recording it could have been...
Looking at that again, it doesn't make sense, he wants the response from sending the text, maybe that is what is being referred too..
So didn't he physically type the text?
Did he speak the words?
The idea that Dr Vincent Tabak had a Blackberry phone, comes from the depiction in the Judge Rinder program, but for arguments sake lets say he did...
There's an app and at the time there was an app called Vlingo, a bit like Siri for Blackberry , where you could speak into the phone and it would record text messages and then it would read text messages/emails back to you that you had received.
Maybe Dr Vincent Tabak had such an app...
If that was the case, firstly the word in the text being "Crisis".. could have been an error from the app...
But going back to the wanting to hear her voice, then the voice is virtual... Not real, is that what you're trying to tell me....
Where all of the text messages and emails sent via a voice recognition app?
One thing I noticed in that text message was that there were no kisses, so I am staying with the idea at the moment that V XXX did mean
Hotel V Amsterdam, in some context...
I still do not understand why hearing her voice would bring comfort?
But it makes me question if that was the way in which Dr Vincent Tabak used his phone? If his phone was set up for a virtual assistant, then literally anyone could have sent those texts... I'm not saying they did, only that it is a possibility..
Going back to DCI Phil Jones, on one of the documentaries, he states something about a business phone... Did Dr Vincent Tabak carry both phones always?
DCI Phil Jones also says that Dr Vincent Tabak only answered to a question/questions surrounding a phone.
What were the questions? Maybe asking if it had a password to get access or not?? I have no idea....
From the Sally Ramage papers:
Is Dr Vincent Tabak trying to say that he didn't take the phone out with him, but ordinarily would have done?
And why keep it in a little room??
What phone is he referring too?
Which little room?
A little room in his flat? or in the main house?
Is the phone the house phone?? eg: a mobile phone that is used as the house phone?
I don't know... I tie myself in knots... the possibilities are endless...
I can't get my head around, how a man can appear at trial, and appear in front of a jury, whom already know he plead guilty to Manslaughter in May 2011, as it was reported everywhere..
How the case in one way or another was in the media right up until trial.. As in all the reports regarding CJ and the July 2011 court case for contempt with the tabloids, and then CJ, being announced as a core participant in The Leveson before this trial.... Giving the possibility of the fade factor becoming redundant...
Until, Dr Vincent Tabak takes the stand... no-one knows what happened to her, there is nothing conclusive at this point to prove one way or another when she died and how and by whom's hand..
So Dr Vincent Tabak takes the stand as a "GUILTY" man, the jury knowing of this guilt, and for some bizarre reason only those of you in the Justice system may understand, he then goes on to explain, what the events were for Friday 17th December 2010... A story he told on the stand that could have been assembled from many of the media and social medias information that was about at the time..
No-one in the legal profession appears to object to this, which I find astounding....
Common sense tells us if he states nothing, the proof is then with the prosecution to prove the intent, but that is saying what has gone before is legally acceptable... And the prosecution appear to have only suggestions as to what too place rather than fact....
I don't get the Joanna Yeates case, and that is not any disrespect, because my understanding of law is virtually zero, I haven't the where withall to argue any point in the correct fashion....
It is like a case where every possible action is the incorrect action, every possible law connected to the case wasn't followed, it appears to be the opposite of how it is supposed to be....
Is it some intellectual joke? Some media exercise? Police training? Moot Trial....???
I don't know... It is never going to sit right with me, and as I have stated, I have tied myself up in enough knots and for what??
A man I am unsure is even real, A man I am unsure is in prison... And a case that will never make any sense to me...
It reminds me of how trials are treated in America, I'm not saying exactly, it just reminds me of that... Then I wonder if it was a trial of an American style model of justice??
I'm flummoxed, I don't get it... I don't understand why everyone reacts in the same way about this case...
The Old Grey matter can't be arsed, because it appears that it doesn't really matter anyway....
Therefore I don't know what else to say.....
Edit.... All I've managed to prove is that I am a gullible idiot.... But i suppose that's in the normal range of most humans..
HA Ha all it proves, it must have taken some while to write such a complete load of rubbish, keep it up, I’m glad you admit it doesn’t matter, Tabak isn’t going anywhere for a long time, unless of course they move him prisons or to Hell, 8@??)( 8@??)( &^&*%
-
He accepts he unlawfully killed her. Therefore, ladies and gentlemen, by that plea of guilty the issue of who killed Joanna Yeates was no longer in doubt.
”The issue is the state of mind when he killed Joanna Yeates and what he wanted to do when he held her for long enough to kill her.
”How he was in control – how he could have stopped but did not.
Along with his DNA found on Joanna, along with fibres from HIS black jacket found on Joanna, along with blood from Joanna found in Tabaks car, MAKES YOU WONDER WHY ANYONE WOULD THINK TABAK GUILTY *%87
Just a thought
-
[
sent a text message to Tanja ‘How are you? I am at Asda. Buying some crisis.’ How did you feel?
Tabak: I just wanted to hear her voice; to get support and comfort.
The only way in which Dr Vincent Tabak would hear anyone's voice from receiving a text, would be the notification sound set on his phone...
Therefore the only conclusion I can come to was that he somehow had Joanna Yeates voice on his phone, in one form or another...
But on saying that... the conclusion I would come to is he therefore had to know Joanna Yeates in some capacity...
Sending a text to Tanja means he has Joanna's voice on his phone? What kind of drivel is that?
-
Sending a text to Tanja means he has Joanna's voice on his phone? What kind of drivel is that?
That was a very polite reply to what i was thinking!
Maybe less posting on a forum and more talking to someone who can help! this is crazy!
-
Sending a text to Tanja means he has Joanna's voice on his phone? What kind of drivel is that?
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*. Makes you wonder how he thinks them up.
-
That was a very polite reply to what i was thinking!
Maybe less posting on a forum and more talking to someone who can help! this is crazy!
I think there’s enough for a whole conference
-
The question is your behaviour... A response in a group like pack animals, bullying tactics to undermine, and try and erode anyones beliefs....
Think it's time you found someone else to gang up on... The game is over...
-
The question is your behaviour... A response in a group like pack animals, bullying tactics to undermine, and try and erode anyones beliefs....
Think it's time you found someone else to gang up on... The game is over...
No one is ganging up. You post for a reaction, one of the reasons to have a forum surely? we dont agree with your findings so suddenly we are bullies?
Yet you can trample all over Jo's memory CJ the family her boyfriend with your weird and wonderful theories and we arent allowed to say...stop just a minute that is unfair?
-
The question is your behaviour... A response in a group like pack animals, bullying tactics to undermine, and try and erode anyones beliefs....
Think it's time you found someone else to gang up on... The game is over...
Then answer the bloody question! How does sending a text to Tanja mean he must have had JY's voice on his phone?
-
Therefore the only conclusion I can come to was that he somehow had Joanna Yeates voice on his phone, in one form or another...
But on saying that... the conclusion I would come to is he therefore had to know Joanna Yeates in some capacity...
Why would everyone therefore pretend he didn't know her? Because Vinnie said he didn’t
NOPE he said this “ and although I didn’t know Miss Yeates, I am deeply saddened by what happened.”
Tabak said “although I didn’t know Miss Yeates, I am deeply saddened by what happened.”
-
Vinnie @)(++(*
-
And so there is a silent interlude while six dots hopes we'll forget about the recent (deliberate) blunder, write another stream of garbage and totally ignore the question. When confronted we'll get the usual "But I am only trying to make sense of this case .... etc" - You'll never make sense of this case until you can see that your approach is non-sense!
-
That was a very polite reply to what i was thinking!
Maybe less posting on a forum and more talking to someone who can help! this is crazy!
I have already suggested some sort of therapy, but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears...............or might that be, in this context, blind eyes?
-
The question is your behaviour... A response in a group like pack animals, bullying tactics to undermine, and try and erode anyones beliefs....
Think it's time you found someone else to gang up on... The game is over...
Promises, promises! How many more times are you going to deliver empty promises?
-
The question is your behaviour... A response in a group like pack animals, bullying tactics to undermine, and try and erode anyones beliefs....
Think it's time you found someone else to gang up on... The game is over...
Don't be so hard No Name, why don’t you get your parents or some adult to proof read your post before posting, that way we might be able to understand your beliefs 8((()*/
-
A reminder: please treat members of this forum with respect. Thank you!
-
A reminder: please treat members of this forum with respect. Thank you!
I don't think anyone has been disrespectful, in fact people have shown a great deal of patience to some absolutely ludicrous suggestions. When challenged, said person just ignores any questions; only to repeat the same things again. Said person has also been asked to stop posting long unreadable texts but continues to flout the requests.
Surely a forum works on the power of debate, how can you debate with someone who can't even be bothered to answer questions? Questions which have been raised in response to statements they themselves have made. I think THAT is disrespectful!
-
The question is your behaviour... A response in a group like pack animals, bullying tactics to undermine, and try and erode anyones beliefs....
Think it's time you found someone else to gang up on... The game is over...
I find being compared to pack animals very disrespectful too! Guess it would be ok if we all replied at around the same time if we were champions for Tabak?
No one is eroding anyone's beliefs apart from you! Tabak says he was guilty he feels bad for what he has done and we agree as did the Jury when deciding if it was murder or manslaughter
Not sure if you expect us to agree with you to make you feel better. Me personally? I am on the side of Jo and her memory being treated with respect!!!
-
I find being compared to pack animals very disrespectful too! Guess it would be ok if we all replied at around the same time if we were champions for Tabak?
No one is eroding anyone's beliefs apart from you! Tabak says he was guilty he feels bad for what he has done and we agree as did the Jury when deciding if it was murder or manslaughter
Not sure if you expect us to agree with you to make you feel better. Me personally? I am on the side of Jo and her memory being treated with respect!!!
If we go back to the beginning jixy, maybe my remark will make more sense... I have been called names and all sorts on here, then posters chip in to support the remarks that are made about me, even going as far as to suggest I was A A. So I feel it is a valid point I make..
-
Even though this account of Dean Armstrongs isn't verified I am under the impression it has to be his account based on the tweets and retweets and this tweet he 'liked' about himself from Nick Sutton of the BBC"s Editor of News website.
Nick Sutton
Verified account
@suttonnick
Follow Follow @suttonnick
More
LISTEN: Vincent Tabak's barrister, Dean Armstrong, on the impact social media is having on justice in UK. #wato
7:01 AM - 29 Dec 2011
10 Retweets 1 Like Dean ArmstrongLaurenceVicklawmentor.co.ukHarrietClare CampbellLegal WeekClare Precey
0 replies 10 retweets 1 like
Reply Retweet 10 Like 1
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/152403828199796736
This has a recording of Dean Armstrong talking about the impact of social media and the case of Dr Vincent Tabak.
Dean Armstrong Retweeted
The Daily Record
Verified account
@Daily_Record
24 Oct 2011
More
UK & World News: Joanna Yeates murder trial: Neighbour tells he heard no screams on night Vincent Tabak strangle... http://bit.ly/qQeqeK
0 replies 1 retweet 0 likes
Reply Retweet 1 Like
https://twitter.com/Daily_Record/status/128474613637316608
Is it usual for a lawyer to retweet a case he's worked on?
Retweets are difficult to know when someone has actually done the retweeting I can't assume it was done on the 24th October 2011, even though at first I thought this was the case.. And Mr Armstrong would have made a school boy error if that was the date he retweeted this tweet.
The article mentions Mr Armstrong, I suppose he liked seeing his name in the papers..
The tiny url leads to this article:
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2011/10/24/joanna-yeates-murder-trial-neighbour-tells-he-heard-no-screams-on-night-vincent-tabak-strangled-tragic-jo-86908-23511935/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Joanna Yeates murder trial: Neighbour tells he heard no screams on night Vincent Tabak strangled tragic Jo
Geoffrey Hardyman, who lives in the flat on the top floor of 44 Canynge Road, said he was ill with a cold on the night of December 17 last year.
ByDailyrecord.co.uk
14:45, 24 OCT 2011 UPDATED19:55, 1 JUL 2012
A neighbour of Joanna Yeates did not hear any screams on the night she died at the hands of Vincent Tabak, a court heard today.
Geoffrey Hardyman, who lives in the flat on the top floor of 44 Canynge Road, said he was ill with a cold on the night of December 17 last year.
He said that even though he had gone to bed at 11pm - after Miss Yeates was killed by Tabak - he heard nothing of the events inside her ground floor flat.
Bristol Crown Court heard that Mr Hardyman knew nothing of the 25-year-old landscape architect's disappearance until he was told on the following Monday by her and Tabak's landlord Christopher Jefferies.
"On Friday December 17 2010 I fell ill with a cold and stayed in all day," Mr Hardyman said in a statement read to jurors by junior defence counsel Dean Armstrong.
"I was unaware of any activity outside my flat. I went to bed at 11pm. I slept really well until 6.30am.
"The following morning I felt worse and cancelled a lunch appointment that day.
"I sat in my flat all day Saturday and Sunday and was unaware of anything out of the ordinary outside of my flat.
"I finally become aware that Joanna was missing when Christopher Jefferies told me on Monday morning."
The retired teacher, who has owned his flat for around 20 years, said he had met Miss Yeates and her boyfriend Greg Reardon briefly.
"I actually only met Greg and Joanna on three occasions while I was working in the garden," he said.
"I have had a friendly conversation with Joanna about her cat who I like to see in the garden.
"I would describe them both as nice and friendly and I was impressed with them."
Miss Yeates's parents, David and Teresa, and her boyfriend Mr Reardon sat in the public gallery to hear Mr Hardyman's statement read to the court.
After the statement had been read, William Clegg QC formally closed the defence case.
Jurors were told to return to court tomorrow when closing speeches by prosecutor Nigel Lickley QC and Mr Clegg will begin.
Tabak, 33, a Dutch engineer, denies murder but has pleaded guilty to Miss Yeates's manslaughter.
Her snow-covered frozen body was found by dog walkers on Christmas Day last year in Longwood Lane, Failand, North Somerset - about three miles from where she was last seen alive in Clifton.
Jurors have been told that Tabak was arrested on January 20 after a DNA swab he gave matched that of samples found on Miss Yeates's body and clothing.
Giving evidence Tabak tearfully apologised to her family for putting them through hell.
He said his actions were "horrendous" as he showed jurors with his own hand how he strangled his next-door neighbour.
Tabak said he had been attracted to her and "made a pass at her" when she invited him in.
The trial continues.
Slightly inappropriate retweeting about a case from a media report, even if your name is mentioned. (imo) It hardly is an example of ones work, seeing as the defence lost.
Another tweet about Dean from Nick
Nick Sutton
Verified account
@suttonnick
Follow Follow @suttonnick
More
Dean Armstrong, lawyer for Vincent Tabak, tells #wato concerns about Twitter "assuaged" in his case and backs televising court proceedings.
5:26 AM - 29 Dec 2011
1 Retweet 1 Like Dean Armstrong
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/152379997963821056
Dr Vincent Tabak's lawyer would like court proceedings to be televised in his case, does that mean the case against Dr Vincent tabak?
Don't know what other cases he did at the time.
I mentioned a school boy error.. The timing of the retweet is vital to know, as it could be seen that it had been tweeted whilst the trial was still active and not concluded...
But sometimes I think these actions are done deliberately, As if the trial by media of Dr Vincent Tabak in itself was a test
to see how it played out whilst a trial took place.... And if social media is let loose would it compromise a trial?
Then I come back to whether this case is real or not... Or was it an exercise in handling the media whether it be the tabloids or social media..
Too much information about this case was in the public domain from day one, all over social media, and on the TV... So much so, that nothing was a surprise at trial, realistically... No-one questioned when details changed slightly... Going from no significant injuries to 43 significant injuries.
Is this case basically about the media and social media? I keep thinking about The Leveson and The Papers being taken to court for contempt, but how can the papers be in contempt, when CJ was never charged with anything, so it wouldn't prejudice a trial...
This case is back to front.... Making no sense to me...
But I am no expert, so I may have made school boy errors myself...
-
If we go back to the beginning jixy, maybe my remark will make more sense... I have been called names and all sorts on here, then posters chip in to support the remarks that are made about me, even going as far as to suggest I was A A. So I feel it is a valid point I make..
very strange how you keep mentioning that isnt it? no one posting at the moment was even part of that discussion so why do you keep pointing out you arent him or connected to him?
No its not a valid point. You say we are eroding your beliefs. We have ours and we are just as entitled to them as you, more so considering we agree with Tabak dont you think?
-
One thing i have realised throughout this thread... if its said enough times you expect people to believe it. Doesnt work like that though does it?
-
I find this very disrespectful indeed yet you are allowed to post this over and over again!
I am referring to the case against Dr Vincent Tabak...
I am sure there are plenty of things that go on behind closed doors, so I am not to know for a fact what is accurate. What the media choose to publish or not is entirely up to them...
I do not understand how virtually an entire case was published in one form or another in the media and social media before a trial took place.. And the story on the stand mirroring the information that was available before trial..
That I believe is a reason to question this case, because something new should realistically have come to trial, other than a man saying he did it and how... Based on the media reports of the time..
80 questions could be argued he didn't wish to answer those, or could be argued he didn't know the answer because it hadn't been reported in the media.
We will agree to disagree about this case...
And confessions on the stand should be supported by evidence, not how evidence may be interpreted...
I have interpreted many things in this case.. So concrete facts, real supporting evidence , new evidence, should have supported the story on the stand told by Dr Vincent Tabak (imo).
As the interpretation of a text , I have shown may have a different interpretation...
Missing you loads, I'm Bored, VXXX
Could be interpreted as a person who is giving 3 answers to what has been asked,
* Missing You ( maybe he's away)
* I'm Bored
* VXXX ( could mean Hotel 'V' Amsterdam, as I have posted about)
Therefore, searches, texts, and a tale on the stand do not equal guilt, neither does a partial DNA sample that had no date upon it and could have been from transfer.. A blood spot also having the ability to be transferred..
That is why I keep stating that live witness's were important in this case, and witness's whom lived in the building and with Dr Vincent Tabak appearing at trial, to add some context, at the very least.. To say about his mood , behaviour or anything that happened that weekend..
That is why I ask why CJ or Tanja didn't appear as witness's seeing as CJ spoke to Dr Vincent Tabak on 2 occasions that weekend of the 17th December 2010 to 19th December 2010,.. Tanja Morson too, could have added clarity to what Dr Vincent Tabak stated, as his live in partner, she must have known him better than most..
So we can settle on the fact we disagree..
-
I am referring to the case against Dr Vincent Tabak...
I am sure there are plenty of things that go on behind closed doors, so I am not to know for a fact what is accurate. What the media choose to publish or not is entirely up to them...
I do not understand how virtually an entire case was published in one form or another in the media and social media before a trial took place.. And the story on the stand mirroring the information that was available before trial..
That I believe is a reason to question this case, because something new should realistically have come to trial, other than a man saying he did it and how... Based on the media reports of the time..
80 questions could be argued he didn't wish to answer those, or could be argued he didn't know the answer because it hadn't been reported in the media.
We will agree to disagree about this case...
And confessions on the stand should be supported by evidence, not how evidence may be interpreted...
I have interpreted many things in this case.. So concrete facts, real supporting evidence , new evidence, should have supported the story on the stand told by Dr Vincent Tabak (imo).
As the interpretation of a text , I have shown may have a different interpretation...
Missing you loads, I'm Bored, VXXX
Could be interpreted as a person who is giving 3 answers to what has been asked,
* Missing You ( maybe he's away)
* I'm Bored
* VXXX ( could mean Hotel 'V' Amsterdam, as I have posted about)
Therefore, searches, texts, and a tale on the stand do not equal guilt, neither does a partial DNA sample that had no date upon it and could have been from transfer.. A blood spot also having the ability to be transferred..
That is why I keep stating that live witness's were important in this case, and witness's whom lived in the building and with Dr Vincent Tabak appearing at trial, to add some context, at the very least.. To say about his mood , behaviour or anything that happened that weekend..
That is why I ask why CJ or Tanja didn't appear as witness's seeing as CJ spoke to Dr Vincent Tabak on 2 occasions that weekend of the 17th December 2010 to 19th December 2010,.. Tanja Morson too, could have added clarity to what Dr Vincent Tabak stated, as his live in partner, she must have known him better than most..
So we can settle on the fact we disagree..
All those questions have been answered multiple times by various members. You choose to ignore their posts
The reasons the 'tale' on the stand sounds familiar to the media posts is because it is REAL
The questions he couldnt answer, he simply DID NOT WANT TO IMPLICATE HIMSELF FURTHER!
-
Have been requested to change my username by UK Justice Forum.. so I have done so...
-
I am referring to the case against Dr Vincent Tabak...
I am sure there are plenty of things that go on behind closed doors, so I am not to know for a fact what is accurate. What the media choose to publish or not is entirely up to them...
I do not understand how virtually an entire case was published in one form or another in the media and social media before a trial took place.. And the story on the stand mirroring the information that was available before trial..
That I believe is a reason to question this case, because something new should realistically have come to trial, other than a man saying he did it and how... Based on the media reports of the time..
80 questions could be argued he didn't wish to answer those, or could be argued he didn't know the answer because it hadn't been reported in the media.
We will agree to disagree about this case...
And confessions on the stand should be supported by evidence, not how evidence may be interpreted...
I have interpreted many things in this case.. So concrete facts, real supporting evidence , new evidence, should have supported the story on the stand told by Dr Vincent Tabak (imo).
As the interpretation of a text , I have shown may have a different interpretation...
Missing you loads, I'm Bored, VXXX
Could be interpreted as a person who is giving 3 answers to what has been asked,
* Missing You ( maybe he's away)
* I'm Bored
* VXXX ( could mean Hotel 'V' Amsterdam, as I have posted about)
Therefore, searches, texts, and a tale on the stand do not equal guilt, neither does a partial DNA sample that had no date upon it and could have been from transfer.. A blood spot also having the ability to be transferred..
That is why I keep stating that live witness's were important in this case, and witness's whom lived in the building and with Dr Vincent Tabak appearing at trial, to add some context, at the very least.. To say about his mood , behaviour or anything that happened that weekend..
That is why I ask why CJ or Tanja didn't appear as witness's seeing as CJ spoke to Dr Vincent Tabak on 2 occasions that weekend of the 17th December 2010 to 19th December 2010,.. Tanja Morson too, could have added clarity to what Dr Vincent Tabak stated, as his live in partner, she must have known him better than most..
So we can settle on the fact we disagree..
I know little about this case other than when it first happened an entirely innocent man was hung out to dry on the grounds that he didn't fit with the public view -courtesy of the media- of what "normal" looked like. What followed was a Dutchman being arrested, charged, and having admitted his guilt -possibly with the belief that if he admitted murder his nefarious interest in violent/child abuse porn would go unnoticed and he and his fellow "enthusiasts", which I'm certain are legion, would remain undetected- taken to court and convicted. End of!
What I find SO fascinating lays in the immediacy, NOT of the case, but in the mind-set of someone who appears to have involved themself in the aftermath to a degree where it's taken over reason and left them incapable of debate. How do you expect that those with a modicum of intelligence will view your claim of innocence of a man who's admitted his guilt? Just how do you expect to be taken seriously when the best you can put forward is the claim that a message to his girlfriend means he must have known his victim? How can you possibly MISinterpret, in the way you've chosen to, "VXXX"? My own, as, I'm certain, are countless others, are similar enough to it to make no difference! As for trying to attach any other meaning to "Missing you loads. I'm bored"!!!!!!!! Why WOULD that be an answer to questions unless the questions were A) Are you missing me? B) How are you feeling? The way in which you try to attribute other meanings does rather suggest a somewhat devious thought process. It's a well known and accepted fact that some of those who've excelled in certain 'professions' make excellent profilers who, because they can get into others' mind-sets, often assist the police in their work. Sadly, you're too late. One such may well have been used to point police in the right direction. The suspect admitted his guilt. Case solved.
-
I know little about this case other than when it first happened an entirely innocent man was hung out to dry on the grounds that he didn't fit with the public view -courtesy of the media- of what "normal" looked like. What followed was a Dutchman being arrested, charged, and having admitted his guilt -possibly with the belief that if he admitted murder his nefarious interest in violent/child abuse porn would go unnoticed and he and his fellow "enthusiasts", which I'm certain are legion, would remain undetected- taken to court and convicted. End of!
What I find SO fascinating lays in the immediacy, NOT of the case, but in the mind-set of someone who appears to have involved themself in the aftermath to a degree where it's taken over reason and left them incapable of debate. How do you expect that those with a modicum of intelligence will view your claim of innocence of a man who's admitted his guilt? Just how do you expect to be taken seriously when the best you can put forward is the claim that a message to his girlfriend means he must have known his victim? How can you possibly MISinterpret, in the way you've chosen to, "VXXX"? My own, as, I'm certain, are countless others, are similar enough to it to make no difference! As for trying to attach any other meaning to "Missing you loads. I'm bored"!!!!!!!! Why WOULD that be an answer to questions unless the questions were A) Are you missing me? B) How are you feeling? The way in which you try to attribute other meanings does rather suggest a somewhat devious thought process. It's a well known and accepted fact that some of those who've excelled in certain 'professions' make excellent profilers who, because they can get into others' mind-sets, often assist the police in their work. Sadly, you're too late. One such may well have been used to point police in the right direction. The suspect admitted his guilt. Case solved.
Case maybe solved but is the right culprit in prison?
The point I am trying to make about what I interpret, is.... If I myself am not a professional in any sense of the word, can look at this case and question so many aspects, then why didn't all these aspects get investigated fully in the first place?
I am not interested in what a profiler has to say, to be honest, that is their opinion based on what?
Their interpretation..
As a profiler in a case where social media is massively important, then the profiler has to have a complete understanding of said social media, not just that, an understanding of what said texts may mean, and an understand of quirks that may apply to people of different Nationalities... In my opinion of course..
-
Deflecting again hmm. Of course they brought it back up. All part of the game!
Maybe a LITD company
-
Case maybe solved but is the right culprit in prison?
The point I am trying to make about what I interpret, is.... If I myself am not a professional in any sense of the word, can look at this case and question so many aspects, then why didn't all these aspects get investigated fully in the first place?
I am not interested in what a profiler has to say, to be honest, that is their opinion based on what?
Their interpretation..
As a profiler in a case where social media is massively important, then the profiler has to have a complete understanding of said social media, not just that, an understanding of what said texts may mean, and an understand of quirks that may apply to people of different Nationalities... In my opinion of course..
Sleep tonight NB the right person is locked up, our children are safe from this monster
-
I am referring to the case against Dr Vincent Tabak...
Therefore, searches, texts, and a tale on the stand do not equal guilt, neither does a partial DNA sample that had no date upon it and could have been from transfer.. A blood spot also having the ability to be transferred..
All make believe .. so just how does all this happen then? the blood spot? all these accidents and yet he admits his guilt apologises and then stays quiet
If the blood spot in the boot belonged to one of your loved one, Im guessing it would then be no accident!
-
Have been requested to change my username by UK Justice Forum.. so I have done so...
Doesn't suit you NB ha ha, BILLY is better or PHIL or DOTTY @)(++(*
-
Doesn't suit you NB ha ha, BILLY is better or PHIL or DOTTY @)(++(*
Billy? = Policemans truncheon
Phil= makes me think DCI Phil Jones
Dotty= This case is mental...
-
It started back here....
As I keep saying I have no idea whom he is or was....
Well most posters wasn’t here then NB, so you bought a name up from the past and expect others not to comment, you call yourself the most outrageous names and expect sympathy, you make the most outrageous comments and expect posters to fall in line and not question, NOT ON THIS WATCH IM AFRAID
-
Again...these posts should be deleted. You are getting a thrill out of this but if we started posting about this we would be banned or at least everything edited away. you do it . Why?
No one is talking about this. Looks like you have something to prove or is it disprove?
There is a great thread out there that really could start a debate. Maybe we should post it seeing as you are so persistent?
Please expand as I have no idea what you are talking about?
-
Please expand as I have no idea what you are talking about?
You have no idea what I am talking about ... its you who is doing the talking about something you say is nothing to do with you
a bit like the Tabak case???
-
Case maybe solved but is the right culprit in prison?
The point I am trying to make about what I interpret, is.... If I myself am not a professional in any sense of the word, can look at this case and question so many aspects, then why didn't all these aspects get investigated fully in the first place?
I am not interested in what a profiler has to say, to be honest, that is their opinion based on what?
Their interpretation..
As a profiler in a case where social media is massively important, then the profiler has to have a complete understanding of said social media, not just that, an understanding of what said texts may mean, and an understand of quirks that may apply to people of different Nationalities... In my opinion of course..
I notice that there's some deflection going on here. Tabak's interest in violent pornography, especially and particularly that which involves children, CANNOT be side-stepped, yet not once have you made any mention of it, let alone condemned it. I can't help but wonder why. Incidentally, a profiler's job isn't to understand the media. Their only job is to explore the mind of a potential perpetrator and their actions.
-
Well most posters wasn’t here then NB, so you bought a name up from the past and expect others not to comment, you call yourself the most outrageous names and expect sympathy, you make the most outrageous comments and expect posters to fall in line and not question, NOT ON THIS WATCH IM AFRAID
I was trying to put into context why I had made a certain post..
-
You have no idea what I am talking about ... its you who is doing the talking about something you say is nothing to do with you
a bit like the Tabak case???
Fair point... It is nothing to do with me..
But... Dean Armstrong on his radio interview liked the comments and reactions of the public and their interest in this case....
-
Fair point... It is nothing to do with me..
But... Dean Armstrong on his radio interview liked the comments and reactions of the public and their interest in this case....
I feel like a game of snap coming on
-
I feel like a game of snap coming on
You play cards Jixy?
-
No not cards but its a great game @)(++(*
-
I notice that there's some deflection going on here. Tabak's interest in violent pornography, especially and particularly that which involves children, CANNOT be side-stepped, yet not once have you made any mention of it, let alone condemned it. I can't help but wonder why. Incidentally, a profiler's job isn't to understand the media. Their only job is to explore the mind of a potential perpetrator and their actions.
I haven't concentrated on the porn much, merely because the thread is about the murder of Joanna Yeates. The porn played no part in the murder trial.
-
I haven't concentrated on the porn much, merely because the thread is about the murder of Joanna Yeates. The porn played no part in the murder trial.
I think that was to NB! didnt play a part in the murder? its part of who is he and how he behaves and views women and children. I would say that makes it VERY important
-
I notice that there's some deflection going on here. Tabak's interest in violent pornography, especially and particularly that which involves children, CANNOT be side-stepped, yet not once have you made any mention of it, let alone condemned it. I can't help but wonder why. Incidentally, a profiler's job isn't to understand the media. Their only job is to explore the mind of a potential perpetrator and their actions.
The thought of anyone abusing children I find abhorrent, that in turn has made this a difficult case to tackle.. But my primary motive was I never believed that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates, and that case of Joanna yeates is a separate issue, to the images...
-
No not cards but its a great game @)(++(*
Well as long as you're enjoying it Jixy...
-
Well as long as you're enjoying it Jixy...
Oh i really would thanks NB not as much as Tabak did looking at the pics that you have ALWAYS played down and at times denied he had viewed them. That too was someone else !
-
Oh i really would thanks NB not as much as Tabak did looking at the pics that you have ALWAYS played down and at times denied he had viewed them. That too was someone else !
Yes I did deny about the images... I found bringing him to court years and years later after he is already serving a sentence for Joanna Yeates Murder didn't make sense... They had the images apparently in the beginning, if this was the case, why did it take so many years to bring him to court over these images... That they already were aware of, images that the amount appeared to increase once Dr Vincent Tabak was in prison....
That's why I questioned the validity of the images and the plea once again of 'Guilt"!
-
but he is guilty so all pretty pointless!
-
I think that was to NB! didnt play a part in the murder? its part of who is he and how he behaves and views women and children. I would say that makes it VERY important
Sure, but it still didn't play a part in the murder trial!
-
Sure, but it still didn't play a part in the murder trial!
Another point that you dont actually know! who knows what was running through his head when he took a life. He did it for a reason and only Tabak knows that reason!
He was never gonna explain that in court because it all just happened apparently. That is what he wanted the court to believe in his attempt to get convicted of Manslaughter.
You cannot second guess someone who likes to look at filth like that even more so when you dont know them or their real personality!
-
but he is guilty so all pretty pointless!
He was convicted, yes, but we cannot be absolutely sure he is guilty.
-
Sure, but it still didn't play a part in the murder trial!
Indeed mrswah, that is why I didn't want to go into such a subject too much...
-
He was convicted, yes, but we cannot be absolutely sure he is guilty.
omg so he didnt look at the vile porn either? really? but you wouldnt defend such actions would you? ha
-
Indeed mrswah, that is why I didn't want to go into such a subject too much...
@)(++(*
-
Yes I did deny about the images... I found bringing him to court years and years later after he is already serving a sentence for Joanna Yeates Murder didn't make sense... They had the images apparently in the beginning, if this was the case, why did it take so many years to bring him to court over these images... That they already were aware of, images that the amount appeared to increase once Dr Vincent Tabak was in prison....
That's why I questioned the validity of the images and the plea once again of 'Guilt"!
It takes a long time to bring a case to court now NB, I would suppose the CPS looked very hard into this with the same view you take, BUT it’s about sending a message to these sort of people, he takes this with him if he ever is released, it’s not been brushed under the carpet and will be on record for future reference. Would you want him punished if it was your child he’d been ogling online. My only regret his 10 months didn’t apply when he’d served his 20 years, but again hopefully any parole board will take this into consideration just how dangerous he is.
-
Another point that you dont actually know! who knows what was running through his head when he took a life. He did it for a reason and only Tabak knows that reason!
He was never gonna explain that in court because it all just happened apparently. That is what he wanted the court to believe in his attempt to get convicted of Manslaughter.
You cannot second guess someone who likes to look at filth like that even more so when you dont know them or their real personality!
What I meant was that it was kept out of the murder trial. I wasn't giving an opinion on whether or not it should have been.
-
He was convicted, yes, but we cannot be absolutely sure he is guilty.
Do you take this same view about anyone who is found guilty, or is it those that confess to their crime you don’t believe?
-
omg so he didnt look at the vile porn either? really? but you wouldnt defend such actions would you? ha
I certainly don't defend such actions at all, but neither can I be absolutely sure of what was on his computer or how / why it got there. I would like to be totally sure it wasn't planted, for example.
-
What I meant was that it was kept out of the murder trial. I wasn't giving an opinion on whether or not it should have been.
not what you said though is it? you said you cant be sure he is guilty. That has nothing to do with whether you believe it is connected to a murder trial or not!
-
Do you take this same view about anyone who is found guilty, or is it those that confess to their crime you don’t believe?
I think most people who confess or who are found guilty really are guilty. I also believe a lot of people who say they are not guilty really are guilty! There are, however, a few cases that don't sit well with me, and this is one of them.
-
I certainly don't defend such actions at all, but neither can I be absolutely sure of what was on his computer or how / why it got there. I would like to be totally sure it wasn't planted, for example.
THE killer serving life for the murder of Bristol architect Joanna Yeates has pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography images.
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
I certainly don't defend such actions at all, but neither can I be absolutely sure of what was on his computer or how / why it got there. I would like to be totally sure it wasn't planted, for example.
Shocking. So the blood was planted the DNA was planted he confessed to causing Jo's death and porn was planted
How exactly? why did he plead guilty to the porn then when he was already convicted. he wasnt saving his own skin this time so why would he?
AS with NB when i asked how the blood appeared, no reply or anything to back up how other than in someone's imagination
-
Shocking. So the blood was planted the DNA was planted he confessed to causing Jo's death and porn was planted
How exactly? why did he plead guilty to the porn then when he was already convicted. he wasnt saving his own skin this time so why would he?
AS with NB when i asked how the blood appeared, no reply or anything to back up how other than in someone's imagination
Jixy.. Honestly the child images is a difficult one.... And my reaction to that kind of behaviour is I literally want to chuck -up....
I cannot understand how anyone can view such images, I do not understand how the Police, Prosecution or the defence manage to look at such images...
But I tried to tackle this case rationally, whether you think I have or not... And believing that Dr Vincent Tabak was innocent of the Murder of Joanna yeates, I had to ignore the later charges....
That is why I was so offended when I was called AA....
But, if I rationalise it, and question why the conviction came so much later, then I have a few options...
If these charges laid on file.. Dr Vincent Tabak could potentially be arrested when released on these charges, so maybe the defence were doing him a favour...
Or it was for shock value and would virtually guarantee, no-one touching the case with a barge pole...
No-one should be in prison for a crime they did not commit... No matter what you may think of them..
-
I certainly don't defend such actions at all, but neither can I be absolutely sure of what was on his computer or how / why it got there. I would like to be totally sure it wasn't planted, for example.
You could apply that to any case, it’s not the police who searched his computer it would have been specialists who searched chef his hard drives, his works computer his phone etc , you have been given reasons why it wasn’t bought up at trial, not the fault of the police or the CPS, the defence asked for them to be removed, the judge removed them because of the fear of Tabak winning an appeal on the grounds that the evidence could be classed as prejudice against him. If it doesn’t sit well with you, it doesn’t sit well with me, because they should have thrown the lot at him, but I’m afraid our Law doesn’t work like that.
-
Jixy.. Honestly the child images is a difficult one.... And my reaction to that kind of behaviour is I literally want to chuck -up....
I cannot understand how anyone can view such images, I do not understand how the Police, Prosecution or the defence manage to look at such images...
But I tried to tackle this case rationally, whether you think I have or not... And believing that Dr Vincent Tabak was innocent of the Murder of Joanna yeates, I had to ignore the later charges....
That is why I was so offended when I was called AA....
But, if I rationalise it, and question why the conviction came so much later, then I have a few options...
If these charges laid on file.. Dr Vincent Tabak could potentially be arrested when released on these charges, so maybe the defence were doing him a favour...
Or it was for shock value and would virtually guarantee, no-one touching the case with a barge pole...
No-one should be in prison for a crime they did not commit... No matter what you may think of them..
seriously this thread makes me want to chuck up as you put it. The charges could have come at the same time as the murder trial but to give him a fair trial, they didnt
The charges were brought to make sure he couldnt appeal as part of yet another conspiracy? They were brought however late because he is sick and likes to look at children being abused. Simple
They arent just pictures, they are real children
No one is stopping him appealing. His choice. He said he was guilty, he said sorry whether he meant that or not who knows
-
Jixy.. Honestly the child images is a difficult one.... And my reaction to that kind of behaviour is I literally want to chuck -up....
I cannot understand how anyone can view such images, I do not understand how the Police, Prosecution or the defence manage to look at such images...
But I tried to tackle this case rationally, whether you think I have or not... And believing that Dr Vincent Tabak was innocent of the Murder of Joanna yeates, I had to ignore the later charges....
That is why I was so offended when I was called AA....
But, if I rationalise it, and question why the conviction came so much later, then I have a few options...
If these charges laid on file.. Dr Vincent Tabak could potentially be arrested when released on these charges, so maybe the defence were doing him a favour...
Or it was for shock value and would virtually guarantee, no-one touching the case with a barge pole...
No-one should be in prison for a crime they did not commit... No matter what you may think of them..
The court heard how the paedophile had stored more than 100 images of children on the computer, with the youngest among them of younger than 10. 10 years old, please don’t defend this.
-
The court heard how the paedophile had stored more than 100 images of children on the computer, with the youngest among them of younger than 10. 10 years old, please don’t defend this.
I'm interested in the Joanna Yeates case... And what happened there...
Also refer back to mrswah's post you quoted...
No-one is defending the abuse of children..
-
Sure, but it still didn't play a part in the murder trial!
Maybe not, but it can't be said, that as it appeared he was viewing these images prior to murdering Joanna, that he hadn't been affected by them.
-
I'm interested in the Joanna Yeates case... And what happened there...
Also refer back to mrswah's post you quoted...
No-one is defending the abuse of children..
An omission to acknowledge them is a form of defense of them.
-
I'm interested in the Joanna Yeates case... And what happened there...
Also refer back to mrswah's post you quoted...
No-one is defending the abuse of children..
All the excuses you have made that Tabak couldnt possibly be responsible for such an horrific crime cos he is smart clever placid etc etc kind of gets blown out of the water by his choice of viewing so its still all connected.
-
You could apply that to any case, it’s not the police who searched his computer it would have been specialists who searched chef his hard drives, his works computer his phone etc , you have been given reasons why it wasn’t bought up at trial, not the fault of the police or the CPS, the defence asked for them to be removed, the judge removed them because of the fear of Tabak winning an appeal on the grounds that the evidence could be classed as prejudice against him. If it doesn’t sit well with you, it doesn’t sit well with me, because they should have thrown the lot at him, but I’m afraid our Law doesn’t work like that.
Therefore the qualifications of said expert should have been taken into account, and on saying that was it the same expert whom looked at Dr Vincent Tabak's computer searches that were used in the trial of the Joanna Yeates case?
Or has there been a myriad of people having access to the computer of Dr Vincent Tabak, in their specialist subject?
Said computer analyst should have attended the trial in October 2011, to give their analysis of this computer, but I do not believe this took place...
This is why there should be proper protocol of the handling of electronic devices etc, used in any trial....
-
I don't necessarily trust computer evidence, unless I know that the defence team has seen exactly what the prosecution team has seen. Anyone can say that anything was on someone's computer. Same with DNA, when the sample is used up in the enhancing process, so that the defence can't verify it. I do trust CCTV, and consider it to be very good evidence, providing that the correct dates and times accompany the recordings!!!
-
We were told by the news and papers that VT had been looking at porn before murdering Joanna Yeates.
One of the pictures of the porn was a woman in a pink top, just like Joannas. So after watching this he walked past Joanna's kitchen window and saw her in a pink top.
Doesn't take a lot to think what he was thinking does it?
This was the snuff porn he was watching, according to the media, not the child porn.
Both equally repulsive.
-
I don't necessarily trust computer evidence, unless I know that the defence team has seen exactly what the prosecution team has seen. Anyone can say that anything was on someone's computer. Same with DNA, when the sample is used up in the enhancing process, so that the defence can't verify it. I do trust CCTV, and consider it to be very good evidence, providing that the correct dates and times accompany the recordings!!!
Oh right, so you don’t trust anyone with a confession, you don’t trust DNA and you don’t trust computer evidence, I would say that one or all these three things are what forms the basis of most prosecutions around the world now days.
-
Therefore the qualifications of said expert should have been taken into account, and on saying that was it the same expert whom looked at Dr Vincent Tabak's computer searches that were used in the trial of the Joanna Yeates case?
Or has there been a myriad of people having access to the computer of Dr Vincent Tabak, in their specialist subject?
Said computer analyst should have attended the trial in October 2011, to give their analysis of this computer, but I do not believe this took place...
This is why there should be proper protocol of the handling of electronic devices etc, used in any trial....
How many more times will it become necessary to remind you that THERE WAS NO CASE FOR THE CROWN TO PROVE? There was no point to be made. There was nothing to be proved. Tabak had admitted his guilt. He'd said he'd killed Joanna. Having experts in court to say why would have been futile and irrelevant.
-
I don't necessarily trust computer evidence, unless I know that the defence team has seen exactly what the prosecution team has seen. Anyone can say that anything was on someone's computer. Same with DNA, when the sample is used up in the enhancing process, so that the defence can't verify it. I do trust CCTV, and consider it to be very good evidence, providing that the correct dates and times accompany the recordings!!!
What makes you think the defence didn’t see what the prosecution seen regarding Computer? Just because YOU haven’t seen the time on the cctv doesn’t mean it wasn’t there, the cctv cannot be used as evidence unless time and date is present, it’s a no brainer. If it was allowed anyone could bring a cctv picture up of any said person and then apply whatever time they want. It’s stupid to even consider this.
-
I think anyone with any sense would know this
You should also make sure that the time and date of the recording is clear, and that the footage is stored securely so that it cannot be tampered with.
-
Therefore the qualifications of said expert should have been taken into account, and on saying that was it the same expert whom looked at Dr Vincent Tabak's computer searches that were used in the trial of the Joanna Yeates case?
Or has there been a myriad of people having access to the computer of Dr Vincent Tabak, in their specialist subject?
Said computer analyst should have attended the trial in October 2011, to give their analysis of this computer, but I do not believe this took place...
This is why there should be proper protocol of the handling of electronic devices etc, used in any trial....
NB, most cases now involve the police removing electronic devices, rape victims will now have their phone searched. The specialist was in court I believe?
Vincent Tabak’s, credit card details was in on some sites, that is no accident trust me
So great was Tabak’s addiction to depraved sexual images that he admitted an “ordinary day” included entering a porn website almost the moment Miss Morson walked out of the door for work at 7.30am.
-
Therefore the qualifications of said expert should have been taken into account, and on saying that was it the same expert whom looked at Dr Vincent Tabak's computer searches that were used in the trial of the Joanna Yeates case?
Or has there been a myriad of people having access to the computer of Dr Vincent Tabak, in their specialist subject?
Said computer analyst should have attended the trial in October 2011, to give their analysis of this computer, but I do not believe this took place...
This is why there should be proper protocol of the handling of electronic devices etc, used in any trial....
They run specialist forensic software to preserve everything, then it’s looked at by IT specialists,
-
How many more times will it become necessary to remind you that THERE WAS NO CASE FOR THE CROWN TO PROVE? There was no point to be made. There was nothing to be proved. Tabak had admitted his guilt. He'd said he'd killed Joanna. Having experts in court to say why would have been futile and irrelevant.
So, if someone living in my street is killed tonight, and I say I'm guilty, I'm automatically going to be believed, am I??? Nobody is going to check and discover that it cant possibly have been me, because I wasn't in the neighbourhood at the crucial time? Doesn't seem a very satisfactory way of doing things------
-
The information that leads to your arrest is not dreamed up by some bored copper. Rather, it will likely come from one of two distinct avenues. It can be allegations made by An example of intelligence-led investigations are where people who use their credit cards to purchase illegal porn are revealed. Sometimes evidence even comes from rape or murder cases. When such cases occur, computers are taken as they can contain a whole treasure trove of information, Seized items are bagged with tamper proof ID and tags, clicking shut like the same cable ties we use to keep our own systems in order. The tag holds details such as item description and photographs of the evidence as it was seized. Inside the clear bags would be all the IT gear belonging to the suspect. Other attributes include the time and place of seizure, as well as case references and exhibit ID. Evidence is not just computers and disks, but can also be passwords on Post-It notes or scraps of paper, printouts or even financial statements. The potential mountain of IT paraphernalia will then be put in the back of a police van and driven away
In situations where a business computer is involved the collection method can be very different. In cases such as these you can't take all the computers or the business would just fold.
The framework within which the e-crimes investigator are based around four major principles.
No action taken by the police should lead to a change in the source media. This is the main reason write blockers are used. Using the disk prior to a clone could lead to allegations of planting evidence.
Any action that is performed on the source media must be documented, along with potential issues that this may raise. For example, if the original media is destroyed and needs to be rebuilt in a specialised clean room.
An audit trail should exist and contain documentation of any and all procedures that the evidence undergoes. This is so that the process is repeatable and the outcome the same if the procedure is repeated.
Any actions taken must fully comply with the letter of the law. For obvious reasons if the law is not adhered to it could potentially open claims that could lead to the case being thrown out.
-
The information that leads to your arrest is not dreamed up by some bored copper. Rather, it will likely come from one of two distinct avenues. It can be allegations made by An example of intelligence-led investigations are where people who use their credit cards to purchase illegal porn are revealed. Sometimes evidence even comes from rape or murder cases. When such cases occur, computers are taken as they can contain a whole treasure trove of information, Seized items are bagged with tamper proof ID and tags, clicking shut like the same cable ties we use to keep our own systems in order. The tag holds details such as item description and photographs of the evidence as it was seized. Inside the clear bags would be all the IT gear belonging to the suspect. Other attributes include the time and place of seizure, as well as case references and exhibit ID. Evidence is not just computers and disks, but can also be passwords on Post-It notes or scraps of paper, printouts or even financial statements. The potential mountain of IT paraphernalia will then be put in the back of a police van and driven away
In situations where a business computer is involved the collection method can be very different. In cases such as these you can't take all the computers or the business would just fold.
The framework within which the e-crimes investigator are based around four major principles.
No action taken by the police should lead to a change in the source media. This is the main reason write blockers are used. Using the disk prior to a clone could lead to allegations of planting evidence.
Any action that is performed on the source media must be documented, along with potential issues that this may raise. For example, if the original media is destroyed and needs to be rebuilt in a specialised clean room.
An audit trail should exist and contain documentation of any and all procedures that the evidence undergoes. This is so that the process is repeatable and the outcome the same if the procedure is repeated.
Any actions taken must fully comply with the letter of the law. For obvious reasons if the law is not adhered to it could potentially open claims that could lead to the case being thrown out.
In situations where a business computer is involved the collection method can be very different. In cases such as these you can't take all the computers or the business would just fold.
So how did they access Buro happold's computers, computers that in themselves would have had sensitive information for their business upon them??
-
In situations where a business computer is involved the collection method can be very different. In cases such as these you can't take all the computers or the business would just fold.
So how did they access Buro happold's computers, computers that in themselves would have had sensitive information for their business upon them??
I don’t know the exact procedure NB, but they would have to get a search warrant if the company didn’t comply. A case I know of, they wanted his phone because it had the so called evidence, they acted very very quickly and without this evidence he would have got off. The phone evidence wasn’t needed at trial because it made him plead guilty, he got 8 months.
-
mrswah are you suggesting that VT wasn't in the neighbourhood?
-
Don’t forget, computer evidence and phone evidence can work both ways, it can also prove your innocence, which it has done in many cases, where the accused has actually been sent messages, or pestering ect
-
We were told by the news and papers that VT had been looking at porn before murdering Joanna Yeates.
One of the pictures of the porn was a woman in a pink top, just like Joannas. So after watching this he walked past Joanna's kitchen window and saw her in a pink top.
Doesn't take a lot to think what he was thinking does it?
This was the snuff porn he was watching, according to the media, not the child porn.
Both equally repulsive.
Yes, exactly, we were told by the news and papers. Can we always believe what we read in the papers? Remember what the papers told us about CJ, for starters!!
So, you honestly believe that VT killed Joanna because her top was the same colour as that of the woman in his porn video? Don't you think Tanja ever wore a pink top? Do you think none of VTs colleagues did?
-
So, if someone living in my street is killed tonight, and I say I'm guilty, I'm automatically going to be believed, am I??? Nobody is going to check and discover that it cant possibly have been me, because I wasn't in the neighbourhood at the crucial time? Doesn't seem a very satisfactory way of doing things------
Of course you would be a suspect, doesn’t mean you would be charged, they would still require evidence. Who knows you could be a Weirdo @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
mrswah are you suggesting that VT wasn't in the neighbourhood?
No, I certainly am not! That wasn't what I was getting at at all. It's me who isn't at home right now!
-
Yes, exactly, we were told by the news and papers. Can we always believe what we read in the papers? Remember what the papers told us about CJ, for starters!!
So, you honestly believe that VT killed Joanna because her top was the same colour as that of the woman in his porn video? Don't you think Tanja ever wore a pink top? Do you think none of VTs colleagues did?
He waited until Tanja was out to view his disgusting pictures etc. Joanna on the other hand was right next door just after he viewed it. He couldnt really kill someone in his office now could he?
-
So, you honestly believe that VT killed Joanna because her top was the same colour as that of the woman in his porn video? Don't you think Tanja ever wore a pink top? Do you think none of VTs colleagues did?
I certainly think that it might have had something to do with Joanna being murdered.
It's harder to kill someone at work in an office, I imagine, likewise your girlfriend. Just my opinion.
-
Well that's good mrswah. I thought that you were going to have VT in Amsterdam as well as NB.
-
So, if someone living in my street is killed tonight, and I say I'm guilty, I'm automatically going to be believed, am I??? Nobody is going to check and discover that it cant possibly have been me, because I wasn't in the neighbourhood at the crucial time? Doesn't seem a very satisfactory way of doing things------
Things rarely happen in a vacuum. Someone will know that you're a little strange/are a fantasist/have HPD. That being so, you'll undoubtedly have been evaluated by a psychiatrist who will wish to learn why it is that an innocent person who was nowhere near the SOC has confessed to it. SHOULD you slip under the radar and find yourself standing in court still maintaining the lie, I have faith that someone would be capable of challenging it. You could end up being prosecuted for wasting police time and/or perjury, OR possibly find yourself subject to a section under the mental health act?
-
No, I certainly am not! That wasn't what I was getting at at all. It's me who isn't at home right now!
What do you mean mrswah, you’re vacant?@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Yes, exactly, we were told by the news and papers. Can we always believe what we read in the papers? Remember what the papers told us about CJ, for starters!!
So, you honestly believe that VT killed Joanna because her top was the same colour as that of the woman in his porn video? Don't you think Tanja ever wore a pink top? Do you think none of VTs colleagues did?
I think it highly likely that the pink top reawakened nascent sexual arousal which had been triggered by the female in the porn video.
-
NB, most cases now involve the police removing electronic devices, rape victims will now have their phone searched. The specialist was in court I believe?
Vincent Tabak’s, credit card details was in on some sites, that is no accident trust me
So great was Tabak’s addiction to depraved sexual images that he admitted an “ordinary day” included entering a porn website almost the moment Miss Morson walked out of the door for work at 7.30am.
And of course Tabak hasn't denied viewing the images @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
And of course Tabak hasn't denied viewing the images @)(++(* @)(++(*
Im afraid confessions don’t count Caroline *%87. It’s time we did away with confessions, when someone admits to a crime, just send them away, GO HOME WE DON’T BELIEVE YOU
-
Im afraid confessions don’t count Caroline *%87. It’s time we did away with confessions, when someone admits to a crime, just send them away, GO HOME WE DON’T BELIEVE YOU
@)(++(*
-
Im afraid confessions don’t count Caroline *%87. It’s time we did away with confessions, when someone admits to a crime, just send them away, GO HOME WE DON’T BELIEVE YOU
And if we add to their number all those who, whilst taking advantage of Her Majesty's hospitality, claim innocence, we can empty our prisons. Still, it'll stop complaints about how dreadful are the conditions in them. Funny, isn't it? They have a roof over their heads, food in their bellies, don't have to travel miles to a job, and they're STILL not grateful.
-
I'm interested in the Joanna Yeates case... And what happened there...
Also refer back to mrswah's post you quoted...
No-one is defending the abuse of children..
Not long ago, viewing such images was described as just looking at pictures! Mentioned at trial or not, the FACT that Tabak had a perversion for violent porn is very much part of this case - no matter how many attemps are made to play it down!
-
Therefore the qualifications of said expert should have been taken into account, and on saying that was it the same expert whom looked at Dr Vincent Tabak's computer searches that were used in the trial of the Joanna Yeates case?
Or has there been a myriad of people having access to the computer of Dr Vincent Tabak, in their specialist subject?
Said computer analyst should have attended the trial in October 2011, to give their analysis of this computer, but I do not believe this took place...
This is why there should be proper protocol of the handling of electronic devices etc, used in any trial....
There is no evidence that that wasn't the case! It's simply a suggestion bandied about here!
-
So, if someone living in my street is killed tonight, and I say I'm guilty, I'm automatically going to be believed, am I??? Nobody is going to check and discover that it cant possibly have been me, because I wasn't in the neighbourhood at the crucial time? Doesn't seem a very satisfactory way of doing things------
No, you would be investigated - just as Tabak was!
-
Yes, exactly, we were told by the news and papers. Can we always believe what we read in the papers? Remember what the papers told us about CJ, for starters!!
So, you honestly believe that VT killed Joanna because her top was the same colour as that of the woman in his porn video? Don't you think Tanja ever wore a pink top? Do you think none of VTs colleagues did?
Who would you prefer to hear the news from? No we can't always believe what we read in the papers but in instances where lying would have no value - then yes, we can. Tabak was sentenced for viewing such images - I think you know that to be true.
-
@)(++(*
Reminds me a bit like one of my favourite clips, WHAT HAVE THE ROMANS EVER DONE FOR US. Monty python, then apply it to denial of Tabak supporters and what evidence do the police have, confession, DNA, blood, fibres, cctv @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*.
-
Yes, exactly, we were told by the news and papers. Can we always believe what we read in the papers? Remember what the papers told us about CJ, for starters!!
So, you honestly believe that VT killed Joanna because her top was the same colour as that of the woman in his porn video? Don't you think Tanja ever wore a pink top? Do you think none of VTs colleagues did?
Horrible what they did to CJ, they got punished heavily for this and rightly so. Don’t think Tabak received any compensation for reporting untruths?
-
Who would you prefer to hear the news from? No we can't always believe what we read in the papers but in instances where lying would have no value - then yes, we can. Tabak was sentenced for viewing such images - I think you know that to be true.
Yes, of course I know it to be true. I'm not at all sure about the prostitutes though. There were differing reports.
-
mrswah you do keep changing your mind. its hard to keep up!
-
mrswah you do keep changing your mind. its hard to keep up!
I have never denied that VT was convicted of both the murder of Joanna and the possession of indecent images of children. However, you are right that I keep changing my mind about VT in general. It's what discussion forums do to me!!!
-
Horrible what they did to CJ, they got punished heavily for this and rightly so. Don’t think Tabak received any compensation for reporting untruths?
And even today there is still a lot of horrible stuff about CJ still online. I suppose it can't be deleted?
-
And even today there is still a lot of horrible stuff about CJ still online. I suppose it can't be deleted?
Ive watched The honour of Christopher Jefferies several times now mrswah, such a honourable man, he wasn’t even bothered about going after the press at first. One person I would love to meet would be him.
-
You want to meet Chris Jefferies RJ? Just come to Clifton Village and you will see him doing his shopping !! Very mundane.
He moved from Canynge Rd after being released and I don't blame the poor soul.
-
You want to meet Chris Jefferies RJ? Just come to Clifton Village and you will see him doing his shopping !! Very mundane.
He moved from Canynge Rd after being released and I don't blame the poor soul.
Thanks Nina, I’ve been to Clifton village several times while stopping at Baltic Wharf, walked across the bridge, love the area and use it as a stop over many times. Did you know they filmed only fools and horses near the wharf?
Would love to chat with him but not be intrusive
-
Ive watched The honour of Christopher Jefferies several times now mrswah, such a honourable man, he wasn’t even bothered about going after the press at first. One person I would love to meet would be him.
I've watched it more than once, too.
-
The Village is great, or perhaps was, it's full of coffee shops and restaurants now, but still good in my opinion.
My friend and I go for hot chocolate at a place in the Mall and it's while sitting there that Chris Jefferies is often seen walking by. Don't know about talking to him though after what he's been through. He probably wants to forget it all, so we just stick to the usual "hello, nice day" type stuff.
I mean heck what could you say to someone who's been through all that? I know that I'm very tongue tied and couldn't approach the subject.
Yes I did know about Fools and Horses, great programme. They also used to film Casualty sometimes in Clifton and Hotwell before moving to Wales I think it was. Baltic wharf is also a great place so much in the way of food, drink and of course ships!
-
And even today there is still a lot of horrible stuff about CJ still online. I suppose it can't be deleted?
Yes it can be deleted, problem is, that once it's online, copies can be taken and posted elsewhere. Also if posted from abroad, other countries have different laws - the internet is hard to police.
-
The Village is great, or perhaps was, it's full of coffee shops and restaurants now, but still good in my opinion.
My friend and I go for hot chocolate at a place in the Mall and it's while sitting there that Chris Jefferies is often seen walking by. Don't know about talking to him though after what he's been through. He probably wants to forget it all, so we just stick to the usual "hello, nice day" type stuff.
I mean heck what could you say to someone who's been through all that? I know that I'm very tongue tied and couldn't approach the subject.
Yes I did know about Fools and Horses, great programme. They also used to film Casualty sometimes in Clifton and Hotwell before moving to Wales I think it was. Baltic wharf is also a great place so much in the way of food, drink and of course ships!
Your so lucky, lovely area and close to some great places. There was a pub just down the road where they filmed the famous shot in the bar with Trigger and Del @)(++(*
Yes I think CJ is well best left alone, saying hello and morning must make his day Nina.
-
Yes it can be deleted, problem is, that once it's online, copies can be taken and posted elsewhere. Also if posted from abroad, other countries have different laws - the internet is hard to police.
Thanks Caroline. It's what I suspected.
-
The Village is great, or perhaps was, it's full of coffee shops and restaurants now, but still good in my opinion.
My friend and I go for hot chocolate at a place in the Mall and it's while sitting there that Chris Jefferies is often seen walking by. Don't know about talking to him though after what he's been through. He probably wants to forget it all, so we just stick to the usual "hello, nice day" type stuff.
I mean heck what could you say to someone who's been through all that? I know that I'm very tongue tied and couldn't approach the subject.
Yes I did know about Fools and Horses, great programme. They also used to film Casualty sometimes in Clifton and Hotwell before moving to Wales I think it was. Baltic wharf is also a great place so much in the way of food, drink and of course ships!
What I do not understand, if he wanted to forget all about it, why does he go around giving speeches?
Why did he agree with the making of the Netflix program?
His appearance at the Leveson and the many Tv documentaries he appears in also... And interviews with various news channels..
Far from hiding, he is in plain sight.... Honestly, by now most people wouldn't have a clue who is... If he had not been all over the TV since the event...
The Netflix program firmly plants him in everyones mind....
The changing of his appearance really makes no difference he is all over the internet, Getty have film and images of him, that are not going away anytime soon..
Also 44, Canygne Road, will never be forgotten, the place where it is said the event took place.. Do people really want to live there still? Or rent?
It's a bit ghoulish... When other murders have happened, they pull the building down, maybe they could block the basement up, I suppose both Flats are empty now...
Nina... Did people recognise him before the tragic event?
Did you know him before all of this??
-
And even today there is still a lot of horrible stuff about CJ still online. I suppose it can't be deleted?
I think this is the area of debate that angers posters, we have one person writing such ludicrous claims online re: suggesting that poor Joanna and Tabak or CJ and Tabak could be related, that Tabak had Joanna’s voice on his phone, then hides behind freedom of speech or with a snipe “I am trying to understand what is so important about Joanna Yeates”. Or then we are plastered with faces from Facebook who have know bearing on the case whatsoever. If you put the correct searches in online about poor Joanna, you will get links to this website, that’s how the web works, so although we condemn the way CJ was treated by the press, we are allowing this person to write his weird and false accusations to an online audience. The debate is so much better when it’s factual and evidence, this proved it yesterday, I don’t mind opinions, BUT not when the opinion is absolute TOSH and done on purpose.
-
What I do not understand, if he wanted to forget all about it, why does he go around giving speeches?
Why did he agree with the making of the Netflix program?
His appearance at the Leveson and the many Tv documentaries he appears in also... And interviews with various news channels..
Far from hiding, he is in plain sight.... Honestly, by now most people wouldn't have a clue who is... If he had not been all over the TV since the event...
The Netflix program firmly plants him in everyones mind....
The changing of his appearance really makes no difference he is all over the internet, Getty have film and images of him, that are not going away anytime soon..
Also 44, Canygne Road, will never be forgotten, the place where it is said the event took place.. Do people really want to live there still? Or rent?
It's a bit ghoulish... When other murders have happened, they pull the building down, maybe they could block the basement up, I suppose both Flats are empty now...
Nina... Did people recognise him before the tragic event?
Did you know him before all of this??
Typical, everyone feeling sorry for CJ, then you stick the boot in.
-
I think this is the area of debate that angers posters, we have one person writing such ludicrous claims online re: suggesting that poor Joanna and Tabak or CJ and Tabak could be related, that Tabak had Joanna’s voice on his phone, then hides behind freedom of speech or with a snipe “I am trying to understand what is so important about Joanna Yeates”. Or then we are plastered with faces from Facebook who have know bearing on the case whatsoever. If you put the correct searches in online about poor Joanna, you will get links to this website, that’s how the web works, so although we condemn the way CJ was treated by the press, we are allowing this person to write his weird and false accusations to an online audience. The debate is so much better when it’s factual and evidence, this proved it yesterday, I don’t mind opinions, BUT not when the opinion is absolute TOSH and done on purpose.
I wasn't referring to this forum at all. I am referring to elsewhere on the internet, where the rubbish posted about CJ at the time he was in custody, still stands. I really don't believe anyone posting here is saying anything libellous re CJ.
-
Typical, everyone feeling sorry for CJ, then you stick the boot in.
I disagree----I think NB is making valid points here, and not sticking the boot in.
-
I disagree----I think NB is making valid points here, and not sticking the boot in.
I disagree. NB questions CJ far more than he has ever questioned Tabak and his motives. The respect has only ever been for TABAK!
-
I wasn't referring to this forum at all. I am referring to elsewhere on the internet, where the rubbish posted about CJ at the time he was in custody, still stands. I really don't believe anyone posting here is saying anything libellous re CJ.
How do you know, you know nothing about the law. Has Boris Johnson mislead the public over Brexit? The Law is changing very much regarding internet usage and the language used, Facebook, WhatsApp all the media sites are having to watch more carefully what is allowed, what if Joanna’s parents want to take NB to task over his mis information about their daughter?
-
What do you mean mrswah, you’re vacant?@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Ha!! I'm never vacant: my brain is usually fully occupied!
Could one of you "IT experts" tell me how to insert the emojis (I think that's what they're called). Thanks in advance!
-
I disagree----I think NB is making valid points here, and not sticking the boot in.
I never for one minute thought you would agree anyway. @)(++(*
-
What I do not understand, if he wanted to forget all about it, why does he go around giving speeches?
Why did he agree with the making of the Netflix program?
His appearance at the Leveson and the many Tv documentaries he appears in also... And interviews with various news channels..
Far from hiding, he is in plain sight.... Honestly, by now most people wouldn't have a clue who is... If he had not been all over the TV since the event...
The Netflix program firmly plants him in everyones mind....
The changing of his appearance really makes no difference he is all over the internet, Getty have film and images of him, that are not going away anytime soon..
Also 44, Canygne Road, will never be forgotten, the place where it is said the event took place.. Do people really want to live there still? Or rent?
It's a bit ghoulish... When other murders have happened, they pull the building down, maybe they could block the basement up, I suppose both Flats are empty now...
Nina... Did people recognise him before the tragic event?
Did you know him before all of this??
Maybe if you picked apart Tabak's thoughts actions and motives like you do with CJ you may remove the need for such long repetitive posts!
-
How do you know, you know nothing about the law. Has Boris Johnson mislead the public over Brexit? The Law is changing very much regarding internet usage and the language used, Facebook, WhatsApp all the media sites are having to watch more carefully what is allowed, what if Joanna’s parents want to take NB to task over his mis information about their daughter?
What misinformation are you referring to?
Please don't get me started on Boris Johnson and/or Brexit! I get enough of that from Mr Wah!!
-
Maybe if you picked apart Tabak's thoughts actions and motives like you do with CJ you may remove the need for such long repetitive posts!
??
CJ, is the talker..
-
??
CJ, is the talker..
If you took as much time to look at the evidence against Tabak like you judge everyone else connected to this case, then you would see what, in my opinion, a monster he really is.
You refuse!
By the way CJ is a victim in all this unlike Tabak so he can behave in whatever way he wishes to help him deal with the ordeal.
Tabak on the other hand has NO excuses for his behaviour, from the disgusting porn to murder
-
What misinformation are you referring to?
Please don't get me started on Boris Johnson and/or Brexit! I get enough of that from Mr Wah!!
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
I bought Boris in as an example mrswah, no one seen that coming, I think the world has had enough of fake news. I’m not calling Boris by the way. The internet is a powerful tool and unregulated to a certain degree, I can honestly see a lot more cases coming forward in the near future. Who knows what is libellous or not now days mrswah!
-
and you are just rude! If you took as much time to look at the evidence against Tabak and what kind of person he really is like you judge everyone else connected to this case, then you would see what a monster he really is.
You refuse!
By the way CJ is a victim in all this unlike Tabak so he can behave in whatever way he wishes to help him deal with the ordeal.
Tabak on the other hand has NO excuses for his behaviour, from the disgusting porn to murder
I'm not being rude... CJ does speak all the time as far as I can tell, my next post will be a case in point... As we know Dr Vincent tabak, hasn't spoken, and made a NO Comment interviews, apart from a small piece surrounding a mobile phone...
So i can hardly quote Dr Vincent tabak since the conviction, can I.... He is not writing to the papers ...
I can only use the information that is available at the time and since.... And that is what I have done... If CJ is everywhere, and is central to this case, then I use his own words and have an opinion on them... That is all..
-
Christopher Jefferies' hopes for TV drama
9th December 2014
The man wrongly arrested for the murder of Jo Yeates in Bristol says he hopes a TV drama about him will highlight how "dangerous" the UK press can be.
Christopher Jefferies was arrested and questioned by detectives after Ms Yeates' body was found on Christmas Day 2010.
He was released two days later. Dutch national Vincent Tabak was later convicted of the murder.
The Peter Morgan-scripted drama about the events will be shown on ITV on Wednesday.
09 Dec 2014
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-bristol-30392997/christopher-jefferies-hopes-for-tv-drama
CJ: Interview with BBC:
Well um.. I was reassured when I first met Peter Morgan, because he made it quite clear, that he had entirely, serious intention in making the film, it wasn't going to be in anyway exploitative, or sensational, erm and he was also extremely, sensitive to the possible feelings of Jo Yeates parents.
Erm..So...Erm.. on that understanding I said yes fine, and I was happy to go along with the idea and I think in the event, Roger Michell has made an extremely powerful and extremely important film.
Erm, thanks to a large extent, to erm the performance of Jason Watkins the actor, erm... who's playing my role in the film.
My main interest is in going to be how other people react, once the film is shown, erm, if, other people think that it's a very fine film, and if other people, are moved by it, for the right reasons and if people are reminded just how dangerous the press in this country can be, in entirely erm.. irresponsibly destroying people's lives, then I think the film will have done a great deal of good
Here he is interviewed outside next to the main entrance of Canygne Road..He seems very happy to have this film made..
He's impressed that Jason Watkins the actor is playing his role in the film....
Don't get me wrong, it may be a nervous grin, but thats not the impression I get, but that is me... He seems as pleased as punch..
And he appears more concerned about the media, ... he is more concerned how it may be perceived, whether or not people will think it's a fine film...If I didn't know of him, I would have thought he was debuting his talents and looking for recognition...
Far from being a shy and retiring rose, he has bloomed into a man happy to be seen in front of camera, and happy to be associated with actors and directors etc...
I personally find it strange....
Everyone reacts differently to situations, I'd be hiding under the table and avoiding everyone, but that is me....
So Nina... He appears very approachable... even happy about the film, so there are other topic's you could talk to him about... Netflix appears to be something most know about...
-
And there lies your problem with this case. Maybe focus less on poor CJ and more on the silence of Tabak! case solved
CJ can talk freely because he is innocent. Tabak stays silent with the shame of taking the life of a young innocent woman
If any of your points were valid, Tabak would actually have something to say...he doesnt!
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-bristol-30392997/christopher-jefferies-hopes-for-tv-drama
Here he is interviewed outside next to the main entrance of Canygne Road... He is grinning like a Cheshire cat?? That is really weird.. He seems very happy to have this film made..
Nowhere near as weird as someone sitting alone in a flat, looking at disgusting vile images then nipping out and killing his neighbour? Nowhere near
-
I disagree. NB questions CJ far more than he has ever questioned Tabak and his motives. The respect has only ever been for TABAK!
The answer to that is simple.... CJ, as I have stated many many times, has made various statements on TV documentaries, in Tv interviews, he has his 2 Leveson statements and was the centre of the Police inquiry into the Murder of Joanna yeates..
He freely admits to have conversed with Dr Vincent Tabak on two occasions on the weekend of the 17th December 2010 to the 19th December 2010, when a light dusting of snow was visible..
He was arrested, he was released on Police bail... DCI Phil Jones stated at The Leveson the reason for him not being released until March 2011, was because of a blood stained trainer under the sink behind the kick board in the house...
That particular statement from DCI Phil Jones was interesting, in the fact that it took them 3 months to test the trainer, yet lindsay Lennen states they turned around all the evidence , DNA, Fibres, suspects clothes, in 48 hours...
So what happened when it came to the trainer? Why did it take so long?
If it wasn't for CJ's interviews and statements, it would be difficult to place anything at any time... He is the person whom heard /saw people at the gate, he is the person that Sky News interviewed out side his Canygne Road address..
I have not put these words into CJ's mouth, he has spoken them himself, that is why, I stated that I prefer the video's and Leveson statements to use in this case, because you actually have the sworn statement or the words coming out of peoples own mouths.... So I cannot be incorrect when I repeat them...
That is also why I have translated many of the interviews of several people whom are connected to this case...
It is NOT me that has put CJ, front and centre in this case, but CJ himself, who has taken, to letting everyone know what happened to him in December 2010.. When as I have said, if he hadn't... everyone by now wouldn't really have a clue as to whom he is, and CJ would have long since been forgotten about.... (imo)
-
??
CJ, is the talker..
But not a murderer
-
And who was it who dragged everyone else into this nightmare? Tabak!
-
I have also stated, I do not know why CJ, has done all these interviews, drams etc... maybe it was because it was the only way in which he could highlight the case..
For all i know he is trying to help Dr Vincent tabak in the only way he believes he can...
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-bristol-30392997/christopher-jefferies-hopes-for-tv-drama
Here he is interviewed outside next to the main entrance of Canygne Road... He is grinning like a Cheshire cat?? That is really weird.. He seems very happy to have this film made..
He's impressed that Jason Watkins the actor is playing his role in the film....
Don't get me wrong, it may be a nervous grin, but thats not the impression I get, but that is me... He seems as pleased as punch..
And he appears more concerned about the media, than the demise of his tenant Joanna Yeates.... he is more concerned how it may be perceived, whether or not people will think it's a fine film... Really... is he having a giggle..
And then you wonder why i think things are made up....!
If I didn't know of him, I would have thought he was debuting his talents and looking for recognition...
Far from being a shy and retiring rose, he has bloomed into a man happy to be seen in front of camera, and happy to be associated with actors and directors etc...
I personally find it strange....
Everyone reacts differently to situations, I'd be hiding under the table and avoiding everyone, but that is me....
So Nina... He appears very approachable... even happy about the film, so there are other topic's you could talk to him about... Netflix appears to be something most know about...
Every word you've typed is a slur against a VICTIM, who has a God given right to act in any manner he sees fit. I think he's earned the right to celebrate his release from the Hell which has been imposed on him. Before you have the temerity to say more about what you'd do under the same circumstances. I suggest you withhold from putting out such information unless or until you find yourself in the circumstances CJ was in.
-
I have also stated, I do not know why CJ, has done all these interviews, drams etc... maybe it was because it was the only way in which he could highlight the case..
For all i know he is trying to help Dr Vincent tabak in the only way he believes he can...
huge assumptions once again along with your presumed right of entitlement to any info you think you deserve to know about!
Help Tabak?
-
Here you all go again...
The information is all ready out there.... Where do you think i got it all from????
The interviews, the media reports, the images, the TV documentaries, the TV news interviews, appeals,The Leveson, etc etc etc...
All over the internet, all available for anyone to look at this case and form their own opinion on it based on what they choose to believe or not....
I have not got information from any other source... It is all out there and has been for years,.. Some people have blogged about the case...
I have only looked at the information and formed my own opinion... that is all...
-
huge assumptions once again along with your presumed right of entitlement to any info you think you deserve to know about!
Help Tabak? you are a disgrace!
Was that really called for Jixy??
-
Yes actually! You implying that in the middle of his own nightmare, CJ was in fact trying to help Tabak!
You defend this case like you are the guilty party! It is Tabak! You never say or see ANY wrong in any of his actions but have plenty to say about ALL the others even offering reasons why!
In my opinion, its disgusting.
-
Yes actually! You implying that in the middle of his own nightmare, CJ was in fact trying to help Tabak!
You defend this case like you are the guilty party! It is Tabak! You never say or see ANY wrong in any of his actions but have plenty to say about ALL the others even offering reasons why!
In my opinion, its disgusting.
No No No No No.......
I am trying to cover all the angles, I have no idea why CJ is in front of camera, this case as I have stated many many many many many times before makes no sense to me.... It may do to you, but that is your perogative...
The inconsistencies, timelines, The yeates family walking around the second scene of crime before it has been fully processed, with Forensic tents and Police tape still visible, has me questioning what this case is about and is it really so easy to ignore protocol and expect no-one to say anything about it...
It has me asking the question why no-one has brought certain facts to the CPs's attention.... Courts , the CCRC etc...
Every detail of this case being played out before a trial, over the media and social media...
Because the case forever has me in two minds, I am trying to understand peoples actions and intentions....
I have said I don't know if it is real or not... Then remember what brought me here in the first place...
CJ saw Dr Vincent Tabak and spoke to him on two occasions on the weekend of the 17th December 2010 to the 19th December 2010, a witness in my opinion, he tells us Dr Vincent Tabak assisted him in moving his car from the drive, he tells the Leveson he left the car on the road... I tried to pinpoint when the car had been moved, because apparently Dr Vincent Tabak had tried to implicate CJ, because he informed the Police that his car had changed positions....
Well..... It had!!
These two conversations, CJ tells us himself that they occurred, in a TV interview for a TV drama...
So call me disgusting if you choose... It won't make any difference to what I think...
-
Tabak saying he is guilty not only of taking a life but nasty viewing habits doesnt register with you and you choose to ignore the views of the man himself. So its quite easy to see why you wouldnt listen to anyone on this forum or their views however much they make sense to everyone else!
-
Tabak saying he is guilty not only of taking a life but nasty viewing habits doesnt register with you and you choose to ignore the views of the man himself. So its quite easy to see why you wouldnt listen to anyone on this forum or their views however much they make sense to everyone else!
Jixy... I came here because I had doubts about Dr Vincent Tabak's conviction, i wanted to understand how everyone was told he plead guilty to manslaughter in May 2011 and the media told us so, not only that they told us that the CPS wasn't accepting this plea and would go to trial... I thought it was the judges decision on that point, but I don't know law so i'll leave that there...
Therefore, why have a man take the stand, to tell a story that basically was all ready in the public domain in one way or another?
I do not understand the silence.... I do not understand why the media are all over Joanna Yeates virtually empty flat that is apparently frozen in time, Missing the Christmas tree for starters, that Mrs yeates spoke of and many of the furnishings that were there before... Nothing from this Flat brought to trial to bolster and secure a conviction against Dr Vincent tabak
A Flat that to me looks staged....
But people are happy, that if the jury are reminded that Dr vincent Tabak has plead guilty to manslaughter, before he is on trial, and that manslaughter plea is mentioned in the media day in and day out, whilst the trial is taking place....
Then you put a man on the stand to explain how he apparently did it.... The juries mind is obviously already made up... This was a high profile case, Bristol people were on the jury... Dean Armstrong himself was amazed at the interest...
The public are baying for blood, one suspect has been cleared... The public want someone to pay....
So whatever Dr Vincent Tabak stated on the stand at trial, his goose was already cooked (imo)... No-one really gave a damn how what and where, they would not give him an inch, or believe him.... People on the internet at the time wanted to lynch him when he was arrested...
So no I do not believe what was said, the way in which this trial was conducted, doesn't't seem legal to me, but what do I know...
But I know the odds were stacked against a man whom wasn't given the opportunity to face over 21 witness's if memory serves me correctly, who's statements were read out at trial and did not make an appearance... all these statements being hearsay (imo)
But you along with everyone else appear to be happy about this circus....
Who's Billy Now !!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lS4o5c4vFPk
Edit... How can you appear on the stand Guilty to be proved even Guiltier??
What happened to the presumption of innocence and the Prosecution proving their case.... Not the Defence giving them a leg up!
-
Jixy... I came here because I had doubts about Dr Vincent Tabak's conviction, i wanted to understand how everyone was told he plead guilty to manslaughter in May 2011 and the media told us so, not only that they told us that the CPS wasn't accepting this plea and would go to trial... I thought it was the judges decision on that point, but I don't know law so i'll leave that there...
Therefore, why have a man take the stand, to tell a story that basically was all ready in the public domain in one way or another?
I do not understand the silence.... I do not understand why the media are all over Joanna Yeates virtually empty flat that is apparently frozen in time, Missing the Christmas tree for starters, that Mrs yeates spoke of and many of the furnishings that were there before... Nothing from this Flat brought to trial to bolster and secure a conviction against Dr Vincent tabak
A Flat that to me looks staged....
But people are happy, that if the jury are reminded that Dr vincent Tabak has plead guilty to manslaughter, before he is on trial, and that manslaughter plea is mentioned in the media day in and day out, whilst the trial is taking place....
Then you put a man on the stand to explain how he apparently did it.... The juries mind is obviously already made up... This was a high profile case, Bristol people were on the jury... Dean Armstrong himself was amazed at the interest...
The public are baying for blood, one suspect has been cleared... The public want someone to pay....
So whatever Dr Vincent Tabak stated on the stand at trial, his goose was already cooked (imo)... No-one really gave a damn how what and where, they would not give him an inch, or believe him.... People on the internet at the time wanted to lynch him when he was arrested...
So no I do not believe what was said, the way in which this trial was conducted, doesn't't seem legal to me, but what do I know...
But I know the odds were stacked against a man whom wasn't given the opportunity to face over 21 witness's if memory serves me correctly, who's statements were read out at trial and did not make an appearance... all these statements being hearsay (imo)
But you along with everyone else appear to be happy about this circus....
Who's Billy Now !!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lS4o5c4vFPk
Edit... How can you appear on the stand Guilty to be proved even Guiltier??
What happened to the presumption of innocence and the Prosecution proving their case.... Not the Defence giving them a leg up!
He took the stand to try and get off with murder, he wanted the jury to believe his manslaughter plea. Doesn’t matter that most things was in the public domain, he still has to be prosecuted in a court off law, there’s no other way of doing it.
-
Jixy... I came here because I had doubts about Dr Vincent Tabak's conviction, i wanted to understand how everyone was told he plead guilty to manslaughter in May 2011 and the media told us so, not only that they told us that the CPS wasn't accepting this plea and would go to trial... I thought it was the judges decision on that point, but I don't know law so i'll leave that there...
Therefore, why have a man take the stand, to tell a story that basically was all ready in the public domain in one way or another?
I do not understand the silence.... I do not understand why the media are all over Joanna Yeates virtually empty flat that is apparently frozen in time, Missing the Christmas tree for starters, that Mrs yeates spoke of and many of the furnishings that were there before... Nothing from this Flat brought to trial to bolster and secure a conviction against Dr Vincent tabak
A Flat that to me looks staged....
But people are happy, that if the jury are reminded that Dr vincent Tabak has plead guilty to manslaughter, before he is on trial, and that manslaughter plea is mentioned in the media day in and day out, whilst the trial is taking place....
Then you put a man on the stand to explain how he apparently did it.... The juries mind is obviously already made up... This was a high profile case, Bristol people were on the jury... Dean Armstrong himself was amazed at the interest...
The public are baying for blood, one suspect has been cleared... The public want someone to pay....
So whatever Dr Vincent Tabak stated on the stand at trial, his goose was already cooked (imo)... No-one really gave a damn how what and where, they would not give him an inch, or believe him.... People on the internet at the time wanted to lynch him when he was arrested...
So no I do not believe what was said, the way in which this trial was conducted, doesn't't seem legal to me, but what do I know...
But I know the odds were stacked against a man whom wasn't given the opportunity to face over 21 witness's if memory serves me correctly, who's statements were read out at trial and did not make an appearance... all these statements being hearsay (imo)
But you along with everyone else appear to be happy about this circus....
Who's Billy Now !!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lS4o5c4vFPk
Edit... How can you appear on the stand Guilty to be proved even Guiltier??
What happened to the presumption of innocence and the Prosecution proving their case.... Not the Defence giving them a leg up!
Another offensive post! Its not a circus, a young woman lost her life
Most people were concerned about that, the family and those close to Jo!
It isnt unusual to mention that someone has admitted being responsible for taking a life. why would it be?
ALL your sympathy lie with Tabak. The circus as you call us are thinking of the victim!
I am really quite tired of the use of the work guiltier. Its quite childish and very inappropriate. It was either murder or manslaughter!!! simple. He tried he failed to convince the jury
No matter what evidence from the flat or elsewhere that was brought into a court room would ever change the Guilty part of this
I cant work after 1000s of posts you still think that was ever possible
Going over OLD ground again but even Tabak was happy to accept he took a life but you expect a jury to decide that he didnt. How very strange!
The trial doesnt seem legal *%87 go into any court room in the land and see it happens that way each and every day
-
Then you put a man on the stand to explain how he apparently did it.... The juries mind is obviously already made up... This was a high profile case, Bristol people were on the jury... Dean Armstrong himself was amazed at the interest...
Incorrect, the juries mind wasn’t made up it took them three days to reach a verdict and then it was a 10/2 majority.
-
Jesus Christ.... I told you I don't know who Dr Vincent Tabak is... or anything about him....
For all I know he is a Tobacco product, and this is a smoking advert, or a different approach to advertising... I have no idea.... It makes no sense to me... at ALL...
And if he is a Tobacco product, then he is a silent Killer.. Boom Boom!!
I think you need to sit in a quiet room and switch off all devices oh and close the curtains
-
Jesus Christ.... I told you I don't know who Dr Vincent Tabak is... or anything about him....
For all I know he is a Tobacco product, and this is a smoking advert, or a different approach to advertising... I have no idea.... It makes no sense to me... at ALL...
And if he is a Tobacco product, then he is a silent Killer.. Boom Boom!!
You dont know him that is correct but you seem to have set yourself up as an expert on what he does and doesnt view, whether he is capable of taking a life, telling the truth what he means when he texts and even which language he searches in! All to prove is innocence of course
-
I think you need to sit in a quiet room and switch off all devices oh and close the curtains
Why??
-
I think you need to sit in a quiet room and switch off all devices oh and close the curtains
I need to stop replying to you .
-
@)(++(* you rarely actually reply to anyone!
-
The jury cannot be blamed for the conclusion they came too, based on the fact that they already knew the man in front of them had plead guilty to manslaughter.... And here he was explaining how it did it...
The only evidence they needed to weigh up.....
If important evidence is omitted and witness's are not called.... How can you make a judgement? their judgement was based on the little evidence provided...
A confession or should I say an explanation on the stand as to how Joanna Yeates may have come to her demise.... Bit flimsy really... (imo)
-
It's called being realistic... @)(++(*
Nope rules you out then,
The definition of realistic is someone who has a good grip on the reality of a situation and understands what can and cannot be done, something that is a practical, achievable idea, or something that resembles the actual truth about life.
-
The jury cannot be blamed for the conclusion they came too, based on the fact that they already knew the man in front of them had plead guilty to manslaughter.... And here he was explaining how it did it...
The only evidence they needed to weigh up.....
If important evidence is omitted and witness's are not called.... How can you make a judgement? their judgement was based on the little evidence provided...
A confession or should I say an explanation on the stand as to how Joanna Yeates may have come to her demise.... Bit flimsy really... (imo)
Really
It was HIS choice to plead guilty.
-
NB when was the last time that Chris Jefferies spoke in public, gave an interview about all of this?
As in what year?
Leveson was a judicial public inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the British press following the News International phone hacking scandal. The McCanns were there as were Millie Dowlers parents.
Leveson was back in 2011-2012 and was not all about the murder of Joanna Yeates, but the activities of the press.
We are all entitled to a certain amount of privacy, especially in the aftermath of a tragic event.
So Chris Jefferies gave evidence along with the McCanns about how they had been treated by the press and had I been treated as these people had I would have been there too.
You say that Chris Jefferies is always out there, insinuating that he's giving interviews all the time. So what year was the last time that he did this?
-
NB when was the last time that Chris Jefferies spoke in public, gave an interview about all of this?
As in what year?
Leveson was a judicial public inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the British press following the News International phone hacking scandal. The McCanns were there as were Millie Dowlers parents.
Leveson was back in 2011-2012 and was not all about the murder of Joanna Yeates, but the activities of the press.
We are all entitled to a certain amount of privacy, especially in the aftermath of a tragic event.
So Chris Jefferies gave evidence along with the McCanns about how they had been treated by the press and had I been treated as these people had I would have been there too.
You say that Chris Jefferies is always out there, insinuating that he's giving interviews all the time. So what year was the last time that he did this?
You tell me....
-
You tell me....
it was YOU who posted like CJ is out there doing daily talks etc so maybe YOU should tell us. Actually answer a question for a change rather than deflecting
-
NB when was the last time that Chris Jefferies spoke in public, gave an interview about all of this?
As in what year?
Leveson was a judicial public inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the British press following the News International phone hacking scandal. The McCanns were there as were Millie Dowlers parents.
Leveson was back in 2011-2012 and was not all about the murder of Joanna Yeates, but the activities of the press.
We are all entitled to a certain amount of privacy, especially in the aftermath of a tragic event.
So Chris Jefferies gave evidence along with the McCanns about how they had been treated by the press and had I been treated as these people had I would have been there too.
You say that Chris Jefferies is always out there, insinuating that he's giving interviews all the time. So what year was the last time that he did this?
Please provide us with some links, NB.
-
I have deleted some posts and edited a number of others. Please keep on topic: there isn't space on here for lots of off topic banter, and it distracts posters from the point of the forum.
Also, please keep away from goading and sniping. Thanks.
-
I disagree----I think NB is making valid points here, and not sticking the boot in.
What part of their point was valid?
-
Ha!! I'm never vacant: my brain is usually fully occupied!
Could one of you "IT experts" tell me how to insert the emojis (I think that's what they're called). Thanks in advance!
You just click in the emoji you want to use making sure your curser is in the area where you want it to be.
-
I disagree. NB questions CJ far more than he has ever questioned Tabak and his motives. The respect has only ever been for TABAK!
I agree and is evident in the fact that he gets his full title each and every time!
-
You tell me....
No I was asking you. You're so very quick to post garbage about Chris Jefferies and I would like an answer from you on this one simple question.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-bristol-30392997/christopher-jefferies-hopes-for-tv-drama
Here he is interviewed outside next to the main entrance of Canygne Road..He seems very happy to have this film made..
He's impressed that Jason Watkins the actor is playing his role in the film....
Don't get me wrong, it may be a nervous grin, but thats not the impression I get, but that is me... He seems as pleased as punch..
And he appears more concerned about the media, ... he is more concerned how it may be perceived, whether or not people will think it's a fine film...If I didn't know of him, I would have thought he was debuting his talents and looking for recognition...
Far from being a shy and retiring rose, he has bloomed into a man happy to be seen in front of camera, and happy to be associated with actors and directors etc...
I personally find it strange....
Everyone reacts differently to situations, I'd be hiding under the table and avoiding everyone, but that is me....
So Nina... He appears very approachable... even happy about the film, so there are other topic's you could talk to him about... Netflix appears to be something most know about...
CJ has nothing to hide over - he was a victim! Which is probably why when asked, he talks about it. Your man Tabak isn't talking at all - he Isn't. victim, he's a filth perverted murderer who got what he deserved - maybe he's hiding under a table where he belongs and where he should stay!
-
What part of their point was valid?
Well, I have heard people say that CJ must be a "broken man", and wants to hide away, but, in fact, this isn't what he has done. I am in no way criticizing him for this: he has drawn our attention to the damage the media can cause, and that is admirable. He isn't a man who hides away, he is a man who speaks out, and, IMO, who has coped extremely well with what happened to him. That was what I meant.
Thanks for the help re emojis. !
-
The answer to that is simple.... CJ, as I have stated many many times, has made various statements on TV documentaries, in Tv interviews, he has his 2 Leveson statements and was the centre of the Police inquiry into the Murder of Joanna yeates..
He freely admits to have conversed with Dr Vincent Tabak on two occasions on the weekend of the 17th December 2010 to the 19th December 2010, when a light dusting of snow was visible..
He was arrested, he was released on Police bail... DCI Phil Jones stated at The Leveson the reason for him not being released until March 2011, was because of a blood stained trainer under the sink behind the kick board in the house...
That particular statement from DCI Phil Jones was interesting, in the fact that it took them 3 months to test the trainer, yet lindsay Lennen states they turned around all the evidence , DNA, Fibres, suspects clothes, in 48 hours...
So what happened when it came to the trainer? Why did it take so long?
If it wasn't for CJ's interviews and statements, it would be difficult to place anything at any time... He is the person whom heard /saw people at the gate, he is the person that Sky News interviewed out side his Canygne Road address..
I have not put these words into CJ's mouth, he has spoken them himself, that is why, I stated that I prefer the video's and Leveson statements to use in this case, because you actually have the sworn statement or the words coming out of peoples own mouths.... So I cannot be incorrect when I repeat them...
That is also why I have translated many of the interviews of several people whom are connected to this case...
It is NOT me that has put CJ, front and centre in this case, but CJ himself, who has taken, to letting everyone know what happened to him in December 2010.. When as I have said, if he hadn't... everyone by now wouldn't really have a clue as to whom he is, and CJ would have long since been forgotten about.... (imo)
No, you haven't put words into CJ's mouth but you seem to be using what he said and his motivation in a twisted way. No one put the 'I killed JY' into the mouth of Tabak either!
-
Well, I have heard people say that CJ must be a "broken man", and wants to hide away, but, in fact, this isn't what he has done. I am in no way criticizing him for this: he has drawn our attention to the damage the media can cause, and that is admirable. He isn't a man who hides away, he is a man who speaks out, and, IMO, who has coped extremely well with what happened to him. That was what I meant.
Thanks for the help re emojis. !
Who can blame him for having his day, he’s definitely not someone in the press all the time like some would have been.
-
Well, I have heard people say that CJ must be a "broken man", and wants to hide away, but, in fact, this isn't what he has done. I am in no way criticizing him for this: he has drawn our attention to the damage the media can cause, and that is admirable. He isn't a man who hides away, he is a man who speaks out, and, IMO, who has coped extremely well with what happened to him. That was what I meant.
In my opinion Chris Jefferies has behaved like most sensible would have done.
He didn't kill his tenant Joanna Yeates so what in reality has he got to hide from.
You ride the rollercoaster, however nasty it is and then try to get on with your life.
He has nothing to hide from.
-
I'm still waiting for your reply NB, though I doubt very much that I will get one.
You don't do answers do you?
-
In my opinion Chris Jefferies has behaved like most sensible would have done.
He didn't kill his tenant Joanna Yeates so what in reality has he got to hide from.
You ride the rollercoaster, however nasty it is and then try to get on with your life.
He has nothing to hide from.
I agree.
-
You know what's suddenly occurred to me? Had I answered the press back in 2010 with an innocent reply, like "no I didn't know Joanna or Greg, but I have seen VT cycling to work in all weathers". NB would probably have been picking at every word uttered.
Dear lord thank heavens I didn't utter a word and avoided the press.
Phew!!
-
You know what's suddenly occurred to me? Had I answered the press back in 2010 with an innocent reply, like "no I didn't know Joanna or Greg, but I have seen VT cycling to work in all weathers". NB would probably have been picking at every word uttered.
Dear lord thank heavens I didn't utter a word and avoided the press.
Phew!!
Oh Yes, you would have been found, BY ACCIDENT OF COURSE @)(++(*
-
Who can blame him for having his day, he’s definitely not someone in the press all the time like some would have been.
I agree RJ - also, he was encouraged by his friends to stand up for himself. It wasn't something he initially seemed comfortable with. He speaks only in relation to himself and doesn't continually refer to JY or Tabak. He was vilified by the press simply because he was different and a little odd in some people's eyes - THAT was and is his focus of comment.
-
Oh Yes, you would have been found, BY ACCIDENT OF COURSE @)(++(*
And we would need CCTV of Tabak on his bike in rain, sun and snow - time stamped of course! @)(++(*
-
I'm STILL waiting for a reply NB, re: the date of the last interview Chris Jefferies made.
Perhaps NB is in the shower or doing something normal like housework, now there's a thought!!
-
I'm STILL waiting for a reply NB, re: the date of the last interview Chris Jefferies made.
Perhaps NB is in the shower or doing something normal like housework, now there's a thought!!
It's been days since i asked why a text from Tabak's girlfriend would mean he had JY's voice on his phone. @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Ah Caroline, it had slipped my mind that NB doesn't `do' replies to her nasty insinuations.
Silly me !!
I find it odd though, that NB can spend so much time on the computer `researching' things, but not be interested in the answers she gets.
-
Can I take it that NB stands for Note Well?
-
And we would need CCTV of Tabak on his bike in rain, sun and snow - time stamped of course! @)(++(*
Time stamped CCTV !! Absolutely.
-
Time stamped CCTV !! Absolutely.
8(0(*
-
NB's gone a bit quiet *%87 - oh that's right, someone asked a question! @)(++(*
-
This was the main reason why they went ahead with the prosecution of Tabak regarding porn images
David Bartlett, prosecuting, said it was important that Tabak was legally recognised as a convicted sexual offender.
Mr Bartlett said the majority of images related to two teenage girls of "relative maturity" and were in the least serious category.
"But some of the most serious category are not, they are of pre-pubescent girls," he added. Although he's serving a minimum tariff of 20 years' imprisonment, we felt it was crucial Tabak was brought to justice for possessing indecent images of children, so the full nature of Tabak's offending is on record."
Mr Moss said the conviction meant an "extensive range" of protective measure could be put in place to manage his behaviour and protect those at risk.
It will have a direct impact on how he is managed in prison and how he is monitored and managed upon his release, he added.
It's possible he may return to the Netherlands following release, so it's crucial the Dutch authorities are aware of the risks he poses," Mr Moss added.
"This could only have been guaranteed if a relevant conviction relating to a sexual interest in children were secured.
-
If This upsets anyone I will remove it, I think it’s important to understand what a sick and despicable human being this man is, anyone defending this is as sick as him.
The Dutch-born engineer, formerly of Bristol, faces a total of six charges - four of possessing indecent photographs/pseudo-photographs of a child and two of making indecent photographs/pseudo-photographs of a child at levels one, two, three and four.
There are five levels of seriousness for offences involving indecent photographs of children, which start with images depicting "erotic posing with no sexual activity".
Category four images depict penetrative sexual activity involving a child or children, or both children and adults.
-
If This upsets anyone I will remove it, I think it’s important to understand what a sick and despicable human being this man is, anyone defending this is as sick as him.
The Dutch-born engineer, formerly of Bristol, faces a total of six charges - four of possessing indecent photographs/pseudo-photographs of a child and two of making indecent photographs/pseudo-photographs of a child at levels one, two, three and four.
There are five levels of seriousness for offences involving indecent photographs of children, which start with images depicting "erotic posing with no sexual activity".
Category four images depict penetrative sexual activity involving a child or children, or both children and adults.
Lots of information here for anyone interested https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/indecent-and-prohibited-images-children
So Tabak actually made his own images? ?8)@)-)
-
Lots of information here for anyone interested https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/indecent-and-prohibited-images-children
So Tabak actually made his own images? ?8)@)-)
Looks that way Caroline, anyone who thinks he never got a fair trial is talking rubbish, the judge and our system bent over backwards to help him, even down to the fact, someone posted online while the jury was out about Tabaks interest in this sort of thing, this person got arrested and threatened with prosecution for revealing said information. Only in this Country could that happen.
The attorney general is considering whether to take action over a tweet revealing Vincent Tabak's interest in hardcore pornography that was posted during his trial.
During the four-week trial orders were in place to stop the media reporting Tabak's interest in pornography depicting women being strangled during sex.
It was feared that if the jury knew of Tabak's interest in such material it would be unfairly prejudiced against him and make a fair trial impossible.
But during the trial a man was arrested after he posted a tweet revealing the existence of the pornography.
The tweeter is a British man, believed to live in Gloucestershire.
-
Looks that way Caroline, anyone who thinks he never got a fair trial is talking rubbish, the judge and our system bent over backwards to help him, even down to the fact, someone posted online while the jury was out about Tabaks interest in this sort of thing, this person got arrested and threatened with prosecution for revealing said information. Only in this Country could that happen.
He clearly is one disturbed individual.
-
The prosecution had tried to persuade the judge, Mr Justice Field, to allow it to present the jury with evidence of the pornographic material found on Tabak's computer.
The judge would not agree, accepting the argument from Tabak's counsel, William Clegg QC, that knowing about the pornography would not help the jury decide if Tabak was guilty of murder but would make it impossible for them to treat him fairly.
-
Great posts Real Justice!
-
A little more background..
Dean Armstrong QC
London, UK
Barrister, Cyber Security Law
36 Commercial
Biography
Dean Armstrong QC is a highly experienced practitioner who has been involved in some of the highest profile cases of the last decade, including R v Darwin (the canoeist case), R v Asil Nadir, R v Tabak (murder of Joanna Yeates in Bristol), and the cases involving the collapse of the News Of The World newspaper. He has also provided advice to those involved in the “Cash for Honours” inquiry and the Leveson inquiry.
He has been a regular commentator on legal matters both for Sky and BBC TV as well as on the radio. Dean is a specialist in City and financial crime and regulation, fraud and confiscation and where civil and criminal law meet.
Having been employed by blue chip corporates and major City Solicitors, he has a City background and has advised on mergers and acquisitions, directors and shareholders rights and obligations, and set up the regulatory regime for a major multi-national.
In recent years he has become increasingly involved in all matters cyber and he is co-author of Cyber Security Law and Practice, an authoritative and thorough textbook in this new area. Dean lectures extensively on this subject and in recent times, has been asked to speak to high profile entities on GDPR. Dean is also the Chairman of the Elias Partnership which help organisations & senior managers achieve a legally defensible position in face of GDPR and the Senior Managers & Certification Regime (SMCR) and has advised the Law Commission on proposed changes to domestic data protection law.
https://www.themarque.com/profile/dean-armstrong-qc
Never knew that Dean was involved in The Leveson Inquiry... I wonder who he advised...
-
A little more background..
https://www.themarque.com/profile/dean-armstrong-qc
Never knew that Dean was involved in The Leveson Inquiry... I wonder who he advised...
What about the the questions you have been asked? Many times you have demanded answers from other members but when you get asked anything you just deflect or ignore
-
What about the the questions you have been asked? Many times you have demanded answers from other members but when you get asked anything you just deflect or ignore
My post wasn't a question, more really that I was surprised about The Leveson connection..
I answer questions all the time Jixy, you chose to pretend I don't... ?{)(**
-
My post wasn't a question, more really that I was surprised about The Leveson connection..
I answer questions all the time Jixy, you chose to pretend I don't... ?{)(**
Dont you like to twist things? where did i say YOUR post was a question! No you dont actually answer questions as stated yesterday. When a question is posed, you reply with a huge repetitive posts that rarely refers to any part of the question
Take yesterday! some have waited days for a reply from you. Real Justice put all the facts out there that you bring up over and over in some weak defence for Tabak. You post without a word because the facts speak for themselves about Tabaks guilt and what kind of low life man he is!
-
Dont you like to twist things? where did i say YOUR post was a question! No you dont actually answer questions as stated yesterday. When a question is posed, you reply with a huge repetitive posts that rarely refers to any part of the question
Take yesterday! some have waited days for a reply from you. Real Justice put all the facts out there that you bring up over and over in some weak defence for Tabak. You post without a word because the facts speak for themselves about Tabaks guilt and what kind of low life man he is!
Days.... @)(++(* You are all in agreement and have not once legitimately explained how everyone was allowed to know that Dr Vincent Tabak pled guilty to manslaughter in May 2011, before he took to the stand in his trial in October 2011..
How not only the jury knew of this fact before they became jurors, but the entire world was probably away of this fact..
And then the papers were taken to court for contempt, in July 2011, it stated there that Dr Vincent Tabak was guilty....
No fade factor time allowed in this case as it was in the media in one form or another from Joanna yeates Missing to the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak..
I do not understand how that is possible...
What happened to Presumed Innocent, or Burden of Proof....
Neither which applied in this case (imo)
Guilty when he took the stand, and The Defence provided the proof of Dr Vincent Tabak's actions, by having him take the stand and explain how he apparently did it.... Ridiculous... 8()(((@#
Having their own client take the stand to explain a story that anyone could have stated, by what had been revealed in the papers and social media at the time.. Is hardly proof that he committed said crime... CCTV of a car on Park Street, without identification of license plate and driver, is proof of someone driving down Park Street...
CCTV in an ASDA supermarket, is proof of someone shopping,
Media images of Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat in December 2010 when Joanna Yeates is Missing, Media images and video, of Flat 2, before anyone knew of a crime is a little strange, seeing as Dr Vincent Tabak cannot have been suspected of anything at that time... So why the video and images of HIS FLAT!!
I have already pointed out that Crimewatch had Dr Vincent Tabak's car on their program, all very convenient.. (imo)
Computer searches that can be interpreted in many ways, computer searches that cannot have been made from his computer if he was out of his Flat at the time...
Insinuating that these searches were in someway proof or insinuating guilt... is ridiculous.... It's ambiguous...
Ambigous,...That isn't good enough...
Try asking an off turf accountants what they feel about ambiguous bets, and I'm sure they will tell you they would probably see it as a type of fraud... The onus is on them realistically, but clarity of said bet, will ensure what was meant..
The same with searches or text messages,... Clarity of the information is needed to understand the context of any text or search, it may appear to bolster a case, but it needs to be proven that the intention of the person searching the internet or sending the text was meant in the way it has been perceived...
I have given an alternative example of what Dr Vincent Tabak's text could have been interpreted as... Proving one needs clarity...
Laws in this country need clarity... ambiguity should not be accepted, as it means that a law that was meant for a certain purpose, can then be applied to something entirely different, and the layman would have no idea that this has happened, believing the instruction they are given.. And relying on the expertise of said individuals..
Having ambiguity (imo) erodes the rights of citizens and the fairness of the laws in the land...
-
Days.... @)(++(* You are all in agreement and have not once legitimately explained how everyone was allowed to know that Dr Vincent Tabak pled guilty to manslaughter in May 2011, before he took to the stand in his trial in October 2011..
How not only the jury knew of this fact before they became jurors, but the entire world was probably away of this fact..
And then the papers were taken to court for contempt, in July 2011, it stated there that Dr Vincent Tabak was guilty....
No fade factor time allowed in this case as it was in the media in one form or another from Joanna yeates Missing to the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak..
I do not understand how that is possible...
What happened to Presumed Innocent, or Burden of Proof....
Neither which applied in this case (imo)
Guilty when he took the stand, and The Defence provided the proof of Dr Vincent Tabak's actions, by having him take the stand and explain how he apparently did it.... Ridiculous... 8()(((@#
Having their own client take the stand to explain a story that anyone could have stated, by what had been revealed in the papers and social media at the time.. Is hardly proof that he committed said crime... CCTV of a car on Park Street, without identification of license plate and driver, is proof of someone driving down Park Street...
CCTV in an ASDA supermarket, is proof of someone shopping,
Media images of Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat in December 2010 when Joanna Yeates is Missing, Media images and video, of Flat 2, before anyone knew of a crime is a little strange, seeing as Dr Vincent Tabak cannot have been suspected of anything at that time... So why the video and images of HIS FLAT!!
I have already pointed out that Crimewatch had Dr Vincent Tabak's car on their program, all very convenient.. (imo)
Computer searches that can be interpreted in many ways, computer searches that cannot have been made from his computer if he was out of his Flat at the time...
Insinuating that these searches were in someway proof or insinuating guilt... is ridiculous.... It's ambiguous...
Ambigous,...That isn't good enough...
Try asking an off turf accountants what they feel about ambiguous bets, and I'm sure they will tell you they would probably see it as a type of fraud... The onus is on them realistically, but clarity of said bet, will ensure what was meant..
The same with searches or text messages,... Clarity of the information is needed to understand the context of any text or search, it may appear to bolster a case, but it needs to be proven that the intention of the person searching the internet or sending the text was meant in the way it has been perceived...
I have given an alternative example of what Dr Vincent Tabak's text could have been interpreted as... Proving one needs clarity...
Laws in this country need clarity... ambiguity should not be accepted, as it means that a law that was meant for a certain purpose, can then be applied to something entirely different, and the layman would have no idea that this has happened, believing the instruction they are given.. And relying on the expertise of said individuals..
Having ambiguity (imo) erodes the rights of citizens and the fairness of the laws in the land...
Once again repetitive twaddle
Nothing that happened to Tabak re his plea is unusual or happened just to him Get a grip. If that is all you reply after Real Justice posts then I think you posts are for attention not to defend an guilty man
-
Lots of information here for anyone interested https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/indecent-and-prohibited-images-children
So Tabak actually made his own images? ?8)@)-)
Yes, on first glance this stood out..
Viewing the Images
As above, it is important that prosecutors are familiar with the nature of the images in a case and have a proper understanding of what comes within each category but it is not mandatory for prosecutors to view the images in all cases in order to prosecute.
In cases involving low-risk offenders it should be unnecessary for prosecutors to view the images. In low-risk cases, the SFR need only describe the selected representative images (see above). As set out above - when images falling outside of the CAID database are the subject of the proposed charge prosecutors may in limited circumstances have to view the images. In most cases the police case summary will suffice. These images may also need to be made available to the judge and defence unless agreement is reached that this is unnecessary.
but it is not mandatory for prosecutors to view the images in all cases in order to prosecute.
How is that even possible??
Who tells them that these images are of what category??
In what case do prosecutors not need to look at these images....
If a prosecutor is prosecuting a person and has the ability to deprive someone of their liberty, shouldn't they have at the very least looked at the evidence in question....
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/indecent-and-prohibited-images-children
I admit it cannot be a pleasant experience for the prosecutor, but surely they should have viewed any evidence that could be brought against any individual, in any prosecution....
-
Once again repetitive twaddle
Nothing that happened to Tabak re his plea is unusual or happened just to him Get a grip. If that is all you reply after Real Justice posts then I think you posts are for attention not to defend an guilty man
Why on god's earth would I want the attention?
What made you come to that conclusion?
If I wanted the attention, I would have my name and address attached to every post, with my face splashed there so you all know whom I am....
-
Why on god's earth would I want the attention?
What made you come to that conclusion?
Look over the last few days posts, you sure dont interact. You just ramble on even when facts are fully explained ot you in great detail. People ask for your reply, you ignore. Simple
Oh and as for the filth he likes to look at HE ADMITTED IT! ACCEPT IT FOR GOD SAKES!!!!!! ........
-
Sentencing and Ancillary Orders
On 1 April 2014 the Sentencing Council issued revised guidelines for all sexual offences including those concerning indecent images of children. They simplified the images into three categories of seriousness:
Category A - Images involving penetrative sexual activity, sexual activity with an animal or sadism.
Category B - Images involving non-penetrative sexual activity.
Category C - Indecent images not falling within categories A or B.
Dr Vincent Tabak is prosecuted in 2015 for the indecent images that fell into various categories, yet as the examples above prove, the ambiguity may be applied..
Category (A) covers 3 areas, which I wasn't aware of... So Which part of category (A) was Dr Vincent Tabak charged with, if for instance the prosecution has not looked at these images and is informed that they fall in category (A), which covers sadism...
If someone watches porn or is into Sadomasochism... Is it actually feasible to be charged under the Category (A) of this act, therefore having nothing to do with children?
If a prosecutor, takes the word of an expert, who is the expert??
Who ensures that the images are what they are supposed to be if no-one is looking at them and the Category, is what is important in these cases??
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/indecent-and-prohibited-images-children
-
Yes, on first glance this stood out..
but it is not mandatory for prosecutors to view the images in all cases in order to prosecute.
How is that even possible??
Who tells them that these images are of what category??
In what case do prosecutors not need to look at these images....
If a prosecutor is prosecuting a person and has the ability to deprive someone of their liberty, shouldn't they have at the very least looked at the evidence in question....
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/indecent-and-prohibited-images-children
I admit it cannot be a pleasant experience for the prosecutor, but surely they should have viewed any evidence that could be brought against any individual, in any prosecution....
They use COPINE scale, first brought out in Ireland and used in the UK, Combating Paedophile Information Networks in Europe". Very interesting how it was first brought out by Staff members, you seem to question most things that are brought out to help protect our children.
-
They use COPINE scale, first brought out in Ireland and used in the UK, Combating Paedophile Information Networks in Europe". Very interesting how it was first brought out by Staff members, you seem to question most things that are brought out to help protect our children.
I agree, there should be robust laws to protect children, that has never been in question, my query is based on those who may find themselves at the wrong end of the law, and the law is not clear enough to clarify exactly what said person accused has actually done, if it is possible for the prosecution not to look at the images, then that in itself is open to abuse...
Especially when category (A) covers 3 different crimes..
That is all I am saying....
-
They use COPINE scale, first brought out in Ireland and used in the UK, Combating Paedophile Information Networks in Europe". Very interesting how it was first brought out by Staff members, you seem to question most things that are brought out to help protect our children.
Who made the COPINE Scale??
I have found that it's on the unofficial website of listed paedophiles..
Indecent Images offence Category
On the 31st December 2013 the Sentencing Council [SC] published “Sexual Offences Definitive Guideline” [the New Guideline] which applies to all offenders aged 18 and older sentenced on or after the 1st April 2014.
This new scale to determine the indecency of child abuse images in UK courts. It now replaces the 5 levels of the ‘Copine scale’
The levels of seriousness the court will determine the offence category using the table below: –
https://theukdatabase.com/uk-child-abusers-named-and-shamed/childhood-abuses/paedophile-party-members/new-scale-used-by-courts-for-child-abuse-images/
Who on earth invented The Copine Scale?
78 [2003] 1 Cr App R 28 CA
79 The Copine project (Combating Paedophile information networks in Europe) at the University of Cork developed a scale to categorise child abuse
images. It has ten levels and was originally developed to look at the psychological approach to pictures rather than for use in courts.
80 CPS charging guidance indecent photographs of children http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/indecent_photographs_of_children/#a03
https://consult.justice.gov.uk/sentencing-council/indecent-images-children/supporting_documents/sexual%20offences_Indecent%20images%20of%20children.pdf
It has ten levels and was originally developed to look at the psychological approach to pictures rather than for use in courts.
So not for court use.....
Was the Copine Scale ever used in court?
-
I agree, there should be robust laws to protect children, that has never been in question, my query is based on those who may find themselves at the wrong end of the law, and the law is not clear enough to clarify exactly what said person accused has actually done, if it is possible for the prosecution not to look at the images, then that in itself is open to abuse...
Especially when category (A) covers 3 different crimes..
That is all I am saying....
You ever been a victim of this sort of abuse? Ask the victims what help they get, ask the victims how they cope with it the rest of their life’s, ask the parents how they stop blaming themselves, it works both ways trust me.
-
Here's another question.... if you chuck the word paedophile at someone, and they are into S&M, then legally have you libelled them?? seeing as Category (A) covers more than one subject??
Does that mean someone could 'say or link' someone to being a paedophile, simply by using an ambiguous law and legally could be seen as accurate...
Therefore, Man Z likes S&M, but someone dislikes MAN Z ( I'll call him man Y)and wants to cause him an issue, so tweets or connects this man to a known Padeophile, and everyone therefore believes that MAN Z is a Paedophile.. Man Y could confidently state that Man Z comes under category (A)...
and everyone knows what that means... So would assume it was true and accurate...
But as I have found out today, that is not the case....
So Man Y, knows the law and theoretically Man Z would come under category (A), so has man Y committed a crime? As it is an interpretation of the law he/she may have used...
Once called a paedophile, it sticks, no matter whom you are...
And everyone is always happy to look for the worst in anyone... And point the finger...
-
You ever been a victim of this sort of abuse? Ask the victims what help they get, ask the victims how they cope with it the rest of their life’s, ask the parents how they stop blaming themselves, it works both ways trust me.
As you know nothing about me, you have no idea, if that is applicable...
All I am trying to do is get clarity... simple really, not to undermine the seriousness of such offences... And you are correct it does work both ways... That is why clarity is important, so anyone doesn't find themselves at the wrong end of the law...
-
VT was making his own porn pictures, for gods sake.
What do you have to say about that?
-
As you know nothing about me, you have no idea, if that is applicable...
All I am trying to do is get clarity... simple really, not to undermine the seriousness of such offences... And you are correct it does work both ways... That is why clarity is important, so anyone doesn't find themselves at the wrong end of the law...
I don’t want to know who you are, if you need clarity and don’t understand the difference between right and wrong regarding sexual offences, or the viewing of child pornography, you ought to be on a different website and educate yourself about law instead of preaching what you don’t know.
Pedo
that causes the person to have a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent boys and girls.
Sex offender
A sex offender is a person who has been convicted of a sex-related crime, which may or may not involve a person who is considered a child under the law.
I WOULD SAY THAT TABAK FITS THE BILL FOR BOTH THESE
-
VT was making his own porn pictures, for gods sake.
What do you have to say about that?
Doesn't count Nina, there was no time stamp with it *%87
-
I don’t want to know who you are, if you need clarity and don’t understand the difference between right and wrong regarding sexual offences, or the viewing of child pornography, you ought to be on a different website and educate yourself about law instead of preaching what you don’t know.
Pedo
that causes the person to have a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent boys and girls.
Sex offender
A sex offender is a person who has been convicted of a sex-related crime, which may or may not involve a person who is considered a child under the law.
I WOULD SAY THAT TABAK FITS THE BILL FOR BOTH THESE
I hoped that people here may have the education and ability to understand law... I have only questioned a conviction that hasn't sat right with me... that is all...
And whether or not you want to know whom I may be, is irrelevant..
If people do not question the law, then the law itself can never be challenged.. What is wrong with questioning?
-
I’ve got the perfect job for Tabak if ever he is released, he could be an interpreter for this man Kim Jong-I un @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*ee
-
VT was making his own porn pictures, for gods sake.
What do you have to say about that?
Didn't we cover that before... That if you had the ability to make images of pseudo porn, a charge could be brought... I think if I remember correctly I did indicate that most had the ability to do this seeing as "Paint" was a built in program... And with the evolution of many apps that can change an image, it can cover everyone in that capacity...
-
Checks and balances...
No matter what case we can talk about, no matter how many Police or people in the judiciary, you cannot tell me that some people in various professions do not have their own agenda's....
That they have all been Psychologically evaluated and are 100% honest through and through...
That is not happening....
So questioning why something happens is important... And the law needs to be seen to be making an example of people who abuse their positions..
What ever case it is....
NB: I am applying this to ALL cases, and not any individual case....
-
I’ve got the perfect job for Tabak if ever he is released, he could be an interpreter for this man Kim Jong-I un @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*ee
Does Dr Vincent Tabak speak Korean? is that what you are trying to say??
-
Does Dr Vincent Tabak speak Korean? is that what you are trying to say??
He’s got ample time to learn it 8@??)(
-
Interpretation of the law and application of the law to charges brought against an individual is paramount..
I believe that the law concerning Joint Enterprise has been Misinterpreted for decades, and The Jogee Ruling, which highlighted this failure, should have since made a huge difference, But the wheels of Justice move slowly...
I am applying a principle and just questioning whether there has been a misinterpretation of the law...
https://justice.org.uk/r-v-jogee-appellant/
Another reason I wondered if Dr Vincent tabak was originally arrested under joint enterprise... Seeing as they had stated they were looking for killers and had then arrested CJ...
Knowing Dr Vincent Tabak had assisted CJ in moving the car, I asked if that was where the pressure came from that could have been applied to Dr Vincent Tabak in the first place....
Just looking for clarity....
-
Interpretation of the law and application of the law to charges brought against an individual is paramount..
I believe that the law concerning Joint Enterprise has been Misinterpreted for decades, and The Jogee Ruling, which highlighted this failure, should have since made a huge difference, But the wheels of Justice move slowly...
I am applying a principle and just questioning whether there has been a misinterpretation of the law...
https://justice.org.uk/r-v-jogee-appellant/
Another reason I wondered if Dr Vincent tabak was originally arrested under joint enterprise... Seeing as they had stated they were looking for killers and had then arrested CJ...
Knowing Dr Vincent Tabak had assisted CJ in moving the car, I asked if that was where the pressure came from that could have been applied to Dr Vincent Tabak in the first place....
Just looking for clarity....
How much more time are you going to waste trying to find excuses for his behaviour. Call it whatever you want it doesnt change what he is
-
How much more time are you going to waste trying to find excuses for his behaviour. Call it whaatever you want it doesnt change what he is
Not looking for excuses, trying to understand a case that makes no sense whatsoever.... (imo) of course...
And someone is only what they are , if the law is used properly... And not cast doubt on interpretation...
-
Not looking for excuses, trying to understand a case that makes no sense whatsoever.... (imo) of course...
Its clear that you are. He accessed porn, he paid left his credit card details and then admitted his vile actions. Why you keep debating it is beyond me.
-
Its clear that you are. He accessed porn, he paid left his credit card details and then admitted his vile actions. Why you keep debating it is beyond me.
What is beyond you I cannot make comment upon, seeing as I am not au fait with yourself...
And whomever is in prison for a crime ... they need to be there because THAT was the crime they committed...
-
Didn't we cover that before... That if you had the ability to make images of pseudo porn, a charge could be brought... I think if I remember correctly I did indicate that most had the ability to do this seeing as "Paint" was a built in program... And with the evolution of many apps that can change an image, it can cover everyone in that capacity...
No `we' didn't cover this before.
I'm asking you as a person who has said you have a family. What do you really think about VT making his own porn, as well as watching snuff and child porn?
-
What is beyond you I cannot make comment upon, seeing as I am not au fait with yourself...
And whomever is in prison for a crime ... they need to be there because THAT was the crime they committed...
He is there for BOTH of them thankfully
-
And we go around in the same circles....
You staying with your view, and me unable to adequately articulate my purpose.. And of course argue law...
This ever increasing circle getting no-one anywhere, and everyone is again happy with the status quo...
Don't need anyone rocking the boat... God forbid.... Someone may call you a Paedo!!
-
And we go around in the same circles....
You staying with your view, and me unable to adequately articulate my purpose.. And of course argue law...
This ever increasing circle getting no-one anywhere, and everyone is again happy with the status quo...
Don't need anyone rocking the boat... God forbid.... Someone may call you a Paedo!!
No circles involved. He confessed to the child porn the killing of Jo and is right where he should be, quietly serving his sentence without challenge. Not complicated really is it? For whatever reason you choose to think you know better than Tabak is something that will keep YOU going round in circles for a long time to come I suspect
-
And we go around in the same circles....
You staying with your view, and me unable to adequately articulate my purpose.. And of course argue law...
This ever increasing circle getting no-one anywhere, and everyone is again happy with the status quo...
Don't need anyone rocking the boat... God forbid.... Someone may call you a Paedo!!
Nope, there’s only you going round in circles, really happy he’s banged up, not long enough though. If the cap fits, they have to wear the name I’m afraid. ?>)()<
-
And we go around in the same circles....
You staying with your view, and me unable to adequately articulate my purpose.. And of course argue law...
This ever increasing circle getting no-one anywhere, and everyone is again happy with the status quo...
Don't need anyone rocking the boat... God forbid.... Someone may call you a Paedo!!
He is one by his own admission given that he never denied the charges. He’s also a killer.
-
As you know nothing about me, you have no idea, if that is applicable...
All I am trying to do is get clarity... simple really, not to undermine the seriousness of such offences... And you are correct it does work both ways... That is why clarity is important, so anyone doesn't find themselves at the wrong end of the law...
"Not to undermine the seriousness of such offences"? Really? That's exactly what you ARE doing. I'm experiencing way more empathy, from you, for the perpetrators, than for the victims.
-
As you know nothing about me, you have no idea, if that is applicable...
All I am trying to do is get clarity... simple really, not to undermine the seriousness of such offences... And you are correct it does work both ways... That is why clarity is important, so anyone doesn't find themselves at the wrong end of the law...
There was/is clarity - he had pedo images on his computer, didn't deny they were his - hence he's a pedo. Clear enough?
-
well... I see someones post has been edited... Are we back to a game..... You know what i'm referring too...
You need someone else to play with... What I believe or think is unimportant, as long as everyone else is on the correct page then it doesn't matter....
Why you all want me to think the same way as everyone else is beyond me... It shouldn't really matter... You can play 'tag' with someone else... This obviously being the modern version.... 'virtual tag'....
'hashtag' 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
I for one, hardly ever know what you are referring to, how you come to certain conclusions or have the confidence to post them!
If you are referring to MY edit, I replied on my phone and it said
"Heist one by his own admission. He’s also a killer."
Did really check what I had written but when I noticed, I amended the "Heist" to "He is" and added "given that he never denied the charges"
The post now reads;
"He is one by his own admission given that he never denied the charges. He’s also a killer."
So what are you trying to insinuate? And NO! I have no idea what you're referring to but then I doubt I am alone there!
-
well... I see someones post has been edited... Are we back to a game..... You know what i'm referring too...
You need someone else to play with... What I believe or think is unimportant, as long as everyone else is on the correct page then it doesn't matter....
Why you all want me to think the same way as everyone else is beyond me... It shouldn't really matter... You can play 'tag' with someone else... This obviously being the modern version.... 'virtual tag'....
'hashtag' 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
As I said earlier about attention. Its about a young woman who had her life taken by a monster. Post dont post it doesnt change the fact that is what he is and what happened.
-
Interpretation of the law and application of the law to charges brought against an individual is paramount..
I believe that the law concerning Joint Enterprise has been Misinterpreted for decades, and The Jogee Ruling, which highlighted this failure, should have since made a huge difference, But the wheels of Justice move slowly...
I am applying a principle and just questioning whether there has been a misinterpretation of the law...
https://justice.org.uk/r-v-jogee-appellant/
Another reason I wondered if Dr Vincent tabak was originally arrested under joint enterprise... Seeing as they had stated they were looking for killers and had then arrested CJ...
Knowing Dr Vincent Tabak had assisted CJ in moving the car, I asked if that was where the pressure came from that could have been applied to Dr Vincent Tabak in the first place....
Just looking for clarity....
He seems a bit of a Fairy if you ask me 8(>((
-
I for one, hardly ever know what you are referring to, how you come to certain conclusions or have the confidence to post them!
If you are referring to MY edit, I replied on my phone and it said
"Heist one by his own admission. He’s also a killer."
Did really check what I had written but when I noticed, I amended the "Heist" to "He is" and added "given that he never denied the charges"
The post now reads;
"He is one by his own admission given that he never denied the charges. He’s also a killer."
So what are you trying to insinuate? And NO! I have no idea what you're referring to but then I doubt I am alone there!
Exactly Caroline... Clarity is massively important, and i appreciate you have taken the time to explain, what i was referring too...
And not games involving Heist..
https://store.steampowered.com/tags/en/Heist/
Or.. Heist: a crime in which valuable things are taken illegally and often violently from a place or person:
Or Reality Tv show
https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/1043237/The-Heist-on-Sky-Hunted-Sue-Hill-Ray-Howard-Tim-Whitwell-Channel-4
Thank you ?{)(**
-
Exactly Caroline... Clarity is massively important, and i appreciate you have taken the time to explain, what i was referring too...
And not games involving Heist..
https://store.steampowered.com/tags/en/Heist/
Or.. Heist: a crime in which valuable things are taken illegally and often violently from a place or person:
Or Reality Tv show
https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/1043237/The-Heist-on-Sky-Hunted-Sue-Hill-Ray-Howard-Tim-Whitwell-Channel-4
Thank you ?{)(**
This is a [prime example of how your thinking leads you down the wrong route! Now that was clarity!
-
I'll tell you whats needed here - if someone could prove Tabak didn't have time to commit the crime, I might start to have doubts myself!
-
I'll tell you whats needed here - if someone could prove Tabak didn't have time to commit the crime, I might start to have doubts myself!
8((()*/. Oh Caroline, what you been drinking. You seem ready for the Nuthouse @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
8((()*/. Oh Caroline, what you been drinking. You seem ready for the Nuthouse @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Sorry RJ, I was a way with the Fairies for a sec - just gave my head a shake 8((()*/ @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Sorry RJ, I was a way with the Fairies for a sec - just gave my head a shake 8((()*/ @)(++(* @)(++(*
Phew you had me worried for a moment
-
Phew you had me worried for a moment
8(0(*
-
Whos's a Fairy and what type and in what context?
Its Fairy obvious what I mean, he seems like a a motor vehicle with many mechanical problems. Not all there so to speak, something missing.
-
I love angels but will never have time for fairies! @)(++(*
-
Please keep on topic-------I will be deleting off topic posts. The fairies won't do it for me.
-
As I said earlier about attention. Its about a young woman who had her life taken by a monster. Post dont post it doesnt change the fact that is what he is and what happened.
So it was all for attention?
Someone wanting attention?? Needing attention?
Attention for which purpose? Fame?? notoriety? Money? Position?
Posts pointless, nothing will change if it is what it is... @)(++(*
-
Please keep on topic-------I will be deleting off topic posts. The fairies won't do it for me.
Reminded me of a film.... I see dead people..
-
Please keep on topic-------I will be deleting off topic posts. The fairies won't do it for me.
How’s comparing Tabak to a Fairy not in your favour. Are we getting to the point where we have to inbox you to see what words are acceptable, you let the most outrageous posts pass your moderation that are off topic, yet a light hearted word is not acceptable 8@??)(
-
So it was all for attention?
Someone wanting attention?? Needing attention?
Attention for which purpose? Fame?? notoriety? Money? Position?
Posts pointless, nothing will change if it is what it is... @)(++(*
That is a fantastic summing up of your posts!
As we cant mention fairies it seems, im thinking more of Noah and his ark!
-
How’s comparing Tabak to a Fairy not in your favour. Are we getting to the point where we have to inbox you to see what words are acceptable, you let the most outrageous posts pass your moderation that are off topic, yet a light hearted word is not acceptable 8@??)(
I do the best I can!! You are entitled to complain to Admin about my moderating, if you think I am being unfair.
-
I do the best I can!! You are entitled to complain to Admin about my moderating, if you think I am being unfair.
I don’t want to be writing to John EVERYDAY
-
I don’t want to be writing to John EVERYDAY
If Im that bad, perhaps you should!!
-
I do the best I can!! You are entitled to complain to Admin about my moderating, if you think I am being unfair.
I have reported some of the more deranged posts!
-
I have reported some of the more deranged posts!
Yes, I saw that you had!
-
I do the best I can!! You are entitled to complain to Admin about my moderating, if you think I am being unfair.
I believe you. I believe it to be true of most, however, I don't believe it's possible for any of us to be bias-free. Unintentionally, our past experiences creep into our subconscious and inform our actions.
-
How many more times is this possoap individual going to change identity?
-
How many more times is this possoap individual going to change identity?
Now that is a much asked question!
-
I believe you. I believe it to be true of most, however, I don't believe it's possible for any of us to be bias-free. Unintentionally, our past experiences creep into our subconscious and inform our actions.
Yes, I suspect you are right April !
-
I believe you. I believe it to be true of most, however, I don't believe it's possible for any of us to be bias-free. Unintentionally, our past experiences creep into our subconscious and inform our actions.
Great post again April, you have such a way with words. I sometimes wonder WHO IS GONNA REMOVE POSTS FROM A FORUM TRYING TO PROVE SOMEONES INNOCENCE!!!!! I could understand it if the remarks were obscene, but Fairies is a better choice of words than being disrespectful to Vinnie and well within any guide lines of any forum?
Have you checked if you can use that word by the way April PASSOAP @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Great post again April, you have such a way with words. I sometimes wonder WHO IS GONNA REMOVE POSTS FROM A FORUM TRYING TO PROVE SOMEONES INNOCENCE!!!!! I could understand it if the remarks were obscene, but Fairies is a better choice of words than being disrespectful to Vinnie and well within any guide lines of any forum?
Have you checked if you can use that word by the way April PASSOAP @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
As it's MY word, RJ, descriptive, but perfectly respectable in the form in which it stands, rolling inoffensively from the tongue, who's to say I can't?
-
Please keep on topic-------I will be deleting off topic posts. The fairies won't do it for me.
Fairies are actually relevant and relates to the number of names used by the poster formally known as Nine.
-
Great post again April, you have such a way with words. I sometimes wonder WHO IS GONNA REMOVE POSTS FROM A FORUM TRYING TO PROVE SOMEONES INNOCENCE!!!!! I could understand it if the remarks were obscene, but Fairies is a better choice of words than being disrespectful to Vinnie and well within any guide lines of any forum?
Have you checked if you can use that word by the way April PASSOAP @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
You all seem to be in on this joke... Who's Vinnie.... ?? I assumed you meant Dr Vincent Tabak , but I do not know anymore,...
Ok....Is this forum and thread meant to be a constant reminder to some one?
I don't get it.... But it's probably best I don't...
Have you checked if you can use that word by the way April PASSOAP
Are we back to a game again? Pass OAP ?
-
You all seem to be in on this joke... Who's Vinnie.... ?? I assumed you meant Dr Vincent Tabak , but I do not know anymore,...
Ok....Is this forum and thread meant to be a constant reminder to some one?
I don't get it.... But it's probably best I don't...
Have you checked if you can use that word by the way April PASSOAP
Are we back to a game again? Pass OAP ?
You seem to be answering for mrswah, why are you taking things personal, that’s a sign your guilty of something? You of all people questioning names, i explained why I chose the word Fairy, if you and mrswah (the only two who seem to object) don’t like me calling Tabak, tough, if John feels its unfair to call Tabak a fairy, or Holly or Myster then I will accept this.
-
You seem to be answering for mrswah, why are you taking things personal, that’s a sign your guilty of something? You of all people questioning names, i explained why I chose the word Fairy, if you and mrswah (the only two who seem to object) don’t like me calling Tabak, tough, if John feels its unfair to call Tabak a fairy, or Holly or Myster then I will accept this.
Again..
-
DIRECTING AP – MURDER AT CHRISTMAS [FIRSTLOOK TV / AETN]
November 2011: One-hour documentary. A fast-turnaround commission about the murder of Joanna Yeates to coincide with the trial of her murderer. As AP and reporer, I found and filmed exclusive interviews here in the UK and the Netherlands. I also persuaded and interviewed Joanna’s mother and father – an exclusive following the trial and conviction of Vincent Tabak.
https://ruthdavies.wordpress.com/tv-credits/
A fast turnaround?? Who commissioned it? To coincide 'with' the trial, shouldn't that be after the trial?
The first thing I noticed when I looked at this program, and I really hadn't taken much notice of it before, was at 7 seconds of the video, there is someone putting up a poster, that was not the official poster of Joanna Yeates Missing poster, it wasn't the poster that people who joined facebook were asked to use...It was this poster
(https://ruthdavies.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/jo-poster.jpg?w=352&h=469)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4X5I4eOKIBs
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15834;image)
The poster that has the CID phone number upon it....
So the question has to be... How did they manage to film someone putting up that poster? When this commission is made after the trial... when everyone else knew of a different poster,
A little odd..
Edit... From the person who made this commission LinkedIn blurb
Directing AP
October 2011 – November 2011 2 months
Stratford-Upon-Avon / Various
Joanna Yeates: Murder at Christmas
A fast-turnaround one-hour commission about the murder of Joanna Yeates. As reporter I found and filmed exclusive interviews here in the UK and the Netherlands. I also persuaded and interviewed Joanna’s mother and father - an exclusive following the trial and conviction of Tabak.
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/ruth-davies-8b014244
So Oct 2011- Nov 2011... Why October? The trial was happening in october, all those people to interview, more revelations coming out after trial, yet it appears whilst the trial was going on this was being filmed...
Odd again.... No-one knew what the outcome maybe.. Yet we are happily making a commissioned film that might have got chucked in the bin...
How fast do these things take to make?
-
https://ruthdavies.wordpress.com/tv-credits/
A fast turnaround?? Who commissioned it? To coincide 'with' the trial, shouldn't that be after the trial?
The first thing I noticed when I looked at this program, and I really hadn't taken much notice of it before, was at 7 seconds of the video, there is someone putting up a poster, that was not the official poster of Joanna Yeates Missing poster, it wasn't the poster that people who joined facebook were asked to use...It was this poster
(https://ruthdavies.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/jo-poster.jpg?w=352&h=469)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4X5I4eOKIBs
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15834;image)
The poster that has the CID phone number upon it....
So the question has to be... How did they manage to film someone putting up that poster? When this commission is made after the trial... when everyone else knew of a different poster,
A little odd..
Edit... From the person who made this commission LinkedIn blurb
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/ruth-davies-8b014244
So Oct 2011- Nov 2011... Why October? The trial was happening in october, all those people to interview, more revelations coming out after trial, yet it appears whilst the trial was going on this was being filmed...
Odd again.... No-one knew what the outcome maybe.. Yet we are happily making a commissioned film that might have got chucked in the bin...
How fast do these things take to make?
I see two distinct possibilities here. Your need to dot "I's" and cross "T's" suggests A) You're pedantic in the extreme. In which case, get over yourself, B) You're on the Asperger's spectrum, which would be an explanation, and which, incidentally, I don't have a problem with as my late partner and his son both had a place there.
You seem unable to grasp -regarding reporting/writing books/making films about crimes- the fact of "Licence". People will present 'facts' in a way which attracts readers and viewers. They are free to do so because the victim(s) are deceased and the perpetrator is behind bars. Books without number have been written and sold about a crime committed in Essex 30+ years ago. You'd think that some of the authors had been present when the crime was committed, such was their 'insight' into the characters of the victims. Every one of those books tells a slightly different story. In this particular case, the perpetrator, unlike Tabak, protests his innocence. Do you not find it strange that Tabak, who you claim to be innocent, has never claimed it for himself? On this man's behalf, you've trawled the internet -well, FB and Twitter- and crawled through every sentence written, and picked holes in what you've found, looking, fruitlessly, for clues to it. Thus far, all you've achieved are 'gems' such as arriving at the conclusion that his message to his girlfriend was coded which signaled that he was in contact with Joanna. I'm fully aware that you rarely make claims, preferring to say you don't know so you ask questions. However, despite copious answers, there is never a response. More, a segway. A sidetrack.
I wonder how many more times you'll tease us by saying you'll leave? Actually, you've been rather sly, haven't you? You DO leave, ie in your current incarnation, but you return, having reinvented yourself. I'd be very interested to know how many forums you've attached yourself to and how many have supported anything you've said. My guess is, not many. None? You wouldn't be here if they had, would you?
-
Then we get this guy, whom apparently is a neighbour.... How did they find him??
Jean-Filippe Massoeurs??
He works for as an International Manager for a fashion outlet according to his LinkedIn and they pull him out of a hat....
Was he just hanging around on the vague possibility an English TV crew would want to speak to him??
Dr Vincent Tabak so memorable, that he knew exactly who he was and took time out of his busy schedule to talk to an English TV crew?
He hadn't left home or anything like that, he still lived next door and was just waiting on an opportunity??
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15836;image)
-
Great post again April, you have such a way with words. I sometimes wonder WHO IS GONNA REMOVE POSTS FROM A FORUM TRYING TO PROVE SOMEONES INNOCENCE!!!!! I could understand it if the remarks were obscene, but Fairies is a better choice of words than being disrespectful to Vinnie and well within any guide lines of any forum?
Have you checked if you can use that word by the way April PASSOAP @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Oh, RJ, I cannot bear to see you so upset through my moderating!! Call VT a fairy, if you must! I was objecting more to the fact that we had several posts not meaning very much taking up space!!!
Apparently, VTs mother calls him Vinnie, so I read. More useless info!!
-
You seem to be answering for mrswah, why are you taking things personal, that’s a sign your guilty of something? You of all people questioning names, i explained why I chose the word Fairy, if you and mrswah (the only two who seem to object) don’t like me calling Tabak, tough, if John feels its unfair to call Tabak a fairy, or Holly or Myster then I will accept this.
Don't worry, I don't have the final say on the fairy posts!! If any other mod thinks I'm out of order, the posts will be reinstated. I won't sulk, promise!
-
Oh, RJ, I cannot bear to see you so upset through my moderating!! Call VT a fairy, if you must! I was objecting more to the fact that we had several posts not meaning very much taking up space!!!
Apparently, VTs mother calls him Vinnie, so I read. More useless info!!
Thanks mrswah, yes that’s why I used the name Vinnie I was aware of that, we called all Vincent’s Vinnie, I come from an area that always shortened names or nicknames etc.
-
Then we get this guy, whom apparently is a neighbour.... How did they find him??
Jean-Filippe Massoeurs??
He works for as an International Manager for a fashion outlet according to his LinkedIn and they pull him out of a hat....
Was he just hanging around on the vague possibility an English TV crew would want to speak to him??
Dr Vincent Tabak so memorable, that he knew exactly who he was and took time out of his busy schedule to talk to an English TV crew?
He hadn't left home or anything like that, he still lived next door and was just waiting on an opportunity??
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15836;image)
I would think they found him by hanging around outside VTs mother's house, hoping to catch a neighbour who had known VT when young, and who would speak about him!
-
I would think they found him by hanging around outside VTs mother's house, hoping to catch a neighbour who had known VT when young, and who would speak about him!
Yes, nothing sinister as simple as that.
-
I see two distinct possibilities here. Your need to dot "I's" and cross "T's" suggests A) You're pedantic in the extreme. In which case, get over yourself, B) You're on the Asperger's spectrum, which would be an explanation, and which, incidentally, I don't have a problem with as my late partner and his son both had a place there.
You seem unable to grasp -regarding reporting/writing books/making films about crimes- the fact of "Licence". People will present 'facts' in a way which attracts readers and viewers. They are free to do so because the victim(s) are deceased and the perpetrator is behind bars. Books without number have been written and sold about a crime committed in Essex 30+ years ago. You'd think that some of the authors had been present when the crime was committed, such was their 'insight' into the characters of the victims. Every one of those books tells a slightly different story. In this particular case, the perpetrator, unlike Tabak, protests his innocence. Do you not find it strange that Tabak, who you claim to be innocent, has never claimed it for himself? On this man's behalf, you've trawled the internet -well, FB and Twitter- and crawled through every sentence written, and picked holes in what you've found, looking, fruitlessly, for clues to it. Thus far, all you've achieved are 'gems' such as arriving at the conclusion that his message to his girlfriend was coded which signaled that he was in contact with Joanna. I'm fully aware that you rarely make claims, preferring to say you don't know so you ask questions. However, despite copious answers, there is never a response. More, a segway. A sidetrack.
I wonder how many more times you'll tease us by saying you'll leave? Actually, you've been rather sly, haven't you? You DO leave, ie in your current incarnation, but you return, having reinvented yourself. I'd be very interested to know how many forums you've attached yourself to and how many have supported anything you've said. My guess is, not many. None? You wouldn't be here if they had, would you?
In fact, John has previously praised this member for his/her detailed research!
-
In fact, John has previously praised this member for his/her detailed research!
All by Accident @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Then we get this guy, whom apparently is a neighbour.... How did they find him??
Jean-Filippe Massoeurs??
He works for as an International Manager for a fashion outlet according to his LinkedIn and they pull him out of a hat....
Was he just hanging around on the vague possibility an English TV crew would want to speak to him??
Dr Vincent Tabak so memorable, that he knew exactly who he was and took time out of his busy schedule to talk to an English TV crew?
He hadn't left home or anything like that, he still lived next door and was just waiting on an opportunity??
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15836;image)
How did they find him? You are joking, surely? Journo's -be they television or newspaper- aren't generally known for being shy, retiring little flowers. They ask questions. They locate addresses. They knock on doors. They hang out. If necessary, they stake out, until they get a response.
Regarding the neighbour, I feel confident that he, as with many others, would have been only too willing to fill in any missing bits, be they supportive or dirt dishing.
-
In fact, John has previously praised this member for his/her detailed research!
Methinks I sense a certain ambiguity there?
-
How did they find him? You are joking, surely? Journo's -be they television or newspaper- aren't generally known for being shy, retiring little flowers. They ask questions. They locate addresses. They knock on doors. They hang out. If necessary, they stake out, until they get a response.
Regarding the neighbour, I feel confident that he, as with many others, would have been only too willing to fill in any missing bits, be they supportive or dirt dishing.
I wish the journalists had found a few more people willing to talk about VT, to be honest.
-
Interpretation of the law and application of the law to charges brought against an individual is paramount..
I believe that the law concerning Joint Enterprise has been Misinterpreted for decades, and The Jogee Ruling, which highlighted this failure, should have since made a huge difference, But the wheels of Justice move slowly...
I am applying a principle and just questioning whether there has been a misinterpretation of the law...
https://justice.org.uk/r-v-jogee-appellant/
Another reason I wondered if Dr Vincent tabak was originally arrested under joint enterprise... Seeing as they had stated they were looking for killers and had then arrested CJ...
Knowing Dr Vincent Tabak had assisted CJ in moving the car, I asked if that was where the pressure came from that could have been applied to Dr Vincent Tabak in the first place....
Just looking for clarity....
What like a LITD company or something? Not quite following this Eight?
-
I wish the journalists had found a few more people willing to talk about VT, to be honest.
But you dont believe Tabak so why would be believe the views of people who would have hardly known him?
-
Then we get this guy, whom apparently is a neighbour.... How did they find him??
Jean-Filippe Massoeurs??
He works for as an International Manager for a fashion outlet according to his LinkedIn and they pull him out of a hat....
Was he just hanging around on the vague possibility an English TV crew would want to speak to him??
Dr Vincent Tabak so memorable, that he knew exactly who he was and took time out of his busy schedule to talk to an English TV crew?
He hadn't left home or anything like that, he still lived next door and was just waiting on an opportunity??
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15836;image)
I think they interviewed or spoke to other neighbours as well?
-
I wish the journalists had found a few more people willing to talk about VT, to be honest.
Here is another Neighbour talking
A former neighbour of the man who has been convicted of murdering Jo Yeates, has told how killer Vincent Tabak was an "introverted" loner as a child.
The 33-year-old Dutch engineer grew up in Uden, 21 miles (34km) north of Eindhoven in the south east of the Netherlands.
The town of 40,000 residents in the North Brabant province has grown significantly from its village roots during the past 60 years and is now considered a regional centre.
John Massoeurs, who lived next door to the Tabak family, said Tabak was a "latecomer" and his parents were older than average.
Little is known about his mother and father - but Mr Massoeurs said Tabak's father died about 10 years ago.
Tabak was born in 1978 and was the youngest child. He had few friends when he was young, his former neighbour said.
"He didn't play with children in the neighbourhood. He was very on his own," Mr Massoeurs said.
-
But you dont believe Tabak so why would be believe the views of people who would have hardly known him?
There must be at least some people who knew him well. Unfortunately, they haven't spoken to the press, but I suppose they were wise not to do so!
-
Here is another Neighbour talking
A former neighbour of the man who has been convicted of murdering Jo Yeates, has told how killer Vincent Tabak was an "introverted" loner as a child.
The 33-year-old Dutch engineer grew up in Uden, 21 miles (34km) north of Eindhoven in the south east of the Netherlands.
The town of 40,000 residents in the North Brabant province has grown significantly from its village roots during the past 60 years and is now considered a regional centre.
John Massoeurs, who lived next door to the Tabak family, said Tabak was a "latecomer" and his parents were older than average.
Little is known about his mother and father - but Mr Massoeurs said Tabak's father died about 10 years ago.
Tabak was born in 1978 and was the youngest child. He had few friends when he was young, his former neighbour said.
"He didn't play with children in the neighbourhood. He was very on his own," Mr Massoeurs said.
I assumed it was the same man!
-
Here is another Neighbour talking
A former neighbour of the man who has been convicted of murdering Jo Yeates, has told how killer Vincent Tabak was an "introverted" loner as a child.
The 33-year-old Dutch engineer grew up in Uden, 21 miles (34km) north of Eindhoven in the south east of the Netherlands.
The town of 40,000 residents in the North Brabant province has grown significantly from its village roots during the past 60 years and is now considered a regional centre.
John Massoeurs, who lived next door to the Tabak family, said Tabak was a "latecomer" and his parents were older than average.
Little is known about his mother and father - but Mr Massoeurs said Tabak's father died about 10 years ago.
Tabak was born in 1978 and was the youngest child. He had few friends when he was young, his former neighbour said.
"He didn't play with children in the neighbourhood. He was very on his own," Mr Massoeurs said.
Thats why I think Prison will suit Vinnie, he likes to be alone and doesn’t mix, could be he killed on purpose to get away from society. That’s why hanging him ( I used to know of a hangman by the way) would be beneficial in case he’s enjoying himself, I think the Yeates were spot on wanting this?
-
I assumed it was the same man!
Not when you see the picture, which I can’t get up and I don’t like putting pictures up without authorisation mrswah.
-
I assumed it was the same man!
Defo not the same man.
-
Not when you see the picture, which I can’t get up and I don’t like putting pictures up without authorisation mrswah.
Ok, must surely be from the same family?
-
I wish the journalists had found a few more people willing to talk about VT, to be honest.
For all we know, they may have. What would you expect to have heard? We absolutely know that those paedophiles in the professional classes don't advertise their proclivities. To the world they inhabit away from the internet they are the epitome of respectability, pillars of their community, good to their families, devoted sons.
-
Ok, must surely be from the same family?
Could be mrswah, he’s got glasses on the other chap.
-
Ok, must surely be from the same family?
Father and son probably... John the father, Jean-Philliep the son.
John Massoeurs, retired photographer... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-15259135 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-15259135)
and son?... https://youtu.be/4X5I4eOKIBs?t=263 (https://youtu.be/4X5I4eOKIBs?t=263)
-
I wish the journalists had found a few more people willing to talk about VT, to be honest.
Looking at it from another direction, I'm not entirely certain that (some) journos can be relied upon to, shall we say, report accurately? I've known occasions when something has been reported, only to be told that it hadn't happened that way, or the words hadn't been said.
-
For all we know, they may have. What would you expect to have heard? We absolutely know that those paedophiles in the professional classes don't advertise their proclivities. To the world they inhabit away from the internet they are the epitome of respectability, pillars of their community, good to their families, devoted sons.
It must be horrible for the family of Vinnie April, his mother Sonja, brother Marcel ect, they will all be on the outer circle of life now, along with the Yeates and Gregg and Tanja, within the middle of the circle is the black hole, a person in life who had this gravitational pull, but never expressed his light within, the monster they never knew.
How many times have we heard the expression, “He would be the last person on earth”. or “He had us all fooled”
-
I see two distinct possibilities here. Your need to dot "I's" and cross "T's" suggests A) You're pedantic in the extreme. In which case, get over yourself, B) You're on the Asperger's spectrum, which would be an explanation, and which, incidentally, I don't have a problem with as my late partner and his son both had a place there.
You seem unable to grasp -regarding reporting/writing books/making films about crimes- the fact of "Licence". People will present 'facts' in a way which attracts readers and viewers. They are free to do so because the victim(s) are deceased and the perpetrator is behind bars. Books without number have been written and sold about a crime committed in Essex 30+ years ago. You'd think that some of the authors had been present when the crime was committed, such was their 'insight' into the characters of the victims. Every one of those books tells a slightly different story. In this particular case, the perpetrator, unlike Tabak, protests his innocence. Do you not find it strange that Tabak, who you claim to be innocent, has never claimed it for himself? On this man's behalf, you've trawled the internet -well, FB and Twitter- and crawled through every sentence written, and picked holes in what you've found, looking, fruitlessly, for clues to it. Thus far, all you've achieved are 'gems' such as arriving at the conclusion that his message to his girlfriend was coded which signaled that he was in contact with Joanna. I'm fully aware that you rarely make claims, preferring to say you don't know so you ask questions. However, despite copious answers, there is never a response. More, a segway. A sidetrack.
I wonder how many more times you'll tease us by saying you'll leave? Actually, you've been rather sly, haven't you? You DO leave, ie in your current incarnation, but you return, having reinvented yourself. I'd be very interested to know how many forums you've attached yourself to and how many have supported anything you've said. My guess is, not many. None? You wouldn't be here if they had, would you?
In other words April, “Do not Trash the innocent, clean up your own Trash first”
-
Looking at it from another direction, I'm not entirely certain that (some) journos can be relied upon to, shall we say, report accurately? I've known occasions when something has been reported, only to be told that it hadn't happened that way, or the words hadn't been said.
So it's a story, something else actually happened? Is that what you are trying to say?
Is that why none of the reports make sense... Why cross referencing only causes more questions to be asked..
No idea anymore... Back as always in two minds... whether Dr Vincent Tabak is real or not....
So it's a pointless thread, making no sense whatsoever...
No need to keep it then really... My time wasted, chasing a ghost...
-
Not again...
-
I think April is just saying that you can't always rely on reporters giving accurate facts. Believe me, VT is certainly real!!
-
So it's a story, something else actually happened? Is that what you are trying to say?
Is that why none of the reports make sense... Why cross referencing only causes more questions to be asked..
No idea anymore... Back as always in two minds... whether Dr Vincent Tabak is real or not....
So it's a pointless thread, making no sense whatsoever...
No need to keep it then really... My time wasted, chasing a ghost...
Your time is wasted.? What about the life that was wasted? Viciously taken by the wonderful Tabak. Isn't that was this thread is meant to be about?
-
So it's a story, something else actually happened? Is that what you are trying to say?
Is that why none of the reports make sense... Why cross referencing only causes more questions to be asked..
No idea anymore... Back as always in two minds... whether Dr Vincent Tabak is real or not....
So it's a pointless thread, making no sense whatsoever...
No need to keep it then really... My time wasted, chasing a ghost...
Try not to turn it into you personal 9-1=8, it’s not about you anymore
-
What like a LITD company or something? Not quite following this Eight?
Or..
LITD meaning?
LITD Light in the Dark
LitD Light in the Darkness (Catherine Doherty book)
LITD Love It to Death (music album)
LITD Light Intercepting Transfer Device (Solatube International)
LITD Love It to Death (Alice Cooper tribute show)
LitD Litterarum Doctor (Latin: Doctor of Literature)
-
Or..
LITD meaning?
LITD Light in the Dark
LitD Light in the Darkness (Catherine Doherty book)
LITD Love It to Death (music album)
LITD Light Intercepting Transfer Device (Solatube International)
LITD Love It to Death (Alice Cooper tribute show)
LitD Litterarum Doctor (Latin: Doctor of Literature)
Does any of them mean Company?
-
Or..
LITD meaning?
LITD Light in the Dark
LitD Light in the Darkness (Catherine Doherty book)
LITD Love It to Death (music album)
LITD Light Intercepting Transfer Device (Solatube International)
LITD Love It to Death (Alice Cooper tribute show)
LitD Litterarum Doctor (Latin: Doctor of Literature)
You really do need the attention don't you. At any cost
-
Maybe the answers ran away with the fairies (&^&
-
It must be horrible for the family of Vinnie April, his mother Sonja, brother Marcel ect, they will all be on the outer circle of life now, along with the Yeates and Gregg and Tanja, within the middle of the circle is the black hole, a person in life who had this gravitational pull, but never expressed his light within, the monster they never knew.
How many times have we heard the expression, “He would be the last person on earth”. or “He had us all fooled”
You've bought a valid -and I'm certain- very overlooked point to my notice, RJ. The families of victims of vicious crime -and I include here, the families of the perpetrators along with the families of the victims- hold a unique position within society that the rest of us, thankfully, can have no concept of. Sadly, their lives can never return to pre-crime times because their lives have been informed by different information. Crimes such as these are like stones on water. The ripples go on.
-
So it's a story, something else actually happened? Is that what you are trying to say?
Is that why none of the reports make sense... Why cross referencing only causes more questions to be asked..
No idea anymore... Back as always in two minds... whether Dr Vincent Tabak is real or not....
So it's a pointless thread, making no sense whatsoever...
No need to keep it then really... My time wasted, chasing a ghost...
You really are the master of misinterpretation, aren't you. You must have a Phd in it.
-
I think April is just saying that you can't always rely on reporters giving accurate facts. Believe me, VT is certainly real!!
Of that, I have NO doubt, mrswah!
-
I think April is just saying that you can't always rely on reporters giving accurate facts. Believe me, VT is certainly real!!
I hope you understand my doubts mrswah... After cross referencing so much information that makes no sense, The only conclusion I keep coming too is he real or not real...
Virtually everyone here believes he is guilty, now I can only base that on his apparent confession and Manslaughter plea...
Nothing supports this plea, everything about this case is out in the open before a trial, nothing new or different came to trial,
The evidence that was used, ie searches and texts could quite easily have been challenged, the low copy DNA could have been challenged, the fact that the forensic company can apparently turn around in 48 hours all of the testing including suspects clothes, when at that point in time they cannot have had Dr Vincent Tabak's clothing, where even if the DNA matched anyone from that building, it could be explained away, based on the fact they used gates, doors, hallway to main entrance, all making it possible for everyone DNA to be anywhere, plus Bernard the cat went into flat's, he could have picked up DNA from people stroking him...
The evidence at trial, is.... easy to explain away.... The story on the stand, is.... easy to disbelieve, seeing as it all comes from information already reported at the time in one form or another...
Over 20 witness statements read out, again hearsay evidence... The two most important people missing from trial, that being his girlfriend Tanja Morson whom lived with Dr Vincent Tabak and was with him for most part that weekend.. And CJ... whom as I have said many times, by his own admission conversed with Dr Vincent Tabak on two occasions that weekend... And that fact alone makes me ask why he was allowed to be a core participant at the Leveson...
It's like a bad dream, always there, but nothing changes... Nothing makes sense at all...
So, I come back to the fact that I am unsure about who Dr Vincent Tabak is... I do not understand his silence, I do not understand why his family do not say anything... After all this time and nothing....
Therefore i wonder if this trial is just a story, I wonder if Joanna Yeates is a cold case, as I was lead to believe..
With no-one within the justice system appearing to bat an eyelid about this case, when the chain of command is first broken, when people are allowed on the second scene of crime, before forensics have been completed... That they wouldn't at least be a little curious to know what happened, I am sure many lawyers are aware, people plead guilty for many reasons when it is not them or cannot be them,..
Who checked all the evidence?
And all still believe he is guilty? Without question.... Odd that, not even one lawyer being a little inquisitive about a case that all the evidence was out in the media before trial.... And it not registering one little bit....
So that is partly why I do not know if Dr Vincent Tabak is a real person, or whether he is known by another name....
This case is impossible, it's like trying to plait piss....
Sky News 28th October 2011. The former landlord of murdered landscape architect Joanna Yeates has spoken of his anger and frustration at being arrested and branded a suspect in her killing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmali3F29Ss
That quote is from CJ... Murder at Christmas program, the date it is published is the 29th October 2010, yet Sky News used it prior...
How are you being interviewed by SKY News on the very day, Dr Vincent Tabak is being sentenced, when the clip is from the commissioned program meaning it had to be made before, (imo),...
Because that is how it appears to me...
I find it odd, the making of this program and CJ's involvement, when he didn't appear at trial as a witness, I do not know why, and i do not know CJ's reasoning for his many appearances... I have said before i do not know if he is doing it to keep the case alive for Dr Vincent Tabak or whatever other reason....
Therefore the trial and anything to do with Dr Vincent Tabak comes across to me as a complete fabrication, a story, jackanory...
And that's why I do not know if he is real anymore... Maybe he is and maybe he is in prison.... And if that is the case, this case needs looking at again... (imo)
-
I think April is just saying that you can't always rely on reporters giving accurate facts. Believe me, VT is certainly real!!
For the third time of asking. (https://i.imgur.com/7dr4qsb.gif)
-
For the third time of asking. (https://i.imgur.com/7dr4qsb.gif)
What you trying to say?? CJ is a reporter/journalist?? VT?? = Video tape?
-
How do these thoughts get into your head?
-
I hope you understand my doubts mrswah... After cross referencing so much information that makes no sense, The only conclusion I keep coming too is he real or not real...
Virtually everyone here believes he is guilty, now I can only base that on his apparent confession and Manslaughter plea...
Nothing supports this plea, everything about this case is out in the open before a trial, nothing new or different came to trial,
The evidence that was used, ie searches and texts could quite easily have been challenged, the low copy DNA could have been challenged, the fact that the forensic company can apparently turn around in 48 hours all of the testing including suspects clothes, when at that point in time they cannot have had Dr Vincent Tabak's clothing, where even if the DNA matched anyone from that building, it could be explained away, based on the fact they used gates, doors, hallway to main entrance, all making it possible for everyone DNA to be anywhere, plus Bernard the cat went into flat's, he could have picked up DNA from people stroking him...
The evidence at trial, is.... easy to explain away.... The story on the stand, is.... easy to disbelieve, seeing as it all comes from information already reported at the time in one form or another...
Over 20 witness statements read out, again hearsay evidence... The two most important people missing from trial, that being his girlfriend Tanja Morson whom lived with Dr Vincent Tabak and was with him for most part that weekend.. And CJ... whom as I have said many times, by his own admission conversed with Dr Vincent Tabak on two occasions that weekend... And that fact alone makes me ask why he was allowed to be a core participant at the Leveson...
It's like a bad dream, always there, but nothing changes... Nothing makes sense at all...
So, I come back to the fact that I am unsure about who Dr Vincent Tabak is... I do not understand his silence, I do not understand why his family do not say anything... After all this time and nothing....
Therefore i wonder if this trial is just a story, I wonder if Joanna Yeates is a cold case, as I was lead to believe..
With no-one within the justice system appearing to bat an eyelid about this case, when the chain of command is first broken, when people are allowed on the second scene of crime, before forensics have been completed... That they wouldn't at least be a little curious to know what happened, I am sure many lawyers are aware, people plead guilty for many reasons when it is not them or cannot be them,..
Who checked all the evidence?
And all still believe he is guilty? Without question.... Odd that, not even one lawyer being a little inquisitive about a case that all the evidence was out in the media before trial.... And it not registering one little bit....
So that is partly why I do not know if Dr Vincent Tabak is a real person, or whether he is known by another name....
This case is impossible, it's like trying to plait piss....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmali3F29Ss (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmali3F29Ss)
That quote is from CJ... Murder at Christmas program, the date it is published is the 29th October 2010, yet Sky News used it prior...
How are you being interviewed by SKY News on the very day, Dr Vincent Tabak is being sentenced, when the clip is from the commissioned program meaning it had to be made before, (imo),...
Because that is how it appears to me...
I find it odd, the making of this program and CJ's involvement, when he didn't appear at trial as a witness, I do not know why, and i do not know CJ's reasoning for his many appearances... I have said before i do not know if he is doing it to keep the case alive for Dr Vincent Tabak or whatever other reason....
Therefore the trial and anything to do with Dr Vincent Tabak comes across to me as a complete fabrication, a story, jackanory...
And that's why I do not know if he is real anymore... Maybe he is and maybe he is in prison.... And if that is the case, this case needs looking at again... (imo)
Why don't you stop winding everybody up here. Just write to William Clegg QC and see what he thinks of your ludicrous ideas, if he can be bothered to reply.
-
How do these thoughts get into your head?
Cannot answer that question... Thoughts in anyone head are just that,.. thoughts, uncontrollable mostly, unless a person choses to concentrate on said thoughts..
-
Why don't you stop winding everybody up here. Just write to William Clegg QC and see what he thinks of your ludicrous ideas, if he can be bothered to reply.
And what would that actually achieve? If representing Dr Vincent Tabak didn't throw up any questions in the first place, then it won't make any difference now, will it...
-
Why don't you stop winding everybody up here. Just write to William Clegg QC and see what he thinks of your ludicrous ideas, if he can be bothered to reply.
Here's a thought, what did Clegg do? I mean , whom did he interview about Dr Vincent Tabak, ?? any of the neighbours including CJ?.. Tanja Morson??
I do not know what evidence was collected by the defence, and it should have been, and if that didn't happen, the only reason I can think of was Dr Vincent Tabak confessed he killed Joanna Yeates sooner to Clegg.... But if that was the case, why do we not know about it?
No-one knows anything until, May 2011 when Dr Vincent Tabak apparently pleads guilty to manslaughter..... So what took place before with the defence and them interviewing people whom knew Dr Vincent Tabak?? What was cross referenced?
Edit... I say confessed...... changed his plea would be more accurate...
-
Here's a thought, what did Clegg do? I mean , whom did he interview about Dr Vincent Tabak, ?? any of the neighbours including CJ?.. Tanja Morson??
I do not know what evidence was collected by the defence, and it should have been, and if that didn't happen, the only reason I can think of was Dr Vincent Tabak confessed he killed Joanna Yeates sooner to Clegg.... But if that was the case, why do we not know about it?
William Clegg will tell you all you need to know, either that or to stop being an interfering fuddy-duddy...
https://www.2bedfordrow.co.uk/barrister/william-clegg-qc/ (https://www.2bedfordrow.co.uk/barrister/william-clegg-qc/)
-
William Clegg will tell you all you need to know, either that or to stop being an interfering fuddy-duddy...
https://www.2bedfordrow.co.uk/barrister/william-clegg-qc/ (https://www.2bedfordrow.co.uk/barrister/william-clegg-qc/)
And what makes you believe he would do that? He's had ample opportunity, to says something and of course he is not going to is he...
Fuddy Duddy? I thought I was just a concerned citizen, but apparently you cannot even be that these days...
-
I hope you understand my doubts mrswah... After cross referencing so much information that makes no sense, The only conclusion I keep coming too is he real or not real...
Virtually everyone here believes he is guilty, now I can only base that on his apparent confession and Manslaughter plea...
Nothing supports this plea, everything about this case is out in the open before a trial, nothing new or different came to trial,
The evidence that was used, ie searches and texts could quite easily have been challenged, the low copy DNA could have been challenged, the fact that the forensic company can apparently turn around in 48 hours all of the testing including suspects clothes, when at that point in time they cannot have had Dr Vincent Tabak's clothing, where even if the DNA matched anyone from that building, it could be explained away, based on the fact they used gates, doors, hallway to main entrance, all making it possible for everyone DNA to be anywhere, plus Bernard the cat went into flat's, he could have picked up DNA from people stroking him...
The evidence at trial, is.... easy to explain away.... The story on the stand, is.... easy to disbelieve, seeing as it all comes from information already reported at the time in one form or another...
Over 20 witness statements read out, again hearsay evidence... The two most important people missing from trial, that being his girlfriend Tanja Morson whom lived with Dr Vincent Tabak and was with him for most part that weekend.. And CJ... whom as I have said many times, by his own admission conversed with Dr Vincent Tabak on two occasions that weekend... And that fact alone makes me ask why he was allowed to be a core participant at the Leveson...
It's like a bad dream, always there, but nothing changes... Nothing makes sense at all...
So, I come back to the fact that I am unsure about who Dr Vincent Tabak is... I do not understand his silence, I do not understand why his family do not say anything... After all this time and nothing....
Therefore i wonder if this trial is just a story, I wonder if Joanna Yeates is a cold case, as I was lead to believe..
With no-one within the justice system appearing to bat an eyelid about this case, when the chain of command is first broken, when people are allowed on the second scene of crime, before forensics have been completed... That they wouldn't at least be a little curious to know what happened, I am sure many lawyers are aware, people plead guilty for many reasons when it is not them or cannot be them,..
Who checked all the evidence?
And all still believe he is guilty? Without question.... Odd that, not even one lawyer being a little inquisitive about a case that all the evidence was out in the media before trial.... And it not registering one little bit....
So that is partly why I do not know if Dr Vincent Tabak is a real person, or whether he is known by another name....
This case is impossible, it's like trying to plait piss....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmali3F29Ss
That quote is from CJ... Murder at Christmas program, the date it is published is the 29th October 2010, yet Sky News used it prior...
How are you being interviewed by SKY News on the very day, Dr Vincent Tabak is being sentenced, when the clip is from the commissioned program meaning it had to be made before, (imo),...
Because that is how it appears to me...
I find it odd, the making of this program and CJ's involvement, when he didn't appear at trial as a witness, I do not know why, and i do not know CJ's reasoning for his many appearances... I have said before i do not know if he is doing it to keep the case alive for Dr Vincent Tabak or whatever other reason....
Therefore the trial and anything to do with Dr Vincent Tabak comes across to me as a complete fabrication, a story, jackanory...
And that's why I do not know if he is real anymore... Maybe he is and maybe he is in prison.... And if that is the case, this case needs looking at again... (imo)
It's your own mind set which prevent any of it from making sense. You keep saying "They can't have..........." and "There wasn't time for them to..............." is about how YOU see it. You continually make it about what YOU think "they'd" be capable of. It would appear to follow, that if we go along with one of your ludicrous suggestions, and there never was a Tabak, in all likelihood, there was no murder and Joanna is living happily in LaLa Land -have you ANY idea just how bloody cruel and insulting is such a suggestion? and begs the question WHY would such a scenario be set up. Do you think the police and judiciary got bored with lack of serious crime and therefore set the whole thing up, complete with faux participants, to alleviate......................and if you think this post reads like a load of **** you should try imagining what your own read like.
-
Nothing supports this plea, everything about this case is out in the open before a trial, nothing new or different came to trial,
BECAUSE THE MONSTER PLEADED GUILTY
-
And what makes you believe he would do that? He's had ample opportunity, to says something and of course he is not going to is he...
Fuddy Duddy? I thought I was just a concerned citizen, but apparently you cannot even be that these days...
What makes you believe he wouldn't when you haven't attempted to even ask?
Perhaps you would be served better by being concerned about the victim instead of the perpetrator!
-
Rupert Evelyn
@rupertevelyn
Follow Follow @rupertevelyn
More
Jo Yeates : Attorney General's office confirm to me they're considering contempt proceedings against man arrested before Yeates trial.
4:29 AM - 31 Oct 2011
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/130969513888985088
Who is he referring to?
Who was arrested??
Contempt for what purpose?
Slightly puzzling tweet, not knowing any dates there is a range of dates to choose from.. The only contempt case I know of was that against the papers because what had been written about CJ...
So whom was this individual and what did they say?
Is this in reference to the porn? maybe, but nothing is clear in that tweet..
The attorney general is considering whether to take action over a tweet revealing Vincent Tabak's interest in hardcore pornography that was posted during his trial.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/31/attorney-general-tweet-tabak-porn
So which report is accurate??? Rupert or the Guardian, did it happen before the trial or during.... Or both?
Was a separate individual arrested before trial and could have been in contempt of court, revealing what information I do not know..
Also another individual was possibly having action taken against him/her, because of a tweet about porn during trial...
That still begs the question, who is Rupert Evelyn referring too?
Who was arrested before the trial??
-
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/130969513888985088
Who is he referring to?
Who was arrested??
Contempt for what purpose?
Slightly puzzling tweet, not knowing any dates there is a range of dates to choose from.. The only contempt case I know of was that against the papers because what had been written about CJ...
So whom was this individual and what did they say?
Is this in reference to the porn? maybe, but nothing is clear in that tweet..
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/31/attorney-general-tweet-tabak-porn
So which report is accurate??? Rupert or the Guardian, did it happen before the trial or during.... Or both?
Was a separate individual arrested before trial and could have been in contempt of court, revealing what information I do not know..
Also another individual was possibly having action taken against him/her, because of a tweet about porn during trial...
That still begs the question, who is Rupert Evelyn referring too?
Who was arrested before the trial??
Could have been a Tabak sympathiser trying to jeopardise the case, who knows but the Authorities acted accordingly.
Tanja’s brother also tweeted before Tabak was charged and spoken to by police, these things happen leaks within police, families and victims I’m afraid. It’s hard to police the internet.
Jo Yeates - Cops quiz Tweeting brother
DETECTIVES are set to question the brother of Vincent Tabak’s girlfriend after he boasted he was “100% certain” who would be charged over Joanna Yeates’ murder.
-
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/130969513888985088
Who is he referring to?
Who was arrested??
Contempt for what purpose?
Slightly puzzling tweet, not knowing any dates there is a range of dates to choose from.. The only contempt case I know of was that against the papers because what had been written about CJ...
So whom was this individual and what did they say?
Is this in reference to the porn? maybe, but nothing is clear in that tweet..
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/31/attorney-general-tweet-tabak-porn
So which report is accurate??? Rupert or the Guardian, did it happen before the trial or during.... Or both?
Was a separate individual arrested before trial and could have been in contempt of court, revealing what information I do not know..
Also another individual was possibly having action taken against him/her, because of a tweet about porn during trial...
That still begs the question, who is Rupert Evelyn referring too?
Who was arrested before the trial??
They didn’t eventually charge him, they dropped charges, it happened during the trial
Contempt charges have been dropped over a tweet exposing Vincent Tabak's use of violent pornography.
A blogger allegedly ignored reporting restrictions and sent the tweet during the trial of the Dutch engineer who was found guilty of murdering Jo Yeates.
Because he co-operated and the message was swiftly removed, the Attorney General decided not to pursue the case.
-
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/130969513888985088
Who is he referring to?
Who was arrested??
Contempt for what purpose?
Slightly puzzling tweet, not knowing any dates there is a range of dates to choose from.. The only contempt case I know of was that against the papers because what had been written about CJ...
So whom was this individual and what did they say?
Is this in reference to the porn? maybe, but nothing is clear in that tweet..
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/31/attorney-general-tweet-tabak-porn
So which report is accurate??? Rupert or the Guardian, did it happen before the trial or during.... Or both?
Was a separate individual arrested before trial and could have been in contempt of court, revealing what information I do not know..
Also another individual was possibly having action taken against him/her, because of a tweet about porn during trial...
That still begs the question, who is Rupert Evelyn referring too?
Who was arrested before the trial??
"So which report was accurate?" Ha!! How long have you got? Ya pays ya money and takes ya choice. I cannot imagine that you're so ignorant of reporting by media, that you're oblivious to the fact that there's a huge diversity in the way they "slant" information. The more reputable will probably stick to the facts as they receive them whilst the less altruistic will pick up every titbit on offer, 'modify' and run with it. Two examples of this stand out. One was the reporting -by some publications- of an horrendous crime which occurred in Essex, and briefly made international headlines, in 1985, in which the most salacious things were written of the victims. The other, more recent -relatively- and infinitely more famous, was the reporting on the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, in which the most lurid 'facts' were printed. Why you think a murderous paedophile deserves more courteous treatment is beyond me.
There is an immediacy about every item which is reported. Journo's have finite time in which to make their mark. The variables involved are virtually limitless in how they go about making that mark. In the end it may come down to the fact that where humans have a hand in anything, there will be errors.
-
They didn’t eventually charge him, they dropped charges, it happened during the trial
Contempt charges have been dropped over a tweet exposing Vincent Tabak's use of violent pornography.
A blogger allegedly ignored reporting restrictions and sent the tweet during the trial of the Dutch engineer who was found guilty of murdering Jo Yeates.
Because he co-operated and the message was swiftly removed, the Attorney General decided not to pursue the case.
Yes... I went back to the report....
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/31/attorney-general-tweet-tabak-porn
During the four-week trial orders were in place to stop the media reporting Tabak's interest in pornography depicting women being strangled during sex.
It was feared that if the jury knew of Tabak's interest in such material it would be unfairly prejudiced against him and make a fair trial impossible.
It was feared that if the jury knew of Tabak's interest in such material it would be unfairly prejudiced against him and make a fair trial impossible.
What this one little tweet... One little tweet all on it own, prejudicing a trial.... Did they forget about the thousands upon thousands of tweets and retweets that stated day in and day out that Dr Vincent Tabak had pled guilty to Manslaughter
ITV News
Verified account
@itvnews
19 Oct 2011
More
Reporter @rupertevelyn is again tweeting from the Jo #Yeates murder trial in Bristol. Vincent Tabak denies murder, admits manslaughter.
0 replies 1 retweet 0 likes
Reply Retweet 1 Like
Jon Kay
Verified account
@jonkay01
19 Oct 2011
More
Jury told Tabak accessed internet topics inc: weather, Jo Yeates, police appeals, vehicles, recycling, prisons, murder, manslaughter.
0 replies 2 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet 2 Like
Emma Hallett
@EmmaLHallett
19 Oct 2011
More
Back at Bristol Crown for Vincent Tabak trial. He denies murdering Joanna Yeates, but admits manslaughter. Jo's parents and boyfriend here.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet Like
Heart Gloucs.
Verified account
@HeartGlos
19 Oct 2011
More
In court for Tabak trial ready to tweet the latest. Tabak admits manslaughter but denies murder
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet Like
Heart West News
@HeartWestNews
19 Oct 2011
More
In court for Tabak trial ready to tweet the latest. Tabak admits manslaughter but denies murder
0 replies 2 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet 2 Like
Richard Payne
@richardpayneitv
19 Oct 2011
More
About to go into Bristol Crown Court for #Tabak trial. He admits manslaughter of Jo Yeates but denies murder. Follow my tweets.
0 replies 2 retweets 1 like
Reply Retweet 2 Like 1
Jack Lannie
@JackLannie
18 Oct 2011
More
How can anyone inflict 43 injuries upon someone, strangle them for 20 seconds and then only plead manslaughter? Tabak is sick. #RIPJoYeates
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet Like
And:..
Emma Hallett
@EmmaLHallett
21 Oct 2011
More
Vincent Tabak, 33, dutch national and Jo's next door neighbour. Admits the manslaughter of Miss Yeates, denies murder. #payeates
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet Like
Rupert Evelyn
@rupertevelyn
21 Oct 2011
More
Bristol crown court Trial continues at 1000 with Vincent Tabak in the witness box. He denies murdering Jo yeates saying it's manslaughter
4 replies 5 retweets 0 likes
Reply 4 Retweet 5 Like
Vickie
@vicks_c
20 Oct 2011
More
Been following the #Tabak trial -will be interesting to see if jury think murder or manslaughter. I thought murder but 50/50 after today!
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet Like
Julia Henderson
@_juliahenderson
20 Oct 2011
More
manslaughter my f..king ass vincent tabak
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply 1 Retweet Like
Jacob Davies
@JacobD93
20 Oct 2011
More
In #Tabak trial, the media keep refering to him as the murderer, and he pleads guilty to manslaughter, what does that say about the trial?
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet Like
Esteban Juan
@JTALJS
20 Oct 2011
More
RT @KoolHwhip: How can this tabak guy claim manslaughter? But admitted strangling her? Strange guy> he says he was just cuddling her
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply 1 Retweet Like
Tacitus Gilmore
@CurtisSays_
20 Oct 2011
More
How can this tabak guy claim manslaughter? But admitted strangling her? Strange guy
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply 1 Retweet Like
Lynn Ede
@LynnCherylEde
20 Oct 2011
More
RT @rupertevelyn: asked about looking at the differences between murder and manslaughter tabak says 'it's no calculation'
Day in and Day out The word "MANSLAUGHTER" was tweeted across the twitterspher, day in and Day out the media were allowed to tweet this case, day in and day out thousands of followers saw the tweets and Retweets of many media reporters, day in and day out, friends and neighbours following this case tweeted about the trial...
Thousand upon thousand of thousands of tweets, telling the world that Dr Vincent Tabak pled guilty to manslaughter, a daily, hourly reminder that he was in fact guilty....
And apparently the only tweet anyone gives a damn about is a tweet about porn?????
Jurors like anyone may use twitter, they may have alerts/notifications set up on their phones, from whom ever they may follow, friends, family, news media outlets, flashing up on their screens telling them day in and day out that Dr vincent Tabak pled guilty to Manslaughter,... Reminding them everyday, that he had to be guilty...
Anything to do with this case, that was tweeted at the time of trial Is PREJUDICIAL to the case..
Any aspect of a case given this much air time will find it's way to the jury, The tweeting of the Assange appearance was different, in as much as the jury were not there as it was a magistrates court...
But Dr Vincent Tabak's case, was a full blown trial, that was high profile, with people from Bristol on the jury who could not fail to have an opinion about this case...
You are trying to tell me one little insignificant tweet would prejudice a trial, but hundreds of thousands of tweets about the case would not???
Tweets reminding us daily that Dr Vincent Tabak pled guilty to MANSLAUGHTER...
And I am supposed to accept this as ok... Everyone is supposed to accept this as OK???
-
Yes... I went back to the report....
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/31/attorney-general-tweet-tabak-porn
It was feared that if the jury knew of Tabak's interest in such material it would be unfairly prejudiced against him and make a fair trial impossible.
What this one little tweet... One little tweet all on it own, prejudicing a trial.... Did they forget about the thousands upon thousands of tweets and retweets that stated day in and day out that Dr Vincent Tabak had pled guilty to Manslaughter
And:..
Day in and Day out The word "MANSLAUGHTER" was tweeted across the twitterspher, day in and Day out the media were allowed to tweet this case, day in and day out thousands of followers saw the tweets and Retweets of many media reporters, day in and day out, friends and neighbours following this case tweeted about the trial...
Thousand upon thousand of thousands of tweets, telling the world that Dr Vincent Tabak pled guilty to manslaughter, a daily, hourly reminder that he was in fact guilty....
And apparently the only tweet anyone gives a damn about is a tweet about porn?????
Jurors like anyone may use twitter, they may have alerts/notifications set up on their phones, from whom ever they may follow, friends, family, news media outlets, flashing up on their screens telling them day in and day out that Dr vincent Tabak pled guilty to Manslaughter,... Reminding them everyday, that he had to be guilty...
Anything to do with this case, that was tweeted at the time of trial Is PREJUDICIAL to the case..
Any aspect of a case given this much air time will find it's way to the jury, The tweeting of the Assange appearance was different, in as much as the jury were not there as it was a magistrates court...
But Dr Vincent Tabak's case, was a full blown trial, that was high profile, with people from Bristol on the jury who could not fail to have an opinion about this case...
You are trying to tell me one little insignificant tweet would prejudice a trial, but hundreds of thousands of tweets about the case would not???
Tweets reminding us daily that Dr Vincent Tabak pled guilty to MANSLAUGHTER...
And I am supposed to accept this as ok... Everyone is supposed to accept this as OK???
do you actually believe what you have just written? no wonder you are still posting after so long but never actually moving forward
-
And just a little reminder about whom was instrumental in having this case social media based...
Joanna police launch Facebook plea
Detectives investigating the murder of Joanna Yeates have launched a national campaign on Facebook to appeal for witnesses.
PUBLISHED: 03:36, Tue, Jan 4, 2011
Avon and Somerset Police have placed an advert on the popular social networking site, appealing for help, in the hope of catching the landscape architect's killer.
The 25-year-old's snow-covered body was found on Christmas morning by a couple walking their dogs just three miles from her home in the Clifton area of Bristol.
Detective Chief Inspector Phil Jones, who is leading the murder investigation, said: "The majority of people these days are spending time on Facebook and other social networking sites.
"This has become part of everyday routine for many people. This advert allows us to point people to special features on our website with all the latest information, it allows them to contact the incident room direct online rather than calling in.
"I would once again urge anyone who may have not contacted my team and may have information that could help this inquiry to contact us. Let us decide if this information is significant."
Meanwhile, crime scene investigators were at Miss Yeates's flat, using advanced forensic techniques to examine the scene. There was a sign outside the building in Canynge Road saying "Do not enter, dangerous chemicals."
Avon and Somerset Police have successfully used Facebook in several other high-profile cases. It is a far more cost-effective method than poster campaigns and mass leaflet distribution and, due to the viral nature of Facebook, can be shared much wider.
Scott Fulton, head of e-services for the force, said: "Social media is growing rapidly and has become a daily factor in most people's routine. On this inquiry alone we have had shares of the story from the force's Facebook page of 24,220. Additionally there have been over 63,000 views of the news updates on our website, a further 18,000 on the dedicated Jo page and over 70,000 views of the CCTV clips on our YouTube channel.
"Through the website we have had 260 inbound messages to the incident room. Anyone can send information to the team this way via www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/jo."
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/221037/Joanna-police-launch-Facebook-plea
260 inbound messages... Do they mean emails??
Now a campaign based purely on social media, a campaign that makes this case different from others, a campaign that was explained to The Leveson...
Based on that fact alone, how can anyone complain when someone , anyone writes or tweets about this case in any form on the internet?
How can it be an issue when Avon and Somerset Police actively sought peoples participation via the internet, where web pages were set up dedicated to Joanna yeates Missing...
No-one really should make a complaint about posts tweets that question this case... As we know that the police being instrumental in encouraging people to use social media, therefore questions , what anyone realistically can say about it now... We know Mrs Yeates appealed for ametuer sleuths to get on board, to report anything significant, any small piece of information...
Well I may be late to the party, but that is exactly what I have done here.... The online form no longer exists, so I have used the an online forum instead, I am reporting what I have found, I am saying what doesn't make sense, I am giving information that may have been overlooked ..
"I would once again urge anyone who may have not contacted my team and may have information that could help this inquiry to contact us. Let us decide if this information is significant."
So no.... I haven't contacted his team, but as I say that form has gone, and there appears to be lots more info that may have been missed or overlooked...
All I have done is use the information from various sources, twitter, facebook, the media, videoed interviews, all available publicly, everyones account I had seen had been open to the public to view...
So with Mrs yeates appeal still ringing in my ears, and Avon and Somerset Polices own social media appeal, I believe the information I have gathered in one place, may bring to light, this case... If the Police believed that the apparent tweet from Gunter Morson was significant, then everyones tweets and social media posts about the case are significant...
And trying to decipher the context of these social media posts is what I have tried to look at... Along with the Leveson and any interviews on TV people have given... !
-
Blame blame and more blame in any direction but just not for Tabak. You want to re read your first post of today... play spot the HUGE flaw in your theory. There are many as usual but on this is staring you in the face!!!!! ....
-
They didn’t eventually charge him, they dropped charges, it happened during the trial
Contempt charges have been dropped over a tweet exposing Vincent Tabak's use of violent pornography.
A blogger allegedly ignored reporting restrictions and sent the tweet during the trial of the Dutch engineer who was found guilty of murdering Jo Yeates.
Because he co-operated and the message was swiftly removed, the Attorney General decided not to pursue the case.
[/quote
-
DOESN'T MATTER IF ANYONE TWEETED OR REPEATED MANSLAUGHTER, TABAK HAD PLEADED GUILTY TO THIS, THE JURY WOULD KNOW ABOUT THIS PLEA BECAUSE HE ADMITTED HE KILLED HER, THE TRIAL WAS ABOUT INTENT, HOW MANY MORE TIMES DO YOU NEED TELLING THIS.
-
What makes you believe he wouldn't when you haven't attempted to even ask?
Perhaps you would be served better by being concerned about the victim instead of the perpetrator!
Possibly because I already have asked, and got no reply!!
-
Possibly because I already have asked, and got no reply!!
Ooh who answers for who
-
Ooh who answers for who
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Ooh who answers for who
Slight slip that’s all Jixy easy done. @)(++(*
-
DOESN'T MATTER IF ANYONE TWEETED OR REPEATED MANSLAUGHTER, TABAK HAD PLEADED GUILTY TO THIS, THE JURY WOULD KNOW ABOUT THIS PLEA BECAUSE HE ADMITTED HE KILLED HER, THE TRIAL WAS ABOUT INTENT, HOW MANY MORE TIMES DO YOU NEED TELLING THIS.
And since when has anyone gone on trial for INTENT?
Is this trial a theory? Has someone gotten away with this? It makes no sense, As far as i know you cannot go on trial for INTENT... That makes no sense whatsoever...
Show me the legal charge of Intent please, and how someone can go to trial because of it!
-
And since when has anyone gone on trial for INTENT?
Is this trial a theory? Has someone gotten away with this? It makes no sense, As far as i know you cannot go on trial for INTENT... That makes no sense whatsoever...
Hence trial is a bag of Ian Dury's...
Show me the legal charge of Intent please, and how someone can go to trial because of it!
There was never/has never been a "charge" of intent. He'd confessed to, and was trying to get away with, manslaughter, ie killing without INTENT. It carries a lesser penalty. Undoubtedly the prosecution wanted to show it was murder, ie killing WITH intent. The trial was about establishing such.
-
And since when has anyone gone on trial for INTENT?
Is this trial a theory? Has someone gotten away with this? It makes no sense, As far as i know you cannot go on trial for INTENT... That makes no sense whatsoever...
Hence trial is a bag of Ian Dury's...
Show me the legal charge of Intent please, and how someone can go to trial because of it!
Intent is the difference between manslaughter and murder. One is accidental, the other is intentional. You seem to understand very little about the end result. No wonder you're going around in circles chasing your tail!± @)(++(*
-
And since when has anyone gone on trial for INTENT?
Is this trial a theory? Has someone gotten away with this? It makes no sense, As far as i know you cannot go on trial for INTENT... That makes no sense whatsoever...
Hence trial is a bag of Ian Dury's...
Show me the legal charge of Intent please, and how someone can go to trial because of it!
In criminal law, intent is a subjective state of mind that must accompany the acts of certain crimes to constitute a violation. A more formal, generally synonymous legal term is scienter: intent or knowledge of wrongdoing.
Killing with the intent for murder but where a partial defence applies, namely loss of control, diminished responsibility or killing pursuant to a suicide pact.
EVEN FAIRY WOULD KNOW THAT, how can you possibly post on a MOJ site for ex number of years and still not understand Law? Your total lack or INTENT lack of knowledge fails you everytime.
-
DOESN'T MATTER IF ANYONE TWEETED OR REPEATED MANSLAUGHTER, TABAK HAD PLEADED GUILTY TO THIS, THE JURY WOULD KNOW ABOUT THIS PLEA BECAUSE HE ADMITTED HE KILLED HER, THE TRIAL WAS ABOUT INTENT, HOW MANY MORE TIMES DO YOU NEED TELLING THIS.
8@??)( not hard is it? well not to us @)(++(*
-
Possibly because I already have asked, and got no reply!!
I amied by question to the person formally known as Nine. Many arguments here seem to depend on the individual not taking the word of another as Gospel. Nine will only know the answer to the question if he/she seeks it herself. I am perfectly willing to take your answer on-board as I am willing to take Tabak's confession of his guilt. However, I don't believe there was any conspiracy here as Nine does and as such, you can't really answer for him/her.
-
8@??)( not hard is it? well not to us @)(++(*
It's not like it hasn't been said before either. @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
8@??)( not hard is it? well not to us @)(++(*
You ask a child if he/she did anything intentional or not, they would know the difference, “Did you mean to do that”. “You did that on purpose” @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*.
-
And since when has anyone gone on trial for INTENT?
Is this trial a theory? Has someone gotten away with this? It makes no sense, As far as i know you cannot go on trial for INTENT... That makes no sense whatsoever...
Hence trial is a bag of Ian @)(++(*
Show me the legal charge of Intent please, and how someone can go to trial because of it!
WHOOPS HERE’S a case that someone was on trial for INTENT, THE SAME TRIAL YOUV’E BEEN STUDYING AND CRYING MOJ FOR YEARS @)(++(* @)(++(*
Field told the six men and six women on the jury that the issue to be decided was the defendant's intention when he used "unlawful violence" against Yeates. The question they had to address was: "Did he intend to kill her or cause her really serious bodily harm?"
The judge said if the jury was sure that, when he strangled Yeates, Tabak had intended to kill her or cause her really serious harm, the verdict would be guilty. If they were not sure, it had to be not guilty.
-
And since when has anyone gone on trial for INTENT?
Is this trial a theory? Has someone gotten away with this? It makes no sense, As far as i know you cannot go on trial for INTENT... That makes no sense whatsoever...
Hence trial is a bag of Ian Dury's...
Show me the legal charge of Intent please, and how someone can go to trial because of it!
Again you have to mock people, IAN DURY was Crippled through Polio, I’m sure if anyone else had used this phase, they would have been pulled up. Shame on you
-
Again you have to mock people, IAN DURY was Crippled through Polio, I’m sure if anyone else had used this phase, they would have been pulled up. Shame on you
They wouldn't have been pulled up by me, because I hadn't heard of him!!
-
I amied by question to the person formally known as Nine. Many arguments here seem to depend on the individual not taking the word of another as Gospel. Nine will only know the answer to the question if he/she seeks it herself. I am perfectly willing to take your answer on-board as I am willing to take Tabak's confession of his guilt. However, I don't believe there was any conspiracy here as Nine does and as such, you can't really answer for him/her.
All I meant was that I have already written to Mr Clegg------a couple of years ago, in fact, and Nine knows that!
-
They wouldn't have been pulled up by me, because I hadn't heard of him!!
Well Hit me with your Rhythm Stick mrswah @)(++(*
-
Again you have to mock people, IAN DURY was Crippled through Polio, I’m sure if anyone else had used this phase, they would have been pulled up. Shame on you
The Ian Dury comment was about the lyrics I had used prior that had been removed... Nothing to do with any disability he had...
-
Well Hit me with your Rhythm Stick mrswah @)(++(*
Shant bother, but I might listen to Ian Dury! Missed out on a lot while I was having kids!!!
-
I really don't believe anyone posting on here doesn't know what "intent " is.
It is , however, disrespectful, (IMO), to call another poster "stupid"--------------
-
haha typical . delete
What is with the ------------ seems to be catching!
-
Oh and a LOT of posts on here are disrespectful especially to JO hence why my comment was deleted!
-
Shant bother, but I might listen to Ian Dury! Missed out on a lot while I was having kids!!!
Shant, that’s Cumbrian talk @)(++(*
-
I really don't believe anyone posting on here doesn't know what "intent " is.
It is , however, disrespectful, (IMO), to call another poster "stupid"--------------
I didn't call THEM stupid, I called their post stupid and as you have just indicated, you don't believe they couldn't have know what 'intent 'is - so the comment was at best 'obtuse'!
-
All I meant was that I have already written to Mr Clegg------a couple of years ago, in fact, and Nine knows that!
Nine only knows what you told her - just as we only know that Tabak admitted guilt to a Chaplin, to the police and pleased guilty to manslaughter. That isn't good enough for some people. I think you get what I am saying.
-
I really don't believe anyone posting on here doesn't know what "intent " is.
It is , however, disrespectful, (IMO), to call another poster "stupid"--------------
I feel certain that you're correct, mrswah, however there's a chasm between those of us who do know it and someone who feigns ignorance by the calculated application of another meaning to it. As for being "disrespectful" it comes in many guises. It might be argued that it could be less so when used overtly in response to words of deliberate stupidity, than to be applied covertly in the constant attack on all the victims who will suffer, for the rest of their lives, because of a -by his own admission- murderer and paedophile, whom the poster insists is innocent.
-
Shant bother, but I might listen to Ian Dury! Missed out on a lot while I was having kids!!!
OMG, NO!!! If you ever want your brain addling listen to him or his love child Keith Flint. Yuck!
-
Shant, that’s Cumbrian talk @)(++(*
Wrong guess!!!
-
OMG, NO!!! If you ever want your brain addling listen to him or his love child Keith Flint. Yuck!
Ha ha, now you have said that, it's all the more reason for me to listen!!! I have always been perverse!
-
Wrong guess!!!
Its not wrong at all, it originates from Cumbria.
shant Noun. A drink, usually alcohol, and especially beer.
Verb. Embarrassed - past tense of 'shan'. [Cumbria use]
-
Its not wrong at all, it originates from Cumbria.
shant Noun. A drink, usually alcohol, and especially beer.
Verb. Embarrassed - past tense of 'shan'. [Cumbria use]
I take it that you are a Cumbrian then (lovely part of the world). Im from the opposite end of the country!
-
I take it that you are a Cumbrian then (lovely part of the world). Im from the opposite end of the country!
Im frum up north Ha Ha. I love dialect, I worked and lived down South for many years, Colchester mainly when the Paras moved there from Aldershot. Love Cumbria, just spent some days up there and the Dales, did the West Coast though this time, better access to Scarfell Pike.
-
Im frum up north Ha Ha. I love dialect, I worked and lived down South for many years, Colchester mainly when the Paras moved there from Aldershot. Love Cumbria, just spent some days up there and the Dales, did the West Coast though this time, better access to Scarfell Pike.
Excellent! Have only been to Cumbria once, but loved it. I'm a Londoner born and bred, but have lived in Dorset for many years now. Lived in Essex at the time of the WHF murders , but am going off topic here!
-
Excellent! Have only been to Cumbria once, but loved it. I'm a Londoner born and bred, but have lived in Dorset for many years now. Lived in Essex at the time of the WHF murders , but am going off topic here!
They Practised the D day landings in Dorset, near Swanage, ferry across to Sandbanks, lovely.Dont start Jeremy Bamber @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Practised the D day landings in Dorset, near Swanage, ferry across to Sandbanks, lovely.Dont start Jeremy Bamber @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Oh! Sandbanks and Shell Bay!!! Je T'adore!!!!.....................Jeremy WHO? @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Oh! Sandbanks and Shell Bay!!! Je T'adore!!!!.....................Jeremy WHO? @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Who indeed!!
-
Who indeed!!
We went to view Property on Sandbanks, only view @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
We went to view Property on Sandbanks, only view @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Oh dear. Was it not suitable for your needs? 8)--))
-
Oh dear. Was it not suitable for your needs? 8)--))
We put offers in, unfortunately they got rejected @)(++(*
-
Im frum up north Ha Ha. I love dialect, I worked and lived down South for many years, Colchester mainly when the Paras moved there from Aldershot. Love Cumbria, just spent some days up there and the Dales, did the West Coast though this time, better access to Scarfell Pike.
Yorkshire or Durham Dales?
-
Yorkshire or Durham Dales?
Yorkshire, Malham Cove and Janet Foss @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Yorkshire, Malham Cove and Janet Foss @)(++(* @)(++(*
Durham is better 8(0(*
-
Durham is better 8(0(*
Ive Driven across it but never stopped off though. Looks lovely 8((()*/
-
Ive Driven across it but never stopped off though. Looks lovely 8((()*/
It gets over-shadowed cos Yorkshire people shout louder @)(++(* @)(++(*
https://www.discoverbritainmag.com/the_beauty_of_the_durham_dales_1_3913437/
-
It gets over-shadowed cos Yorkshire people shout louder @)(++(* @)(++(*
https://www.discoverbritainmag.com/the_beauty_of_the_durham_dales_1_3913437/
Didnt you inherit part of it from Yorkshire? *%87
-
Didnt you inherit part of it from Yorkshire? *%87
They may say that, but I couldn't possibly comment 8(0(*
-
They may say that, but I couldn't possibly comment 8(0(*
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*. It’s ok they’re always trying to pinch some off us, them Dee Dars @)(++(*
-
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*. It’s ok they’re always trying to pinch some of us the Dee Dars @)(++(*
I think they probably took some of ours and we just got back what we already owned. Either way, it's better here! @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Durham is better 8(0(*
I feel an old Roger Whittaker song coming on... "You shall have a fishy in a little dishy, You shall have a fishy when the bowat comes in. Dance to yer daddy, my little laddy, etc, etc, etc." Away the lads !!!
-
Yorkshire, Malham Cove and Janet Foss @)(++(* @)(++(*
Aaah yes, We did a school field trip there in 19XX... Malham Tarn, Cove, Gaping Gill, Clints and Grykes. Never met Janet Foss, although I have heard she's got two very wet legs.
-
Aherrm... posters are reminded to please keep on topic.
-
I feel an old Roger Whittaker song coming on... "You shall have a fishy in a little dishy, You shall have a fishy when the bowat comes in. Dance to yer daddy, my little laddy, etc, etc, etc." Away the lads !!!
The fish song is a Geordie song and Away the lads is a reference to Sunderland FC - Although I think RW sang a song about Durham? One out of three ain't bad @)(++(*
You know, I never realised you were a moderator!
-
The fish song is a Geordie song and Away the lads is a reference to Sunderland FC - Although I think RW sang a song about Durham? One out of three ain't bad @)(++(*
You know, I never realised you were a moderator!
I know, I was just winding you up for a reaction ; - ) This is what I was really referring to, beats Ian Dury's horrendous din any day...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KPDNWkhnck (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KPDNWkhnck)
As for moderating, I got the job out of the blue originally because I mentioned moderator (as in silencer) more times than anybody else and admin took it that I was begging for promotion!
Oh, and this is Janet Foss with her two wet legs...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet%27s_Foss#/media/File:Janet%27s_Foss_2.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet%27s_Foss#/media/File:Janet%27s_Foss_2.jpg)
-
I know, I was just winding you up for a reaction ; - ) This is what I was really referring to, beats Ian Dury's horrendous din any day...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KPDNWkhnck (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KPDNWkhnck)
As for moderating, I got the job out of the blue originally because I mentioned moderator (as in silencer) more times than anybody else and admin took it that I was begging for promotion!
Oh, and this is Janet Foss with her two wet legs...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet%27s_Foss#/media/File:Janet%27s_Foss_2.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet%27s_Foss#/media/File:Janet%27s_Foss_2.jpg)
At the risk of being removed, tone for tone, I reckon RW beats Frank Sinatra any day!!!
-
I know, I was just winding you up for a reaction ; - ) This is what I was really referring to, beats Ian Dury's horrendous din any day...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KPDNWkhnck (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KPDNWkhnck)
As for moderating, I got the job out of the blue originally because I mentioned moderator (as in silencer) more times than anybody else and admin took it that I was begging for promotion!
Oh, and this is Janet Foss with her two wet legs...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet%27s_Foss#/media/File:Janet%27s_Foss_2.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet%27s_Foss#/media/File:Janet%27s_Foss_2.jpg)
Very nice picture of Janet Foss (Jennet) behind the waterfall is a cave that once lived the Queen of the FARIES @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
I know, I was just winding you up for a reaction ; - ) This is what I was really referring to, beats Ian Dury's horrendous din any day...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KPDNWkhnck (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KPDNWkhnck)
As for moderating, I got the job out of the blue originally because I mentioned moderator (as in silencer) more times than anybody else and admin took it that I was begging for promotion!
Oh, and this is Janet Foss with her two wet legs...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet%27s_Foss#/media/File:Janet%27s_Foss_2.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet%27s_Foss#/media/File:Janet%27s_Foss_2.jpg)
I guess that's as good a reason as any @)(++(*
Yes good song, didn't realise he was still alive!
-
Very nice picture of Janet Foss (Jennet) behind the waterfall is a cave that once lived the Queen of the FARIES @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Looks like they have disappeared back there @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Very nice picture of Janet Foss (Jennet) behind the waterfall is a cave that once lived the Queen of the FARIES @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Ooh! "Ill met by moonlight, proud Titania" &^^&* &^^&*
-
I shouldn't be encouraging this off topic stuff, I know, but who is Janet Foss? I've obviously missed out on a lot!!
-
I shouldn't be encouraging this off topic stuff, I know, but who is Janet Foss? I've obviously missed out on a lot!!
Myster has provided a link.
-
I shouldn't be encouraging this off topic stuff, I know, but who is Janet Foss? I've obviously missed out on a lot!!
Janet Foss is a waterfall near Malham, behind the waterfall, is a cave where legend has it that this cave was the home of the Fairy Queen Jennet. Basically it’s a well known tourist attraction and walk in the Dales.
-
I shouldn't be encouraging this off topic stuff, I know, but who is Janet Foss? I've obviously missed out on a lot!!
Further to RJ's post...
A Foss is an Old Norse name for a waterfall... https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/foss (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/foss)
and... https://www.malhamdale.com/janetsfoss/ (https://www.malhamdale.com/janetsfoss/)
-
Awww, thanks everybody!
-
One thing I do agree with Tabak, when he squeezed Joanna’s neck to keep her silent, I think that part is true, but he intended for her silence to be forever.
-
I also read that the UK sent Tabak’s DNA and fingerprints to the USA and Holland to check their systems I suppose? These being the Countries Tabak visited.
-
One of the things I struggle with, Tabak saying he only squeezed Joanna’s throat for 20 seconds? I know this is Tabak’s version, but it was excepted at the trial, I would have thought to strangle someone much longer time would be needed? Cutting off oxygen supply and blood supply, I thought the body could last longer? I only thought being asphyxiated by Carbon Monoxide Or another poison gas would take you that quick?
-
I also read that the UK sent Tabak’s DNA and fingerprints to the USA and Holland to check their systems I suppose? These being the Countries Tabak visited.
And copies of his enhanced DNA to police forces throughout Britain, so I believe.
-
One of the things I struggle with, Tabak saying he only squeezed Joanna’s throat for 20 seconds? I know this is Tabak’s version, but it was excepted at the trial, I would have thought to strangle someone much longer time would be needed? Cutting off oxygen supply and blood supply, I thought the body could last longer? I only thought being asphyxiated by Carbon Monoxide Or another poison gas would take you that quick?
In "Under The Wig", William Clegg QC (or his ghost-writer) stated that some doctors say it's possible to kill quickly by applying pressure to the vagal nerve (sic). I think that should read "vagus". And also that certain military personnel are trained in just such a technique.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choking_game (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choking_game)
-
And copies of his enhanced DNA to police forces throughout Britain, so I believe.
I thought the sample was used up in the enhancing process???
-
In "Under The Wig", William Clegg QC (or his ghost-writer) stated that some doctors say it's possible to kill quickly by applying pressure to the vagal nerve (sic). I think that should read "vagus". And also that certain military personnel are trained in just such a technique.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C
hoking_game (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choking_game)
I did read somewhere that Joanna died because her heart stopped.
-
I thought the sample was used up in the enhancing process???
I saw a reference to multiple enhanced copies somewhere on the net, a reliable source NOT Twitter.
-
In "Under The Wig", William Clegg QC (or his ghost-writer) stated that some doctors say it's possible to kill quickly by applying pressure to the vagal nerve (sic). I think that should read "vagus". And also that certain military personnel are trained in just such a technique.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choking_game (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choking_game)
Thanks Myster, I read where it could be quicker than the 20 seconds, I was always under the impression that unconsciousness would be first, followed by death after further pressure?
-
In "Under The Wig", William Clegg QC (or his ghost-writer) stated that some doctors say it's possible to kill quickly by applying pressure to the vagal nerve (sic). I think that should read "vagus". And also that certain military personnel are trained in just such a technique.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choking_game (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choking_game)
I read somewhere, that he had actually changed his grip around Joanna’s neck, they could tell with the bruising marks on her neck. I can’t find it now so I can’t post the link.
I think this is important, because if you release your grip and then tighten in another area, it’s more intentional
-
I saw a reference to multiple enhanced copies somewhere on the net, a reliable source NOT Twitter.
I could be mistaken on that and it was fresh DNA which was sent after the pornography trial and being put on the Sex Offenders' Register.
-
I did read somewhere that Joanna died because her heart stopped.
Isn’t that the ultimate cause of death for everyone?
-
Isn’t that the ultimate cause of death for everyone?
I read something about her heart stopping before asphyxiation killed her, but cant find the link now, and I doubt it is very significant!
-
I also read that the UK sent Tabak’s DNA and fingerprints to the USA and Holland to check their systems I suppose? These being the Countries Tabak visited.
Does anyone know if they found anything?
-
Does anyone know if they found anything?
I thought DCI Goff said they hadn't...
-
I read somewhere that Jo's parents were in agreement with the making of the program, although they declined to take part, but not sure if Mr. Jefferies was involved at all.
Can only find interviews with Chris Jefferies concerning his wrongful arrest rather than his verdict on the drama-doc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFgGbNtF0wA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFgGbNtF0wA)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsZnfi5oM5o (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsZnfi5oM5o)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wS_zf_kZ6k (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wS_zf_kZ6k)
Is there room for yet another miscarriage of justice on here, as someone believes they got the wrong man in Vincent Tabak.
Read the comment by Philip Hollingbery...
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/reviews/the-lost-honour-of-christopher-jefferies-part-2-tv-review-an-impressive-drama-but-joanna-yeates-story-still-wasnt-properly-told-9919435.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/reviews/the-lost-honour-of-christopher-jefferies-part-2-tv-review-an-impressive-drama-but-joanna-yeates-story-still-wasnt-properly-told-9919435.html)
and... http://vincent-tabak-is-innocent.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/jury.html (http://vincent-tabak-is-innocent.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/jury.html)
I am now trying to work out what reason it appears that people have been opposed to what I have said..
Is the difference, everyone else whom has had anything to say has pointed the finger at someone else, where as i am not pointing the finger at anyone, not even knowing what is real or not about this whole reported case..
So it appears you either point the finger at CJ or GR and that has been the norm in forums etc for years... But I looked at that... The opportunities and possibilities are endless... The interpretation of the evidence is endless... People whom needed to be interviewed... endless!
Not following what should be protocol... bizarre...
I have gone backwards and forwards, and maybe I am wrong in my beliefs, but it makes no sense, it is nonsense, and as I have stated, I do not know if Dr Vincent Tabak exists... I do not understand why anyone from The Netherlands hasn't said anything...
I cannot point the finger at GR, I cannot point the finger at CJ...
But I think it is time GR said something about what he knows, and CJ, seeing as I will repeat for the umpteenth time, CJ conversed with Dr Vincent Tabak on 2 occasions that weekend of the 17th December 2010 to the 19th December 2010, this by his own admission on video, his Leveson statement too being a record of what CJ had stated....
But I cannot understand why he would be allowed to be a core participant in the Leveson when he could quite easily have been called as a witness, and apparently Leveson 2, was on hold waiting for other investigations and proceedings to be completed...
So why was CJ allowed to be a core participant?? It's beyond me...
But this whole case is beyond me.... Utter twoddle...
It has to be .... The parents walking around the second scene of crime on the 27th December 2010, when the crime scene hadn't finished being processed... A Flat frozen in time ,staged....
I'm not going to repeat it all, I have said enough on the oddities....
Can people really accept what happened in this case?, can people accept the outcome of this case?
Being in 2 minds about whether Dr Vincent Tabak is real or not, I always consider it is possible, that he is in prison....
So why isn't anyone saying anything about it??
-
You are repeating it all. So do something about your OCD.
-
I am now trying to work out what reason it appears that people have been opposed to what I have said..
Is the difference, everyone else whom has had anything to say has pointed the finger at someone else, where as i am not pointing the finger at anyone, not even knowing what is real or not about this whole reported case..
So it appears you either point the finger at CJ or GR and that has been the norm in forums etc for years... But I looked at that... The opportunities and possibilities are endless... The interpretation of the evidence is endless... People whom needed to be interviewed... endless!
Not following what should be protocol... bizarre...
I have gone backwards and forwards, and maybe I am wrong in my beliefs, but it makes no sense, it is nonsense, and as I have stated, I do not know if Dr Vincent Tabak exists... I do not understand why anyone from The Netherlands hasn't said anything...
I cannot point the finger at GR, I cannot point the finger at CJ...
But I think it is time GR said something about what he knows, and CJ, seeing as I will repeat for the umpteenth time, CJ conversed with Dr Vincent Tabak on 2 occasions that weekend of the 17th December 2010 to the 19th December 2010, this by his own admission on video, his Leveson statement too being a record of what CJ had stated....
But I cannot understand why he would be allowed to be a core participant in the Leveson when he could quite easily have been called as a witness, and apparently Leveson 2, was on hold waiting for other investigations and proceedings to be completed...
So why was CJ allowed to be a core participant?? It's beyond me...
But this whole case is beyond me.... Utter twoddle...
It has to be .... The parents walking around the second scene of crime on the 27th December 2010, when the crime scene hadn't finished being processed... A Flat frozen in time ,staged....
I'm not going to repeat it all, I have said enough on the oddities....
Can people really accept what happened in this case?, can people accept the outcome of this case?
Being in 2 minds about whether Dr Vincent Tabak is real or not, I always consider it is possible, that he is in prison....
So why isn't anyone saying anything about it??
Hi Nine, welcome back 8@??)(. The Leveson was about press intrusion, there was lots of other people who gave evidence at this inquiry, try separating the two. CJ was never called as a witness because the Defence or the Prosecution didn’t need him, seeing that Tabak had pleaded guilty. Maybe if Tabak had pleaded not guilty to killing Joanna, I’ve no doubt he would have been called. Hope this helps 8((()*/
-
You are repeating it all. So do something about your OCD.
OCD.... You point out OCD... Aspergers has been thrown in the mix.... Yet no-one is worried that NO Medical diagnosis of Dr Vincent Tabak's mental health was seen by the court, or used in Mitigating factors... No time reduction for time already served whilst awaiting trial...
Yes the aggregating factors i have covered.. And?? What about the mitigating factors that could have been used.... Not used?? Why?? because we just have a story here.. Is that what this trial is a badly written story? I have no idea...
Which will always make pointless anything i say about this case, as you all will always say the opposite...
I went to the pictures tomorrow
I took a front seat at the back,
I fell from the pit to the gallery
And broke a front bone in my back.
A lady she gave me some chocolate,
I ate it and gave it her back.
I phoned for a taxi and walked it,
And that’s why I never came back..
That rings a bell............
-
Hi Nine, welcome back 8@??)(. The Leveson was about press intrusion, there was lots of other people who gave evidence at this inquiry, try separating the two. CJ was never called as a witness because the Defence or the Prosecution didn’t need him, seeing that Tabak had pleaded guilty. Maybe if Tabak had pleaded not guilty to killing Joanna, I’ve no doubt he would have been called. Hope this helps 8((()*/
Hi Real.... ?{)(**
But what if Dr Vincent Tabak decided to change his mind and withdrew his guilty plea he apparently made in May 2011??
Surely the trial etc etc... should have been completed before CJ was even considered... It is wrong in my opinion... CJ should NOT have been at The Leveson...(imo)
Completion on conviction... CJ then should have been invited on Conviction of Dr Vincent Tabak, not before the trial actually happened... There could have easily have been someone else put their hand up to this crime... A mysterious witness.... anything could have happened...
There was only a Murder charge... they did not accept manslaughter... Therefore if he had been found NOT GUILTY of Murder, he should have walked free... (imo)... So finding him guilty had to be a foregone conclusion, is the only conclusion I can come too...
They cannot have it every which way they want!
Therefore CJ should have been at Leveson 2 and not 1... If his information was not relevant to Leveson 2, then he shouldn't have participated (imo)... But his participation, has thrown up questions, his Leveson statement coupled together with his TV interviews have thrown up questions....
He whether he likes it or not.... WAS A WITNESS, to events of the weekend of 17th December 2010 to 19th December 2010, by his own admission... Did he fail to inform The Leveson of this MASSIVE detail???
Edit...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg526761#msg526761
From the program Countdown to Murder... at 27:41 of the video
As I was on my way out to the gym, quite by chance, erm I met Vincent Tabak and we had a very brief conversation, erm and he seemed to be in quite an elated mood and was saying what a very beautiful evening it was erm, this light dusting of snow, erm thats all the conversation consisted of...
Then at 28:45 of the video
Vincent Tabak helped me move the car that morning, erm, becawse, there was snow on the drive, and I need some help, in the car being pushed up.. erm, the slight incline, erm, from the parking area onto the main part of the drive,, so that I could get the car out.Er, when I thanked Vincent for er, doing that for me, erm, his reply was,.. well what are neighbours for
Out of the mouths of babes.... Or I should say... Out of the MOUTH OF CJ............
Leveson statement..
https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122175642/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Second-Witness-Statement-of-Christopher-Jefferies.pdf
On Tuesday 21 December 2010 I provided a statement to tile police who were at that ,
time searching the entire house and all the flats in it and taking statements from all the residents. I was not being treated as a suspect. At the time the police said to all of us that if we subsequently remembered anything that could be material we should get back in touch, That evening I remembered something else that I had not mentioned to the police that I thought could possibly be material. This was that one evening, which might have been Friday 17 December 2010, as I was coming back from the gym at about 9pm, I had parked my car on the road and was just walking through the gates of the main driveway, when I became aware of what sounded like two or perhaps three people leaving by the side gate on the other side of the house which I could not see as there is a hedge in between and it was dark, I duly telephoned the police and relayed this.
Therefore confirmation from CJ as to what he knew of that weekend, not only that, the lack of lighting appears to be an issue also... So how did Joanna Yeates see Dr Vincent Tabak and visa versa...
-
Hi Real.... ?{)(**
But what if Dr Vincent Tabak decided to change his mind and withdrew his guilty plea he apparently made in May 2011??
Surely the trial etc etc... should have been completed before CJ was even considered... It is wrong in my opinion... CJ should NOT have been at The Leveson...(imo)
Completion on conviction... CJ then should have been invited on Conviction of Dr Vincent Tabak, not before the trial actually happened... There could have easily have been someone else put their hand up to this crime... A mysterious witness.... anything could have happened...
There was only a Murder charge... they did not accept manslaughter... Therefore if he had been found NOT GUILTY of Murder, he should have walked free... (imo)... So finding him guilty had to be a foregone conclusion, is the only conclusion I can come too...
They cannot have it every which way they want!
Therefore CJ should have been at Leveson 2 and not 1... If his information was not relevant to Leveson 2, then he shouldn't have participated (imo)... But his participation, has thrown up questions, his Leveson statement coupled together with his TV interviews have thrown up questions....
He whether he likes it or not.... WAS A WITNESS, to events of the weekend of 17th December 2010 to 19th December 2010, by his own admission... Did he fail to inform The Leveson of this MASSIVE detail???
Hi Nine, I will catch up later, rather busy today 8((()*/
-
Hi Real.... ?{)(**
But what if Dr Vincent Tabak decided to change his mind and withdrew his guilty plea he apparently made in May 2011??
Surely the trial etc etc... should have been completed before CJ was even considered... It is wrong in my opinion... CJ should NOT have been at The Leveson...(imo)
Completion on conviction... CJ then should have been invited on Conviction of Dr Vincent Tabak, not before the trial actually happened... There could have easily have been someone else put their hand up to this crime... A mysterious witness.... anything could have happened...
There was only a Murder charge... they did not accept manslaughter... Therefore if he had been found NOT GUILTY of Murder, he should have walked free... (imo)... So finding him guilty had to be a foregone conclusion, is the only conclusion I can come too...
They cannot have it every which way they want!
Therefore CJ should have been at Leveson 2 and not 1... If his information was not relevant to Leveson 2, then he shouldn't have participated (imo)... But his participation, has thrown up questions, his Leveson statement coupled together with his TV interviews have thrown up questions....
He whether he likes it or not.... WAS A WITNESS, to events of the weekend of 17th December 2010 to 19th December 2010, by his own admission... Did he fail to inform The Leveson of this MASSIVE detail???
Edit...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg526761#msg526761
From the program Countdown to Murder... at 27:41 of the video
Then at 28:45 of the video
Out of the mouths of babes.... Or I should say... Out of the MOUTH OF CJ............
Leveson statement..
https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122175642/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Second-Witness-Statement-of-Christopher-Jefferies.pdf
Therefore confirmation from CJ as to what he knew of that weekend, not only that, the lack of lighting appears to be an issue also... So how did Joanna Yeates see Dr Vincent Tabak and visa versa...
What on earth are you talking about? You have no idea how the legal system works! Of course he wouldn't have walked free! Had the jury found him not guilty, he would have been sentenced in accordance with manslaughter!
CJ's account of the weekend is irrelevant (and I don't know why you keep asking this because it is so simple!) ....... Tabak isn't denying causing JY's death. The ONLY relevant witness would be one who saw him end her life because perhaps then, they could say whether the death was accidental or not. Anything else - IRRELEVANT! Got it now? ?8)@)-)
-
https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122175642/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Second-Witness-Statement-of-Christopher-Jefferies.pdf
As is publicly known, I am bringing a civil claim against Avon and Somerset ,
Constabulary (’ASC’) for false imprisonment, breach of my human rights and trespass to person and property. Whilst this is ongoing, I do not wish to speak in any detail about the police’s actions towards me. What I can do, however, is tell the Inquiry what the consequences were for me of certain known or possible inter-actions between the press and the police during this murder inquiry.
Not only is he a witness in a Murder, but he is also in the process of suing The Police, for false imprisonment etc etc...
What I can do, however, is tell the Inquiry what the consequences were for me of certain known or possible inter-actions between the press and the police during this murder inquiry.
Twice so far, we have reason for CJ NOT to be a core participant at Leveson 1... Information that may be relevant to Dr Vincent Tabak's prosecution, hidden from ALL...
If he is suing the Police.... why is he at the Leveson.... all connected to the case...
If Leveson said himself, leveson 2 was being delayed, because of investigations and prosecutions etc, and therefore some couldn't be part of Leveson 1... Why on earth is CJ a core participant..
The reasoning for the Police arresting him would be part of the private prosecution... But here is is happy as Larry at the Leveson, where no-one is concerned as to why he is participating....
breach of my human rights and trespass to person and property. Whilst this is ongoing, I do not wish to speak in any detail about the police’s actions towards me.
What is he saying here?? They had NO WARRANTS?? they just went onto his property without the correct authority?? Really... If that was the case, then was the warrants for Dr Vincent Tabak in order????
Twice The Leveson has given this man a platform to air his views , when cases are active...
What I can do, however, is tell the Inquiry what the consequences were for me of certain known or possible inter-actions between the press and the police during this murder inquiry.
What on god's earth is he talking about?
* Possible Interactions?? What happened to EVIDENCE???
How can he comment on something that he himself has stated is due to a court soon??
I'm not being funny, but this irks me.... He never should have been in Leveson 1 until everything had been completed, he should never have been made a core participant ....
We now have 3 occasions when the judiciary appear to have assisted CJ...
Firstly in July 2011, when the papers are taken to court for contempt.... By this time he wasn't a suspect or an apparent witness, so why contempt god only knows.... At that hearing in July 2011, Dr Vincent tabak's named is mentioned, in the virtual same breath as CJ... But in the context that CJ is wholly Innocent because Dr Vincent Tabak pled guilty....(arrggghh)
If this was a game of football CJ would be winning 1-0 so far....
It is announced before trial he is going to be a core participant....
He should have been a bloody witness at trial , not the leveson... 2-0 CJ
Talk at the Leveson of civil action against the Police, for wrongful conviction etc etc...
By this time Dr Vincent Tabak is convicted, the papers have been sued, the Police look inadequate and everyone loves CJ
3-0 CJ
He doesn't take action, instead he receives a public apology of sorts and is interviewed on TV with a clip of CC Nick Gargan speaking of this... 4-0 CJ
This is why I get sarcastic ... A program is then made, to highlight his plight... My God many peoples lives have been ruined by the press, they didn't get this treatment....
5-0 CJ
He appears on various documentaries, and tells us what he knows and whom he conversed with.....
Was that an own goal....
5-1 CJ
Nobody seemed concerned in any shape or form to the treatment that Dr Vincent Tabak had.... No bail application... etc etc...
But CJ.... It's like they cannot do enough, and I do not get why...
Looks like it was CJ who got the trophy, he seems to have won the match........... (imo)
Edit.. And lets not forget that he was part of the discussion in parliament on 4th February 2011, they may not have mentioned him by name, but everyone knew whom they meant.... ( And all this whilst he was still on POLICE BAIL)....
Looks like the final score is 6-1 to CJ...
-
What on earth are you talking about? You have no idea how the legal system works! Of course he wouldn't have walked free! Had the jury found him not guilty, he would have been sentenced in accordance with manslaughter!
CJ's account of the weekend is irrelevant (and I don't know why you keep asking this because it is so simple!) ....... Tabak isn't denying causing JY's death. The ONLY relevant witness would be one who saw him end her life because perhaps then, they could say whether the death was accidental or not. Anything else - IRRELEVANT! Got it now? ?8)@)-)
NO.........
IRRELEVANT ....... in your opinion maybe....
-
NO.........
IRRELEVANT MY ARSE!......... in your opinion maybe....
YES!
Not my opinion - FACT!
-
AND YOUR ARSE IS ALSO IRRELEVANT. Not my opinion - FACT!
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* Fair point..... @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Think Nine's posts are getting more and more shocking. Really should be removed based on previous guidelines what is and isnt acceptable to post!
-
https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122175642/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Second-Witness-Statement-of-Christopher-Jefferies.pdf
Not only is he a witness in a Murder, but he is also in the process of suing The Police, for false imprisonment etc etc...
What I can do, however, is tell the Inquiry what the consequences were for me of certain known or possible inter-actions between the press and the police during this murder inquiry.
Twice so far, we have reason for CJ NOT to be a core participant at Leveson 1... Information that may be relevant to Dr Vincent Tabak's prosecution, hidden from ALL...
If he is suing the Police.... why is he at the Leveson.... all connected to the case...
If Leveson said himself, leveson 2 was being delayed, because of investigations and prosecutions etc, and therefore some couldn't be part of Leveson 1... Why on earth is CJ a core participant..
The reasoning for the Police arresting him would be part of the private prosecution... But here is is happy as Larry at the Leveson, where no-one is concerned as to why he is participating....
breach of my human rights and trespass to person and property. Whilst this is ongoing, I do not wish to speak in any detail about the police’s actions towards me.
What is he saying here?? They had NO WARRANTS?? they just went onto his property without the correct authority?? Really... If that was the case, then was the warrants for Dr Vincent Tabak in order????
Twice The Leveson has given this man a platform to air his views , when cases are active...
What I can do, however, is tell the Inquiry what the consequences were for me of certain known or possible inter-actions between the press and the police during this murder inquiry.
What on god's earth is he talking about?
* Possible Interactions?? What happened to EVIDENCE???
How can he comment on something that he himself has stated is due to a court soon??
I'm not being funny, but this irks me.... He never should have been in Leveson 1 until everything had been completed, he should never have been made a core participant ....
We now have 3 occasions when the judiciary appear to have assisted CJ...
Firstly in July 2011, when the papers are taken to court for contempt.... By this time he wasn't a suspect or an apparent witness, so why contempt god only knows.... At that hearing in July 2011, Dr Vincent tabak's named is mentioned, in the virtual same breath as CJ... But in the context that CJ is wholly Innocent because Dr Vincent Tabak pled guilty....(arrggghh)
If this was a game of football CJ would be winning 1-0 so far....
It is announced before trial he is going to be a core participant....
He should have been a bloody witness at trial , not the leveson... 2-0 CJ
Talk at the Leveson of civil action against the Police, for wrongful conviction etc etc...
By this time Dr Vincent Tabak is convicted, the papers have been sued, the Police look inadequate and everyone loves CJ
3-0 CJ
He doesn't take action, instead he receives a public apology of sorts and is interviewed on TV with a clip of CC Nick Gargan speaking of this... 4-0 CJ
This is why I get sarcastic ... A program is then made, to highlight his plight... My God many peoples lives have been ruined by the press, they didn't get this treatment....
5-0 CJ
He appears on various documentaries, and tells us what he knows and whom he conversed with.....
Was that an own goal....
5-1 CJ
Nobody seemed concerned in any shape or form to the treatment that Dr Vincent Tabak had.... No bail application... etc etc...
But CJ.... It's like they cannot do enough, and I do not get why...
Looks like it was CJ who got the trophy, he seems to have won the match........... (imo)
Edit.. And lets not forget that he was part of the discussion in parliament on 4th February 2011, they may not have mentioned him by name, but everyone knew whom they meant.... ( And all this whilst he was still on POLICE BAIL)....
Looks like the final score is 6-1 to CJ...
A game of football and CJ winning . How offensive and disrespectful are your posts?
-
Think Nine's posts are getting more and more shocking. Really should be removed based on previous guidelines what is and isnt acceptable to post!
Get rid if you want, makes no difference.... nothing about this case will ever makes any difference... i will not change my mind, and if others are happy with how things are then, nothing has changed, so my posts are pointless....
Forgot people aren't allowed to ask questions... Should have remembered my place!
-
Nine - read this and educate yourself! It clears up quite a lot of your confusions.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homicide-murder-and-manslaughter
-
Get rid if you want, makes no difference.... nothing about this case will ever makes any difference... i will not change my mind, and if others are happy with how things are then, nothing has changed, so my posts are pointless....
Forgot people aren't allowed to ask questions... Should have remembered my place!
Ask questions? how aggressive are you? Tabak doesnt want you asking the same questions over and over again. He isnt asking them so what gives you the right to disrespect all concerned ?
-
Get rid if you want, makes no difference.... nothing about this case will ever makes any difference... i will not change my mind, and if others are happy with how things are then, nothing has changed, so my posts are pointless....
Forgot people aren't allowed to ask questions... Should have remembered my place!
Its not that you're not allowed to ask questions but when answers are provide, then have the decency to bloody read and acknowledge them. The article I posted clarifies the law in respect to manslaughter v's murder. Read it, then you might not repeat the same silly questions.
-
A game of football and CJ winning . How offensive and disrespectful are your posts?
I used an analergy.... Take it as you will... I am pointing out inconsistencies, the order appearing incorrect... A man wanted to hide in the shadows yet he is all singing and dancing.... Just my opinion....
If you find it so offensive, get it removed....
Why am I being disrespectful to a man I have no idea whom he is.....
I was taught respect is earned....
I'll show him respect if he tells us exactly what was in his 2 witness statements, word for word.... And what was stated at the Police station when he was in custody, may have relevance to Dr Vincent Tabak...
Otherwise he has earned nothing (imo)!
-
Its not that you're not allowed to ask questions but when answers are provide, then have the decency to bloody read and acknowledge them. The article I posted clarifies the law in respect to manslaughter v's murder. Read it, then you might not repeat the same silly questions.
Introduction
Murder and manslaughter are two of the offences that constitute homicide.
Manslaughter can be committed in one of three ways:
Killing with the intent for murder but where a partial defence applies, namely loss of control, diminished responsibility or killing pursuant to a suicide pact.
Conduct that was grossly negligent given the risk of death, and did kill ("gross negligence manslaughter"); and
Conduct taking the form of an unlawful act involving a danger of some harm that resulted in death ("unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter").
The term "involuntary manslaughter" is commonly used to describe manslaughter falling within (2) and (3) while (1) is referred to as "voluntary manslaughter".
Reports
The role and expectation of expert witnesses is set out at Part 19 Criminal Procedure Rules.
In every murder case, the court will require a report about the defendant's medical condition. However, following the case of R v Reid (2002) 1 Cr App R 21, there is now no requirement for the Crown to obtain a medical report for the Court's benefit. Prosecutors should be aware of any local arrangements in the local Crown Court.
A murder case should not be sent without receipt of a pathologist's statement covering the cause of death. This should be released to the defence as quickly as possible so that they may arrange a second post-mortem if required or so that the coroner may release the deceased's body.
In most cases, the Crown's pathologist will only provide an interim report giving the likely cause of death. A full report will follow. Prosecutors are reminded that in cases involving head injuries, delays of up to 12 weeks can occur whilst neurological analysis is undertaken. Pathologists will generally complete their final report once all other studies have been completed, e.g. histology, toxicology etc.
In cases where a request is received for the removal of an organ for transplant purposes, refer the request to the CCP or designated lawyer.
R v Reid (2002) 1 Cr App R 21, there is now no requirement for the Crown... How useful....
Murder
Introduction
Subject to three exceptions (see Voluntary Manslaughter below) the crime of murder is committed, where a person:
Of sound mind and discretion (i.e. sane);
unlawfully kills (i.e. not self-defence or other justified killing);
any reasonable creature (human being);
in being (born alive and breathing through its own lungs - Rance v Mid-Downs Health Authority (1991) 1 All ER 801 and AG Ref No 3 of 1994 (1997) 3 All ER 936;
under the Queen's Peace (not in war-time);
with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH).
If they had no idea what happened to Joanna yeates, how did they know it was Murder in the first place, and the intent was to Kill..
Intent
The intent for murder is an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH). Foresight is no more than evidence from which the jury may draw the inference of intent, c.f. R v Woollin [1999] 1 Cr App R 8 (HOL). The necessary intention exists if the defendant feels sure that death, or serious bodily harm, is a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant's actions and that the defendant appreciated that this was the case - R v Matthews (Darren John) [2003] EWCA Crim 192.
That is the legal requirement for it to be proved Murder and Not manslaughter....
How can you start a Murder case with a person saying they are guilty of manslaughter.... then go...
Go on... prove my intention...
Intention is not a charge...
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homicide-murder-and-manslaughter
This case is crapolla in my opinion....
-
Ask questions? how aggressive are you? Tabak doesnt want you asking the same questions over and over again. He isnt asking them so what gives you the right to disrespect all concerned ?
There has been similar excuses made for Jeremy Bamber. When he has said certain things which contradict his previous comments, then according to some, this is because he doesn't remember things correctly and he doesn't know his case very well. The excuse made for Tabak is that he isn't talking because he's traumatised. No idea where this BS originates but there is no doubt that they are excuses to explain the unexplainable. In the case of Bamber, he contradicts himself because his version never happened and as such. As for Tabak, he's not talking because he has nothing to say - he said it all when he admitted to what he did.
-
I used an analergy.... Take it as you will... I am pointing out inconsistencies, the order appearing incorrect... A man wanted to hide in the shadows yet he is all singing and dancing.... Just my opinion....
If you find it so offensive, get it removed....
Why am I being disrespectful to a man I have no idea whom he is.....
I was taught respect is earned....
I'll show him respect if he tells us exactly what was in his 2 witness statements, word for word.... And what was stated at the Police station when he was in custody, may have relevance to Dr Vincent Tabak...
Otherwise he has earned nothing (imo)!
CJ owes you NOTHIING.
-
I read them... acknowledge them... but don't always agree with them.....
You never acknowledge them and whether you agree nor not, quite a lot of what you don't agree with happens to be FACT. Read the article!
-
There has been similar excuses made for Jeremy Bamber. When he has said certain things which contradict his previous comments, then according to some, this is because he doesn't remember things correctly and he doesn't know his case very well. The excuse made for Tabak is that he isn't talking because he's traumatised. No idea where this BS originates but there is no doubt that they are excuses to explain the unexplainable. In the case of Bamber, he contradicts himself because his version never happened and as such. As for Tabak, he's not talking because he has nothing to say - he said it all when he admitted to what he did.
Spot on re Tabak. I keep having read on the Bamber thread but so much info and everyone seems so passionate about their view
-
CJ owes you NOTHIING. You are disgusting!
Is that with love Jixy ?{)(**
-
Too slow on the edit I'm afraid! @)(++(*
-
Too slow on the edit I'm afraid! @)(++(*
@)(++(*
-
Spot on re Tabak. I keep having read on the Bamber thread but so much info and everyone seems so passionate about their view
I meant to add 'as such' he (Bamber) can't remember all the lies he told and the sequence.
-
CJ owes you NOTHIING. You are disgusting!
I think CJ owes others something though! whether you think I am disgusting or not.....
-
The only way I can be seen to be being disrespectful to CJ, is if as I keep saying... This is made up... Therefore anything that was said about CJ, could never have had a ring of truth... And everyone acted accordingly..
So which way do you want it?
-
What on earth are you talking about? You have no idea how the legal system works! Of course he wouldn't have walked free! Had the jury found him not guilty, he would have been sentenced in accordance with manslaughter!
CJ's account of the weekend is irrelevant (and I don't know why you keep asking this because it is so simple!) ....... Tabak isn't denying causing JY's death. The ONLY relevant witness would be one who saw him end her life because perhaps then, they could say whether the death was accidental or not. Anything else - IRRELEVANT! Got it now? ?8)@)-)
Caroline is right in saying that VT would have been found guilty of manslaughter if he had not been convicted of murder. He would not have walked free.
Not so sure that CJs account of the weekend would have been irrelevant, however, but that is just my opinion.
-
Spot on re Tabak. I keep having read on the Bamber thread but so much info and everyone seems so passionate about their view
They are pretty passionate on here too!!
-
Caroline is right in saying that VT would have been found guilty of manslaughter if he had not been convicted of murder. He would not have walked free.
Not so sure that CJs account of the weekend would have been irrelevant, however, but that is just my opinion.
That is more reason to question why a man appears at trial as GUILTY to only be found GUILTIER... how is that right and fair?? And his evidence is the only evidence that secures his own conviction..... Barking i tell you.... this is barking....
As for CJ, he will forever be connected to The Murder of Joanna Yeates, that is fact.. he is the one everyone remembers.... And that comes from the positive publicity that came after....
-
They are pretty passionate on here too!!
Have to disagree. Obsessed maybe. The ones defending Joanna's name after mountains of sickening posts, yes those maybe
-
Caroline is right in saying that VT would have been found guilty of manslaughter if he had not been convicted of murder. He would not have walked free.
Not so sure that CJs account of the weekend would have been irrelevant, however, but that is just my opinion.
Of course Caroline is right!
-
That is more reason to question why a man appears at trial as GUILTY to only be found GUILTIER... how is that right and fair?? And his evidence is the only evidence that secures his own conviction..... Barking i tell you.... this is barking....
As for CJ, he will forever be connected to The Murder of Joanna Yeates, that is fact.. he is the one everyone remembers.... And that comes from the positive publicity that came after....
You really need to stop saying that ridiculous phrase you cling to! people plead guilty each and every day across the land. This isnt something special Tabak did or was done to him. Get a grip!
-
That is more reason to question why a man appears at trial as GUILTY to only be found GUILTIER... how is that right and fair?? And his evidence is the only evidence that secures his own conviction..... Barking i tell you.... this is barking....
As for CJ, he will forever be connected to The Murder of Joanna Yeates, that is fact.. he is the one everyone remembers.... And that comes from the positive publicity that came after....
VT was found guilty of murder, which was what he had been charged with!
-
That is more reason to question why a man appears at trial as GUILTY to only be found GUILTIER... how is that right and fair?? And his evidence is the only evidence that secures his own conviction..... Barking i tell you.... this is barking....
As for CJ, he will forever be connected to The Murder of Joanna Yeates, that is fact.. he is the one everyone remembers.... And that comes from the positive publicity that came after....
FFS! Tabak admitted to manslaughter prior to his trial - the state didn't agree that he had killed her by accident so he was charged with (and went on trial for MURDER!) Had he won his case, he would have been sentenced in accordance with his manslaughter plea. How can you not understand this? @)(++(* @)(++(*
Manslaughter and murder are TWO DIFFERENT categories!
-
Barking i tell you.... this is barking....
Good to see you admit it! 8((()*/
-
FFS! Tabak admitted to manslaughter prior to his trial - the state didn't agree that he had killed her by accident so he was charged with (and went on trial for MURDER!) Had he won his case, he would have been sentenced in accordance with his manslaughter plea. How can you not understand this? @)(++(* @)(++(*
Manslaughter and murder are TWO DIFFERENT categories!
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* I’m pleased I’ve been out all day, I can’t be bothered to explain it anymore. In fact, if I had two choices, explaining to Nine and making him understand the difference between Manslaughter and murder or emptying the River Thames with a bucket full of holes, I honestly think I would take the bucket. (&^&
-
FFS! Tabak admitted to manslaughter prior to his trial - the state didn't agree that he had killed her by accident so he was charged with (and went on trial for MURDER!) Had he won his case, he would have been sentenced in accordance with his manslaughter plea. How can you not understand this? @)(++(* @)(++(*
Manslaughter and murder are TWO DIFFERENT categories!
Two Different Categories... So how are you guilty of one and on trial for the other, and everyone knows you apparently pled guilty to manslaughter....
The Justice system is Real's bucket of holes!
-
I understand the difference between Manslaughter and Murder, that was never my issue...
My issue, was that.... We the public knew that Dr Vincent Tabak had apparently pled guilty to manslaughter in May 2011.. If a plea was accepted that should be the end of the matter..
The prosecution didn't want to accept it, but to be honest i thought that was the judges decision... Anyway...
Knowing that Dr Vincent Tabak was facing trial in October 2011, NO_ONE should have been aware of the plea until after the trial was over.... not before or during, no reminders day in and day out...
Therefore a man of presumed Innocence is facing trial... what he decides to say is another matter....
So the bit my tiny little mind doesn't compute, is how are we allowed to know that someone has pled guilty to a lesser charge when facing a more serious charge at trial, when the word "MANSLAUGHTER" is no different in some respects than Murder, circumstance etc, not a deliberate act.... Resulting in death all the same....
That is what I do not comprehend.... That is what I believe is unfair as a way to conduct a trial, that I believe is prejudicial to any trial...
WE SHOULD NOT HAVE KNOWN!!!
It's like a dessert, you make the cake and then add the topping..... The topping hasn't hid the cake, it just enhanced it... A bit like the story on the stand!... That anyone could have told....
-
The system is a shambles, very much like the country, no-one knowing if they are on their arses or their elbows... A dead democracy, a sham... The whole country a joke.....
Whether any one cares what i think is neither here nor there....
What is important, is as our country behaves in the manor it does, the next generation are lost in it's complexities, which is fine for those privileged few...
The most shocking thing i heard from one of my children, was when I criticised the PM... My child believed that it was against the law to criticise any MP .. Or PM and you were not allowed to do this....
What sort of country have we become.... Our history is shameful, the treatment of the poor, is shameful, homelessness is shameful.... But hey ho... lets spend Big Bucks on Bollocks and hope no-one says anything....
So you have your laws how you want them... Stacked high against anyone who may find themselves at the wrong end of them, who doesn't have influential friends to help... And enjoy the delights they bring you...
All we need now is FULL CENSORSHIP and it's check mate.....
And the PM said she was proud of this country.... My God.... Time she took her blinkers off....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ywouk6do_JA
The Country as it is.... Working for the few..... And Crucifying the many!....
Why don't we save even more money and do away with courts... Just bring back the old ducking stool.... If they float, they're guilty!
Edit.. Her actual words were' "enduring gratitude to have had the opportunity to serve the country I love. ...."
Wonder why she loves it so much???? probably because she can afford sanitary wear and doesn't have to wonder whether or not she can feed herself or pay for rent, electric or gas... Oh yes, and by a pressie or two for the children...
What possible reason has she not got to love this country, it's served her well hasn't it....
-
Has William Clegg replied to your email yet, or could he not be bothered wasting time on your mind-numbing twaddle?
-
I understand the difference between Manslaughter and Murder, that was never my issue...
My issue, was that.... We the public knew that Dr Vincent Tabak had apparently pled guilty to manslaughter in May 2011.. If a plea was accepted that should be the end of the matter..
The prosecution didn't want to accept it, but to be honest i thought that was the judges decision... Anyway...
Knowing that Dr Vincent Tabak was facing trial in October 2011, NO_ONE should have been aware of the plea until after the trial was over.... not before or during, no reminders day in and day out...
Therefore a man of presumed Innocence is facing trial... what he decides to say is another matter....
So the bit my tiny little mind doesn't compute, is how are we allowed to know that someone has pled guilty to a lesser charge when facing a more serious charge at trial, when the word "MANSLAUGHTER" is no different in some respects than Murder, circumstance etc, not a deliberate act.... Resulting in death all the same....
That is what I do not comprehend.... That is what I believe is unfair as a way to conduct a trial, that I believe is prejudicial to any trial...
WE SHOULD NOT HAVE KNOWN!!!
It's like a dessert, you make the cake and then add the topping..... The topping hasn't hid the cake, it just enhanced it... A bit like the story on the stand!... That anyone could have told....
Nine, the defendant first appears at a Magistrates court and enters a plea, because of the nature of offence it goes to Crown Court, before the trial there is a preliminary hearing, this is to establish what plea will be made in the case, if he enters not guilty or no plea, the CPS will have a date then to serve all the evidence they have to Tabak or his Lawyer. There will be another hearing before the Crown court case.
The prosecution charged Tabak with premeditated murder, Tabak admitted killing Joanna, but wanted the lower charge of manslaughter which carries a lower sentence. If the jury wasn’t told about Tabak’s plea, Tabak may never have got a chance for manslaughter, how could the case evolve without the jury knowing of Tabak’s plea, the jury has to be told what Tabak has pleaded, for the jury not to know, Tabak’s defence would have had to say he’s not guilty of killing Joanna.
Our Courts are open to the public, knowing what someone has pleaded is open to everyone, he was trying to get out of being found guilty of murder with intent, not manslaughter. What do you want, trials behind closed doors in secret and no press reporting?
If Tabak had changed his mind, first pleading guilty and then pleading not guilty, this would have to go in front of the judge again before trial, the judge would have to establish why he had changed plea and the reason why.
-
The defendant can also change their plea from guilty to not guilty, but the court will only approve this if there are exceptional circumstances.
-
Nine, the defendant first appears at a Magistrates court and enters a plea, because of the nature of offence it goes to Crown Court, before the trial there is a preliminary hearing, this is to establish what plea will be made in the case, if he enters not guilty or no plea, the CPS will have a date then to serve all the evidence they have to Tabak or his Lawyer. There will be another hearing before the Crown court case.
The prosecution charged Tabak with premeditated murder, Tabak admitted killing Joanna, but wanted the lower charge of manslaughter which carries a lower sentence. If the jury wasn’t told about Tabak’s plea, Tabak may never have got a chance for manslaughter, how could the case evolve without the jury knowing of Tabak’s plea, the jury has to be told what Tabak has pleaded, for the jury not to know, Tabak’s defence would have had to say he’s not guilty of killing Joanna.
Our Courts are open to the public, knowing what someone has pleaded is open to everyone, he was trying to get out of being found guilty of murder with intent, not manslaughter. What do you want, trials behind closed doors in secret and no press reporting?
If Tabak had changed his mind, first pleading guilty and then pleading not guilty, this would have to go in front of the judge again before trial, the judge would have to establish why he had changed plea and the reason why.
The prosecution charged Tabak with premeditated murder,
How do you know this Real??
What evidence did the prosecution have to charge with premeditated Murder??
Is there such a charge?? I don't think so... But what do I know.... FA...
It doesn't say it here.... https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homicide-murder-and-manslaughter
Isn't that a charge in American law?
Thought the trial was in this country.... Or are you trying to tell me something else???
-
The defendant can also change their plea from guilty to not guilty, but the court will only approve this if there are exceptional circumstances.
ERM..... like he didn't do it?? There were witness's?? The story doesn't add up.... All the evidence was already in the public domain....
Did he change his plea and it was denied?? They wouldn't tell us that though would they, if that happened...
-
Nine, the defendant first appears at a Magistrates court and enters a plea, because of the nature of offence it goes to Crown Court, before the trial there is a preliminary hearing, this is to establish what plea will be made in the case, if he enters not guilty or no plea, the CPS will have a date then to serve all the evidence they have to Tabak or his Lawyer. There will be another hearing before the Crown court case.
The prosecution charged Tabak with premeditated murder, Tabak admitted killing Joanna, but wanted the lower charge of manslaughter which carries a lower sentence. If the jury wasn’t told about Tabak’s plea, Tabak may never have got a chance for manslaughter, how could the case evolve without the jury knowing of Tabak’s plea, the jury has to be told what Tabak has pleaded, for the jury not to know, Tabak’s defence would have had to say he’s not guilty of killing Joanna.
Our Courts are open to the public, knowing what someone has pleaded is open to everyone, he was trying to get out of being found guilty of murder with intent, not manslaughter. What do you want, trials behind closed doors in secret and no press reporting?
If Tabak had changed his mind, first pleading guilty and then pleading not guilty, this would have to go in front of the judge again before trial, the judge would have to establish why he had changed plea and the reason why.
Tabak may never have got a chance for manslaughter, how could the case evolve without the jury knowing of Tabak’s plea, the jury has to be told what Tabak has pleaded, for the jury not to know, Tabak’s defence would have had to say he’s not guilty of killing Joanna.
Says it all really....
Yes and i know that they couldn't say that because they then couldn't represent him, after the plea at the Old Bailey....
So why the F*** did they carry on representing him??? Only to throw him to the lions at the end....
Clegg... do us a fav Mr Tabak, just tell the jury how ya did it.... cheers mate....
Come on..... Clegg should not have represented him... (imo)
Is this the modern day version of hung drawn and quartered?
-
It is ALL WRONG..... Why does no-one say anything!
-
Tabak may never have got a chance for manslaughter, how could the case evolve without the jury knowing of Tabak’s plea, the jury has to be told what Tabak has pleaded, for the jury not to know, Tabak’s defence would have had to say he’s not guilty of killing Joanna.
Says it all really....
Yes and i know that they couldn't say that because they then couldn't represent him, after the plea at the Old Bailey....
So why the F*** did they carry on representing him??? Only to throw him to the lions at the end....
Clegg... do us a fav Mr Tabak, just tell the jury how ya did it.... cheers mate....
Come on..... Clegg should not have represented him... (imo)
Is this the modern day version of hung drawn and quartered?
Errm am I swearing at you when I’m debating, I’ve tried to explain the best I can. They represented him, because Tabak wanted them to, he has a choice. They tried to get Him the best verdict with the evidence presented. Have you ever thought, Tabak might have wanted to get it off his chest and be honest that he had killed Joanna, he might have felt so much remorse that his conscience got the better of him, pleading guilty might have relieved this burden.
-
ERM..... like he didn't do it?? There were witness's?? The story doesn't add up.... All the evidence was already in the public domain....
Did he change his plea and it was denied?? They wouldn't tell us that though would they, if that happened...
If he had changed his mind it would have been reported.
-
Errm am I swearing at you when I’m debating, I’ve tried to explain the best I can. They represented him, because Tabak wanted them to, he has a choice. They tried to get Him the best verdict with the evidence presented. Have you ever thought, Tabak might have wanted to get it off his chest and be honest that he had killed Joanna, he might have felt so much remorse that his conscience got the better of him, pleading guilty might have relieved this burden.
I am not swearing at YOU.... I am swearing full stop.... I appreciate you taking the time to explain...
Lets put Dr Vincent Tabak to one side for a moment.... It was how the whole episode was conducted that is the problem... But no one give a ship...
Anyway I remember the country doesn't allow for disorder or opinion holy ship... Time to be a non person...
Or would they prefer everyone to throw in the towel like Sol..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOV8mBjHHYg
That was his way out when reality dawned....!!
There's something I never covered, euthanasia.... thats a whole new ball game... But as you keep informing me, what I have stated counts for nothing ....
Live Long and Prosper... Now beam me up Scottie.... !
-
If he had changed his mind it would have been reported.
Reported yes.... But not in the media...
So was it reported and registered in Dr Vincent Tabak's papers?
-
I am not swearing at YOU.... I am swearing full stop.... I appreciate you taking the time to explain...
Lets put Dr Vincent Tabak to one side for a moment.... It was how the whole episode was conducted that is the problem... But no one give a ship...
Anyway I remember the country doesn't allow for disorder or opinion holy ship... Time to be a non person...
Or would they prefer everyone to throw in the towel like Sol..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOV8mBjHHYg
That was his way out when reality dawned....!!
You say Clegg didn’t do a good job, he was defending someone who pleaded guilty to the Killing, the Jury took three days to decide and just by a whisper 10/2 majority, a verdict against a man admitting he had killed, he nearly got Tabak the lesser charge. Three days of deliberation, Clegg did a good job I thought.
-
You say Clegg didn’t do a good job, he was defending someone who pleaded guilty to the Killing, the Jury took three days to decide and just by a whisper 10/2 majority, a verdict against a man admitting he had killed, he nearly got Tabak the lesser charge. Three days of deliberation, Clegg did a good job I thought.
Well if you have any connection to the judiciary you are hardly going to say he was appalling at his job are you... One cannot be seen bringing the Judiciary into disrepute now can one... !
-
Well if you have any connection to the judiciary you are hardly going to say he was appalling at his job are you... One cannot be seen bringing the Judiciary into disrepute now can one... !
Prosecution call defence and defence call the prosecution all the time.. A defendant can make an appeal if he thinks he wasn’t represented correctly, he has 21 days to lodge an appeal. Tabak would have been told this and advised, because Tabak pleaded guilty, he could only appeal the murder charge or the length of sentence I’m afraid, would have been extremely hard to appeal a guilty plea.
-
Prosecution call defence and defence call the prosecution all the time.. A defendant can make an appeal if he thinks he wasn’t represented correctly, he has 21 days to lodge an appeal. Tabak would have been told this and advised, because Tabak pleaded guilty, he could only appeal the murder charge or the length of sentence I’m afraid, would have been extremely hard to appeal a guilty plea.
Yes... so that being the point of pleading guilty.... ?? (No appeal)??
It is what it is Real.... People have no power at all, no-one has the ability to change anything, the job is royally screwed...
And soon the media will have their ability to report restricted the way things are going... So what is the point....
The few have got their day.... Forever it seems, shame the dog never got his!
Never mind eh... 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
Jo will never have her day again will she?
-
Jo will never have her day again will she?
Shame CJ never thought about that whilst having a netflix production made...
-
Well if you have any connection to the judiciary you are hardly going to say he was appalling at his job are you... One cannot be seen bringing the Judiciary into disrepute now can one... !
All this cant you've subjected us to is for one reason and one reason only. You -who seemingly knows nothing of the rules which have to be followed before someone is taken to court- refuse to allow that a man who's confessed his guilt is telling the truth. Indeed, SO uncertain do you appear to be about numerous points that you'd probably be prepared to believed that the ducking stool had been bought out of retirement for the sole use of Tabak. That being so, it WILL be as you posited, Tabak -if he'd ever been real- won't exist because he'll be dead and you'll have been right all along. Only the guilty floated.
-
Yes... so that being the point of pleading guilty.... ?? (No appeal)??
It is what it is Real.... People have no power at all, no-one has the ability to change anything, the job is royally screwed...
And soon the media will have their ability to report restricted the way things are going... So what is the point....
The few have got their day.... Forever it seems, shame the dog never got his!
Never mind eh... 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
Tabak was tried with our Law that has been present long before you and I, the world was once the envy of our judicial system Nine. Me and you will not change a thing, all we can debate is the Law as it stands, debating what is right and wrong within our judicial system is another topic.
There are several areas I don’t like about our judicial system, I would personally like the Jury to be made aware of past sexual offences if the defendant is on charge again for a similar offence.
-
Shame CJ never thought about that whilst having a netflix production made...
you actually make me sick! pity Tabak didnt think before he took her life!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Yes... so that being the point of pleading guilty.... ?? (No appeal)??
It is what it is Real.... People have no power at all, no-one has the ability to change anything, the job is royally screwed...
And soon the media will have their ability to report restricted the way things are going... So what is the point....
The few have got their day.... Forever it seems, shame the dog never got his!
Never mind eh... 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
That’s what the leveson Inquiry was all about Nine, press intrusion, I don’t think it has done much though, look what happened to Cliff Richard. One good thing came out of it though, they don’t use bail as much now, they tend to release suspects Under Investigation, this is what they now they call it. Similar to bail, all it means is the investigation is ongoing. Can still have restrictions though.
-
Shame CJ never thought about that whilst having a netflix production made...
What does CJ have to hide himself away for? HE didn't take anyone's life.
-
Two Different Categories... So how are you guilty of one and on trial for the other, and everyone knows you apparently pled guilty to manslaughter....
The Justice system is Real's bucket of holes!
He has never bee found guilty of manslaughter!! That's what he ADMITTED to (FFS!! @)(++(* @)(++(*)
-
I understand the difference between Manslaughter and Murder, that was never my issue...
My issue, was that.... We the public knew that Dr Vincent Tabak had apparently pled guilty to manslaughter in May 2011.. If a plea was accepted that should be the end of the matter..
The prosecution didn't want to accept it, but to be honest i thought that was the judges decision... Anyway...
Knowing that Dr Vincent Tabak was facing trial in October 2011, NO_ONE should have been aware of the plea until after the trial was over.... not before or during, no reminders day in and day out...
Therefore a man of presumed Innocence is facing trial... what he decides to say is another matter....
So the bit my tiny little mind doesn't compute, is how are we allowed to know that someone has pled guilty to a lesser charge when facing a more serious charge at trial, when the word "MANSLAUGHTER" is no different in some respects than Murder, circumstance etc, not a deliberate act.... Resulting in death all the same....
That is what I do not comprehend.... That is what I believe is unfair as a way to conduct a trial, that I believe is prejudicial to any trial...
WE SHOULD NOT HAVE KNOWN!!!
It's like a dessert, you make the cake and then add the topping..... The topping hasn't hid the cake, it just enhanced it... A bit like the story on the stand!... That anyone could have told....
NO IT SHOULDN'T BE CAUSE THE STATE DIDN'T BELIEVE HIM AND TRIED HIM FOR MURDER! Don't you think every murderer would try and get off with manslaughter it it were that easy! Seriously Nine, this is about as basic as it gets and if you can't grasp this, no wonder you're just chasing your tail!
-
Shame CJ never thought about that whilst having a netflix production made...
Very uncalled for Nine, you talk about press intrusion, yet you deny this man a chance to show something of the reality behind the grotesquely distorting mirror of the press. His life wasn’t all about Tabak Nine, it was called the last honour of Christopher Jefferies, you don’t get this honourable man saying he’s very bitter about Tabak, the press intrusion happened to him because of what Tabak did.
-
Tabak may never have got a chance for manslaughter, how could the case evolve without the jury knowing of Tabak’s plea, the jury has to be told what Tabak has pleaded, for the jury not to know, Tabak’s defence would have had to say he’s not guilty of killing Joanna.
Says it all really....
Yes and i know that they couldn't say that because they then couldn't represent him, after the plea at the Old Bailey....
So why the F*** did they carry on representing him??? Only to throw him to the lions at the end....
Clegg... do us a fav Mr Tabak, just tell the jury how ya did it.... cheers mate....
Come on..... Clegg should not have represented him... (imo)
Is this the modern day version of hung drawn and quartered?
What are you talking about? The whole trial was about how he ACCIDENTALLY killed JY - how could thew jury NOT know? @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Shame CJ never thought about that whilst having a netflix production made...
Shame Tabak never thought of that while he was taking his filthy perversions out on an innocent young girl. CJ was a victim of Tabak too - really is odd that you don't see that!
-
Shame CJ never thought about that whilst having a netflix production made...
CJ didn't have the production made: it wasn't his idea, although he was consulted during its making.
-
The prosecution charged Tabak with premeditated murder,
How do you know this Real??
What evidence did the prosecution have to charge with premeditated Murder??
Is there such a charge?? I don't think so... But what do I know.... FA...
It doesn't say it here.... https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homicide-murder-and-manslaughter
Isn't that a charge in American law?
Thought the trial was in this country.... Or are you trying to tell me something else???
Yes it is used in our courts Nine, no I’m not trying to tell you anything Nine, you know the trial was in this country Nine
.
ENGLISH LAW
Manslaughter in the UK is defined as murder without premeditation.
Vincent Tabak, 33, denies the premeditated killing of Miss Yeates, 25.
Her parents David and Teresa looked on from the public gallery solemn-faced on the first day of evidence.
-
CJ didn't have the production made: it wasn't his idea, although he was consulted during its making.
I really don’t understand Nine’s attacks on CJ, Tabak never does or vice versa, only Nine, it’s totally uncalled for, against a man, who, at the end of the day defended his honour.
-
I really don’t understand Nine’s attacks on CJ, Tabak never does or vice versa, only Nine, totally uncalled for, against a man, who, at the end of the day defended his honour.
I am not attacking CJ... just pointing out what he stated in video and in The leveson and questioning... That is all... The fact that someone is dead appears to have slipped even CJ's mind... That too I pointed out...
he comes across as self centred, but that is my opinion... And why should it bother anyone what i think....
It is NOT a popularity contest... If the statements people make cause question, then questions should be asked, no matter whom they may be... CJ, like everyone else is just a person... A nobody that has been brought to the public's attention...
He really could do with setting the record straight (imo)... maybe he has other things to add to his statement that he may have forgotten and now recalls... One will never know... Will one... If one doesn't ask.............
-
I am not attacking CJ... just pointing out what he stated in video and in The leveson and questioning... That is all... The fact that someone is dead appears to have slipped even CJ's mind... That too I pointed out...
he comes across as self centred, but that is my opinion... And why should it bother anyone what i think....
It is NOT a popularity contest... If the statements people make cause question, then questions should be asked, no matter whom they may be... CJ, like everyone else is just a person... A nobody that has been brought to the public's attention...
He really could do with setting the record straight (imo)... maybe he has other things to add to his statement that he may have forgotten and now recalls... One will never know... Will one... If one doesn't ask.............
As opposed to a creepy, murdering pervert who you give every respect to?
-
I am not attacking CJ... just pointing out what he stated in video and in The leveson and questioning... That is all... The fact that someone is dead appears to have slipped even CJ's mind... That too I pointed out...
he comes across as self centred, but that is my opinion... And why should it bother anyone what i think....
It is NOT a popularity contest... If the statements people make cause question, then questions should be asked, no matter whom they may be... CJ, like everyone else is just a person... A nobody that has been brought to the public's attention...
He really could do with setting the record straight (imo)... maybe he has other things to add to his statement that he may have forgotten and now recalls... One will never know... Will one... If one doesn't ask.............
You target CJ regular Nine, the fact that Tabak admitted he killed Joanna slips your mind.
He was brought to the publics attention because of Tabak, he set the record straight with a documentary which your against.
-
I am not attacking CJ... just pointing out what he stated in video and in The leveson and questioning... That is all... The fact that someone is dead appears to have slipped even CJ's mind... That too I pointed out...
he comes across as self centred, but that is my opinion... And why should it bother anyone what i think....
It is NOT a popularity contest... If the statements people make cause question, then questions should be asked, no matter whom they may be... CJ, like everyone else is just a person... A nobody that has been brought to the public's attention...
He really could do with setting the record straight (imo)... maybe he has other things to add to his statement that he may have forgotten and now recalls... One will never know... Will one... If one doesn't ask.............
How ironic that you say this isn't a personality test. You've turned it into one. What you've created here is an alternate scenario in which the wicked victims all fall beneath an alter you've erected to Tabak.
-
I really don’t understand Nine’s attacks on CJ, Tabak never does or vice versa, only Nine, it’s totally uncalled for, against a man, who, at the end of the day defended his honour.
To defend ones honour, one needs an Honour to defend..... what you trying to tell me??
Defend ones reputation is totally different.... To prove ones Innocence, different again... But defend ones honour, begs a question... Had he an Honour bestowed upon him?? Was that what he was trying to defend?
-
To defend ones honour, one needs an Honour to defend..... what you trying to tell me??
Defend ones reputation is totally different.... To prove ones Innocence, different again... But defend ones honour, begs a question... Had he an Honour bestowed upon him?? Was that what he was trying to defend?
Just who the hell do you think you are to have the temerity to imply CJ didn't have HONOUR?
-
How ironic that you say this isn't a personality test. You've turned it into one. What you've created here is an alternate scenario in which the wicked victims all fall beneath an alter you've erected to Tabak.
Like a Tabakanacle? @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Just who the hell do you think you are to have the temerity to imply CJ didn't have HONOUR?
He doesn't understand what you meant by 'honour' but that isn't surprising.
-
Just who the hell do you think you are to have the temerity to imply CJ didn't have HONOUR?
I was merely seeking clarity.... He could be The Right Honourable CJEJ for all I know.... I was just begging the question... No need to go all stripy shirty on me...!
-
To defend ones honour, one needs an Honour to defend..... what you trying to tell me??
Defend ones reputation is totally different.... To prove ones Innocence, different again... But defend ones honour, begs a question... Had he an Honour bestowed upon him?? Was that what he was trying to defend?
Honour can be defined in many ways, it was the title that’s all Nine. Mainly I would say, defend his reputation against the names he was called.
-
He doesn't understand what you meant by 'honour' but that isn't surprising.
honour
noun uk us honor UK /ˈɒn.ər/ US /ˈɑː.nɚ/
honour noun (RESPECT)
B2 [ U ] a quality that combines respect, being proud, and honesty:
a man of honour
We fought for the honour of our country.
in honour of sb/sth
B2 in order to celebrate or show great respect for someone or something:
a banquet in honour of the president
be/feel honour bound to do sth also be/feel honour-bound to do sth
to feel you must do something because it is morally right, even if you do not want to do it:
I felt honour bound to tell him the truth.
do sb the honour of doing sth formal
to make someone proud and happy by doing or being something:
Would you do me the honour of accompanying me to the New Year Ball?
Your/His/Her Honour formal
the way to address or refer to a judge:
Yes, Your Honour.
The case was dealt with by Her Honour Judge Kirkham.
honour
/ˈɒnə/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: honour; noun: honor; plural noun: honours; plural noun: honors
1.
high respect; great esteem.
"his portrait hangs in the place of honour"
synonyms: distinction, privilege, glory, tribute, kudos, cachet, prestige, fame, renown, merit, credit, importance, illustriousness, notability; More
antonyms: disgrace
a person or thing that brings esteem.
"you are an honour to our profession"
a title of respect or form of address given to a circuit judge, a US mayor, and (in Irish or rustic speech) any person of rank.
noun: His Honour; noun: His Honor; noun: Her Honour; noun: Her Honor; noun: Your Honour; noun: Your Honor
2.
the quality of knowing and doing what is morally right.
"I must as a matter of honour avoid any taint of dishonesty"
synonyms: integrity, honourableness, honesty, uprightness, ethics, morals, morality, principle, (high) principles, righteousness, rectitude, nobility, high-mindedness, right-mindedness, noble-mindedness; More
antonyms: dishonour
DATED
a woman's chastity or her reputation for being chaste.
"she died defending her honour"
synonyms: chastity, virginity, virtue, maidenhood, maidenhead, purity, innocence, modesty; More
3.
something regarded as a rare opportunity and bringing pride and pleasure; a privilege.
"Mrs Young had the honour of being received by the Queen"
synonyms: privilege, pleasure, pride, satisfaction, joy, compliment, favour, source of pleasure, source of pride
"Mrs Young had the honour of being received by the Queen"
antonyms: shame
a thing conferred as a distinction, especially an official award for bravery or achievement.
"the highest military honours"
synonyms: accolade, award, reward, prize, decoration, distinction, order, title, medal, ribbon, star, laurel, laurel wreath, bay, palm; More
a special distinction for proficiency in an examination.
"she passed with honours"
a course of degree studies more specialized than for an ordinary pass.
noun: honours degree; plural noun: honours degrees; noun: honors degree; plural noun: honors degrees
"an honours degree in mathematics"
GOLF
the right of driving off first, having won the previous hole.
"Kyle had the honour at the last hole"
4.
BRIDGE
an ace, king, queen, jack, or ten.
possession in one's hand of at least four of the ace, king, queen, jack, and ten of trumps, or of all four aces in no trumps, for which a bonus is scored.
(in whist) an ace, king, queen, or jack of trumps.
verb
verb: honour; 3rd person present: honours; past tense: honoured; past participle: honoured; gerund or present participle: honouring; verb: honor; 3rd person present: honors; past tense: honored; past participle: honored; gerund or present participle: honoring
1.
regard with great respect.
"they honoured their parents in all they did"
synonyms: hold in great respect, hold in high esteem, have a high regard for, esteem, respect, admire, defer to, look up to, think highly of; More
antonyms: dishonour
pay public respect to.
"talented writers were honoured at a special ceremony"
synonyms: applaud, acclaim, praise, salute, recognize, celebrate, commemorate, commend, glorify, hail, lionize, exalt, fete, eulogize, give credit to, pay homage to, pay tribute to, show appreciation of, give accolades to, sing the praises of, sing paeans to; More
antonyms: disgrace, criticize
2.
fulfil (an obligation) or keep (an agreement).
"make sure the franchisees honour the terms of the contract"
synonyms: fulfil, observe, keep, discharge, implement, perform, execute, effect, obey, heed, follow, carry out, carry through, keep to, abide by, adhere to, comply with, conform to, act in accordance with, be true to, be faithful to, live up to; rareeffectuate
"make sure the franchisees honour the terms of the contract"
antonyms: disobey
accept (a bill) or pay (a cheque) when due.
"the bank informed him that the cheque would not be honoured"
synonyms: cash, accept, take, clear, pass, encash, convert into cash, convert into money
"the bank informed him that the cheque would not be honoured"
antonyms: bounce
-
Honour can be defined in many ways, it was the title that’s all Nine. Mainly I would say, defend his reputation against the names he was called.
Thank you for the clarity..
Title as in named title?
Or a title that was used from an already made blog in January 2011, ??
https://timothyjmoore.wordpress.com/2011/01/01/the-lost-honour-of-chris-jefferies/
Bit of a bridge move that... (imo) 2 clubs played 1/1/2011
Or that is how it appears to be.... Or appears to me.... Why would you write a blog on the day of CJ's release, then someone makes a drama out of it??
The link to the blog eminates from here... So the date of the wordpress published article must be on the date it states...
seeing as this Other blog is written on the 3rd Jan 2011
https://inforrm.org/2011/01/03/media-responsibility-and-chris-jeffries/
1/1/2011... CJ is still a suspect... He has not been released from Police Bail, more importantly Dr Vincent Tabak has not been arrested, that will come some 19 days later....
So why on gods earth would someone write a blog about the LOST HONOUR OF CJ.... on the day of his release from Police Custody and not bail..??
So the question is HONOUR in which context.... And what was actually in the blog??
-
I was merely seeking clarity.... He could be The Right Honourable CJEJ for all I know.... I was just begging the question... No need to go all stripy shirty on me...!
Yes, I'm fully aware of how much you're "seeking clarity". You're managing to dish out a whole lot of s-h1- t in the process.
-
honour
noun uk us honor UK /ˈɒn.ər/ US /ˈɑː.nɚ/
honour noun (RESPECT)
B2 [ U ] a quality that combines respect, being proud, and honesty:
a man of honour
We fought for the honour of our country.
in honour of sb/sth
B2 in order to celebrate or show great respect for someone or something:
a banquet in honour of the president
be/feel honour bound to do sth also be/feel honour-bound to do sth
to feel you must do something because it is morally right, even if you do not want to do it:
I felt honour bound to tell him the truth.
do sb the honour of doing sth formal
to make someone proud and happy by doing or being something:
Would you do me the honour of accompanying me to the New Year Ball?
Your/His/Her Honour formal
the way to address or refer to a judge:
Yes, Your Honour.
The case was dealt with by Her Honour Judge Kirkham.
honour
/ˈɒnə/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: honour; noun: honor; plural noun: honours; plural noun: honors
1.
high respect; great esteem.
"his portrait hangs in the place of honour"
synonyms: distinction, privilege, glory, tribute, kudos, cachet, prestige, fame, renown, merit, credit, importance, illustriousness, notability; More
antonyms: disgrace
a person or thing that brings esteem.
"you are an honour to our profession"
a title of respect or form of address given to a circuit judge, a US mayor, and (in Irish or rustic speech) any person of rank.
noun: His Honour; noun: His Honor; noun: Her Honour; noun: Her Honor; noun: Your Honour; noun: Your Honor
2.
the quality of knowing and doing what is morally right.
"I must as a matter of honour avoid any taint of dishonesty"
synonyms: integrity, honourableness, honesty, uprightness, ethics, morals, morality, principle, (high) principles, righteousness, rectitude, nobility, high-mindedness, right-mindedness, noble-mindedness; More
antonyms: dishonour
DATED
a woman's chastity or her reputation for being chaste.
"she died defending her honour"
synonyms: chastity, virginity, virtue, maidenhood, maidenhead, purity, innocence, modesty; More
3.
something regarded as a rare opportunity and bringing pride and pleasure; a privilege.
"Mrs Young had the honour of being received by the Queen"
synonyms: privilege, pleasure, pride, satisfaction, joy, compliment, favour, source of pleasure, source of pride
"Mrs Young had the honour of being received by the Queen"
antonyms: shame
a thing conferred as a distinction, especially an official award for bravery or achievement.
"the highest military honours"
synonyms: accolade, award, reward, prize, decoration, distinction, order, title, medal, ribbon, star, laurel, laurel wreath, bay, palm; More
a special distinction for proficiency in an examination.
"she passed with honours"
a course of degree studies more specialized than for an ordinary pass.
noun: honours degree; plural noun: honours degrees; noun: honors degree; plural noun: honors degrees
"an honours degree in mathematics"
GOLF
the right of driving off first, having won the previous hole.
"Kyle had the honour at the last hole"
4.
BRIDGE
an ace, king, queen, jack, or ten.
possession in one's hand of at least four of the ace, king, queen, jack, and ten of trumps, or of all four aces in no trumps, for which a bonus is scored.
(in whist) an ace, king, queen, or jack of trumps.
verb
verb: honour; 3rd person present: honours; past tense: honoured; past participle: honoured; gerund or present participle: honouring; verb: honor; 3rd person present: honors; past tense: honored; past participle: honored; gerund or present participle: honoring
1.
regard with great respect.
"they honoured their parents in all they did"
synonyms: hold in great respect, hold in high esteem, have a high regard for, esteem, respect, admire, defer to, look up to, think highly of; More
antonyms: dishonour
pay public respect to.
"talented writers were honoured at a special ceremony"
synonyms: applaud, acclaim, praise, salute, recognize, celebrate, commemorate, commend, glorify, hail, lionize, exalt, fete, eulogize, give credit to, pay homage to, pay tribute to, show appreciation of, give accolades to, sing the praises of, sing paeans to; More
antonyms: disgrace, criticize
2.
fulfil (an obligation) or keep (an agreement).
"make sure the franchisees honour the terms of the contract"
synonyms: fulfil, observe, keep, discharge, implement, perform, execute, effect, obey, heed, follow, carry out, carry through, keep to, abide by, adhere to, comply with, conform to, act in accordance with, be true to, be faithful to, live up to; rareeffectuate
"make sure the franchisees honour the terms of the contract"
antonyms: disobey
accept (a bill) or pay (a cheque) when due.
"the bank informed him that the cheque would not be honoured"
synonyms: cash, accept, take, clear, pass, encash, convert into cash, convert into money
"the bank informed him that the cheque would not be honoured"
antonyms: bounce
Oh give over Nine and debate properly, you know what was meant by Honour.
-
Just as a matter of interest, the title came from an earlier novel/film, "The Lost Honour of Katharina Blum" by Heinrich Boll (1975), which tells the story of a woman who was victimized.
-
honour
noun uk us honor UK /ˈɒn.ər/ US /ˈɑː.nɚ/
honour noun (RESPECT)
B2 [ U ] a quality that combines respect, being proud, and honesty:
a man of honour
We fought for the honour of our country.
in honour of sb/sth
B2 in order to celebrate or show great respect for someone or something:
a banquet in honour of the president
be/feel honour bound to do sth also be/feel honour-bound to do sth
to feel you must do something because it is morally right, even if you do not want to do it:
I felt honour bound to tell him the truth.
do sb the honour of doing sth formal
to make someone proud and happy by doing or being something:
Would you do me the honour of accompanying me to the New Year Ball?
Your/His/Her Honour formal
the way to address or refer to a judge:
Yes, Your Honour.
The case was dealt with by Her Honour Judge Kirkham.
honour
/ˈɒnə/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: honour; noun: honor; plural noun: honours; plural noun: honors
1.
high respect; great esteem.
"his portrait hangs in the place of honour"
synonyms: distinction, privilege, glory, tribute, kudos, cachet, prestige, fame, renown, merit, credit, importance, illustriousness, notability; More
antonyms: disgrace
a person or thing that brings esteem.
"you are an honour to our profession"
a title of respect or form of address given to a circuit judge, a US mayor, and (in Irish or rustic speech) any person of rank.
noun: His Honour; noun: His Honor; noun: Her Honour; noun: Her Honor; noun: Your Honour; noun: Your Honor
2.
the quality of knowing and doing what is morally right.
"I must as a matter of honour avoid any taint of dishonesty"
synonyms: integrity, honourableness, honesty, uprightness, ethics, morals, morality, principle, (high) principles, righteousness, rectitude, nobility, high-mindedness, right-mindedness, noble-mindedness; More
antonyms: dishonour
DATED
a woman's chastity or her reputation for being chaste.
"she died defending her honour"
synonyms: chastity, virginity, virtue, maidenhood, maidenhead, purity, innocence, modesty; More
3.
something regarded as a rare opportunity and bringing pride and pleasure; a privilege.
"Mrs Young had the honour of being received by the Queen"
synonyms: privilege, pleasure, pride, satisfaction, joy, compliment, favour, source of pleasure, source of pride
"Mrs Young had the honour of being received by the Queen"
antonyms: shame
a thing conferred as a distinction, especially an official award for bravery or achievement.
"the highest military honours"
synonyms: accolade, award, reward, prize, decoration, distinction, order, title, medal, ribbon, star, laurel, laurel wreath, bay, palm; More
a special distinction for proficiency in an examination.
"she passed with honours"
a course of degree studies more specialized than for an ordinary pass.
noun: honours degree; plural noun: honours degrees; noun: honors degree; plural noun: honors degrees
"an honours degree in mathematics"
GOLF
the right of driving off first, having won the previous hole.
"Kyle had the honour at the last hole"
4.
BRIDGE
an ace, king, queen, jack, or ten.
possession in one's hand of at least four of the ace, king, queen, jack, and ten of trumps, or of all four aces in no trumps, for which a bonus is scored.
(in whist) an ace, king, queen, or jack of trumps.
verb
verb: honour; 3rd person present: honours; past tense: honoured; past participle: honoured; gerund or present participle: honouring; verb: honor; 3rd person present: honors; past tense: honored; past participle: honored; gerund or present participle: honoring
1.
regard with great respect.
"they honoured their parents in all they did"
synonyms: hold in great respect, hold in high esteem, have a high regard for, esteem, respect, admire, defer to, look up to, think highly of; More
antonyms: dishonour
pay public respect to.
"talented writers were honoured at a special ceremony"
synonyms: applaud, acclaim, praise, salute, recognize, celebrate, commemorate, commend, glorify, hail, lionize, exalt, fete, eulogize, give credit to, pay homage to, pay tribute to, show appreciation of, give accolades to, sing the praises of, sing paeans to; More
antonyms: disgrace, criticize
2.
fulfil (an obligation) or keep (an agreement).
"make sure the franchisees honour the terms of the contract"
synonyms: fulfil, observe, keep, discharge, implement, perform, execute, effect, obey, heed, follow, carry out, carry through, keep to, abide by, adhere to, comply with, conform to, act in accordance with, be true to, be faithful to, live up to; rareeffectuate
"make sure the franchisees honour the terms of the contract"
antonyms: disobey
accept (a bill) or pay (a cheque) when due.
"the bank informed him that the cheque would not be honoured"
synonyms: cash, accept, take, clear, pass, encash, convert into cash, convert into money
"the bank informed him that the cheque would not be honoured"
antonyms: bounce
That doesn't mena you understand about honour - just that you can copy and paste!
-
Just as a matter of interest, the title came from an earlier novel/film, "The Lost Honour of Katharina Blum" by Heinrich Boll (1975), which tells the story of a woman who was victimized.
Is that a subtle was of saying stay on topic? @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Just as a matter of interest, the title came from an earlier novel/film, "The Lost Honour of Katharina Blum" by Heinrich Boll (1975), which tells the story of a woman who was victimized.
Thanks mrswah, again Nine finds a word hard to comprehend.
-
That doesn't mena you understand about honour - just that you can copy and paste!
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
I was looking for clarity... Honour has many meanings...
-
Is that a subtle was of saying stay on topic? @)(++(* @)(++(*
Ha ha !! Not at all.
-
Thank you for the clarity..
Title as in named title?
Or a title that was used from an already made blog in January 2011, ??
https://timothyjmoore.wordpress.com/2011/01/01/the-lost-honour-of-chris-jefferies/
Bit of a bridge move that... (imo) 2 clubs played 1/1/2011
Or that is how it appears to be.... Or appears to me.... Why would you write a blog on the day of CJ's release, then someone makes a drama out of it??
The link to the blog eminates from here... So the date of the wordpress published article must be on the date it states...
seeing as this Other blog is written on the 3rd Jan 2011
https://inforrm.org/2011/01/03/media-responsibility-and-chris-jeffries/
1/1/2011... CJ is still a suspect... He has not been released from Police Bail, more importantly Dr Vincent Tabak has not been arrested, that will come some 19 days later....
So why on gods earth would someone write a blog about the LOST HONOUR OF CJ.... on the day of his release from Police Custody and not bail..??
So the question is HONOUR in which context.... And what was actually in the blog??
Clarity.... To make sense of what has gone before....
-
Thanks mrswah, again Nine finds a word hard to comprehend.
Not at all.... Yet again Nine just asks for clarity....
-
Just as a matter of interest, the title came from an earlier novel/film, "The Lost Honour of Katharina Blum" by Heinrich Boll (1975), which tells the story of a woman who was victimized.
Exactly what 9 has done to the victims.
-
Not at all.... Yet again Nine just asks for clarity....
You didn't just refer to yourself in the third person did you? @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
You didn't just refer to yourself in the third person did you? @)(++(* @)(++(*
No in the ninth ....... @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
You didn't just refer to yourself in the third person did you? @)(++(* @)(++(*
God in 3 persons.... thats what that reminds me of.... Nope not me....
-
You didn't just refer to yourself in the third person did you? @)(++(* @)(++(*
Or is that the point?? In the third person said crime was committed?
-
Not at all.... Yet again Nine just asks for clarity....
Nah, being deliberately obtuse
-
Or is that the point?? In the third person said crime was committed?
No the point is that you referred to yourself in the third person.
Not at all.... Yet again Nine just asks for clarity....
-
.........
-
.........
-
Any updates on the WM3 Nine? I think there’s a new doc coming out soon?
-
Any updates on the WM3 Nine? I think there’s a new doc coming out soon?
I presume WM3 means 'West Memphis Three"? Or are you referring to something else?
What do YOU mean by WM3.....?
-
I presume WM3 means 'West Memphis Three"? Or are you referring to something else?
What do YOU mean by WM3.....?
West Memphis 3, I thought it was one of your interests? I heard from Bob Ruff about a new doc and evidence that’s all?
-
Clarity as I was asking for it, I will give you clarity on this...
CJ...
The reason I use CJ in my many posts is because he is the one whom has been most vocal, he is the one whom appeared at The Leveson inquiry and gave sworn statements, which I presume in law are binding....
CJ.. whom has been interviewed on video countless times, recalling the events of the weekend of December 17th 2010 to December 19th 2010, and his own experiences..
I am not here to talk about CJ and his drama of his experience, I am here to question the conviction of Dr Vincent Tabak..
CJ, gives me an opportunity, to put times into context...
You may believe I am being unfeeling, but that is not true... I am here to comprehend a trial that made no-sense to me.. A trial, where a man pled guilty to manslaughter, then was put on trial for Murder, when all were aware of the plea, months before trial, and during trial..
I like fair, that is what I said at the beginning, this trial doesn't appear fair...(imo) Lines of inquiry appear not to have been sort, and an investigation that gathered it's information via the internet...
If I have feelings for any individual concerned in this episode, then I would be unable to look at what they stated and be swayed by there behaviour in front of camera etc...
Questioning what is stated in front of camera, is another issue altogether...
CJ, has made so many public statements, it is only natural that I would be drawn to these videoed public statements he has made, for me it is evidence of what he has stated, which is better information to use other than what may have been stated in the media at the time...
The video clips/ B-Roll clips from news agencies that I have used also tell a story, my questions have also arisen from these clips, baring in mind the date the clips where made, or posted on Getty..
So if you feel I am being unkind, in one respect I understand, but I am sure when any has looked at a case, they have to look at everything and put feelings aside... They will question everything.. That is all I have done...
On occasion I have been sarcastic , that is because, i have felt attacked sometimes, when having a conviction of looking at what happened in this case, it brought many questions that I couldn't comprehend.. And most will not even look at what happened in this case, but are happy to accept the status quo....
The internet can be used in many ways, for good or for evil, that is like most things, but it has areas in which it gives information for people to question...
I am not out to get anyone... That is not my intention, I say many times i am unsure of what is real or not in this case, I say many time I do not know whether or not CJ, is trying to keep this case in the spotlight to help Dr Vincent Tabak, and as i do not know CJ's intentions, I form an opinion based on what I see...
Attacking what I have questioned or making out I only care about a monster as many have put it, is ridiculous.. . If anyone therefore ever has doubt on anyones conviction they would have great difficulty trying to look for the truth, when many just want to attack and not consider anything...
We should not be happy to put someone in prison based on a confession, that clearly came from the information that was already in the public domain at the time, where roughly a timing of events were given and accepted, where no-one came to trial to give either good or bad character references..
Therefore understanding why an Intelligent man for no apparent reason, would go around to his next door neighbour and kill her, having never met her before or been back in the country just a few days prior ..
I would have expected, other woman at court to say what they believed or had experienced at the hands of Dr Vincent Tabak, not some media expose after trial about apparent prostitutes..
The character assassination of Dr Vincent Tabak came after trial, based on information that was not used at trial, and the origin of the information not proven...
No family or friends/ girlfriend etc, stood up in court, to tell us anything of this man.... But everyone is happy to accept what the media stated after court, because it helps to secure that this man had to be a monster ....
Family members had stated prior when Dr Vincent Tabak had been arrested that he was Innocent and a mistake must have taken place, he is described as quiet, he is described as gentle, he is described as a computer geek...
The neighbour Jean Flillpe manseour called him introvert, how much he could really state about him is based on what, and what age Dr Vincent Tabak was at the time, he is referring too...
DCI Phil Jones described him as placid.... a term everyone has taken offence too....
But who or what is the real Dr Vincent Tabak? We do not know, as his girlfriend, friends or family never took the stand to tell us in detail of Dr Vincent tabak's behaviour or traits.....
Everyone has complained about the way in which CJ was treated in the papers, the media is notorious for gathering gossip... There could have been many avenues they sourced the information, and took what they had read or were told and ran with it....
Blue hair... Now the image of CJ with blue hair looks like someone added said blue hair... And realistically who cares whether his hair is blue or sky, blue pink with yellow dots... He is bohemian, in appearance and a little eccentric to some, he is educated, he has certain mannerisms that people can see when he is interviewed..
Those eccentricities do not make a suspect... Those eccentricities make a person more interesting,.... CJ's doorstepped interview, I never though that made him a suspect, not wanting to confirm what he had seen or heard on that Friday night of the 17th December 2010, appeared to be the correct response from someone whom could have been a potential witness, denying and saying it was very much vaguer than that, in my mind, made me think he didn't want to divulge evidence that may have been needed at trial...
Only the police had reason as to why they arrested him the day after.... The stories that followed, surprised me in that, the media, must have been aware what could be contempt of court, and i believe had a field day knowing he wasn't a viable suspect...
They using information from people I believe they accessed via the internet... How many of these people the press spoke to in person I have no idea...
Now vilification in the media helps no-one, and in this case, it helped no-one.... CJ's solicitors acting immediately and The Attorney General too making comment.....
Because CJ had the experience he had, we then get him wanting to sue the papers, we then have the Attorney General and the court case in July 2011...
This information I find strange.... Suing the papers that too I would have thought would have been after a trial, seeing as any mention of this case would in itself prejudice this case... The fade factor therefore going out of the window and the jury made up from the people of Bristol, would have an opinion of what happened to CJ... They would know he basically won his case, further adding to the belief that the man whom was on trial, had caused this assassination of an Innocent man, and would again punish him with their decision...
CJ a figure i am sure many in Bristol would have known... Many in Bristol would also have pointed the finger at him, then once he had been exonerated, their own guilt for their own behaviour and misgivings surrounding CJ, would have transferred to the person at trial.... A person saying , Yes it was me....
CJ and the media, should have not been reported in the press at the time of the contempt of court issue in July 2011, (imo) I feel that the whole episode would have an affect on whomever was at trial for this crime...
When you all feel I am being unkind to CJ... remember that the media brought it all to everyones attention and kept it there, before trial and since.... I am just trying to understand why....
A fair trial is paramount, the justice system working properly is paramount, but this trial and case has brought many questions... Questions that all should ask, questions that everyone needs to think about when someone is facing life in prison or even a minor charge...
Evidence is key.... Strong evidence is key... supporting evidence is key, and the fade factor is key.... not put a man on trial, when all know he pled guilty.... then to be found even guiltier.... When the media, tweeted the entire case, when everyone had an opinion, when CJ had been exonerated before trial, and everyone wanted someone to pay the price for the murder of a young woman...
Public interest, is natural, people having opinions on what they believe they know is natural, just like I have given opinion... But to keep the case in the public eye from Joanna Yeates Missing right up until the trial of Dr vincent Tabak, cannot be right... Which ever form they chose to remind us all...
Therefore since the conviction i have gone back over what has been stated, and tried to understand how a man can take the stand as 'Guilty" tell a story that all were already aware of with the information already in the public domain... And accept this story as truth.... Then find him even guiltier, with not one witness for the defence, taking the stand for Dr Vincent tabak, whom knew Dr vincent Tabak.....
Whether or not you believe he is guilty... The trial and publicity and information of key pieces of evidence in the public domain from day one cannot be right....
Something new should have come to trial.... witness's should have come to trial..... But that didn't happen...
Instead the media decided to furnish us with information that had not been used at trial, to secure the hatred the nation felt for the man whom had been convicted for the murder of Joanna Yeates...
So yes... I use CJ... because I can confidently use his video statements and Leveson statements to question the events at the time.... And try and work out the timings of the events that CJ has spoken of... And if i say they don't appear to marry up, it is based on what is stated and the weather conditions of the time...
To know for a fact that snow was on the ground on Friday 17th December 2010, CCTV from the area of Canygne Road would put that to bed... That is why I am a little unsure as to which day CJ is referring too when he talks of the 2 conversations on different days he had with Dr Vincent Tabak.. And his Leveson statement saying that he believes it was Friday the 17th December he went to the gym..
Yes I use the title Dr , when referring to Dr Vincent Tabak, and just CJ when referring to CJ, now if CJ has a title i would happily use it, if he was for instance The right honourable CJ I would use said title, but as I have no knowledge whether or not CJ has a title, so I will stick to calling him CJ.....
So I return to where and whom gave what information, and use The video's and The Leveson......
Leveson being at the centre of this case...
Leveson 2 many waiting for it to take place.... Now I have a little theory on that also...
Your posts are too long Nine for answers that have been covered, the free press will sometimes take the risk or the hit of a fine, additional sales of their newspapers make up the loss of a fine.
-
The posts are way too long and very repetitive. Just saying the same rubbish over and over does not make it true. Also very tired of hearing the story on the stand only matches the info that was out there. Of course it would
Maybe instead of repeating yourself Nine you should refresh yourself (not that you havent been told many times) how a trial works when someone pleads guilty, or even when they dont
Plea and case management *%87 now what could that mean?
Oh yes the plea, that isnt a secret for Tabak or anyone else!
-
I understand why Nine concentrates on CJ, and I don't believe for a moment that he/she intends to be disrespectful, or that he/she believes CJ is anything other than innocent.
We don't know very much about VT, or Tanja, or Joanna, or Greg, but CJ knew all of them, and, by all accounts, he took an interest in his tenants, and in how they looked after his properties. I find it difficult to believe that Joanna was murdered in her flat, and that VT transported her body from one flat to another, placed it in his car boot, and CJ heard and saw nothing. He is a conscientious Neighbourhood Watch member, and it doesn't surprise me that he noticed people near Joanna's flat.
On a much lighter note, and one that, no doubt, will make you all sigh with relief, I am going away next week, and will have very limited time to moderate the forum.
Poor Myster!!!
-
Clarity as I was asking for it, I will give you clarity on this...
The character assassination of Dr Vincent Tabak came after trial, based on information that was not used at trial, and the origin of the information not proven...
No family or friends/ girlfriend etc, stood up in court, to tell us anything of this man.... But everyone is happy to accept what the media stated after court, because it helps to secure that this man had to be a monster ....
Family members had stated prior when Dr Vincent Tabak had been arrested that he was Innocent and a mistake must have taken place, he is described as quiet, he is described as gentle, he is described as a computer geek...
First the point you made about information that became known AFTER the trial was all to help him get a fair trial. This too has been explained to you far too many times already. You cling to it like a badge of honour for Tabak. It was to help him get a fair trial as you well know!
No friends or family were needed to speak up for him because he admitted cruelly taking a life! Take that out of it and think how THEY would feel. Not you not Tabak... the family . Why would they want to defend him. Have you also thought he may told them the truth and they couldnt get away from him fast enough
That wouldnt be strange not for one minute! He is a monster!
At the time of his arrest, they would have been in shock, only natural but with time to think and consider the evidence, words that Tabak may have spoken to them and any affect it would have on their own lives
Stop making stupid excuses for him and the way you expect it should have happened. Its all in your head because there is nothing else to defend him with
IF all the bad stuff that you state came out after his murder conviction was mentioned at the trial you would be now screaming his trial was unfair for that reason too
You want it every which way but just not the truthful way!!!!
-
I understand why Nine concentrates on CJ, and I don't believe for a moment that he/she intends to be disrespectful, or that he/she believes CJ is anything other than innocent.
We don't know very much about VT, or Tanja, or Joanna, or Greg, but CJ knew all of them, and, by all accounts, he took an interest in his tenants, and in how they looked after his properties. I find it difficult to believe that Joanna was murdered in her flat, and that VT transported her body from one flat to another, placed it in his car boot, and CJ heard and saw nothing. He is a conscientious Neighbourhood Watch member, and it doesn't surprise me that he noticed people near Joanna's flat.
On a much lighter note, and one that, no doubt, will make you all sigh with relief, I am going away next week, and will have very limited time to moderate the forum.
Poor Myster!!!
A monster was trying to save his backside. He gave the best story he could. Who knows how many lies it ccontained but he said what he said for a very clear reason. To escape a murder conviction. Any holes in the story are because he took a life and then he was caught out!
-
The posts are way too long and very repetitive. Just saying the same rubbish over and over does not make it true. Also very tired of hearing the story on the stand only matches the info that was out there. Of course it would
Maybe instead of repeating yourself Nine you should refresh yourself (not that you havent been told many times) how a trial works when someone pleads guilty, or even when they dont
Plea and case management *%87 now what could that mean?
Oh yes the plea, that isnt a secret for Tabak or anyone else!
I would have expected Vinnie to have said a lot more than what was "already out there", if he murdered Joanna and, of course, if he was telling the truth on the stand. There is always stuff that is known to the murderer but not to the public.
-
````
-
A monster was trying to save his backside. He gave the best story he could. Who knows how many lies it ccontained but he said what he said for a very clear reason. To escape a murder conviction. Any holes in the story are because he took a life and then he was caught out!
How can you know for certain why he told the story he did?
-
I understand why Nine concentrates on CJ, and I don't believe for a moment that he/she intends to be disrespectful, or that he/she believes CJ is anything other than innocent.
We don't know very much about VT, or Tanja, or Joanna, or Greg, but CJ knew all of them, and, by all accounts, he took an interest in his tenants, and in how they looked after his properties. I find it difficult to believe that Joanna was murdered in her flat, and that VT transported her body from one flat to another, placed it in his car boot, and CJ heard and saw nothing. He is a conscientious Neighbourhood Watch member, and it doesn't surprise me that he noticed people near Joanna's flat.
On a much lighter note, and one that, no doubt, will make you all sigh with relief, I am going away next week, and will have very limited time to moderate the forum.
Poor Myster!!!
Thank you for that explanation mrswah.... I am not quite so eliquant..
-
West Memphis 3, I thought it was one of your interests? I heard from Bob Ruff about a new doc and evidence that’s all?
Not sure if there is a thread on this topic . Will look later. if not, Nine could always start one??
-
Thank you for that explanation mrswah.... I am not quite so eliquant..
you're welcome!
-
Oh... ok..... I have had interests in many things, I have watched documentaries on many cases etc.... But these days i am not interested in these documenatries... They may highlight peoples plights, but they also colour peoples views....
I know some good work has come from such programs.... But differentiating between the myriad of programs and their intentions, it difficult to view... I have stopped watching all programs of that context, I no longer want to view such programs, I prefer to watch re-runs of old Detective programs knowing its content is fiction....
The Disappearance of Charlene Downes... case... one that has been on TV recently, someone recommended I watched it.... and i don't wish too.... I do not need to I have no opinion on that case.....
The only case I have a strong opinion on is this case... Whether I am correct, I have searched in vain for answers...
Documentaries highlighting injustice, can be useful for the public to understand injustice occurs, but it has now become fodder for the masses in which they can keep their suspicions firmly pointed in the direction of the accused....
Whilst making said presenter a house hold name, and people trusting said people based on what they believe they know of that person, because of the frequency they have seen them on TV....
Trust developed by exposure.... When qualifications of said people and their expertise on cases, really should be of more importance...
But the public are fickle, the public are easily pleased, the public will without question take on board their favourite presenters point of view and run with it as gospel....
So no... I no longer watch such programs, I have no interest in them, I have learnt that I should question what is fed to me... And even if my own conclusions are incorrect, I at least tried to understand the basis of what had been presented...
Are such programs really about highlighting a persons plight, or more to do with money making? Does the money generated by such programs go to either the victims of the horrendous crimes or the defence of the accused whom may in fact be innocent?
So I take these program with a pinch of salt these days.... And no longer try to believe a program may highlight the plight of a convicted person or victim...
A programs intentions, like anything is about generating money, and audience participation, in viewing said program, whilst advertising generates even more money....
Now hears a thought.... Any media that generate money from the coverage, of any trial, should give the money to the victims etc etc...
Any media publication maybe should not be allowed to advertise products or services on these said stories... maybe that is a way forward...
You all know in the early time of me being on here i did contact someone whom was in the industry, the response i do not need to repeat, but it only highlights to me how these programs are about money and not truth and justice...
A healthy warning should be placed on these reconstructions etc... to advise in no uncertain terms to the viewer that it is not all fact... but an interpretation of the facts...
As for the WM3.. the conclusion came with their release, the remaking of anything to do with that case is for the entertainment of the public and the money it will generate..
So I do not need to see another rehash of that case, similarly with Ted buddy, or Netflix's MaCanns story... A case , i do not know enough about.... But money is generated and I'm sure many have an opinion on that case....
I had hoped by coming here i could highlight what i saw as inconsistencies within this case, but i have no expertise or legal knowledge and hoped that someone here would...
So even if someone made a program about this case, i do not know if i would watch it.... I do not know how I feel any longer about the use of television as a source of exposing such cases, as they tend to be biased one way or the other...
If nothing else this case has taught me to question, it has taught me not to accept what a TV program may tell me, but it has also given an insight by seeing and hearing the words spoke by individuals at the centre of this case....
I suppose people will continue to make money out of others misery, I am not here to make money... I as a citizen felt I wanted to question this case... But there appears to be no way in which to achieve this correctly..
I do not want to be famous... some remarked infamous... But maybe thats to do with me rocking the boat.... No 15 minutes of fame for me, no TV programs for me.... No interviews given by me, unless someone wishes to count what I have stated here....
But that I have no control over.... This case is not about me, or making money, this case is about fair... This case should be about the correct application of justice...
I understand the media need to sell their papers, and i do not have a real answer in which they favour their readers... But maybe it's about time they had an accreditation or something along said lines... where what they report can be trusted.... I don't know...
Or just leave it as it is, and allow people to make their own judgements as to what they may believe is fake news or not...
So no Real justice... I have no interest in programs that are made or have been made about real crime as it is called, any longer....
Programs should be made for the correct reason and not for money.... But as always, it's money that makes the world go round...
It just depends on how much money anyone believes they need or deserve...
So responsible programming may help, and not censorship.... But a clearly defined discrpition of what the program will achieve, and that it is entertainment at the end of the day, and whom ever presents such programs do it out of their own agenda's and not maybe for the good of the victims or families involved or portrayed...
That is why I laughed at Dayle Hinman... Does someone who's life was about law enforcement have to make a name for herself by appearing in programs to bolster said conviction of anyone, by explaining her role or the role of others...
So no... I take with a pinch of salt these so called experts whom are there for self promotion (imo) and not really about their concerns for true justice.....
Does that answer your question?
IMO, it's a shame to concentrate on only one case. There are so many interesting ones out there!
-
Not sure if there is a thread on this topic . Will look later. if not, Nine could always start one??
I do not wish to start a topic on that subject... and I no longer need to say anything really, it has all been already stated...
So Poor Myster will be in the safe knowledge i will not be upsetting him/her in any way once you have gone... And therefore I need no longer upset anyone else... Sorry if my intentions have been misconstrued...
I will forever on my own have the concerns I have , and everyone one else can be happy with the knowledge they are happy with...
-
How can you know for certain why he told the story he did?
And how can you ? you and nine keep on about it but never say why he would lie if he didnt do it? is that the best you can do? really?
Jo made it home to her flat and she was found dead. Someone killed her. You based all you think of the 'story' he told to try and save himself. For all you know he used any method to get to her but that wouldnt fit with his manslaughter attempt now would it
He had to make it sound a bit hearts and flowers and then followed by a big ooops, i really didnt mean it!
-
IMO, it's a shame to concentrate on only one case. There are so many interesting ones out there!
There maybe mrswah... But I have wasted enough of my time on this case getting nowhere... Why waste anymore of my time on others....
Maybe everyone else can highlight the cases they have an interest in... I believe I have said enough.....
-
... But I have wasted enough of my time on this case getting nowhere...... I believe I have said enough.....
Repetition, repetition, repetition!!
-
And how can you ? you and nine keep on about it but never say why he would lie if he didnt do it? is that the best you can do? really?
Jo made it home to her flat and she was found dead. Someone killed her. You based all you think of the 'story' he told to try and save himself. For all you know he used any method to get to her but that wouldnt fit with his manslaughter attempt now would it
He had to make it sound a bit hearts and flowers and then followed by a big ooops, i really didnt mean it!
No, as you point out, I can't know either. Just differing opinions!!
-
No, as you point out, I can't know either. Just differing opinions!!
But yours makes no sense. The posts keep piling up with mad sceneries plucked from god knows where but still you can't say why he would lie and why your presumed Mr easy going nice guy would be covering for someone anyone so we have to read the drivel that he doesn't in fact exist. Kind of kills the debate
-
I understand why Nine concentrates on CJ, and I don't believe for a moment that he/she intends to be disrespectful, or that he/she believes CJ is anything other than innocent.
We don't know very much about VT, or Tanja, or Joanna, or Greg, but CJ knew all of them, and, by all accounts, he took an interest in his tenants, and in how they looked after his properties. I find it difficult to believe that Joanna was murdered in her flat, and that VT transported her body from one flat to another, placed it in his car boot, and CJ heard and saw nothing. He is a conscientious Neighbourhood Watch member, and it doesn't surprise me that he noticed people near Joanna's flat.
On a much lighter note, and one that, no doubt, will make you all sigh with relief, I am going away next week, and will have very limited time to moderate the forum.
Poor Myster!!!
Have a nice break mrswah, can’t you take Nine with you @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Oh... ok..... I have had interests in many things, I have watched documentaries on many cases etc.... But these days i am not interested in these documenatries... They may highlight peoples plights, but they also colour peoples views....
I know some good work has come from such programs.... But differentiating between the myriad of programs and their intentions, it difficult to view... I have stopped watching all programs of that context, I no longer want to view such programs, I prefer to watch re-runs of old Detective programs knowing its content is fiction....
The Disappearance of Charlene Downes... case... one that has been on TV recently, someone recommended I watched it.... and i don't wish too.... I do not need to I have no opinion on that case.....
The only case I have a strong opinion on is this case... Whether I am correct, I have searched in vain for answers...
Documentaries highlighting injustice, can be useful for the public to understand injustice occurs, but it has now become fodder for the masses in which they can keep their suspicions firmly pointed in the direction of the accused....
Whilst making said presenter a house hold name, and people trusting said people based on what they believe they know of that person, because of the frequency they have seen them on TV....
Trust developed by exposure.... When qualifications of said people and their expertise on cases, really should be of more importance...
But the public are fickle, the public are easily pleased, the public will without question take on board their favourite presenters point of view and run with it as gospel....
So no... I no longer watch such programs, I have no interest in them, I have learnt that I should question what is fed to me... And even if my own conclusions are incorrect, I at least tried to understand the basis of what had been presented...
Are such programs really about highlighting a persons plight, or more to do with money making? Does the money generated by such programs go to either the victims of the horrendous crimes or the defence of the accused whom may in fact be innocent?
So I take these program with a pinch of salt these days.... And no longer try to believe a program may highlight the plight of a convicted person or victim...
A programs intentions, like anything is about generating money, and audience participation, in viewing said program, whilst advertising generates even more money....
Now hears a thought.... Any media that generate money from the coverage, of any trial, should give the money to the victims etc etc...
Any media publication maybe should not be allowed to advertise products or services on these said stories... maybe that is a way forward...
You all know in the early time of me being on here i did contact someone whom was in the industry, the response i do not need to repeat, but it only highlights to me how these programs are about money and not truth and justice...
A healthy warning should be placed on these reconstructions etc... to advise in no uncertain terms to the viewer that it is not all fact... but an interpretation of the facts...
As for the WM3.. the conclusion came with their release, the remaking of anything to do with that case is for the entertainment of the public and the money it will generate..
So I do not need to see another rehash of that case, similarly with Ted buddy, or Netflix's MaCanns story... A case , i do not know enough about.... But money is generated and I'm sure many have an opinion on that case....
I had hoped by coming here i could highlight what i saw as inconsistencies within this case, but i have no expertise or legal knowledge and hoped that someone here would...
So even if someone made a program about this case, i do not know if i would watch it.... I do not know how I feel any longer about the use of television as a source of exposing such cases, as they tend to be biased one way or the other...
If nothing else this case has taught me to question, it has taught me not to accept what a TV program may tell me, but it has also given an insight by seeing and hearing the words spoke by individuals at the centre of this case....
I suppose people will continue to make money out of others misery, I am not here to make money... I as a citizen felt I wanted to question this case... But there appears to be no way in which to achieve this correctly..
I do not want to be famous... some remarked infamous... But maybe thats to do with me rocking the boat.... No 15 minutes of fame for me, no TV programs for me.... No interviews given by me, unless someone wishes to count what I have stated here....
But that I have no control over.... This case is not about me, or making money, this case is about fair... This case should be about the correct application of justice...
I understand the media need to sell their papers, and i do not have a real answer in which they favour their readers... But maybe it's about time they had an accreditation or something along said lines... where what they report can be trusted.... I don't know...
Or just leave it as it is, and allow people to make their own judgements as to what they may believe is fake news or not...
So no Real justice... I have no interest in programs that are made or have been made about real crime as it is called, any longer....
Programs should be made for the correct reason and not for money.... But as always, it's money that makes the world go round...
It just depends on how much money anyone believes they need or deserve...
So responsible programming may help, and not censorship.... But a clearly defined discrpition of what the program will achieve, and that it is entertainment at the end of the day, and whom ever presents such programs do it out of their own agenda's and not maybe for the good of the victims or families involved or portrayed...
That is why I laughed at Dayle Hinman... Does someone who's life was about law enforcement have to make a name for herself by appearing in programs to bolster said conviction of anyone, by explaining her role or the role of others...
So no... I take with a pinch of salt these so called experts whom are there for self promotion (imo) and not really about their concerns for true justice.....
Does that answer your question?
I didn’t catch that, what was it you said? *%87
-
I would have expected Vinnie to have said a lot more than what was "already out there", if he murdered Joanna and, of course, if he was telling the truth on the stand. There is always stuff that is known to the murderer but not to the public.
Well, you should be suspicious that he didn't. This kind of shows he was lying, telling only enough to cover him for manslaughter. He's not going to tell anything that might reveal who he REALLY is.
-
I didn’t catch that, what was it you said? *%87
Me either RJ - drifted off after the second paragraph @)(++(*
-
But yours makes no sense. The posts keep piling up with mad sceneries plucked from god knows where but still you can't say why he would lie and why your presumed Mr easy going nice guy would be covering for someone anyone so we have to read the drivel that he doesn't in fact exist. Kind of kills the debate
I have never, ever said he doesn't exist.
-
I have never, ever said he doesn't exist.
Jixy was referring to Nine who repeats such silliness on a regular basis.
-
A little reminder campers to keep posts relevant, concise and above all, respectful. TY
-
Very difficult to keep them hi-de-hi when the campsite is waterlogged with effluent.
-
Countdown to Murder Program.... The one that is different to the other programs in the sense it depicts a version of events that were not stated at trial by Dr Vincent Tabak.. There is a part of the program where, they are talking of Joanna Yeates and Dr Vincent Tabak....
From the program: At 5:08
At the same time that Jo was leaving school, Vincent Tabak was travelling to the Uk from the country of his birth place the Netherlands
This small part of the program always confused me, Joanna Yeates was 25, as we have been told many times, but the idea that she was a child comes from this program, for me, I questioned that before..
I found it odd, strange, didn't understand why they would make such an error,....
But today I came across these tweets..
Here's a general collection of tweets from this profile...Norina
@MissingKidsUK
9 Apr 2011
More
JOY VINCENT, Age 17, Missing since 14/03/11 http://www.missingkids.co.uk/photographs/UK0111MIS009018c1.jpg Please RT
0 replies 1 retweet 0 likes
Reply Retweet 1 Like
Norina
@MissingKidsUK
9 Apr 2011
More
REECE CRUZ, Age 16, missing since 04/02/11 http://www.missingkids.co.uk/photographs/UK0111MIS004138c1.jpg Please RT
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet Like
Norina
@MissingKidsUK
9 Apr 2011
More
CASSIE CLEVELAND, Age 14, missing since 28/02/11 http://www.missingkids.co.uk/photographs/UK0111mis007109c1.jpg Please RT
0 replies 1 retweet 0 likes
Reply Retweet 1 Like
Norina
@MissingKidsUK
9 Apr 2011
More
Holly Bringan, age 3, missing since 22/10/09 http://www.missingkids.co.uk/photographs/UK0210STRATH221009c1.jpg Please RT
0 replies 1 retweet 0 likes
Reply Retweet 1 Like
Norina
@MissingKidsUK
9 Apr 2011
More
http://www.missingkids.co.uk/missingkids/servlet/PubCaseSearchServlet?act=viewPoster&caseNum=10STRATH221009&orgPrefix=UK02&searchLang=en_GB
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet Like
Norina Retweeted
Ben Needham
@FindBenNeedham
9 Apr 2011
More
Find out how you can help in campaign 2 find Ben (from UK), abducted 20 yrs ago as a toddler in Greece. http://www.helpfindben.co.uk. Pls RT
Single mentions of these Missing Children, and Children being the Operative word.... So I was slightly confused by the amount of tweets this profile made about Joanna Yeates..
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet Like
Norina
@MissingKidsUK
23 Dec 2010
More
@GenevaLane PLEASE RT. Joanna Yeates, missing from Clifton, Bristol, UK since Friday 17/12/10. http://bit.ly/fAZCXp for info #helpfindjo.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet Like
Norina
@MissingKidsUK
23 Dec 2010
More
@5taceySolomon PLEASE RT. Joanna Yeates, missing from Clifton, Bristol, UK since Friday 17/12/10. http://bit.ly/fAZCXp for info #helpfindjo.
0 replies 1 retweet 0 likes
Reply Retweet 1 Like
Norina
@MissingKidsUK
23 Dec 2010
More
@TreycCohen PLEASE RT. Joanna Yeates, missing from Clifton, Bristol, UK since Friday 17/12/10. http://bit.ly/fAZCXp for info #helpfindjo.
0 replies 6 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet 6 Like
Norina
@MissingKidsUK
23 Dec 2010
More
@celeb_retweet PLEASE RT. Joanna Yeates, missing from Clifton, Bristol, UK since Friday 17/12/10. http://bit.ly/fAZCXp for info #helpfindjo.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet Like
Norina
@MissingKidsUK
23 Dec 2010
More
@Bristol_Media PLEASE RT. Joanna Yeates, missing from Clifton, Bristol, UK since Friday 17/12/10. http://bit.ly/fAZCXp for info #helpfindjo.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet Like
Norina
@MissingKidsUK
23 Dec 2010
More
@Bristolnews PLEASE RT. Joanna Yeates, missing from Clifton, Bristol, UK since Friday 17/12/10. http://bit.ly/fAZCXp for info #helpfindjo.
0 replies 12 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet 12 Like
Norina
@MissingKidsUK
23 Dec 2010
More
@Bristoluni PLEASE RT. Joanna Yeates, missing from Clifton, Bristol, UK since Friday 17/12/10. http://bit.ly/fAZCXp for info #helpfindjo.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet Like
Norina
@MissingKidsUK
23 Dec 2010
More
@TheBeanstalk PLEASE RT. Joanna Yeates, missing from Clifton, Bristol, UK since Friday 17/12/10. http://bit.ly/fAZCXp for info #helpfindjo.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet Like
Norina
@MissingKidsUK
23 Dec 2010
More
@Amanda_Holden PLEASE RT. Joanna Yeates, missing from Clifton, Bristol, UK since Friday 17/12/10. http://bit.ly/fAZCXp for info #helpfindjo.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet Like
Norina
@MissingKidsUK
23 Dec 2010
More
@Lord_Sugar PLEASE RT. Joanna Yeates, missing from Clifton, Bristol, UK since Friday 17/12/10. http://bit.ly/fAZCXp for info #helpfindjo.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet Like
Norina
@MissingKidsUK
23 Dec 2010
More
Replying to @Anxiety1001
@AnxietyRelief PLEASE RT. Joanna Yeates, missing from Clifton, Bristol, UK since Friday 17/12/10. http://bit.ly/fAZCXp for info #helpfindjo.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet Like
Norina
@MissingKidsUK
23 Dec 2010
More
Replying to @moonfrye
@moonfrye PLEASE RT. Joanna Yeates, missing from Clifton, Bristol, UK since Friday 17/12/10. http://bit.ly/fAZCXp for info #helpfindjo.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet Like
Norina
@MissingKidsUK
23 Dec 2010
More
Replying to @KeriHilson
@MissKeriBaby PLEASE RT. Joanna Yeates, missing from Clifton, Bristol, UK since Friday 17/12/10. http://bit.ly/fAZCXp for info #helpfindjo.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet Like
Norina
@MissingKidsUK
23 Dec 2010
More
Replying to @paulpierce34
@paulpierce34 PLEASE RT. Joanna Yeates, missing from Clifton, Bristol, UK since Friday 17/12/10. http://bit.ly/fAZCXp for info #helpfindjo.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet Like
Norina
@MissingKidsUK
23 Dec 2010
More
Replying to @Bulgariofficial
@Bulgari_US PLEASE RT. Joanna Yeates, missing from Clifton, Bristol, UK since Friday 17/12/10. http://bit.ly/fAZCXp for info #helpfindjo.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet Like
Norina
@MissingKidsUK
23 Dec 2010
More
Replying to @Auto_Follow
@Auto_Follow PLEASE RT. Joanna Yeates, missing from Clifton, Bristol, UK since Friday 17/12/10. http://bit.ly/fAZCXp for info #helpfindjo.
0 replies 1 retweet 0 likes
Reply Retweet 1 Like
Norina
@MissingKidsUK
23 Dec 2010
More
Replying to @CherLloyd
@CherLloyd PLEASE RT. Joanna Yeates, missing from Clifton, Bristol, UK since Friday 17/12/10. http://bit.ly/fAZCXp for info #helpfindjo.
0 replies 1 retweet 0 likes
Reply Retweet 1 Like
Norina
@MissingKidsUK
23 Dec 2010
More
Replying to @60secondparent
@60secondparent PLEASE RT. Joanna Yeates, missing from Clifton, Bristol, UK since Fri 17/12/10. http://bit.ly/fAZCXp for info #helpfindjo.
0 replies 1 retweet 0 likes
Reply Retweet 1 Like
Norina
@MissingKidsUK
23 Dec 2010
More
Replying to @ChildrensTheOne
@ChildrensTheOne PLEASE RT. Joanna Yeates, missing from Clifton, Bristol, UK since 17/12/10. http://bit.ly/fAZCXp for info #helpfindjo.
0 replies 1 retweet 0 likes
Reply Retweet 1 Like
Norina
@MissingKidsUK
23 Dec 2010
More
Replying to @Couture_fashion
@Couture_fashion PLEASE RT. Joanna Yeates, missing from Clifton, Bristol, UK since 17/12/10. http://bit.ly/fAZCXp for info #helpfindjo.
0 replies 1 retweet 0 likes
Reply Retweet 1 Like
Norina
@MissingKidsUK
23 Dec 2010
More
Replying to @jdickerson
@jdickerson PLEASE RT. Joanna Yeates, missing from Clifton, Bristol, UK since Friday 17/12/10. http://bit.ly/fAZCXp for info #helpfindjo.
0 replies 1 retweet 0 likes
Reply Retweet 1 Like
Norina
@MissingKidsUK
23 Dec 2010
More
Replying to @12Magazine
@12Magazine PLEASE RT. Joanna Yeates, missing from Clifton, Bristol, UK since Friday 17/12/10. http://bit.ly/fAZCXp for info #helpfindjo.
0 replies 1 retweet 0 likes
Reply Retweet 1 Like
Norina
@MissingKidsUK
23 Dec 2010
More
Replying to @Diddy
@iamdiddy PLEASE RT. Joanna Yeates, missing from Clifton, Bristol, UK since Friday 17/12/10. http://bit.ly/fAZCXp for info #helpfindjo.
0 replies 1 retweet 0 likes
Reply Retweet 1 Like
Norina
@MissingKidsUK
23 Dec 2010
More
Replying to @davidchild
@davidchild PLEASE RT. Joanna Yeates, missing from Clifton, Bristol, UK since Friday 17/12/10. http://bit.ly/fAZCXp for info #helpfindjo.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet Like
Norina
@MissingKidsUK
23 Dec 2010
More
Replying to @cthagod
@cthagod PLEASE RT. Joanna Yeates, missing from Clifton, Bristol, UK since Friday 17/12/10. http://bit.ly/fAZCXp for info #helpfindjo.
0 replies 1 retweet 0 likes
Reply Retweet 1 Like
Norina
@MissingKidsUK
23 Dec 2010
More
Help get #helpfindjo trending people!
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet Like
Norina
@MissingKidsUK
23 Dec 2010
More
@Looking4U2 PLEASE RT. Joanna Yeates, missing from Clifton, Bristol, UK since Friday 17/12/10. http://bit.ly/fAZCXp for info #helpfindjo.
0 replies 2 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet 2 Like
Norina
@MissingKidsUK
23 Dec 2010
More
PLEASE RT. Joanna Yeates, missing from Clifton, Bristol, UK since Friday 17/12/10. http://bit.ly/fAZCXp for info #helpfindjo.
0 replies 5 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet 5 Like
Norina
@MissingKidsUK
23 Dec 2010
More
PLEASE RT. Joanna Yeates, missing from Clifton, #bristol since Friday 17/12/10. http://bit.ly/fAZCXp for info #helpfindjo.
0 replies 2 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet 2 Like
The tweet below leads us to this video about Missing Children and Children whom have been abducted...
Norina
@MissingKidsUK
Follow Follow @MissingKidsUK
More
@MissingAlerts Please watch & RT this informative video preventing children going missing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9VhXa2ks6k PLZ RT
9:07 AM - 1 Dec 2010
https://twitter.com/MissingKidsUK/status/10017221912821760
And Child abduction, rings a bell, as we are aware about the first reports of Joanna Yeates..
There is another Missing Child that this profile concentrates on is a child named Daniel Entwistle, aged 7 whom went Missing in 2003. There are many many tweets about this young boy...
And a 17 year old named Patrick Hanrahan... But mainly the tweets about Missing Children are singular...
This Missing Kid profile has a tweet about a well known case that comes from America..
Norina
@MissingKidsUK
Follow Follow @MissingKidsUK
More
A Happy Ending:Jaycee Dugard had been missing since she was abducted in 1991 near her home in South Lake Tahoe and has now been found alive!
10:43 PM - 27 Aug 2009
https://twitter.com/MissingKidsUK/status/3597245552
And that tweet rang a bell...
Who's twitter profile is this? And what and odd profile name, MissingkidsUK.. Missing Children maybe, but kids??
Anyway slight detour... I wanted to try and understand why Joanna Yeates was being tweeted on this profile, when as we know she was an adult and not a child... If they were interested in Missing adults there would be other tweets, but they have concentrated on Joanna Yeates...
The program as I stated, threw me as in my mind, it suggested that Joanna Yeates was younger than we know... And the talk of abduction by the parents in their appeals, brought questions to my mind again...
How old was Joanna Yeates? What was this about, I never understood the abduction part or the programs suggestion of a young person... Then as we know the case eventually gets connected to indecent images of children... Which is a little coincidental..(imo)..
The Case of Joanna Yeates , holds many questions, which I have many...
The idea of abduction and her being younger plays on my mind when I try to decipher what happened many years ago... And no-one has ever questioned why her parents believed that she had been abducted, it never came to trial... Mr and Mrs Yeates banging on car boots in Canygne Road looking for their daughter came out after trial... It was shown on a program about the case and they are interviewed in said program...
I don't really know what to think, but find the profile strange, as well as that particular program, a program that depicts Joanna Yeates in a pink flower patterned top when in The Ram she is wearing a plain top...
And Dr Vincent Tabak, listening at the wall finding out when Joanna Yeates will be on her own, using Bernard the cat to gain entry to her Flat.... All things that were speculated at the time of her Murder Inquiry, yet none of which Dr Vincent Tabak spoke of at trial...
I am puzzled by this....
https://twitter.com/MissingKidsUK?lang=en
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5ltfq9
-
Norina
@MissingKidsUK
Follow Follow @MissingKidsUK
More
Help get #helpfindjo trending people!
3:13 PM - 23 Dec 2010
https://twitter.com/MissingKidsUK/status/18081856763203585
Norina
@MissingKidsUK
Follow Follow @MissingKidsUK
More
Replying to @cthagod
@cthagod PLEASE RT. Joanna Yeates, missing from Clifton, Bristol, UK since Friday 17/12/10. http://bit.ly/fAZCXp for info #helpfindjo.
3:14 PM - 23 Dec 2010
https://twitter.com/MissingKidsUK/status/18081922559246336
The http... leads to here: https://helpfindjo.wordpress.com
Did this person have information from the Police? A little unusual for them to repeat the hashtag and site for Joanna yeates.. (imo)
No other Missing Children have a hashtag... Strange that...
I want to understand the connection of this tweeter to the case??
-
This tweet caught my eye.... I do not know whom Bristol Media are..
Norina
@MissingKidsUK
Follow Follow @MissingKidsUK
More
@Bristol_Media PLEASE RT. Joanna Yeates, missing from Clifton, Bristol, UK since Friday 17/12/10. http://bit.ly/fAZCXp for info #helpfindjo.
3:22 PM - 23 Dec 2010
https://twitter.com/MissingKidsUK/status/18084166352506880
But the odd thing is these two tweets..(imo)
Nicko Brooko
@nickobrooko
Follow Follow @nickobrooko
More
@Bristol_Media please RT. Joanna Yeates, missing from Clifton, #bristol since Friday 17/12/10. http://bit.ly/fAZCXp for info #helpfindjo
3:07 AM - 23 Dec 2010
3 Retweets Judy MaloneGeorgina Howardstace_the_face
0 replies 3 retweets 0 likes
https://twitter.com/nickobrooko/status/17899183155449857
Justine Ramsden
@JustineRamsden
Follow Follow @JustineRamsden
More
Replying to @Bristol_Media
@Bristol_Media JOANNA YEATES - 25 year old woman, missing from her home in Bristol since Friday night - please retweet to help find her.
11:38 AM - 21 Dec 2010
https://twitter.com/JustineRamsden/status/17302812291506176
Justine Ramsden is Joanna yeates cousin.. I have been informed via the internet and the fact that she set up the helpfindjo wordpress page..
Bristol_Media itself has no tweets about Joanna Yeates, which surprised me a little....
https://twitter.com/search?q=%40bristol_media%20missing&src=typd
Nicko is a friend of Joanna Yeates, whom did posters etc....
No tweets from @Bristol_media about Joanna Yeates, even though Justine is replying to them, I wonder what they said??
Seeing as A&S Police did the facebook advert, had this case always been about social media?? And who suggested to A&SPolice to use social media in the way they did, even as far as getting witness's to fill out an online form??
-
The Judge Rinder Program.... The one that is different to the other programs in the sense it depicts a version of events that were not stated at trial by Dr Vincent Tabak.. There is a part of the program where, they are talking of Joanna Yeates and Dr Vincent Tabak....
From the program: At 5:08
This small part of the program always confused me, Joanna Yeates was 25, as we have been told many times, but the idea that she was a child comes from this program, for me, I questioned that before..
I found it odd, strange, didn't understand why they would make such an error,....
Where is your link to this programme?
-
You mean this one which isn't by Judge Rinder...
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5ltfq9 (https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5ltfq9)
A place where students study building and environmental design is often known as a School of Architecture or a School of Landscape Architecture. I attended such a "school" in my youth. Jo Yeates was "schooled" in Landscape Architecture at Writtle College.
So your long-winded repetitious posts above are both pointless and irrelevant.
-
Where is your link to this programme?
Sorry Myster... i meant countdown to Murder program..
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5ltfq9
I'll edit my post accordingly...
I'm sure that link will now go missing, it's happened before.
-
Sorry Myster... i meant countdown to Murder program..
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5ltfq9
I'll edit my post accordingly...
I'm sure that link will now go missing, it's happened before.
Think I have told you this before but the Countdown To Murder programmes are inaccurate! The one on Bamber have loads of mistakes. They are made for entertainment!
-
Think I have told you this before but the Countdown To Murder programmes are inaccurate! The one on Bamber have loads of mistakes. They are made for entertainment!
I don't think it was a mistake. The scriptwriter was probably thinking of school in the sense of 1(b) or (c)...
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/school (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/school)
-
I don't think it was a mistake. The scriptwriter was probably thinking of school in the sense of 1(b) or (c)...
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/school (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/school)
Ah! Have to admit not to reading the long post @)(++(* but Countdown to Murder was pretty inaccurate as far as the Bamber case was concerned.
-
Ah! Have to admit not to reading the long post @)(++(* but Countdown to Murder was pretty inaccurate as far as the Bamber case was concerned.
True to an extent...
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3la7mw (https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3la7mw)
... but probably better than the new ITV six-part pantomime to come.
-
Going back to the Old Forum for a moment.... Well, The one that turned into the group 'Joanna Yeates Discussion of the Case'...
mrswah will remember and many of those of the group at the time will remember about the Waitrose clip being shown at the time of trial, the clip showed what appeared to be a man following Joanna Yeates in Waitrose, everyone commented on this at the time, and within minutes, the clip that we had seen had been cropped, so you no longer could see the man following Joanna Yeates..
I believe if memory serves me correctly that it was Avon and Somerset Police whom put this clip up....
It caused great debate, and no-one could understand why they felt the need to clip this CCTV
The man watches Joanna Yeates enter Waitrose, he has a trolley, and appears to follow her to the shopping aisle she walks up, he dumps the trolley and then appears to exit the store.... You can clearly see a man and his full body height, but as I said, it got cropped within minutes.. The man with Dark receding hair and a black coat, watching her every move.. Many thought it could be the same man that was next to her in Tesco's, with a black coat...
Here's the cropped version...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dX6jD5QiIw
It really shouldn't have been an issue, no-one at the time understood why, most actually thought it may have even been Dr Vincent Tabak following her and added to the idea that he was stalking her...
But today, I had an idea..... And it comes from 'The Countdown to Murder " program at 0:03 of the program, you can see the man, watching Joanna Yeates and following her, just as we had discussed in the old forum.... At the time as I said, it looked like damning evidence....
But was it? It was never used at trial in that way... no-one at trial suggested that Dr Vincent Tabak had been stalking Joanna Yeates, yet we have the Waitrose video, that clearly shows someone watching her....
And then I go back to my theories, that this is made up.... And the Waitrose video is the crux of it all... The Waitrose video that drew attention from the forum, maybe more important than we may believe...
Lets go back to the actual program, it is full of inconsistencies, it has details that were not mentioned at trial, a whole story that differs from the one told on the stand, but various details within that program had been suggested in various forms on the internet prior to trial....
The Pink flower pattered top, which Dr Delaney mentions at trial, ( The only detail, from the program) it had not been questioned by the defence, seeing as we knew that Joanna Yeates was wearing a plain top in the Ram and attacked as soon as she got home according to the prosecution... No time to change her clothes, no mention of Dr Vincent Tabak changing her clothes...
The use of Bernard the cat as a way for Dr Vincent Tabak to gain entrance to Joanna Yeates Flat.... That too not being any part of Dr Vincent Tabak's testimony.... A program made up of inaccuracies... Which as I pointed out before, should not be the case, seeing as the program was supposed to be made in 2015..
So back to my saying this is all made up, and I do not know what is real or not with this case, and of course that all important CCTV from Waitrose....
The man following Joanna Yeates caused a stir at the time, it should not have been pulled then cropped, but it was, it caused confusion by forum members as I have stated, but I will say today I had a realisation, I may be wrong, but it is the only thing that makes sense to me.....
The CCTV of Joanna Yeates was for 'A' program, when watching the program it looks like the man is the Vincent Tabak that is in said program, ( With dark hair, like the vincent tabak in the program).. one could conclude that it was supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabak following Joanna Yeates...
I think that was why it was cropped, 'A' program I conclude had to be made before hand, it would depict a story line that had been suggested prior, Joanna Yeates been followed, then Dr Vincent Tabak taking his opportunity to pounce...
So what happened to the time stamp of the Waitrose CCTV? was it supposed to be on a different day? or the same day?
I suggest that the Waitrose CCTV was clipped, because it was meant for the program, and the forum had noticed that Joanna Yeates appeared to be being followed, I cannot see any other reason to crop that clip... It shouldn't have mattered at the time, the trial was happening, I think everyone in the country had decided he was guilty, so an innocent CCTV footage of a man following Joanna Yeates could only be seen as positive for the prosecution...
But as I said it was cropped within minutes... and put up again with the top half of the mans body missing...
Was this program meant to be released after Dr Vincent Tabak's trial?? I keep saying the video and programs seem to be made before... Well to me they appear that way...
Is The Countdown to Murder program, the clue to these programs? Most appear to be a rehash of the same information, but with a different title...
Is the reason the CCTV of Joanna Yeates in Waitrose being cropped at the time of trial, because it was supposed to be used in a program depicting Dr Vincent Tabak following Joanna Yeates?
I have no idea whom at Avon and Somerset Police put the clip up originally, I have no idea whom had access to do this... But I am suggesting that the possibility and reasoning behind cropping this video, was because it was part of a program about the murder...
I can see no other valid reason for someone to react so quickly at the time when the trial was taking place, to remove the original clip that had been put up, then take it down and crop it , only to then put it up again...
Has someone made an error putting the whole clip up, and reacted to the forum's comments?
This case is not right... You may not agree with me, but I can only come to conclusions based on what is available and based on my time on the original forum, knowing the reaction of forum members at the time...
I say many times I do not know if Dr Vincent Tabak is real or not... And this case is weird, to say the least.... Is the case even real, I may sound harsh, but i honestly do not know anymore...
So I will say that someone panicked when it was noticed a man was following Joanna Yeates in Waitrose, a man with DARK hair and rectified what they perceived was an error, but by rectifying a perceived error, it only brought more questions...
When looking at the program again, you can see Joanna Yeates look over to this man, and he look at her.... (image attached).. Again it was commented on if I remember...
There is no reason for anyone to clip this CCTV at the time of trial, no reason whatsoever, unless as I have suggested, it was part of a program suggesting that Dr Vincent Tabak had been stalking Joanna yeates....
But as we know... Dr Vincent Tabak had been away in America, and did not have time to get to know his neighbour or stalk her,... The trial has no mention of such a scenario...
I wondered if the CCTV was manipulated, edited etc... But I still believe that it was meant for a program... And that can be the only reason i can come to for the quick reaction to remove the whole clip at the time of trial...
Then I go back to this being about fake news.... And that was the reason CJ is wholly innocent of the Murder of Joanna Yeates... I do not get this case... I do not understand this case, and I should after all this time....
But the fact that all of the programs depict Dr Vincent Tabak as a man with dark hair is an odd fact, As we know his hair is fairer than that... And a program made in 2015, should have a fairer haired man playing Dr Vincent Tabak...
In the Crimewatch reconstruction, they also show the CCTV at Waitrose, we can see the whole image of the man but they blurred his face out.... This you can view at 4:16 of the program.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtOST33-LjU
I'll stick with believing this is all made up, i will stick with not knowing if Dr Vincent Tabak is real or not and whether or not he is actually in prison, and I will stick with the idea that the Waitrose CCTV was meant for a program, which program I do not know for sure... But The Countdown to Murder program had me questioning the Waitrose CCTV...
-
You are correct, my mistake...
-
Going back to the Old Forum for a moment.... Well, The one that turned into the group 'Joanna Yeates Discussion of the Case'...
mrswah will remember and many of those of the group at the time will remember about the Waitrose clip being shown at the time of trial, the clip showed what appeared to be a man following Joanna Yeates in Waitrose, everyone commented on this at the time, and within minutes, the clip that we had seen had been cropped, so you no longer could see the man following Joanna Yeates..
I believe if memory serves me correctly that it was Avon and Somerset Police whom put this clip up....
It caused great debate, and no-one could understand why they felt the need to clip this CCTV
The man watches Joanna Yeates enter Waitrose, he has a trolley, and appears to follow her to the shopping aisle she walks up, he dumps the trolley and then appears to exit the store.... You can clearly see a man and his full body height, but as I said, it got cropped within minutes.. The man with Dark receding hair and a black coat, watching her every move.. Many thought it could be the same man that was next to her in Tesco's, with a black coat...
Here's the cropped version...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dX6jD5QiIw
It really shouldn't have been an issue, no-one at the time understood why, most actually thought it may have even been Dr Vincent Tabak following her and added to the idea that he was stalking her...
But today, I had an idea..... And it comes from 'The Countdown to Murder " program at 0:03 of the program, you can see the man, watching Joanna Yeates and following her, just as we had discussed in the old forum.... At the time as I said, it looked like damning evidence....
But was it? It was never used at trial in that way... no-one at trial suggested that Dr Vincent Tabak had been stalking Joanna Yeates, yet we have the Waitrose video, that clearly shows someone watching her....
And then I go back to my theories, that this is made up.... And the Waitrose video is the crux of it all... The Waitrose video that drew attention from the forum, maybe more important than we may believe...
Lets go back to the actual program, it is full of inconsistencies, it has details that were not mentioned at trial, a whole story that differs from the one told on the stand, but various details within that program had been suggested in various forms on the internet prior to trial....
The Pink flower pattered top, which Dr Delaney mentions at trial, ( The only detail, from the program) it had not been questioned by the defence, seeing as we knew that Joanna Yeates was wearing a plain top in the Ram and attacked as soon as she got home according to the prosecution... No time to change her clothes, no mention of Dr Vincent Tabak changing her clothes...
The use of Bernard the cat as a way for Dr Vincent Tabak to gain entrance to Joanna Yeates Flat.... That too not being any part of Dr Vincent Tabak's testimony.... A program made up of inaccuracies... Which as I pointed out before, should not be the case, seeing as the program was supposed to be made in 2015..
So back to my saying this is all made up, and I do not know what is real or not with this case, and of course that all important CCTV from Waitrose....
The man following Joanna Yeates caused a stir at the time, it should not have been pulled then cropped, but it was, it caused confusion by forum members as I have stated, but I will say today I had a realisation, I may be wrong, but it is the only thing that makes sense to me.....
The CCTV of Joanna Yeates was for 'A' program, when watching the program it looks like the man is the Vincent Tabak that is in said program, ( With dark hair, like the vincent tabak in the program).. one could conclude that it was supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabak following Joanna Yeates...
I think that was why it was cropped, 'A' program I conclude had to be made before hand, it would depict a story line that had been suggested prior, Joanna Yeates been followed, then Dr Vincent Tabak taking his opportunity to pounce...
So what happened to the time stamp of the Waitrose CCTV? was it supposed to be on a different day? or the same day?
I suggest that the Waitrose CCTV was clipped, because it was meant for the program, and the forum had noticed that Joanna Yeates appeared to be being followed, I cannot see any other reason to crop that clip... It shouldn't have mattered at the time, the trial was happening, I think everyone in the country had decided he was guilty, so an innocent CCTV footage of a man following Joanna Yeates could only be seen as positive for the prosecution...
But as I said it was cropped within minutes... and put up again with the top half of the mans body missing...
Was this program meant to be released after Dr Vincent Tabak's trial?? I keep saying the video and programs seem to be made before... Well to me they appear that way...
Is The Countdown to Murder program, the clue to these programs? Most appear to be a rehash of the same information, but with a different title...
Is the reason the CCTV of Joanna Yeates in Waitrose being cropped at the time of trial, because it was supposed to be used in a program depicting Dr Vincent Tabak following Joanna Yeates?
I have no idea whom at Avon and Somerset Police put the clip up originally, I have no idea whom had access to do this... But I am suggesting that the possibility and reasoning behind cropping this video, was because it was part of a program about the murder...
I can see no other valid reason for someone to react so quickly at the time when the trial was taking place, to remove the original clip that had been put up, then take it down and crop it , only to then put it up again...
Has someone made an error putting the whole clip up, and reacted to the forum's comments?
This case is not right... You may not agree with me, but I can only come to conclusions based on what is available and based on my time on the original forum, knowing the reaction of forum members at the time...
I say many times I do not know if Dr Vincent Tabak is real or not... And this case is weird, to say the least.... Is the case even real, I may sound harsh, but i honestly do not know anymore...
So I will say that someone panicked when it was noticed a man was following Joanna Yeates in Waitrose, a man with DARK hair and rectified what they perceived was an error, but by rectifying a perceived error, it only brought more questions...
When looking at the program again, you can see Joanna Yeates look over to this man, and he look at her.... (image attached).. Again it was commented on if I remember...
There is no reason for anyone to clip this CCTV at the time of trial, no reason whatsoever, unless as I have suggested, it was part of a program suggesting that Dr Vincent Tabak had been stalking Joanna yeates....
But as we know... Dr Vincent Tabak had been away in America, and did not have time to get to know his neighbour or stalk her,... The trial has no mention of such a scenario...
I wondered if the CCTV was manipulated, edited etc... But I still believe that it was meant for a program... And that can be the only reason i can come to for the quick reaction to remove the whole clip at the time of trial...
Then I go back to this being about fake news.... And that was the reason CJ is wholly innocent of the Murder of Joanna Yeates... I do not get this case... I do not understand this case, and I should after all this time....
But the fact that all of the programs depict Dr Vincent Tabak as a man with dark hair is an odd fact, As we know his hair is fairer than that... And a program made in 2015, should have a fairer haired man playing Dr Vincent Tabak...
In the Crimewatch reconstruction, they also show the CCTV at Waitrose, we can see the whole image of the man but they blurred his face out.... This you can view at 4:16 of the program.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtOST33-LjU
But this video shows us something else.... Joanna Yeates is carrying something in her right hand... I'll post the images on my next post....
I'll stick with believing this is all made up, i will stick with not knowing if Dr Vincent Tabak is real or not and whether or not he is actually in prison, and I will stick with the idea that the Waitrose CCTV was meant for a program, which program I do not know for sure... But The Countdown to Murder program had me questioning the Waitrose CCTV...
You really are such a romancer, have a look at the video and you will see there is nothing in Joanna’s hand, it’s a post in the shop and some conspiracy theorist like you has took a still at the exact time Joanna passes this post. Stop what your doing, the UK forum has dragged itself to the level of the Tesko untruths by allowing you to post such useless and fake news.
-
I honestly thought the UK forum was better than this, a poster swaps his/her name every other day and posts such utter garbage.
-
I honestly thought the UK forum was better than this, a poster swaps his/her name every other day and posts such utter garbage.
I totally agree and what's more, if it continues, this entire topic will be archived.
Wasn't the Countdown to Murder series a dramatisation with Julia Player playing the part of Joanna Yeates?
-
I totally agree and what's more, if it continues, this entire topic will be archived.
Thanks John, I don’t mind debating so long as it’s evidence, you only have to look at the video you can see plainly it’s a post.
-
These two images, the first from Crime Watch, showing Joanna yeates carrying something in her right hand, the second image from The Countdown to Murder program, showing us that the video has been edited and nothing is in Joanna Yeates right hand...
If this CCTV is authentic, why edit it??
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15904;image)
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15906;image)
What is she carrying????
Is it a camera???
No one edited it, you must do your proper research before posting, a girl lost her life to this monster it’s not a game.
-
I honestly thought the UK forum was better than this, a poster swaps his/her name every other day and posts such utter garbage.
Remove it all... I don't honestly care... The whole episode tripe..... I didn't come here to find a conspiracy... I came here to question Dr Vincent Tabak's conviction.... I came here because I believed he was Innocent.. What i have discovered.. uncovered.... has all been in the process of understanding this case, and where the defence could have tried harder....
I myself will even go as far as saying that ALL of the CCTV footage of various shops are made up... and that is why we have NO TIME STAMP.... But that is my opinion of course, which i am entitled too...
You can think what you like about me.... It makes no difference....
I have chased a ghost, I have chased something that cannot be real... But you all have it the way you want it.... With the story on the stand that makes everyone happy....
I just wanted to know the truth.... But truth is not something most want to see, they are happy with many untruths....
I gain nothing from this.... I after all this time have come to the only conclusion that makes sense, and I am NOT pointing the finger at anyone, because I now do not believe that there is anyone to point the finger at....
If the forum removes my posts... perfect.... I do not care anymore..... maybe someone else does, but I don't, because I do not understand WHY, this happened or WHY these programs were happy to go along with this tripe!
So Real.... you may be happy in your belief along with everyone else... And i will stick with my belief... Whether the posts are here or not.... I will not change my mind!
-
Remove it all... I don't honestly care... The whole episode tripe..... I didn't come here to find a conspiracy... I came here to question Dr Vincent Tabak's conviction.... I came here because I believed he was Innocent.. What i have discovered.. uncovered.... has all been in the process of understanding this case, and where the defence could have tried harder....
I myself will even go as far as saying that ALL of the CCTV footage of various shops are made up... and that is why we have NO TIME STAMP.... But that is my opinion of course, which i am entitled too...
You can think what you like about me.... It makes no difference....
I have chased a ghost, I have chased something that cannot be real... But you all have it the way you want it.... With the story on the stand that makes everyone happy....
I just wanted to know the truth.... But truth is not something most want to see, they are happy with many untruths....
I gain nothing from this.... I after all this time have come to the only conclusion that makes sense, and I am NOT pointing the finger at anyone, because I now do not believe that there is anyone to point the finger at....
If the forum removes my posts... perfect.... I do not care anymore..... maybe someone else does, but I don't, because I do not understand WHY, this happened or WHY these programs were happy to go along with this tripe!
So Real.... you may be happy in your belief along with everyone else... And i will stick with my belief... Whether the posts are here or not.... I will not change my mind!
Nine, you are suggesting someone edited film of Joanna, the video YOU have linked CLEARLY shows this is not the case, Joanna was holding nothing, YET YOU are quite prepared to suggest otherwise. It’s not my fault your posting untruths.
-
I totally agree and what's more, if it continues, this entire topic will be archived.
Wasn't the Countdown to Murder series a dramatisation with Julia Player playing the part of Joanna Yeates?
I think they used Julia in parts and showed actual footage when they could John, I think the video is Joanna it’s says cctv on the video?
-
Posters have to be careful when posting from TV serialisations as in many cases actors are used. We had the same issue in the Jeremy Bamber case when some people mixed up genuine SOCO images with those that had been filmed later using an actress to play the part of Sheila Caffell.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15898
This picture clearly shows the post that Nine was claiming to be in Joanna’s hand.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15898
This picture clearly shows the post that Nine was claiming to be in Joanna’s hand.
What Nine thinks is an object being carried, it part of the shop fittings behind her. Yet again, leaps to conclusions without thinking it through!
-
True to an extent...
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3la7mw (https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3la7mw)
... but probably better than the new ITV six-part pantomime to come.
Haven't seen anything on that recently, maybe it's been scrapped?
-
What Nine thinks is an object being carried, it part of the shop fittings behind her. Yet again, leaps to conclusions without thinking it through!
Not only that Caroline, actually posts a picture showing the floor post behind Joanna as she has walked past it.
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15898)
-
Not only that Caroline, actually posts a picture showing the floor post behind Joanna as she has walked past it.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15898
@)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Not only that Caroline, actually posts a picture showing the floor post behind Joanna as she has walked past it.
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8060.0;attach=15898)
Well spotted RJ.
-
Haven't seen anything on that recently, maybe it's been scrapped?
I wondered that too, when I saw Freddie Fox having so much fun on Year of the Rabbit.
-
I wondered that too, when I saw Freddie Fox having so much fun on Year of the Rabbit.
Yes, I saw him on that too - made me wonder and it's not listed as a 'thing' on his IMDB page.
-
Sad that excessive gratuitous use of expletives and scatology passes for comedy these days... I didn't laugh or even break into a smile once. Just my opinion, of course.
-
Well spotted RJ.
My error, just like my error being here... Have removed that post...
John I did request yesterday that you remove ALL my posts, and remove me at the same time...
You only removed the 2 posts that asked you to remove my posts, please could you remove every post I have posted on here thank you... And remove me as a member of this site...
-
My error, just like my error being here... Have removed that post...
John I did request yesterday that you remove ALL my posts, and remove me at the same time...
You only removed the 2 posts that asked you to remove my posts, please could you remove every post I have posted on here thank you... And remove me as a member of this site...
Surely you're capable of removing yourself? If there isn't a "Delete My Account" facility for you to utilize, all you have to do is refrain from posting (drivel) and not log in.
-
My error, just like my error being here... Have removed that post...
John I did request yesterday that you remove ALL my posts, and remove me at the same time...
You only removed the 2 posts that asked you to remove my posts, please could you remove every post I have posted on here thank you... And remove me as a member of this site...
You can remove yourself dotty, just by not posting or signing in, or looking at the site, it’s that easy. I think your posts should stand, it might deter other posters giving false information and mistruths.
-
Surely you're capable of removing yourself? If there isn't a "Delete My Account" facility for you to utilize, all you have to do is refrain from posting (drivel) and not log in.
You can remove yourself dotty, just by not posting or signing in, or looking at the site, it’s that easy. I think your posts should stand, it might deter other posters giving false information and mistruths.
Voices of reason. 8((()*/
-
My error, just like my error being here... Have removed that post...
John I did request yesterday that you remove ALL my posts, and remove me at the same time...
You only removed the 2 posts that asked you to remove my posts, please could you remove every post I have posted on here thank you... And remove me as a member of this site...
You say this every time that someone points out your errors.
-
Sad that excessive gratuitous use of expletives and scatology passes for comedy these days... I didn't laugh or even break into a smile once. Just my opinion, of course.
Haven't watched it, just saw the trailer.
-
You say this every time that someone points out your errors.
And it's usually preceded by "I'm confused by.............." Is there anything it's NOT confused by? I've yet to experience anyone else living in such a state of abject and permanent confusion.
-
And it's usually preceded by "I'm confused by.............." Is there anything it's NOT confused by? I've yet to experience anyone else living in such a state of abject and permanent confusion.
Nine is confused because he/she just doesn't think things through and jumps to the wildest conclusion to explain the most simplest issues.
-
Nine is confused because he/she just doesn't think things through and jumps to the wildest conclusion to explain the most simplest issues.
They certainly have made a fine art of complicating everything imaginable...........and some things which are UNimaginable!!!
-
They certainly have made a fine art of complicating everything imaginable...........and some things which are UNimaginable!!!
Most @)(++(*
-
Here’s a couple of interesting things I’ve recently found out.
The television was left on in The flat, this indicating that Joanna was planning just an ordinary evening and reinforces the fact she had arrived home.
Tabak had already confessed to the physical act of killing Joanna, before William Clegg had met him for the first time. Clegg then says there was no question of having to point out the strength of the evidence against him.
He also said, he spoke better English than most of his clients, he understood everything he explained to him and never needed anything explaining twice. He understood the court process and it was so unusual having someone as intelligent charged with murder.
Anyone thinking Clegg didn’t do his job, should read the evidence he got thrown out at pre trial, challenging evidence that could have been used.
-
Here’s a couple of interesting things I’ve recently found out.
The television was left on in The flat, this indicating that Joanna was planning just an ordinary evening and reinforces the fact she had arrived home.
Tabak had already confessed to the physical act of killing Joanna, before William Clegg had met him for the first time. Clegg then says there was no question of having to point out the strength of the evidence against him.
He also said, he spoke better English than most of his clients, he understood everything he explained to him and never needed anything explaining twice. He understood the court process and it was so unusual having someone as intelligent charged with murder.
Anyone thinking Clegg didn’t do his job, should read the evidence he got thrown out at pre trial, challenging evidence that could have been used.
RJ, it's my understanding that English is the second language in the Netherlands and taught from the time children start school. Many of our young -who don't speak Dutch- are choosing to do their degrees in Holland because there's no language problem.
-
Most @)(++(*
Was trying to be generous, Caroline!!!
-
Haven't seen anything on that recently, maybe it's been scrapped?
I can't find anything either since Oct. 2018... it was supposed to be shown this Spring. Perhaps the family have complained or Bamber's lawyers have requested a (temporary) stop to avoid prejudicing any proposed CCRC submission.
So instead...
This quality 1993 drama surfaces then disappears almost as quickly, so grab a shufty while you can...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZILACHl544 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZILACHl544)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SvOn2slubk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SvOn2slubk)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kzw2ni8L9Q0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kzw2ni8L9Q0)
-
RJ, it's my understanding that English is the second language in the Netherlands and taught from the time children start school. Many of our young -who don't speak Dutch- are choosing to do their degrees in Holland because there's no language problem.
Thanks for that April, English is no longer considered a foreign language in Holland.
-
RJ, it's my understanding that English is the second language in the Netherlands and taught from the time children start school. Many of our young -who don't speak Dutch- are choosing to do their degrees in Holland because there's no language problem.
Yes, my nephew did his work experience in Holland, and he certainly doesn't speak Dutch!,
-
Yes, my nephew did his work experience in Holland, and he certainly doesn't speak Dutch!,
Which suggests that too many names to mention's belief is totally erroneous that 'poor' Tabak, a man with a Phd, and fully conversant with the English language, didn't completely understand the 'Englishness' of the questions put to him by the police.
-
Yes, I saw him on that too - made me wonder and it's not listed as a 'thing' on his IMDB page.
Apparently (according to Daily Mail Weekend magazine) the "upcoming ITV drama The Whitehouse Murders" is still happening. Freddie Fox decided not to meet Bamber - can't say I blame him.
-
Apparently (according to Daily Mail Weekend magazine) the "upcoming ITV drama The Whitehouse Murders" is still happening. Freddie Fox decided not to meet Bamber - can't say I blame him.
Cheers Pugs - can't blame him either. There is a remarkable likeness though.
-
Apparently (according to Daily Mail Weekend magazine) the "upcoming ITV drama The Whitehouse Murders" is still happening. Freddie Fox decided not to meet Bamber - can't say I blame him.
Ooh! Tah for that! Had been wondering what had happened to it after all the build up.
-
I see you still haven't removed my posts....
Apparently (according to Daily Mail Weekend magazine) the "upcoming ITV drama The Whitehouse Murders" is still happening. Freddie Fox decided not to meet Bamber - can't say I blame him.
according to the daily mail..
https://twitter.com/MailOnline/status/18343005849124864
Daily Mail Online
@MailOnline
Distraught parents of Jo Yeates plead for help in finding their missing architect daughter: Footage was released... http://bit.ly/fiLHGC
4:31 PM · Dec 24, 2010 · twitterfeed
Leading to this article...
Police searching for missing architect Jo Yeates discover a woman's body
By DAILY MAIL REPORTER
CREATED: 14:38, 24 December 2010
Discovery made about four miles from the missing architect's flat
No official identification made as pathologist is called to the scene
Grim find made early this morning by a couple walking their dog
Joanna Yeates
Missing: Joanna Yeates. The body of a young woman has been found on a snow-covered verge
Police searching for missing Jo Yeates say they have found a woman's body close to a golf course.
No identification has been made on the body which was discovered about four miles from the flat she shared with her boyfriend.
The discovery was made today by a couple walking their dogs in the Failand area of North Somerset, an Avon and Somerset Police spokesman said.
A force spokesman said: 'At 9am this morning a couple walking their dogs found the body of a young woman in a roadside verge in Longwood Lane in the Failand area of North Somerset.
'The area has been cordoned off and Longwood Lane has been closed at both ends by police, pending an examination of the scene by crime scene investigators.
'A pathologist will be attending the scene to examine the body.
Containing this image...
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/12/25/article-1341452-0C93ED1A000005DC-704_634x356.jpg)
Please explain to me ...
* How The Daily Mail has an article about Joanna Yeates being discovered on Longwood Lane on the day before she was discovered on the 25th December 2010??
* Showing an image taken from sky news of the Police on Longwood lane?? Showing an image from the footage that was apparently seen for the first time on Christmas day?
Reminded me of the article that BDP also wrote on the 24th December 2010
http://www.bdp.com/en/latest/news/2010/Jo-Yeates/
That too being posted online on the 24th December 2010...
I don't get it.... doesn't make sense, maybe someone can explain...
And I always go back to it being made up.... especially when a news outlet posts about an event the day before it apparently happened....
Edit.... The url from the tweet leads to this article :
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1341452/Jo-Yeates-murder-Police-search-missing-architect-finds-womans-body.html#comments
Double Edit.. Kind of calls into question the statement read out in court of Daniel Birch ...
Miss Yeates's body was found "in a fetal-type position" on Christmas Day by dog walker Daniel Birch.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8831979/Vincent-Tabak-trial-Jo-Yeatess-boyfriend-describes-panic-at-finding-her-keys-in-flat.html
By Martin Evans
11:37AM BST 14 Oct 2011
In a written statement read out to Bristol Crown Court, Daniel Birch said he had his wife Rebecca had been walking their chocolate Labrador, Roxy, on Christmas morning when they made the gruesome discovery.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8826662/Joanna-Yeates-trial-snow-covered-body-found-by-dog-walker.html
Kinda calls into question the whole trial..... (imo)
Kinda keeps me asking what was real.....
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I see you still haven't removed my posts....
according to the daily mail..
https://twitter.com/MailOnline/status/18343005849124864
Leading to this article...
Police searching for missing architect Jo Yeates discover a woman's body
By DAILY MAIL REPORTER
CREATED: 14:38, 24 December 2010
Discovery made about four miles from the missing architect's flat
No official identification made as pathologist is called to the scene
Grim find made early this morning by a couple walking their dog
Joanna Yeates
Missing: Joanna Yeates. The body of a young woman has been found on a snow-covered verge
Police searching for missing Jo Yeates say they have found a woman's body close to a golf course.
No identification has been made on the body which was discovered about four miles from the flat she shared with her boyfriend.
The discovery was made today by a couple walking their dogs in the Failand area of North Somerset, an Avon and Somerset Police spokesman said.
A force spokesman said: 'At 9am this morning a couple walking their dogs found the body of a young woman in a roadside verge in Longwood Lane in the Failand area of North Somerset.
'The area has been cordoned off and Longwood Lane has been closed at both ends by police, pending an examination of the scene by crime scene investigators.
'A pathologist will be attending the scene to examine the body.
Containing this image...
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/12/25/article-1341452-0C93ED1A000005DC-704_634x356.jpg)
Please explain to me ...
* How The Daily Mail has an article about Joanna Yeates being discovered on Longwood Lane on the day before she was discovered on the 25th December 2010??
* Showing an image taken from sky news of the Police on Longwood lane?? Showing an image from the footage that was apparently seen for the first time on Christmas day?
Reminded me of the article that BDP also wrote on the 24th December 2010
http://www.bdp.com/en/latest/news/2010/Jo-Yeates/
That too being posted online on the 24th December 2010...
I don't get it.... doesn't make sense, maybe someone can explain...
And I always go back to it being made up.... especially when a news outlet posts about an event the day before it apparently happened....
Edit.... The url from the tweet leads to this article :
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1341452/Jo-Yeates-murder-Police-search-missing-architect-finds-womans-body.html#comments
Double Edit.. Kind of calls into question the statement read out in court of Daniel Birch ...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8831979/Vincent-Tabak-trial-Jo-Yeatess-boyfriend-describes-panic-at-finding-her-keys-in-flat.html
By Martin Evans
11:37AM BST 14 Oct 2011
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8826662/Joanna-Yeates-trial-snow-covered-body-found-by-dog-walker.html
Kinda calls into question the whole trial..... (imo)
Kinda keeps me asking what was real.....
Ask Twitter